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

Originally Posted by Eric C.

Again you mixed up everything. First, banks pay me percent for storing my money. Then, they don't force me into loaning money, if I ever decide to do so, that will be completely my choice. Can't see a single reason why the banks should be "stopped". Then, there you go on "the evil corporations" again. Leave them alone, please. All the best humanity has for now has been made by the corporations. Basically everything. See, each small business that does not "oppress people", if it's successful, is going to turn into a large corporation sooner or later. Remember how Microsoft or Apple started, just for instance.

I am not quite sure what those "occupiers" are up to, but AFAIRemember there were slogans against evil financial corporations (i.e. Wall Street) rather then against companies of real sector. So, let us don't mix up everything. Financial corporations produce nothing, they only trade money for money and they are richest: absolute majority of richest companies are pure financial. And they can crash real sector as crisis shown: unsuccessful trading virtual money for virtual money can kill real economy. Financiers don't force you to loan money but if you don't, one day you can find that without credit history you are considered unreliable person and can not, for example, rent a car.In fact, your rights and possibilities become limited.

Aren't those reasons enough for some protests?

Originally Posted by it-ogo

I am not quite sure what those "occupiers" are up to, but AFAIRemember there were slogans against evil financial corporations (i.e. Wall Street) rather then against companies of real sector. So, let us don't mix up everything. Financial corporations produce nothing, they only trade money for money and they are richest: absolute majority of richest companies are pure financial. And they can crash real sector as crisis shown: unsuccessful trading virtual money for virtual money can kill real economy. Financiers don't force you to loan money but if you don't, one day you can find that without credit history you are considered unreliable person and can not, for example, rent a car.In fact, your rights and possibilities become limited.

Aren't those reasons enough for some protests?

I could partially relate to what you said, but let's consider just another aspect of it. Indeed, money is not a real product in terms that a person can't consume money. So, anyone who would trade money for money seemingly would not generate anything useful. Right? Not quite. There's a very complex problem of the resource distribution that market economy allegedly is trying to solve by means of the fluctuations around the optimal proportions at that specific time. Money becomes the means of the economical assessment. For example, what is that evil bank interest? Ultimately, that is an assessment of the prospective chances of a new enterprise producing profit. The riskier the enterprise, the greater the interest up to the point where the assessment of risks and feasibility stops being convincing to the individual or group investors. (And, yes, there's a whole science on how to become more convincing and get lower interest, but that's another story.) Similarly, the other types of 'securities' are interconnected and mutually dependent to the point the system becomes so complex that it just stops making sense to the outside auditor. And yes, this system is fault-tolerating only to the point of the first significant failure at which point the pessimism of the investors outweighs their previous optimism and the money is being pulled off the more risky enterprises and put into the less risky enterprises, which causes the enterprises to slow down their production (or shut it down completely) forcing the other waves of fluctuations collectively named a financial crisis. There are very few things you could really control as the entire system of production is ultimately based on either optimism of the investors or their pessimism both being quite subjective. So, some economists are trying to control those emotions and make predictions based on the previous history. How successful are those economists? Again, that is purely subjective. Some leaders can absolutely assure there would be no default and announce the default the very next day. And so on. As you can see, you have to really grow a thick skin to deal with that situation.

So, now some very concerned people march their way into the Wall Street and openly declare: PEOPLE! THE SITUATION IS NOT THAT GREAT! Are they right? Of course, they are! Thanks for raising the concern as they probably were under impression everyone else was apparently in oblivion the market economy is sent to the Earth from the Heaven. B-U-T!! What do they propose? Social revolution? More control on the banks [and create more corrupted officials and more politics around that]?

Originally Posted by kidkboom

Eric, I personally can see quite a few reasons why the powers that banks are given, in the US especially but by dint of Hanna's words possibly abroad as well, should be clipped... Of course, I understand the Wells-Fargo/Pinkerton end of banking - that if the norm wasn't credit cards and checkings and savings accounts and direct-deposits, then burglars, bandits and thieves would be a bigger concern for you and I, the average citizen with personal holdings.

How it is, though, that hiring a bodyguard for your wealth became not only NORMAL but indeed a BYGONE CONCLUSION ACROSS THE WORLD, I don't really understand.. nay, I do understand how it happened, but I'm not a supporter of where it's gotten to.

Reason #1 why Banks' power (and the auxiliary groups, and their respective powers, granted to every financial market and substrate that they've hatched since coming into their own in the 1800s) should be clipped: Madoff.

Reason #2 why Banks' power should be clipped: A history of ridiculous feduciary greenlights between private Banks, the US Government and its many limbs, and the National Treasury (which, on that note, should be one pink piece of paper on the floor in an empty fort knox, reading: "I.O.U. - U.S.S. Grant").

Reason #3 why Banks' power should be clipped: the long explanation given here (The Raw Story | Corrupt banking and the fake war on terror ), though I wouldn't recommend hardcore skeptics to NOT read this, just because the pursed aperture of a closed mind could make this a headache-causing read.

As an aside... thanks to everyone who's being civil in this discussion. As long as we proceed in that manner, we can learn a lot from each other and not have a need to harbor negative sentiments.

Kidkboom,
Why do you mention a "civil discussion" and then say crap like this:

"though I wouldn't recommend hardcore skeptics to NOT read this, just because the pursed aperture of a closed mind could make this a headache-causing read."


??????????????

Scott

Originally Posted by Crocodile

...There's a very complex problem of the resource distribution that market economy allegedly is trying to solve by means of the fluctuations around the optimal proportions at that specific time...

So, now some very concerned people march their way into the Wall Street and openly declare: PEOPLE! THE SITUATION IS NOT THAT GREAT! Are they right? Of course, they are! Thanks for raising the concern as they probably were under impression everyone else was apparently in oblivion the market economy is sent to the Earth from the Heaven. B-U-T!! What do they propose? Social revolution? More control on the banks [and create more corrupted officials and more politics around that]?

Yep, there is a flexibility of distributing resources. And this flexibility worth some efforts. B-U-T!! Isn't the price too high? There are not only investments to real producing economy but investments to investments (so called derivatives) and even more indirect investments. And the real economy feels like Cinderella among these derivatives because overall there are much more money than real economy costs. It is like flipped-over pyramid. And you really expect stability and longevity from such a construction? This is not market economy. This is Matrix economy, Neo.

What they propose? What does your body propose, when you feel a pain? Social revolution? I think it propose to use brain and find a way to improve the situation. NOW!!!

It's amazing, really how Lenin's ideas from this book:
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
work even now, nearly 100 years since it'd been written. And 20 years since the collapse of USSR.

Originally Posted by fortheether

Kidkboom,
Why do you mention a "civil discussion" and then say crap like this:

"though I wouldn't recommend hardcore skeptics to NOT read this, just because the pursed aperture of a closed mind could make this a headache-causing read."

??????????????

Scott

Oh, I see what you mean, Scott - excuse my phrasing - that's meant as just a general statement.. A lot of my own personal friends are also hard-core skeptics, and their first approach to anything tinged conspiratorial is to doubt or dismantle it... Well, for those types, this link would be a headache.

I didn't mean it to be directed at you or at anybody in particular ..

PS - I also noticed I let slip a double negative by mistake... I meant to say "I *would* recommend that HC skeptics *not* read..." not the "wouldn't/not" combo I passed off as proper English in my quote above, hehehe.. sorry about that.

Originally Posted by kidkboom

... thanks to everyone who's being civil in this discussion. As long as we proceed in that manner, we can learn a lot from each other and not have a need to harbor negative sentiments.

+1

Originally Posted by Hanna

Thanks for the sweet comment, Lampada!



@Eric, I want a fairer society that recognises the value of people in terms other than just money and what potential profit they can generate.
If all you care about is money, profit and capital then I feel very sorry for you.

Those are empty values and can never fulfill anyone. The more you have, the more you feel you need.
And millions in every rich country, and billions around the world end up at the bottom with nothing but constant fear for how they will manage tomorrow.

I totally agree with the hypocrisy of protests by people who take advantage of all the products that capitalism has to offer.
I do myself and I am aware of the controversy.

Can't you see that the banks are irresponsible and greedy? They produce NOTHING, all they do is speculate with money, trick consumers into irresponsible lending and and charge extorbitant fees for storing money. They have dragged the USA down in the gutter in their quest to squeeze the last penny out of regular workers there. Together with large corporations, they are the scum of the earth.
Something similar is going on in parts of Europe. The banks should be stopped.

Personally I would support a system with LOWER consumption - do away with fashion mania that means you have to regularly change your entire wardrobe. Do away with advertisements that trick people into thinking they need endless gadgets and the latest models of everything from car to computer. Stop irresponsible holiday habits, limit flying and car usage etc.
I'd hope that in a fairer society people could still have some nice looking clothes, computers and enjoy a holiday and so on. One of the reasons I left the UK was actually that I felt so strongly against the wars that the UK is participating in.

According to this logic, the USSR people should not have been using their USSR-produced goods when protesting in 1992! Maybe they should have come naked?

And what about all the Eastern Europeans who used near-free and reliable public transport to get to the protest venues in '89.... and then went home to sleep in their almost free state provided accomodation?

Come to think of it, all the free education that they recieved, all the dirt cheap books that they could read and had time to read....that made them into thinking and intelligent people should perhaps somehow be returned?

Hypocrites?

Hanna,
Can you please describe what a "fairer society" is?

Scott

I'm confused as to why the people clapping about the idea that the richest 400 Americans each give a million dollars, think they owe a million dollars.

Michael Moore Ignores Questions About His Wealth At Occupy Portland Event | NewsBusters.org

Scott

Originally Posted by it-ogo

This is Matrix economy, Neo.

It might be, Morpheus. And the reason seems to me that the real products do not worth that much these days. As you know, the market economy causes more goods and services to be created at the cheaper prices. So, one of the very real consequences is the overproduction of the goods and services. One of the ways around that threat is the innovation. New products create new markets and make the old markets (goods and services) obsolete. So, at some point, the chance had also become measurable in money thus becoming a very real service. That has created ForEx and other thin-air matter which some people might perceive as the Matrix.

Originally Posted by it-ogo

What they propose? What does your body propose, when you feel a pain? Social revolution? I think it propose to use brain and find a way to improve the situation. NOW!!!

Would they be just a bit more specific?

Originally Posted by Ramil

It's amazing, really how Lenin's ideas from this book:
Imperialism, the Highest Stage of Capitalism - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
work even now, nearly 100 years since it'd been written. And 20 years since the collapse of USSR.

You see, it's also amazing how Adam Smith's ideas work nearly 200 years since they'd been published.
I totally agree with some of Lenin's views on the capitalism. So, what's the alternative? Whatever Lenin proposed and made real looked a way uglier, if you'd allow. And the bottom line (equality-wise) was pretty much the same: a director of the factory was getting a way more goods and services than a worker in that factory. And both of them had a way less goods and services (and of lower quality) than their counterparts in the rotten capitalist West. So, what the fuss was all about?

Can you please describe what a "fairer society" is?

Society where 4 hardworking people pay 25% of their income to support one who does not want to work but to drink all day.
And they must support him, because letting him die is "inhumane".
That's the main problem with all this "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Stop irresponsible holiday habits, limit flying and car usage etc.

Says someone who this summer travelled across half of Europe.
While I ride to work with a bicycle and do not own a car.

Originally Posted by nulle

Society where 4 hardworking people pay 25% of their income to support one who does not want to work but to drink all day.
And they must support him, because letting him die is "inhumane".
That's the main problem with all this "From each according to his ability, to each according to his need".

Perhaps, but what if we replace the 'does not want to work' part with 'cannot work'? Does it change anything to you?

About this part:
"From each according to his ability, to each according to his need"

this is a core principle of communism (not socialism) as an economic system. But what people forget when considering this phrase is that communism is built not at some empty place, but basing on socialism first. Both systems suggest a long and hard work on people, their views and ideology. According to communism theorists, it would not only be immoral not work, but considered something completely out of human nature, something people just not do. (Of course, we're talking here about these 'perfect humans' that populate a theoretical communist state).

"Cannot work" is a completely different matter.
But the problem with "welfare states" is that you can easily parasite on the system - which makes it unsustainable in the long run.
Borrowing or just printing money to pay pensions, for example, is complete insanity, yet many countries do so.

Ok, so now they're finally talking business. All those peaceful "just to raise the awareness" somehow drifted away in peace. Revolution, eh?

http://unrealitymag.com/wp-content/u.../president.gif
Somehow reminded me of this, but anyway.
Maybe "occupiers" should stop being so vague and start to accuse real persons with real names for real crimes.
You know - not "we protest against corporate greed" or "greedy jews - pay my tuition".
But "we accuse mr. John Banker for stealing 50 millon dollars from.. well.. some real bank, organization or whatever."
or "mr. Steve Politician for taking bribe from xxx to pass some law that benefits person/company yyy"
That would make a lot more sense.

Hanna made comparison with eastern Europe in the beginning on 1990s.
At that time protesters in Baltics had very clear goals.
Latvians wanted to:
1.) Regain independence from Soviet Union.
2.) Restore country in 1940 borders.
3.) Restore pre-war constitution
4.) Give communist stolen property back to real owners.
5.) Punish communists for their crimes.
Not just "burn commies" or "protest against bad living conditions".

And we more or less got what we wanted.

SORRY NO CHANGE | Flickr - Photo Sharing!

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Ok, so now they're finally talking business. All those peaceful "just to raise the awareness" somehow drifted away in peace. Revolution, eh?

Something is missing on this poster, don't you think? Maybe some red color?

Originally Posted by Crocodile

Ok, so now they're finally talking business. All those peaceful "just to raise the awareness" somehow drifted away in peace. Revolution, eh?

O'RLY? Revolution or talks about Revolution?

A revolution is a change in power. When revolution happens you replace those who rule you with someone else (or yourself). They should start storming the Capitol and the White House if revolution is what they want. Create a government, start arming people... Does anyone of them have the balls to do that?

The protesters can stay there and protest for years... so? These evil bankers will simply ignore them.