Wall Street Occupation

[nettrucker 143]

These Occupiers should be armed to the teeth -to prove loyalty to America, freedom and the Constitution.

It will come to that if there can't be a peaceful change.

[HyperU2 11]

This side would never arm themselves, it's their downfall.

[nettrucker 143]

It depends on how desperate people will become over time, IMHO.

[Beagle 684]

This side would never arm themselves, it's their downfall.

Are you really that keen about libyan conditions in the USA?

[-martin- 10]

In other news... Cadillac's XTS is what I want for Christmas. God bless Capitalism!

Let us know if you get it

[Bee8190 10]

These Occupiers should be armed to the teeth -to prove loyalty to America, freedom and the Constitution.

After watching ''this'', I sort of wish they would have....brought at least pepper sprays.

Or eggs, tomatoes, anything.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=meT8CJgEBQw

So the US citizens, pay their taxes for this kind of service?

Those who should serve them, protect them from theft and harm, those who they should seek in need and this is what they get ?? :j:

Ice T might have had a point....

[-martin- 10]

So the US citizens, pay their taxes for this kind of service?

Those who should serve them, protect them from theft and harm, those who they should seek in need and this is what they get ?? :j:

Why are you so surprised? :j:

[HyperU2 11]

They seem to have a problem with certain redistribution of goods.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/criminal_occupation_oh3CnKANUqYHrGPCaZaLRK

“I had my Mac stolen -- that was like $5,500. Every night, something else is gone. Last night, our entire [kitchen] budget for the day was stolen, so the first thing I had to do was . . . get the message out to our supporters that we needed food!â€

[froggyluv 2136]

After watching ''this'', I sort of wish they would have....brought at least pepper sprays.

Or eggs, tomatoes, anything.

So the US citizens, pay their taxes for this kind of service?

Those who should serve them, protect them from theft and harm, those who they should seek in need and this is what they get ?? :j:

Ice T might have had a point....

Don't worry, the liberty minded militas will show up to protect the Occupiers if their rights are being taken away by tyrannical authorities...right?!

:rolleyes:

[HyperU2 11]

Nope, too busy working.

[froggyluv 2136]

^^

Thanks! Thats what I thought -only take the day off if it's to protect your "own kind's" liberty.

Not liberty for all -for some...

[HyperU2 11]

I'd protect who I'd agree with. Money isn't about liberty.

[froggyluv 2136]

The implied hypothetical was if excessive use of force was used by authorities against demonstrators. Regardless of their message, surely you'd see that as an abuse of power against inalienable rights no?

I didn't think NRA types had to agree with absolute message of oppressed do see abuse of power and infringement of Liberty ie.. Ruby Ridge/Waco?

[HyperU2 11]

I don't really care if the Government smacks some commies around. Ruby and Waco were both Second Amendment issues.

[froggyluv 2136]

And this a freedom of speech issue -but since they are left wing -the protectors of Liberty have little interest. Thanks for confirming my suspicion, that they are more political then Liberty minded.

[HyperU2 11]

They can talk all they want, they're not going to be infringed upon for that. What day are they on? 30? Big threats against them.

[froggyluv 2136]

Yet again, it was a hypothetical yet I doubt whatever liberties would be impinged upon - they could expect no help from NRA types regardless.

Interesting that you called them all "Commies" -how do you know they are of the Red Party? Or is there room for only two parties in your world - those with us and those against?

This is the hyper-partisanship of which I spoke.

[jblackrupert 14]

It's great when you can dismiss the concerns of an entire movement based on watching some one, single guy who you don't like.

I'me not dismissing it because of a single guy.

Rent-a-crowd as we call them here are staging these arrests.

they go in there with a plan to force the police to arrest them

and edit the videos to look like they were doing nothing wrong

IE.. Citibank video.

The good news is they're doing a good job keeping all those poor people employed at sweatshops making their precious Apple products.

Edited October 18, 2011 by jblackrupert

[Minutemen 10]

These occupy protests happen also in europa and for me it looks like the political establishment is at least suffer them. Another color revolution?

Don't worry, the liberty minded militas will show up to protect the Occupiers if their rights are being taken away by tyrannical authorities...right?!

First of all, every american citizen is the militia.

Secound, i will stay at home. I wouldn't travel so far to protect a bunch of hippies so that they can continuing their anti-freedome agenda and stay in the polluted parks.

Interesting that you called them all "Commies" -how do you know they are of the Red Party?

It isn't about the "red party", its about collectivism. In my point of view thats the reason they still suffer the occupiers, the wallstreet createt socialism and the government loves to use collective groups against free market and individual rights.

If you wanna protest, fine. But camping for 30 days in the middle of a city don't brings you food on the table and their are many other problems with that... refugee camp on voluntary base.

Edited October 18, 2011 by Minutemen

[binkster 0]

Yet again, it was a hypothetical yet I doubt whatever liberties would be impinged upon - they could expect no help from NRA types regardless.

Interesting that you called them all "Commies" -how do you know they are of the Red Party? Or is there room for only two parties in your world - those with us and those against?

This is the hyper-partisanship of which I spoke.

I think he was refering to them as being radical left. Which is looking more like communism everyday. From what I see everyday it sounds like its more of a political thing. They were talking on the radio today about how Obama may have something to do with these protest.

Edited October 18, 2011 by binkster

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Let us know if you get it

Yeah, you are right. I much rather keep my 2008 GMC Sierra with a lift kit and newly installed leather seats. I can go anywhere with that bad boy.

[froggyluv 2136]

I think he was refering to them as being radical left. Which is looking more like communism everyday. From what I see everyday it sounds like its more of a political thing. They were talking on the radio today about how Obama may have something to do with these protest.

But these just sound like far-right talking points. How can Obama be considered a Communist when he has for the most part continued Bush Jr's trajectory on most issues? As for Gov't healthcare, thats been attempted by Democrats for years -hardly revolutionary.

I was speaking more to the cultural war I see unfolding -people are so entrenched there is no longer a 'normal' Left or Right -just Radicals when spoken from the opposing party. This is sophomoric thinking and more suitable for rival 2nd grader popularity contests then adults supposedly running or caring for our country -as a whole.

Edited October 19, 2011 by froggyluv

[jblackrupert 14]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3WuUmstY8dk&feature=player_detailpage#t=1205s

[Hans Ludwig 0]

TLC needs to visit these scrubs and give them some advice.

Av7m_Pgt1S8

[st_dux 26]

At last, gammadust, I can reply to you.

"In the tax payers money shall lie confidence that the commitment of compensation will be honored in the eventuality of this premium paying private entity fails to secure the depositors interests", of course that does not fit the billboard :)

Love it.

"No one seeks financial ruin purposefully, unless one individually finds no reason to fear any significant consequence under a individual's self serving purpose alone". And by "no reason to fear any significant consequence" I mean a "business bankrupcy" be sufficient enough to serve as a dissuading factor since Bonusses and Annual Divindends are out of the equation already by the time of the event.

I don't believe this is inconsistent with what I said, but you do bring up an interesting new point. The fact that some bankers and financiers were able to take on so much risk knowing that they wouldn't personally be affected if their deals fell through is a serious problem, one which was only exacerbated by the taxpayer-funded bailouts. My argument is that this incentive couldn't possibly exist in a pure capitalist system because nothing would be there to save those who were reckless with other people's money.

I would address this one as an aside too. What are Mutualities then? if not the answer to this logistical problem on the very area of finance (and also insurance)? As a personal choice, and informed consumer, under this financial market, I chose to have my money in a Mututality, this allows me to inspect the decisions that are made and participate in them be involved and responsible by the trust I lay in this institution and its members (this was a system very common in European "Social Democracies").

There's nothing wrong with mutuals. Like any other system of financial organization, I think it's fantastic that they're freely allowed on the open market. If people generally prefer a system in which they all have a voice, the market will reflect that. Perhaps the financial fiascoes of late will encourage this type of business model more. If the government has to force it through regulation, though, then it's clearly not really what people want.

I must admit that my comment about the "logistical impossibility" of getting every depositor involved on financial decisions was a bit hyperbolic. As you pointed out, it has technically happened and continues to happen in some places, but even though mutuals ostensibly involve everyone, in practice it is typically a core team of managers that actually make the decisions. Most of the investors generally aren't privy to the fine economic details of their investments -- they have lives, after all -- and pretty much just let the people who's business it is to understand these details make the decisions. Even if you technically involve everyone, as is the case with a mutual, I don't believe it's fair to say that everyone takes equal responsibility in the event that the mutual goes bankrupt. And that's really the point: There's no way to make it fair. It is what it is.

Calculus, Linear Algebra, Statistics, Game Theory, Computer Science, all of those are Math branches, this is "objective scientific foundation". Economists do not debate if 2+2=4, they debate in instances of the kind:

"Is a regulated economy more effective and beneficial than a deregulated one?"

And you may observe then that these are were Politics and Economics intermingle, were Math alone becomes insuficient to describe the problem, Sociology has to come aboard, methods of social organization, etc, etc... (I would say of course there are Philosofical issues, to the extent that Philosophy is the base of all sciences)

Economists don't debate about the fundamentals of math, no, but they most definitely debate about the fundamentals of economics. An Austrian School economist, a Keynesian, and a Marxist all have wildly different ideas about how the economy works. The debate doesn't start at the ultimate issues, e.g., "Is a regulated economy more effective and beneficial than a deregulated one?". The debate starts with questions like "what is value?" and the rest follows. If economics were truly a science, the results couldn't possibly be so varied. In science, there is always a consensus eventually. In economics, there is never a consensus.

As for sociology, that's another example of something that isn't a real science. Please understand, however, that this doesn't mean that sociology is worthless. It just means that it cannot be understood in the same manner as the physical sciences.

The so called "Observer Bias" or more broadly "Cognitive Bias" is a known factor in many sucessful sciences, physics, biological, social and behavioural. Its specific area of study has been elevated to its own discipline, it is methodical, it is verifiable, it is falsifiable, it is Science with capital "S".

To dismiss that recognizable limit of measurement and its influence on Economics, amounts to a Defeatist stance on the problem. "There is this problem, we will never be able to describe it and comprehend it, and tackle it accordingly" giving room for only one alternative "The problem will solve for itself" ("Let the market forces estabilish for themselves the economic equilibrium"). This is no good stance.

This stance has the currently observable consequences of wide sectors of economy worldwide be put in check, who knows if "-mate".

Humans have Science as a tool to overcome problems.

The problem is greater than simple observer bias. The problem is that it is simply not possible to create market conditions under controlled conditions. Market conditions, by definition, are uncontrolled; and you cannot conduct science under uncontrolled conditions. There is no way to accurately extrapolate economic decisions in a real market using contrived laboratory situations. To think otherwise is the pretense of knowledge.

As for the charge that my position here is defeatist, I vehemently disagree. The fact that I don't consider economics a science akin to physics does not mean that I consider it unfathomable. I simply believe that it can be better understood on the basis of logical analysis than it can be understood through empirical observation. Empirical observations of phenomena under uncontrolled conditions are necessarily unreliable; we can never be sure of the factors that we cannot see or control. Making "science" out of observations in economics is dangerous because it is always making innumerable implicit assumptions. It picks out the few factors we can observe and arbitrarily takes them as the only factors that matter.

Further, the "Invisible Hand" in the sense of "The idea of markets automatically channeling self-interest toward socially desirable ends is the founding justification for the laissez-faire economic philosophy, which lies behind neoclassical economics." or other mostly faith based theories which only try to escape in face of the problem.

It has been proven time and time again, on every Boom and Bust, that markets DO NOT "automatically channel self-interest toward socially desirable ends."

The "Invisible Hand" idea is not based on faith at all; it is based on a logical conclusion that follows from axioms of human action. People will only willingly give up something they own for something else if they believe that whatever they're receiving in exchange is of greater value than whatever they're giving up. As long as that's true, the free market must lead to a maximization of available value for all involved. This doesn't mean that everyone would be better off in a free market system; there are plenty of people who would be better off if they could simply take value away by force (i.e., through government action) from others who wouldn't have voluntarily given it up otherwise. Appealing to these people, however, leads us down the road to serfdom toward universal mediocrity.

As for your assertion that it has been "proven" that free markets don't work, I would argue that no market in history has ever been absolutely free, so there's no way to say that with any certainty. Government coercion always gets involved to some extent, and it is that coercion that is responsible for the booms and subsequent busts that we so often see. In general, the less government coercion is involved, the faster an economy can sustainably grow. See, for example, the Gilded Age in the United States, which was a time of extreme economic freedom leading to enormous growth and prosperity that ended only after the government passed the Sherman Silver Purchase Act of 1890 in an attempt to appeal to farmers who wanted inflation to cover much of the cost of their outstanding debts: a boom and subsequent bust that was government-manufactured.

It was not the "government's intervention" which rated packages of sub-prime mortgages CDOs with AAA, elevating risk to never seen before levels. It was not the "government's intervention" which sold at premium insurance CDSs on those packages multiple times. It was not the "government's intervention" which "speculated" downwards those CDOs to their real value regardless of the bust which this would provoke. It was not the "government's intervention" which claimed high Bonusses before and after the crisis settled.

What one is able to demonstrate is that it was through "government's intervention" in "relaxing regulations", or outright "removal of regulations", which facilitated those cited circumstances to materialize, it was through governments' laissez-faire policy which almost "asked" for this to happen. Hence my argument against the "deregulation" drive.

You're missing the point. Of course the government didn't directly involve itself in any of the private-sector practices you've mentioned; these were private-sector practices. The question we should be asking is what incentive(s) resulted in such grossly destructive practices? How is it possible that so much bad debt -- which was later securitized, mis-rated, leveraged to absurdity and just generally abused by private enterprises -- was able to come into existence in the first place? How is it that no banks were turning these people down? Why wasn't anyone the least bit wary of risk? The answer is that they must not of seen the risk. At the upper levels, this can be explained by the obfuscation inherent in the securitization process and the subsequent mishandling by the credit rating agencies, but it could never have gotten to that point without first starting at the lower levels, at the banks giving out mortgages to people who couldn't possibly afford them. Why would a bank in a free market do this? Why would they expose themselves to undue risk when it is clearly not in their best interest? Every once in a while mistakes will happen, sure, but for the entire banking system to systematically ignore risks like it did requires something more than a simple mistake. There is no entity other than the government that has the power to create such a systematic market distortion. The fact that credit (and thus, mortgages) was much easier to obtain than it would have been under free market conditions is the direct result of government initiatives to turn more people into homeowners and keep interest rates artificially low.

Government didn't physically knock down every domino in the proverbial line of dominoes that led to the financial collapse, but they most definitely pushed over the first one, and that's the one that counts. Economic regulations are nothing but an attempt to prevent the subsequent dominoes in the line from falling; they're focused squarely on the catastrophic effects of economic collapse while ignoring the insidious causes. As long as we can stop the first domino from falling (by limiting government economic intervention as much as possible), we don't need to worry about any of the others. Moreover, our worrying can have harmful effects; our knowledge is imperfect, and we cannot predict the economic future as well as we think we can.

@WeaponsFree:

Thanks for the reply. I'll get back to you next time I've got a chance.