Board 8 > Any thoughts on the Occupy Wall Street movement?

(+) Yeah! (+)

The middle class won't do that. It's rejected that approach in America time and time again.

--
90s games > 00s games

I've posted this before, but it would seem as if most of you didn't watch it. It's statistically proven that greater economic freedom results in greater individual freedom, prosperity, etc.



--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/gadsdenflaggifda.gif

no offense muffin, but i think most of those countries in list B have a LOT bigger problems than "too much economic regulation".

Comparing the USA to ****ing Guinea Bissau and Algeria is straight up laughable.

Those nations were screwed from the start of the industrial revolution. Read Guns, Germs, and Steel. Amazing book.

No, if you made your fortune in the Roaring 20s, you would recognize the truth that you can never become truly rich by working. You make big money by owning things and risking them. If you made your fortune in the Roaring 20s however, there's a good chance that you would be broke in the 1930s.

agreed, but its somewhat of a metaphor with what i was going after.

From: SmartMuffin | #091
Hundreds of millions of people have been slaughtered in the name of communism. Let's start there. Also, it is completely and directly opposed to every ideal of freedom and individuality.

Do you have any idea how many fights America got into just because a country was communist?

A lot.

--
I like how each new topic you make reveals such varied facets of your idiocy. - foolmo
[NO BARKLEY NO PEACE]

http://www.facebook.com/BoycottBurgerKing

I honestly can't tell if this is a parody or if it is legit.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/gadsdenflaggifda.gif

From: SmartMuffin | #091
Hundreds of millions of people have been slaughtered in the name of communism. Let's start there.

Because capitalism isn't a far worse (and more consistent/currently relevant) death machine, right?

--
Falcon Punch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFtw7qW7Vcw

Because capitalism isn't a far worse (and more consistent/currently relevant) death machine, right?

No, it's not.

I know of nobody who killed hundreds of millions of people to advance a capitalist agenda. Feel free to educate me.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/gadsdenflaggifda.gif

Capitalism by its nature eats indigenous cultures and all non-selfs ("not good capitalists like us") alive, and basically gives them the choice of either playing by capitalist rules or dying. If there's no concept of ownership in a culture, we call first dibs on all their stuff.
More modern examples (now that capitalism's engulfed a fair chunk of the planet) are more deaths of the self than literal death, but pretty often the result is just as bad. All in the name of producing more plastic goodies and a docile community of soul-numbed workers to buy it.

--
Falcon Punch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFtw7qW7Vcw

Xiahou Shake posted...
Capitalism by its nature eats indigenous cultures and all non-selfs ("not good capitalists like us") alive, and basically gives them the choice of either playing by capitalist rules or dying. If there's no concept of ownership in a culture, we call first dibs on all their stuff.
More modern examples (now that capitalism's engulfed a fair chunk of the planet) are more deaths of the self than literal death, but pretty often the result is just as bad. All in the name of producing more plastic goodies and a docile community of soul-numbed workers to buy it.

Hey, now, wait a minute here. That's far too sane to fly on b8. WHY WON'T YOU JUST ACCEPT YOUR PLACE AS A COG IN THE GEARBOX OF PROGRESS?!

United forever in friendship and freedom
Our mighty republics will ever endure
The great United States will live through the ages
The dream of a people their fortress secure

Chorus:

Long live great Capitalism, built by the people's mighty hand
Long live our people, united and free
Strong in our freedom tried by fire. Long may our tricolor inspire
Shining in glory for all men to see.

Through days dark and stormy did great Coolidge lead us
Our eyes saw the bright sun of freedom above
And Reagan the leader with faith in the people
Inspired us to build up the land that we love

We fought for the future, destroyed the Communists
And brought to our homeland the laurels of fame
Our glory will live in the memory of nations
And all generations will honor our name

--
90s games > 00s games

From: Punch_Sideiron | #110
Hey, now, wait a minute here. That's far too sane to fly on b8. WHY WON'T YOU JUST ACCEPT YOUR PLACE AS A COG IN THE GEARBOX OF PROGRESS?!

--
Falcon Punch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFtw7qW7Vcw

More modern examples (now that capitalism's engulfed a fair chunk of the planet) are more deaths of the self than literal death, but pretty often the result is just as bad

Well, if given a choice, I'll take the one where government officials don't forcibly starve me to death, thank you very much.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/gadsdenflaggifda.gif

From: SmartMuffin | #113
Well, if given a choice, I'll take the one where government officials don't forcibly starve me to death, thank you very much.

Designed poverty/unemployment to encourage competition essentially does just this.

--
Falcon Punch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFtw7qW7Vcw

Designed poverty/unemployment to encourage competition essentially does just this.

No it doesn't. I'll never understand how leftists can seriously argue this. There is a huge difference between the government actually killing you and the government forcing you to provide for your own existence, where, if you fail, you may die.

My one favorite quote from Atlas applies here:

The rotter who simpers that he sees no difference between the power of the dollar and the power of the whip, ought to learn the difference on his own hide-- as, I think, he will.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/gadsdenflaggifda.gif

Arguing that being executed is the same as unemployment oh my.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/gadsdenflaggifda.gif

Quoting Rand oh my.
For clarifications sake, Ayn Rand's work is basically "How to be an enormous *******: the philosophy."
Anyway, a economic/political/social system that allows people to die in pools/piles of their own waste so that others can enjoy their private jets isn't a system I can abide by. That said, there's not much to do about it, so we might as well all get comfortable.

--
Falcon Punch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFtw7qW7Vcw

We're moving towards a full capitalist society in which there will be no workers at all. Only capitalists! All work will be outsourced overseas; here in the homeland everyone will have to practice capitalism as their profession!

--
90s games > 00s games

Anyway, a economic/political/social system that allows people to die in pools/piles of their own waste so that others can enjoy their private jets isn't a system I can abide by.

When the alternative is a system where everyone is dirt poor and is literally a slave to the government and there is no freedom, no rights, no property, and you can be killed on-site by any government bureaucrat who claims you looked at him sideways, well, I can abide by the former just fine thank you very much.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/gadsdenflaggifda.gif

More seriously, I don't know about that. It doesn't take much wealth to move all poor people to a stable, even "middle class" existence. The real class divide is between capitalists and workers, i.e. between the top 1% and the bottom 99%. You can't bridge that divide without making everyone poor, but stuff like welfare, even lifetime welfare? Not a big deal.

--
90s games > 00s games

I'm not sure where you're drawing the capitalism/communism binary from, but both systems are pretty horrible in practice, and communism isn't even relevant in the modern world. (One could argue Marxism is, I suppose.)
What we should be doing is trying to figure out an alternate system, but pretty much everything that's been designed in the last hundred years has flaws just as bad as capitalism and communism, so, again, we might as well get cozy, we're going to be here for quite some time.

--
Falcon Punch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFtw7qW7Vcw

And why don't we have lifetime welfare for everyone? Because the middle class doesn't want it. The middle class wants to believe they are better than poor unemployed people because they work, and are productive. They don't want to listen to the cold reality of the invisible hand of the free market, which tells them that they are far closer to lazy bums than to rich heiresses who have never and will never work a day of their lives. So the lie: Get a job, you lazy bum.

But what is reality? All your hard work will never amount to anything significant, unless you use it to get into owning things for a profit. Get a job? Compared to capital, a job is almost worthless. But the middle class can't admit that to themselves, so they refuse to pass legislation to help the poor. Then they blame the rich, all the while thinking of themselves as somehow closer to the rich than the poor in deservingness, and closer to the poor in righteousness.

--
90s games > 00s games

I know of nobody who killed hundreds of millions of people to advance a capitalist agenda. Feel free to educate me.

Every US president since WW2

wow red sox 777 just spit the real

I think part of the problem in this topic is that people are getting actual capitalism mixed up with corporatism.

Capitalism, as my puny intellect understands it, is the idea that a person owns his or her own self. You own your time, you own your labor. You are free to use your time and labor to acquire capital, and to use those resources as you see fit to achieve your own interests; the only limit is that people are not to use force or fraud upon others to make transactions which they would otherwise not make, as this infringes on their freedoms. The primary role of government, arguably its only role, is to protect against force or fraud. Regulations are not to be managed by the government, but by private organizations, as regulation is itself an economic good subject to the laws of supply and demand.

Conversely, corporatism is the system we in the USA currently "enjoy." Businesses lobby government for favorable regulations, which help them and/or harm their competition. This has the effect of stifling new and small businesses, as the red tape and fees such regulations require soon makes these businesses unprofitable. Government's role expands to managing these regulations, which in turn raises taxes, further hindering new and small businesses, while larger businesses are able to expand their customer base and, if competition is low enough, start raising prices. In the worst cases, government will actually grant a business monopoly power, such as the case with the APA, which comes with its own problems.

Well, that's my take on it anyway, and I haven't even touched on socialism. Maybe another time, when I'm not feeling as lazy.

EDIT, SEMIRELATED:
NYT Article here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/09/25/nyregion/protesters-are-gunning-for-wall-street-with-faulty-aim.html?_r=2

I think the most striking part is the last paragraph:

One day, a trader on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange, Adam Sarzen, a decade or so older than many of the protesters, came to Zuccotti Park seemingly just to shake his head. “Look at these kids, sitting here with their Apple computers,” he said. “Apple, one of the biggest monopolies in the world. It trades at $400 a share. Do they even know that?”

--
There never was a post. Swamp gas from a weather balloon was trapped in a thermal pocket and refracted the light from Venus.

From: SmartMuffin | #077
red sox literally the only person on this board willing to engage in intellectually honest discussion

yourself included.

--
"WTF is wrong with my brain" - SmartMuffin

but both systems are pretty horrible in practice

No. NO. It's like you're totally ignoring everything I'm saying here. Yes, there are flaws in capitalism. My point is, the two system are in no way comparable. You're providing moral equivalency and it's just plain wrong. It's like saying that stubbing your toe and having your leg amputated with a chainsaw are "both horrible."

Every US president since WW2

Do elaborate. I'll assume you're talking about our various wars. Three points there.

1) That really wasn't what I was talking about. The Communist atrocities I'm talking about don't even involve external warfare. I'm speaking exclusively of the atrocities committed by Communist governments against their own citizens.

2) The scale isn't comparable. I'm not sure on the death tolls of all our our Post-WW2 wars, but I'm fairly sure it's under 100 million. Meanwhile, some estimates have Mao alone killing 100 million of his own people.

3) Our external wars are in no way inherent to capitalism. Note how when America was at it's most capitalist, we really didn't have any of these. As I've already established, we didn't really get started with empire building until the progressives took control. Another remarkable coincidence!

If you're NOT talking about warfare, then you're engaging in the same type of idiotic moral equivalency that Shake is. A government operating a free-market economy under which some people MAY die preventable deaths is NOT the same as a government who shoots you in the head for not agreeing with their political philosophy. Honest debate is simply not possible so long as you guys are unwilling to concede this point.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/gadsdenflaggifda.gif

This is a good topic. I really hope people are reading it. It encapsulates the debate very nicely, including a compelling micro/macro dynamic you don't see very often.

It's important to realize this is exactly the strategy that leftists always use. Moral equivalency. Occupy Wall Street is a protest. Tea party rallies are a protest. Therefore they are the same. Therefore, if you oppose one and not the other, you're a hypocrite. Only they're NOT the same. One is intentionally designed to obstruct, disturb, and harass. One openly calls for revolution. One includes mass arrests.

Then, on the macro side, we see things like "Well capitalism and communism both have flaws." True! The flaws of capitalism are that some people will be more wealthy than others. The flaws of Communism include that if the government shows up and demands you hand over 100% of the food you just grew, and you refuse, they torture you to death in front of your children.

I implore those of you with an open and intelligent mind to not fall for this. Do your research. Video of these protests are everywhere. Watch it for yourself, and tell me they're the same as tea partiers. The history of Communist regimes are readily available. Read some, and tell me they're no worse than America.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/gadsdenflaggifda.gif

up

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/gadsdenflaggifda.gif

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/wed-october-5-2011/parks-and-demonstration?xrs=playershare_fb

--
Yo Where All The White Women At

red sox 777 posted...
And why don't we have lifetime welfare for everyone? Because the middle class doesn't want it. The middle class wants to believe they are better than poor unemployed people because they work, and are productive. They don't want to listen to the cold reality of the invisible hand of the free market, which tells them that they are far closer to lazy bums than to rich heiresses who have never and will never work a day of their lives. So the lie: Get a job, you lazy bum.

But what is reality? All your hard work will never amount to anything significant, unless you use it to get into owning things for a profit. Get a job? Compared to capital, a job is almost worthless. But the middle class can't admit that to themselves, so they refuse to pass legislation to help the poor. Then they blame the rich, all the while thinking of themselves as somehow closer to the rich than the poor in deservingness, and closer to the poor in righteousness.

Awesome

I think the real issue in this topic is that people *cough*smartmuffin*cough* are equating "Communism", which is a word that, because of years of being at cold war with Russia and, to a lesser extent, China, is seemingly interchangeable with "evil", and "Socialism", which is the desire of quite a few people in this country, and, because of it's similarity to Communism, is also gaining a stigma, though it's not inherently bad. Communism is something that the US will never, ever, ever, ever, ever, ever come close to, because it's the absolute end point of the economical spectrum, in the same way that pure Capitalism will never ever ever (repeat ad nauseum) be reached. Both are too far to their respective sides, and would result in the US going even further downhill than it already is. Communism is bad, Socialism is good.

red sox 777 posted...
And why don't we have lifetime welfare for everyone? Because the middle class doesn't want it. The middle class wants to believe they are better than poor unemployed people because they work, and are productive. They don't want to listen to the cold reality of the invisible hand of the free market, which tells them that they are far closer to lazy bums than to rich heiresses who have never and will never work a day of their lives. So the lie: Get a job, you lazy bum.

But what is reality? All your hard work will never amount to anything significant, unless you use it to get into owning things for a profit. Get a job? Compared to capital, a job is almost worthless. But the middle class can't admit that to themselves, so they refuse to pass legislation to help the poor. Then they blame the rich, all the while thinking of themselves as somehow closer to the rich than the poor in deservingness, and closer to the poor in righteousness.

The middle class refuses to pass legislation? I wasn't aware that the middle class could pass legislation at all? You must have them mistaken with congress. Congress refuses to pass legislation to help the poor. The middle class votes for congress, though. So does everyone. So, really, the blame should be placed on everyone who votes for representatives and senators who refuse to pass legislation to help the poor, regardless of class.

SmartMuffin posted...
It's statistically proven that greater economic freedom results in greater individual freedom, prosperity, etc.

Well...kind-of.

Take Egypt. Grew a lot economically over the past 20-30 years, and had a lot of economic freedom; tons of it.

And yet, the majority of the Egyptian population made extremely low income. The average income was fairly high, of course, because a few wealthy business owners made plenty of money. But the median actually didn't increase much in 20-30 years.

--
Cats land on their feet. Toast lands peanut butter side down. A cat with toast strapped to its back will hover above the ground in a state of quantum indecision

SmartMuffin posted...
Because capitalism isn't a far worse (and more consistent/currently relevant) death machine, right?

No, it's not.

I know of nobody who killed hundreds of millions of people to advance a capitalist agenda. Feel free to educate me.

Try nearly the entire native population of the western hemisphere.

How about any and all (eastern) Indians who opposed British exploitation of their natural resources.

How about the millions of African slaves who powered the early industrial revolution and the growth of sugar.

How about the Civil War that was certainly fought over two opposing capitalistic agendas(wage labor vs. slave labor).

How about the native populations of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

How about the victims of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima nuclear attacks.

I could go on butyo uget the picture.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/nio/81edpngej.png
edwardsdv and swordz9 are basically the comedy heel tag team of this topic, why would people be taking them seriously?

red sox 777 posted...
And why don't we have lifetime welfare for everyone? Because the middle class doesn't want it. The middle class wants to believe they are better than poor unemployed people because they work, and are productive. They don't want to listen to the cold reality of the invisible hand of the free market, which tells them that they are far closer to lazy bums than to rich heiresses who have never and will never work a day of their lives. So the lie: Get a job, you lazy bum.

But what is reality? All your hard work will never amount to anything significant, unless you use it to get into owning things for a profit. Get a job? Compared to capital, a job is almost worthless. But the middle class can't admit that to themselves, so they refuse to pass legislation to help the poor. Then they blame the rich, all the while thinking of themselves as somehow closer to the rich than the poor in deservingness, and closer to the poor in righteousness.

Also this is pretty much the most correct statement ever. The ideal solution is not politically posible because the majority of voters actively vote against their own interests because they are incapable of objectively assessing their own status.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/nio/81edpngej.png
edwardsdv and swordz9 are basically the comedy heel tag team of this topic, why would people be taking them seriously?

Didn't mercantilism **** all over the Western hemisphere well before capitalism?

--
Gamefaqs' #1 Testicle Bettor: Proud owner of many testes
http://img688.imageshack.us/img688/6553/alec.png

AlecTrevelyan006 posted...
Didn't mercantilism **** all over the Western hemisphere well before capitalism?

What is mercantilism if not pre-industrial capitalism?

--
http://img.imgcake.com/nio/81edpngej.png
edwardsdv and swordz9 are basically the comedy heel tag team of this topic, why would people be taking them seriously?

While I generally agree that more economic freedom is better, there are some pretty glaring logical fallacies in that video which you must surely be aware of.

a) While it's easy to prove a correlation between economic freedom and general quality of life, it does not mean the former implies the latter. The reverse is also possible. (I suspect it's both to varying degrees, mind.)

b) Just because more economic freedom up to and including the level generally seen in top countries is a good thing, it doesn't necessarily mean that the trend continues. There's likely an optimum level of economic freedom, and while it's probably high, it isn't necessarily maximal.

--
The RPG Duelling League: www.rpgdl.com
An unparalleled source for RPG information and discussion

I could go on butyo uget the picture.

No I don't get the picture. None of those things were a consequence of capitalism. Not a single one.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/gadsdenflaggifda.gif

From: SmartMuffin | #140
No I don't get the picture. None of those things were a consequence of capitalism. Not a single one.

Actually, every single one of them are.

--
Falcon Punch
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FFtw7qW7Vcw

Try nearly the entire native population of the western hemisphere.

You're mistaking conquest for capitalism.

How about any and all (eastern) Indians who opposed British exploitation of their natural resources.

Same here. What does this have to do with capitalism? It's just conquest, which is not an economic philosophy.

How about the millions of African slaves who powered the early industrial revolution and the growth of sugar.

They didn't sell themselves into slavery, so again, not a product of capitalism. Other people forced them into slavery.

How about the Civil War that was certainly fought over two opposing capitalistic agendas(wage labor vs. slave labor).

You do both sides injustice with that statement. It's just so substantively wrong that I'm not sure where to start with this.

How about the native populations of Vietnam, Cambodia and Laos.

Ok, this one may be right. They wanted Communism, but we didn't want them to have it. But still, this is more about general war/geopolitics than economic theory.

How about the victims of the Nagasaki and Hiroshima nuclear attacks.

What? This has absolutely nothing to do with capitalism.

--
90s games > 00s games

Capitalism is awesome.
This rally is lame.

--
http://img.imgcake.com/crimjpgpe.jpg Mo' buildings mo' problems
ocean kinda grew on me like a flesh eating ...fungus. -BIGPUN9999

Red sox has it covered.

Once again, when I talk about deaths due to Communism, I'm not even considering deaths occurring during foreign wars. I'm talking specifically about governments murdering their own citizens because of the nature of their economic system.

Communists are allowed to exist in a capitalist society. In a communist society, capitalists are killed. That should really tell you all you need to know.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/gadsdenflaggifda.gif

ITT: Communism is a straw man so big, they take it out into the desert and burn it every year and have a festival around it.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/gadsdenflaggifda.gif

No one is arguing that all corporations are evil. There are some that are bad, and some that are worse, and some that are good. People want them to be taxed more, because they make more money, not because they're evil.

Now, Wall Street, on the other hand, is mostly made up of evil, and is more of what they're attacking. Hence, Occupy Wall Street.

Now, Wall Street, on the other hand, is mostly made up of evil, and is more of what they're attacking

Where do you think all the non-evil corporations get their financing from?

Virtually none of the modern conveniences we enjoy would be possible without large investment institutions. This is an indisputable fact.

--
SmartMuffin - Because anything less would be uncivilized
http://img.imgcake.com/gadsdenflaggifda.gif

SmartMuffin posted...
Now, Wall Street, on the other hand, is mostly made up of evil, and is more of what they're attacking

Where do you think all the non-evil corporations get their financing from?

Virtually none of the modern conveniences we enjoy would be possible without large investment institutions. This is an indisputable fact.

Nobody is denying that corporations are necessary, what the Occupy movement is talking about is their unwarranted and unfair influence in democracy and their complete lack of accountability when they screw up (because they are "too big to fail" as is popularly claimed).

--
Don't tell me what I can't do! - John Locke

Virtually none of the modern conveniences we enjoy would be possible without large investment institutions. This is an indisputable fact.

I'd dispute this. Even 10 years ago, Wall Street was less important to the economy than it is now. Go back 20-30 years and it is a marked difference.

And I agree that Wall Street is evil. But I mostly think this because the people there work ridiculous hours in an extremely toxic environment. And these people are choosing to do this, so they don't have the excuse that they are being exploited. They willingly choose to exploit themselves in exchange for money and for the ability to lord it over other people. This may not seem like a rational reason for thinking Wall Street is evil, but it's mine.

--
90s games > 00s games