Wall Street Occupation

[st_dux 26]

Bringing back the issue to Wall Street, it is the blatant responsability of the current Financial Crisis be layed on its perpetrators (Financial/Commercial Banking Sector, Insurance, Trading Regulatory Bodies) - those which hedged their bets, those which had to ensure it wouldn't happen. NOT lay it on this crisis' main victims (general consumer, workers, common working people) - those which are paying from their own taxes the bailouts of not only negligent activity but in many cases very criminal activity.

Wall Street is indeed partially to blame, but had the government not intervened with bailouts and assistance, many of the firms that were dealing in such highly-leveraged bad debt would have gone belly-up. The government is the real problem. It promotes bad business practices and props up firms that should fail in the free market, which makes it difficult for more competent (but smaller) firms to expand.

[Beagle 684]

Wall Street is indeed partially to blame, but had the government not intervened with bailouts and assistance, many of the firms that were dealing in such highly-leveraged bad debt would have gone belly-up. The government is the real problem. It promotes bad business practices and props up firms that should fail in the free market, which makes it difficult for more competent (but smaller) firms to expand.

The systemtic problem hereby is that firms are forced to expand to survive in a confined market.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

The systemtic problem hereby is that firms are forced to expand to survive in a confined market.

What does that even mean?

But if you are saying what I think you are saying, then no firm has to grow large or feel forced to grow large in order to succeed. Why? Economy of Scale, that's why. There are plenty of smaller firms that can provide quality or service which the bigger firms can not. And it's also true the other way around.

"Mass becomes immobile; it cannot manoeuvre and therefore cannot win victories, it can only crush by sheer weight." - Hans von Seeckt

Profit and Loss by Ludwig von Mises

http://mises.org/books/profitloss.pdf

Edited October 1, 2011 by Hans Ludwig

[nettrucker 142]

For me the main problem lies in the corruption of our political leaders by the bankers and the industrial complex. Corruption is the most underestimated crime in our society.

To understand what's really going on one must inform himself about the current power structures in our world. People are waking up, which has lead to the wallstreet occupation.

But the most important question is that how can we fight them? How can get things back in track?

Is peaceful demonstration and civil disobedience effective enough to reverse the current situation? Do we stand a chance by being peaceful?

I honestly don't believe so. Make no mistake the people responsable for the actual status quo have no problems whatsoever to crush every peaceful demonstration and violate our constitutional rights. Things will get worse when the demonstrators won't be peaceful anymore it might be even the beginning of a civil war.

Things has gotten out of hands decades ago.

Can we trust our elected leaders? It is very evident that we can't and never could . . . seeing our history.

Now my question is . . . what can we do?

Please read this

http://ampedstatus.org/full-report-the-economic-elite-vs-the-people-of-the-united-states-of-america/#elite

it will give you some information about what is going on and whoever is still seeing this info as conspiracy theory should go back to sleep.

So please leave the conspiracy out of it.

Edited October 1, 2011 by nettrucker

[[asa]oden 0]

Interesting link there nettrucker.

I find this rather impressive but have no info to validate this:

***

Let’s consider what we could do with the money that has been stolen from us. On top of what should be our average six-figure yearly income, we could have:

* Free health care for every American,

* A free 4 bedroom home for every American family,

* 5% tax rate for 99% of Americans,

* Drastically improved public education and free college for all,

* Significantly improved public transportation and infrastructure,

The list goes on…

***

[nettrucker 142]

ODEN;2030539']Interesting link there nettrucker.

I find this rather impressive but have no info to validate this:

***

Let’s consider what we could do with the money that has been stolen from us. On top of what should be our average six-figure yearly income' date=' we could have:

* Free health care for every American,

* A free 4 bedroom home for every American family,

* 5% tax rate for 99% of Americans,

* Drastically improved public education and free college for all,

* Significantly improved public transportation and infrastructure,

The list goes on…

***[/quote']

I've read the whole article plus the embeded links to all other articles. Now everyone is free to believe whether these are reliable information or not. Try to take it as a theory and do your own research upon the subject.

I've never taken anything granted so I want everyone to be critical. But I'm also a person who does not exclude anything. What if . . . this article would sum up the actual status quo about the American and the world elite, given the fact that the Bilderberg group is a mixed group mostly European based power structures. There are so many things pointing in the direction which this article supports.

I would recommend everyone to have a look at this site

http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=home

I've read most of the articles I could find on this site because I think it is important to have also a different kind of view rather than what the mainstream media wants to make us believe.

We have huge problems all over the world and it all starts at Wall street.

Wall street has an enourmous influence on Europe under every aspect.

I believe a first step should be doing research and inform ourselves and others but unless we won't hit the streets in mass protest all over the world nothing will happen.

Edited October 1, 2011 by nettrucker

[Minutemen 10]

So you prefer a "technocracy" instead? Maybe as distant from the populations as it gets, taking the example of the European Union?

What? Hell no, i don't prefer anything. I just want freedom. There are way to many fucked-up controllfreaks running around, prefering something they think would be a good idea but it always leads to more problems and more control and less freedom.

ODEN]

* Free health care for every American,

* A free 4 bedroom home for every American family,

See what i mean? You don't have a right for "Free health care" as you don't have a right to sexual intercourse.

Why? Because you need two parties for that. If you want something, somebody must work for it. Someone must build that "free 4 bedroom homes" for every american family. Who should that be? The Taxpayer? If the gov. build this homes, they would build as ceapest as possible. What would lead to eastblock instant slums.

And if you want "free healt care", a doctor must work for that also. Who pays the Doc? You? No, you want something for free. And a freelancer Medical Doctor, which probably does good work, couldn't competet with the Taxmoney fundraising.

Same as "free collage for all". Boooom, bullet to the head!!! What the hell do you think would the Goverment School System teach them? We already have a "i want everything for free" mentality on the u.s. universities where they teach them total garbage. You want free education? Wanna give your children to the goverment? Fine, but i won't pay any nickel for that crap.

Wanna see a country where this happend? Look at west germany. Its total fucked up and people getting robbed to pay for all that "free stuff".

Damn that makes me angry! :mad:

[Hans Ludwig 0]

ODEN;2030539']* Free health care for every American' date='

* A free 4 bedroom home for every American family,

* 5% tax rate for 99% of Americans,

* Drastically improved public education and free college for all,

* Significantly improved public transportation and infrastructure,***[/quote']

YmqoCHR14n8

[Spokesperson 0]

People who are against free health care are pretty brainwashed. Free health care does not mean that someone works for free, it means that you don't have to pay for it. Through free health care Cuba has better health care standards than the US. Beaten by a third world country! The free market has failed, and countries with more regulations perform better up to the point where planned economies perform best compared to countries with comparable background.

Free healthcare means healthcare for all irrespective of their wealth (i.e. even people who work can afford it, not just people who steal other people's work legally).

Free education has made Cuba have more doctors per capita than many European countries, and it has made it the country with most university graduates per capita in the world.

Is it a myth? Not at all. Does it benefit society? Undoubtly. But Milton and you other neo-liberals would prefer a different kind of system that lets owners exploit the majority. Free education and free health care is democratic, and shows that we aren't stuck in the stone age. People have the right to food and somewhere to live as well, because it lies in their interest. However, there are people who gain from the current system (not you Milton-supporters) that don't want that to happen. They want to keep their rights to oppress and exploit.

There are loads of money, more than ever before, we can afford it all, however, a fraction of humanity takes away what the rest of it produces and calls it its own with the help of the protection given by police and military (and of course their loyalists so called "Milton supporters", a new incarnation of peasants who supported kings and queens against their own best interests).

Productivity has increased enormously, but real wages haven't. The difference has been acquired as profits by a couple of owners (at a record high). While society keeps less and less money these guys acquire more and more which ultimately ends up in a corporate oligarchy.

Dr. Richard Wolff has a series on the financial crisis and its causes. Profits vs wages:

There's a lot of money which can be used to introduce reforms like free healthcare so people who actually work can live good lives.

What is the solution to these crises? In the short term it would be to tax all labor-free income at levels close to confiscation, and in the long term to democratize the economy to not end up in a situation where a few parasites control it and society as a whole.

Edited October 1, 2011 by Spokesperson

[ProfTournesol 956]

While for once i don't disagree with all what you say, Cuba is very far from being a democracy.

[Beagle 684]

While for once i don't disagree with all what you say, Cuba is very far from being a democracy.

So what...the german social systeme was introduced step by step under monarchs... started 1760 by Friedrich II of Prussia and brought to what we know today under emperor Wilhelm II. and Count Otto von Bismark.

Having a so called "democracy" means nothing at all when you cut of a lot of your Citizens from its benefíts. Democracy ...thats usually a joke...you vote a ruler all 4 -5 years aand cant controll what hes doing after it...thats not democracy.

[ProfTournesol 956]

Having a so called "democracy" means nothing at all when you cut of a lot of your Citizens from its benefíts. Democracy ...thats usually a joke...you vote a ruler all 4 -5 years aand cant controll what hes doing after it...thats not democracy.

But you can get rid of him after that period. Castro's dynasty (well, brotherhood...) cannot be fired.

[.Taffy 10]

Have you all seen this?

That man is not fit to call himself a police officer. Disgraceful!

(Can't get the embed to work)

[st_dux 26]

People who are against free health care are pretty brainwashed. Free health care does not mean that someone works for free, it means that you don't have to pay for it.

So no one pays for it? It just spontaneously arises? That's remarkable.

Is it a myth? Not at all. Does it benefit society? Undoubtly. But Milton and you other neo-liberals would prefer a different kind of system that lets owners exploit the majority. Free education and free health care is democratic, and shows that we aren't stuck in the stone age. People have the right to food and somewhere to live as well, because it lies in their interest. However, there are people who gain from the current system (not you Milton-supporters) that don't want that to happen. They want to keep their rights to oppress and exploit.

The myth isn't that free stuff benefits somebody; obviously, it does. The myth is that no one pays for it. As long as it involves scarce resources of some kind, someone has to pay for it. How could it be any other way?

Milton Friedman's point is that, knowing that the resources must come from somewhere, it is better to leave it up to the market than try and centrally plan things. His position has been vindicated several times throughout history, but I know you choose to close your eyes to these sorts of facts and just pretend that central planning can work if we just try hard enough.

There are loads of money, more than ever before, we can afford it all, however, a fraction of humanity takes away what the rest of it produces and calls it its own with the help of the protection given by police and military (and of course their loyalists so called "Milton supporters", a new incarnation of peasants who supported kings and queens against their own best interests).

There is loads of wealth, and all of it was created through capitalism. I know you're going to come back and say "no, it was created through work that was then stolen by parasites," but the fact of the matter is that people have always worked while capitalism is relatively new, and it is with the rise of capitalism that we began to see the rapid economic development that accounts for most of our wealth today. The most prosperous time in all of American history is what's been mislabeled "The Gilded Age," and the reason we were so successful during this time is that capitalism was almost completely unfettered by government intervention; trade was freer than it ever had been or ever would be again. "Milton supporters," aka reasonable people, have noticed this correlation and have concluded that maybe -- just maybe -- capitalism works pretty well when it comes to the generation of wealth.

Productivity has increased enormously, but real wages haven't. The difference has been acquired as profits by a couple of owners (at a record high). While society keeps less and less money these guys acquire more and more which ultimately ends up in a corporate oligarchy.

Please stop throwing the real wages argument around. It's technically true, but it's misleading. The standard of living in Western nations -- which is the only reason people care about wages in the first place -- has been continuously going up for the last 50 years and beyond. Ordinary people in these nations live better today than they ever have in the past. See also: http://reason.com/archives/2002/08/01/off-the-books/1

As for the distribution of wealth argument, I agree that it's getting a little ridiculous but the reason it's doing so is crony capitalism (i.e., the government helping out corporations it favors in return for political support; i.e., corporate welfare), not free capitalism. Again, the government is the root of the problem.

What is the solution to these crises? In the short term it would be to tax all labor-free income at levels close to confiscation, and in the long term to democratize the economy to not end up in a situation where a few parasites control it and society as a whole.

Yes, that would be good. Destroy all of the people who have figured out how to organize land, labor and capital in such a way that the creation of wealth is maximized and hand over control to a political board that has no concept of the principles of business and could never have accomplished anything on a free market. Or better yet, democratize the process so it's controlled by the mob.

You live in a fantasy world. I know you just want life to be fair everyone to be happy, but that's not how the world really works. Life is never fair and if we try to force it to be fair the only thing we'll accomplish is a shift in power from the people with money to the people with guns.

Capitalism isn't fair and I will agree with you that it is a system based upon exploitation. Where I differ is that I understand the fact that life is essentially based upon exploitation anyway, so I admire (free, not crony) capitalism for its directing of this exploitation toward the generation of wealth.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

The Division of Labor and Social Order | Jörg Guido Hülsmann

ZChb3CH8LSA

[Spokesperson 0]

But you can get rid of him after that period. Castro's dynasty (well, brotherhood...) cannot be fired.

Castro is and was elected numerous times (with a little more than 80% of the votes). Cuba has an elected parliament and elected congressmen, but no parties run in the elections as they only have elections based on personality. Their elections are more democratic than those in western democracies, but of course have no illusions about it being a proletarian dictatorship.

So no one pays for it? It just spontaneously arises? That's remarkable.

You don't pay for it, people who produce goods do.

Milton Friedman's point is that, knowing that the resources must come from somewhere, it is better to leave it up to the market than try and centrally plan things. His position has been vindicated several times throughout history, but I know you choose to close your eyes to these sorts of facts and just pretend that central planning can work if we just try hard enough.

It's better for people who can buy hospitals and sell "healthcare" but it isn't better for common people as can be seen throughout the world.

There is loads of wealth, and all of it was created through capitalism. I know you're going to come back and say "no, it was created through work that was then stolen by parasites," but the fact of the matter is that people have always worked while capitalism is relatively new, and it is with the rise of capitalism that we began to see the rapid economic development that accounts for most of our wealth today. The most prosperous time in all of American history is what's been mislabeled "The Gilded Age," and the reason we were so successful during this time is that capitalism was almost completely unfettered by government intervention; trade was freer than it ever had been or ever would be again. "Milton supporters," aka reasonable people, have noticed this correlation and have concluded that maybe -- just maybe -- capitalism works pretty well when it comes to the generation of wealth.

No, that isn't thanks to capitalism. Capitalism is just a superstructure on the the underlying technology. Once technology reaches a certain step in history different ways of organizing the labor will emerge with it. Capitalism was once promoting new technology, but today it's inhibiting it. Capitalism itself doesn't generate wealth, it distributes it.

Please stop throwing the real wages argument around. It's technically true, but it's misleading. The standard of living in Western nations -- which is the only reason people care about wages in the first place -- has been continuously going up for the last 50 years and beyond. Ordinary people in these nations live better today than they ever have in the past. See also: http://reason.com/archives/2002/08/01/off-the-books/1

Technology has improved and if the standard of living hadn't increased with it, it would be remarkable. The standard of living was and is improving in the socialist world as well, growth isn't tied to capitalism. The record of growth is held by USSR under Stalin. From mud to space in a couple of decades, while defeating one of the worlds leading capitalist industrial powers almost single handedly.

Life is never fair and if we try to force it to be fair the only thing we'll accomplish is a shift in power from the people with money to the people with guns.

Without guns the oligarchs wouldn't stay in power, nobody would produce surplus value for them voluntarily. Society is all about the people in it, and if capitalism was created by people, we can also dismantle it and create something else that benefits humanity as a whole.

Capitalism is not a sustainable economic model and it will eventually crash through its own internal contradictions. The choice is not between more capitalism and socialism, it's between barbarism and socialism.

[Hans Ludwig 0]

The record of growth is held by USSR under Stalin. From mud to space in a couple of decades, while defeating one of the worlds leading capitalist industrial powers almost single handedly

"His introduction of the command principle and five-year plans aimed at boosting the country’s economy condemned the country to human losses of immense proportions. The scale of repressions astounds and petrifies, though some believe it was a necessary and inevitable measure under the circumstances. Although an ethnic Georgian himself, he launched massive campaigns on the deportation and eradication of many ethnic groups from the Soviet territory. So great was his influence on the people that it eventually grew into a cult of personality, denounced after his death by Nikita Khrushchev, who initiated the so-called 'de-Stalinization.'"

http://russiapedia.rt.com/prominent-russians/leaders/joseph-stalin/

It sad that you can get banned from a forum if you are Nazi but it seems totally legit to spew the same cancerous ideology that led to millions being killed or losing their freedoms that the Socialist model produced.

If only this world didn't have Neo-Nazis and Socialist - like Spokeperson -, it would probably be a fairly decent world. Not perfect, but decent.

Edited October 1, 2011 by Hans Ludwig

[st_dux 26]

The record of growth is held by USSR under Stalin. From mud to space in a couple of decades, while defeating one of the worlds leading capitalist industrial powers almost single handedly.

In what parallel universe did the USSR defeat the United States and not collapse in 1992?

You Marxist revolutionary types are going to have to face facts. Marx, although he was a keen observer and correct about a lot of things, ultimately guessed wrong. Capitalism has not destroyed itself as he predicted, and it doesn't look like it's going to anytime soon. Every single attempt at communism in the history of the world has led to either A. collapse (e.g., USSR) or B. market reform (e.g., China).

[solidsnake2384 10]

He probably supports the Baadar Meinhof Gang too.

[Spokesperson 0]

"His introduction of the command principle and five-year plans aimed at boosting the country’s economy condemned the country to human losses of immense proportions. The scale of repressions astounds and petrifies, though some believe it was a necessary and inevitable measure under the circumstances. Although an ethnic Georgian himself, he launched massive campaigns on the deportation and eradication of many ethnic groups from the Soviet territory. So great was his influence on the people that it eventually grew into a cult of personality, denounced after his death by Nikita Khrushchev, who initiated the so-called 'de-Stalinization.'"

http://russiapedia.rt.com/prominent-russians/leaders/joseph-stalin/

It sad that you can get banned from a forum if you are Nazi but it seems totally legit to spew the same cancerous ideology that led to millions being killed or losing their freedoms that the Socialist model produced.

If only this world didn't have Neo-Nazis and Socialist - like Spokeperson -, it would probably be a fairly decent world. Not perfect, but decent.

The people Stalin supposedly terrorized support him, still. Same goes for the USSR, a huge majority supports it. In Romania people support Ceausescu and think that communism is a good thing. This isn't 1991 anymore, things have changed. The grass wasn't greener on the other side, and the stories of the private department of propaganda called media get hollower and hollower. You live in a fairy tale, you can't just wish that socialists didn't exist, it's like wishing away all the people that collect the owners' profits. Without them there would be no capitalists, because who would work for them?

The people you support kill and have killed millions, so why are you arguing about the 40ies when your economic system and people who support it are responsible for hundreds of millions of deaths? A number that continues to grow for every day?

In what parallel universe did the USSR defeat the United States and not collapse in 1992?

You Marxist revolutionary types are going to have to face facts. Marx, although he was a keen observer and correct about a lot of things, ultimately guessed wrong. Capitalism has not destroyed itself as he predicted, and it doesn't look like it's going to anytime soon. Every single attempt at communism in the history of the world has led to either A. collapse (e.g., USSR) or B. market reform (e.g., China).

USA got the leading role in the world after the second world war where former superpowers decimated each other to dust.

Capitalism has existed for a little more than 200 years. Feudalism existed for almost a thousand years and slavery a lot more than that. Marx never predicted any exact dates, that would be completely unscientific. He just observed the general tendencies and internal logics of the systems. The USSR was no attempt at communism. It was a good attempt at socialism, but unfortunately the counter-revolution succeeded eventually. Not all slave revolts, peasant uprisings or revolutions throughout history were successful. But they grow in frequency and strength until the oppression is overthrown or forced to step back through other means.

Baader Meinhof? No, I'm not an anarchist. The capitalists are not the problem, capitalism is. Individuals or individual traits are not to blame, the system is.

Edited October 1, 2011 by Spokesperson

[solidsnake2384 10]

And the people you support have killed at least 3 million people.

[Beagle 684]

Capitalism has already detroyed itself...it was noticed...but Socialism was used to safe capitalims from itself in early 2009...nothing else was done when tax money was spend to help the worlds financial system back onto its feet.

So what we have o is a system that captalizes profit but socialises loss...

Best of both world?, not for those that have to pay for this redistribution...last time we saw that to this extend was 1780's in France...and I bet the outcome will be similar this time.

Edited October 1, 2011 by Beagle

[gammadust 12]

Social Cientists don't guess, they don't claim to be deterministic either as in more objective science such as Math or Physics. Social phenomena cannot be looked over the same way a lightning strikes earth's surface. This does not go to say that we are dealing with complex subjective occurences alone either, there are very objective dimensions of the social "problem" where Men is part of the object being studied.

When you say Marx "guessed wrong" can be easily disputed. Capitalism was going through an Industrial phase (though also very imperialistc). Given this context many of his analysis and conclusions are valid. Carelessly extrapolating his analysis to the current Financial Capitalism will get one into dead ends. He himself pointed that his method (historic materialism) would require constant update along changing contexts, the very recognition that History aside of being writen by Men is also his own product and in constant transformation.

Capitalism as a set of economic rules, has been deemed by marxists, as self desctructable, because historicaly as been proven to diverge from economic sustainability and social balance. Current Financial Capitalism (I would also add "Lunatic") is proving, by the exact same token, to be facing its own demize.

This is where our disagreement comes obvious, there exists significant sectors of society which think we are facing a system with no end in sight. See Fukuyama "The End of History". But to keep that view one has to shut his eyes to the way society systems come and go along the centuries and milenia.

The crisis we all are observing today, as grave as it is, as wide as it reaches all corners of the world is the omen for significant transformation of society. Nevermind what is the solution the agents of that transformation will opt for. What economic system will they devise as intelligent beings to tackle the problems they will face. Those are all post-facto considerations.

It is the inevitability of the transformation which is the main issue here. Don't bother too much with Capitalism vs Communism. You take it for granted that Communism failed... so be it! But one has to recognize, if not earlier, at this very moment in time that Capitalism has failed also.

It is too relevant for the society future prospects the Wall Street Occupation movement and many other protest movements. Those movements represent how aware the society in general is and recognizes the need to change from a now crumbling system to any future one. It is the recognition of the inevitabilty, not of more austerity, but of radical transformation.

Edited October 1, 2011 by gammadust

[Macadam Cow 1]

So no one pays for it? It just spontaneously arises? That's remarkable.

I'm sorry but did you paid anything to register on this forum ?

Do you pay anything when you want to change your facebook status or upload a new video on Youtube ?

But just like you said, ultimatly someone has to pay.

So you think it's absolutely normal for you to have the right to express your opinion,

tell the whole world the color of your new sofa, the name of your puppy,...all this for free

but you deny to someone who has no money the right to take care of himself, his children or his parents ?

Are you really trying to convince people that superficial services like youtube, google, facebook,...have to be free but on the other hand, life depending services must only be given to people who can pay for it ?

Free health care simply means EVERYBODY pays a little bit so that EVERYBODY is covered, no matter what.

So ok, some people are abusing the system but fact is social fraud is a lot smaller then fiscal fraud (just for France : social fraud = €20 billions, fiscal fraud = €100 billions). Some poor people steal and it cost a little bit to the community. Some rich people steal A LOT and the whole world is threatened.

Capitalism isn't the "end all, be all", it's just another step in our evolution as a society. I have no doubt it will be followed by many other systems as different as feudalism and capitalism are.

Edited October 1, 2011 by Macadam Cow

[st_dux 26]

The USSR was no attempt at communism.

Doesn't that depend on whom you ask? I mean I know that it didn't resemble the stateless utopia that Marx envisioned ("communist state" seems to me to be a contradiction in terms, no?), but didn't the Soviets think they were creating communism? I agree that no one has succeeded in creating real Marxian communism, but that's precisely my point.

It is the inevitability of the transformation which is the main issue here. Don't bother too much with Capitalism vs Communism. You take it for granted that Communism failed... so be it! But one has to recognize, if not earlier, at this very moment in time that Capitalism has failed also.

Crony capitalism is failing. Fiat currency is failing. Free exchange, on the other hand, hasn't shown any signs of failure and is indeed the only viable solution in my eyes to contemporary economic problems. It's when free exchange is hindered by government that the market gets distorted and the economy suffers.

Are you really trying to convince people that superficial services like youtube, google, facebook,...have to be free but on the other hand, life depending services must only be given to people who can pay for it ?

You realize that Google, YouTube (part of Google) and Facebook aren't run for free as a general public service, right? They make money through advertising. Lots of money (just check out Google's stock price). Online services supported through advertising revenue are in no way analogous to a single-payer healthcare system paid for by taxpayers.

Free health care for all is a swell idea and I believe it works fairly well in some European countries. A free market approach (which the United States doesn't really have, by the way) would be better, though (but that's for a different thread).