- Joined
- Jun 10, 2009
- Messages
- 27,254
- Reaction score
- 9,350
- Gender
- Male
- Political Leaning
- Liberal
The Polls section usually entails some sort of Poll.
And you are unaware these forum polls have hacked into regularly to skew the results???
The Polls section usually entails some sort of Poll.
Actually yes.And you are unaware these forum polls have hacked into regularly to skew the results???
Actually yes.
1) That is why the OWS represents your interest.
2) The OWS is not proposing to do away with corporations, just taxing them closer to the rates under our parents, grandparents, and great grandparents.
3) OWS is not proposing to do away with capitalism, just re-regulating it as it was under our parents, grandparents, and great grandparents.
4) Fighting back against a rigged game is hardly class warfare.
5) Like I said, you don't understand what the OWS is about. They are not a political party splinter group like the tea party, they are organized simply to inject economic justice into the public debate to build the public will to re-regulate wall street and eliminate the tax breaks for the super rich that are hurting the the economy.
This document focuses on the "Top 1%" as a whole because that's been the traditional cut-off point for "the top" in academic studies, and because it's easy for us to keep in mind that we are talking about one in a hundred. But it is also important to realize that the lower half of that top 1% has far less than those in the top half; in fact, both wealth and income are super-concentrated in the top 0.1%, which is just one in a thousand. (To get an idea of the differences, take a look at an insider account by a long-time investment manager who works for the well-to-do and very rich. It nicely explains what the different levels have -- and how they got it. Also, David Cay Johnston (2011) has written a column about the differences among the top 1%, based on 2009 IRS information.)
-snip-
So far there are only tentative projections -- based on the price of housing and stock in July 2009 -- on the effects of the Great Recession on the wealth distribution. They suggest that average Americans have been hit much harder than wealthy Americans. Edward Wolff, the economist we draw upon the most in this document, concludes that there has been an "astounding" 36.1% drop in the wealth (marketable assets) of the median household since the peak of the housing bubble in 2007. By contrast, the wealth of the top 1% of households dropped by far less: just 11.1%. So as of April 2010, it looks like the wealth distribution is even more unequal than it was in 2007. (See Wolff, 2010 for more details.)
There's a much deeper power story that underlies the self-dealing and mutual back-scratching by CEOs now carried out through interlocking directorates and seemingly independent outside consultants. It probably involves several factors. At the least, on the workers' side, it reflects their loss of power following the all-out attack on unions in the 1960s and 1970s, which is explained in detail in an excellent book by James Gross (1995), a labor and industrial relations professor at Cornell. That decline in union power made possible and was increased by both outsourcing at home and the movement of production to developing countries, which were facilitated by the break-up of the New Deal coalition and the rise of the New Right (Domhoff, 1990, Chapter 10). It signals the shift of the United States from a high-wage to a low-wage economy, with professionals protected by the fact that foreign-trained doctors and lawyers aren't allowed to compete with their American counterparts in the direct way that low-wage foreign-born workers are.
I never claimed you supported the 99%, I said they represent your interests, unless you are the 1%. BTW, the OWS also does not believe the 1% is evil, they just understand that unfettered greed by the 1% has not worked well for the 99%.
Here is a good article to show the situation wake
Figure 8: CEOs' pay as a multiple of the average worker's pay, 1960-2007
View attachment 67118711
This does not come out well but it shows the difference in CEO's pay to workers beginning in 1960 when it was about 40 times that of the worker going up and down roughly that till the 80's. Then it sprang up at it's highest reaching over 500 times that of the worker. You can see it and plenty of graphs if you use the link
Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power
Okay, then we are back to broad assumptions. They believe they represent my interests. I fully believe they are wrong. There is a big question of what my best interests are and even if we knew that, there is an even bigger question of whether they are actually furthering those.
OWS is not proposing to do away with capitalism, just re-regulating it as it was under our parents, grandparents, and great grandparents.
The NYC General Assembly is composed of dozens of groups working together to organize and set the vision for the #occupywallstreet movement. This is our official website.About | NYC General Assembly # Occupy Wall Street
Mike: The public budgets play a big role in the alt econ including what they own and manage, so this is a wedge and they could fund an aquaponics project—again this is capital budget. Capitalism cant function without capital, so just taking money out of developers pockets and instead putting it into social and decommodified spaces can be used to build the alt economy.
Friday 7pm | October 28, 2011
Kimmel, room 406 NYU
60 Washington Square S., NYC
The recent #Occupy protests are driven by discontent with the present state of affairs: glaring economic inequality, dead-end Democratic Party politics, and, for some, the suspicion that capitalism could never produce an equitable society. These concerns are coupled with aspirations for social transformation at an international level. For many, the protests at Wall St. and elsewhere provide an avenue to raise questions the Left has long fallen silent on:
1. How could we begin to overcome social conditions that adversely affect every part of life?
2. What would it mean to challenge capitalism on a global scale?
3. And, how could a new international radical movement address these concerns in practice?
They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
Is your interest served by banks too big to fail, that require bailout with public tax dollars?
Is you interest served by the outsourcing of American jobs?
Is you interest served by high unemployment/large welfare roles?
Is your interest served by having politicians sold to the highest anonymous bidder?
If your answer is no to any of these questions, the OWS represents your interests.
OWS is ran by the NYC General Assembly.
If OWS does not want to get rid of Capitalism one must ask then, why do they have a work group on alternative economics? Alternative Economy | Forum | Before we start suggesting alternate economies | NYC General Assembly # Occupy Wall Street
Think Tank | Forum | EVENT: #Occupy movement political roundtable discussion at NYU tonight (Friday 7pm / October 28, 201 | NYC General Assembly # Occupy Wall Street
- Google Search
Read some of the results from this search. There are many many conversations that OWS is having about how to end Capitalism.
This is all based on the assumption that they are going the correct route to fix these issues. If I said I wanted to protect your safety by locking you in a prison cell, do I get to say I'm serving your best interest? My intention is good...
It also assumes they are right about the causes of these problems. I don't grant that, obviously. Look at my lean.
I say that the premise is false for your final conclusion.
Ah you are part of the 0.1% that votes Libertarian, that would explain why you think unregulated greed is a good thing. Carry on!
Ah you are part of the 0.1% that votes Libertarian, that would explain why you think unregulated greed is a good thing. Carry on!
as opposed to the government regulated and sponsored greed that you live by?
Hmm... can we say ad hominem? Please address my statement instead of my lean. Also, note it is a lean, not a religion. There are some libertarian policies I disagree with.
Edit: I might also add that some of the founders of libertarian philosophy felt, as I do, that regulation is necessary, but only in limited circumstances. Your strawman falls short.
Sorry, if we can't agree on these issues, we are never going to come to a meeting of minds:
.
Is your interest served by banks too big to fail, that require bailout with public tax dollars?
Is you interest served by the outsourcing of American jobs?
Is you interest served by high unemployment/large welfare roles?
Is your interest served by having politicians sold to the highest anonymous bidder?
Is there part of you that thinks I will say yes to these questions?
The problem is discussion of them is pointless and only lead to irrelevant discussion of who is to blame. Those subjects are discussed ad nauseum on these boards and we won't come to a meeting of minds. Since we won't be able to agree on the cause, we won't be able to agree on the solution.
There is no way OWS or you can establish you are representing my best interests.
Too many variables apply. Even if you could, by some miracle, establish it, you wouldn't be able to establish that it's in the full interest of 99% of the country. My needs are different than everyone else's.
Nope, because I know you, like the rest of us, are part of the 99% represented by the goals of the OWS protesters.
OK, you don't wish to discuss how the OWS represents us both.
Only through my vote, a very passive form of representation. The OWS protesters are the ones really putting themselves on the line in representing us.
How about this since you do not wish to discuss how the OWS represents you? You continue to believe whatever you like, and I will continue to believe that economic justice (not having most of the wealth, income, and power concentrated at the top) benefits us both.
I don't wish to get drowned in details while you try to prove something that just won't end up proven. I'm fine with you walking away self-assured in your beliefs. I didn't post here thinking OWS (including you, even if you aren't physically there) was going to stop using the same tactic as politicians always do. I was just sharing a view point.
Which politicians always use non-violent civil disobedience to raise public consciousness and debate???
I realize that was a little vague. I could have meant the law breaking, but I was referring to pretending to speak for the greater good of everyone.
The OWS are just providing a progressive voice to the public debate between the two conservative parties. As a progressive, I value that greatly!
You failed to prove the OWS has the goal of doing away with capitalism. Got a quote???
Among the most persistent ideological obstacles to understanding and transforming our current (and really messed-up) economic system are the beliefs that humans are unalterably greedy and that capitalism, because it is grounded in greed, will exist as long as greed exists. The purpose of this teach-in is to challenge those belief. In doing so, we’ll talk about human nature and the nature of capitalism. Greed and Capitalism | Occupy Chicago
We are not Communists if Communism means a system which collapsed in 1990. Remember that today those Communists are the most efficient, ruthless Capitalists. In China today, we have Capitalism which is even more dynamic than your American Capitalism, but doesn’t need democracy. Which means when you criticize Capitalism, don’t allow yourself to be blackmailed that you are against democracy. The marriage between democracy and Capitalism is over. The change is possible.