• Welcome to Religious Forums, a friendly forum to discuss all religions in a friendly surrounding.

    Your voice is missing! You will need to register to get access to the following site features:
    • Reply to discussions and create your own threads.
    • Our modern chat room. No add-ons or extensions required, just login and start chatting!
    • Access to private conversations with other members.

    We hope to see you as a part of our community soon!

The Smear Campaigns against the Occupy Wall Street Movement

Status
Not open for further replies.

Alceste

Vagabond
That is almost exactly my sentiments, Kilgore. My bridge partner was raging on about how magnificent the #occupy "movement" was, that they were the speaking for the 99% and I corrected her and said something like, "Nope. They have hijacked a term and are anything but representative of the true 99%." Unsurprisingly, she thought I was been rude for saying so. Given that Muriel is just "left of Joseph Stalin" in her political beliefs, that does not bode well for the #occupy <whatever> dwindling crowd.

My guess is that the ultra left has shown its hand and we have begun to see that they have nothing in that hand - and as a result - will find their ideas simply ignored from now on. Well, one can hope, I suppose.

Unlike conservatives, progressives have political and economic ideas that can't be summed up on a bumper sticker or in a sound bite. Maybe if you try a little harder you'll notice they are promoting a few interesting ideas. :)
 

Shermana

Heretic
You are welcome to endanger your health, workplace safety conditions and other REGULATIONS that corporations are gradually removing, but that will still not bring manufacturing jobs back to America in any significant number until Americans are completely reduced to the Third World working and wage standards that have been forced on desperate nations impoverished largely through disaster capitalism.

So what's your solution to get investment going again? When comparing American wages to Chinese and Indian wages, the "purchase parity" often gets completely ignored, in many respects, the Chinese worker's wage goes farther than the American worker's.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
So what's your solution to get investment going again? When comparing American wages to Chinese and Indian wages, the "purchase parity" often gets completely ignored, in many respects, the Chinese worker's wage goes farther than the American worker's.

You misunderstand the point of bringing up the Chinese wage in the context of lost American manufacturing jobs. The American worker needs to accept the same dollar value wages as Chinese workers or less in order to attract investment in a deregulated global trading environment. Purchasing parity is not relevant in this context - one US dollar a day over there might go a lot farther than one US dollar goes in your home town, but that doesn't change the fact that if you want to compete with Chinese labour domestically American workers will have to accept the same pay and working conditions as Chinese workers. They would live in boxes, I suppose, and eat nothing but the table scraps of the rich.

That doesn't sound like my idea of a good time, personally. If it does to you, by all means keep voting for people who tell you deregulation is the only way to kick start the economy. Looks good on a bumper sticker, so it must be true, right? ;)
 

Shermana

Heretic
You misunderstand the point of bringing up the Chinese wage in the context of lost American manufacturing jobs. The American worker needs to accept the same dollar value wages as Chinese workers or less in order to attract investment in a deregulated global trading environment. Purchasing parity is not relevant in this context - one US dollar a day over there might go a lot farther than one US dollar goes in your home town, but that doesn't change the fact that if you want to compete with Chinese labour domestically American workers will have to accept the same pay and working conditions as Chinese workers. They would live in boxes, I suppose, and eat nothing but the table scraps of the rich.

That doesn't sound like my idea of a good time, personally. If it does to you, by all means keep voting for people who tell you deregulation is the only way to kick start the economy. Looks good on a bumper sticker, so it must be true, right? ;)

Okay, so you don't want to answer the question of "how to get investment rolling again", that's okay, few do. Most just want to complain and skip the solution part, I'm GUESSING because their answer boils down to "Replace Capitalism with Communism" and little else. And perhaps housing and rent prices might lower if the real value of the American dollar stabilized. Food prices are artificially controlled as it is. As it stands, most Chinese and Indian workers will be living better than many Americans in short time. Many already do.

I suppose you think not deregulating and taxing the rich more is the solution?
 
Last edited:

Alceste

Vagabond
Okay, so you don't want to answer the question of "how to get investment rolling again", that's okay, few do. Most just want to complain and skip the solution part, I'm GUESSING because their answer boils down to "Replace Capitalism with Communism" and little else. And perhaps housing and rent prices might lower if the real value of the American dollar stabilized. Food prices are artificially controlled as it is. As it stands, most Chinese and Indian workers will be living better than many Americans in short time. Many already do.

I suppose you think not deregulating and taxing the rich more is the solution?

Yes, I think the rich should be taxed more on their income: that's the money they extract from the economy and put in their pockets.

It's not my job to "get investment rolling again", and why does it matter anyway? It is no longer possible to sustain growth because oil production has peaked. This is the cheap source of energy that has fueled our economic and population expansion for the past century. Nothing has emerged to replace it.

I'm happy to abandon the growth model. It's ridiculous. All you have to do is sit down and mull it over for five minutes and you may see that for yourself. :)
 
Last edited:

Shermana

Heretic
Okay, so for the record, you don't believe that more businesses and more subsequent jobs is good for the country, and you believe that more tax money in the hands of the government and away from the investor class is good, and no need to make it more attractive to create more jobs domestically or more incentive to keep the ones people already have. So at least we have your position more clarified.

PS Perhaps you're not aware that people invest based on the money in their pockets, but since you're against investment and growth to begin with, this doesn't seem to matter. I assume you believe the more money the government has and spends, the better off people are?
 
Last edited:

Alceste

Vagabond
Okay, so for the record, you don't believe that more businesses and more subsequent jobs is good for the country, and you believe that more tax money in the hands of the government and away from the investor class is good, and no need to make it more attractive to create more jobs domestically or more incentive to keep the ones people already have. So at least we have your position more clarified.

Nice straw man. Masterful. Good job not reading and / or not comprehending.
 
Canada was going to have an occupy movement , but it's hockey season.
BRRUUINS!!:slap:
Gotta admit though, those hosers played well tonight, good game.
 

Shermana

Heretic
Nice straw man. Masterful. Good job not reading and / or not comprehending.

Oh really? Explain exactly how I strawmanned from what you said, please in detail explain how what I said in response shows a lack of comprehending of what you so plainly said. Usually when I accuse people of a straw man or not comprehending what I said, I explain how specifically. Perhaps you wanna take a crack at explaining how specifically I misunderstood what you said?
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Oh really? Explain exactly how I strawmanned from what you said, please in detail explain how what I said in response shows a lack of comprehending of what you so plainly said. Usually when I accuse people of a straw man or not comprehending what I said, I explain how specifically. Perhaps you wanna take a crack at explaining how specifically I misunderstood what you said?

Your reply has nothing at all to do with my comment. I wouldn't even know where to start. Why not just have another go? :)

I'll save you the trouble and re-state my points more simply:

1) High executive salaries and bonuses are money that is removed from the economy. High income taxes help keep those dollars moving.

2) Perpetual exponential growth is not possible. So why should we sell our children's future trying to keep it on life support when we could adopt a sustainable economic model instead?

There. See how you do with the bare bones.
 

Shermana

Heretic
Your reply has nothing at all to do with my comment. I wouldn't even know where to start. Why not just have another go? :)

I'll save you the trouble and re-state my points more simply:

1) High executive salaries and bonuses are money that is removed from the economy. High income taxes help keep those dollars moving.

2) Perpetual exponential growth is not possible. So why should we sell our children's future trying to keep it on life support when we could adopt a sustainable economic model instead?

There. See how you do with the bare bones.

Nothing to do with your comment? I see. So when you said:

"I'm happy to abandon the growth model. It's ridiculous. All you have to do is sit down and mull it over for five minutes and you may see that for yourself"
You must have meant something other than completely abandoning the idea of growth via the traditional Capitalist method of investment and encouraging of such. I'll have to ask what you meant exactly.

1. Patently false. High incomes merely means more money they put into investments, the amount of people who go offshore is very small compared to those who invest directly back in the economy. Please explain why its "removed from the economy". Do you think no rich people have stock portfolios? Do you think they always send their money out of country? Do you think all of them are hoarding? What percentage of the nation's wealth do you think is being put out of circulation by these hoarders? Do you think low income people are the only people who spend their money back into the economy? When you say taxes keeps the money moving, moving towards who exactly? Are you saying the government spending is a surefire way of redirecting their money properly? Are you aware of how rampant cronyism is? Do you think no one invests in America whatsoever? Do you think that companies who outsource (due to excessive regulations more than just "workplace safety" as you put it) are not somehow contributing to American circulation at all? Are you saying to completely give up on the idea of redirecting investors to American job creating businesses? Sounds like it.

2. There's a difference between Perpetual growth and sustainable growth and maintenance of the economy. What do you mean sell our children's future? Isn't that what the government does by spending and spending into perpetual debt? Do you have the barest inkling of how any economic theory works? What is your idea of a "sustainable economic model"? Communism? I asked this question earlier, of what you think the actual solution is. You said it's "Not your job" to think of a solution, so I'm assuming your answer is basically "Down with Capitalism". That's fine, just be more honest about it. If you think Communism is the only answer and that no one should invest or try to get investment moving and that everyone should just support a Communist revolution (peaceful or violent), just say so.

This is a perfect example of the OWS mindset, no need to think about actual solutions or how to fix the system that's already in place, just complain and complain at those who are encouraged by the regulations in place to look elsewhere to maximize profits, and dance around your ideal of a "Sustainable system" aka Communism.
 
Last edited:

work in progress

Well-Known Member
We both are getting long in the tooth. :p. You have lived through recessions before. This should not be anything new to you then.
I see the new recession as a harbinger of something more serious and long-lasting than the problems in the 70's. We have been warned since the late 60's that there would come a time when the Earth would stop accommodating our demands for more land, more resources and more sources of energy to burn.

We dodged a few bullets along the way, such as in the 70's -- when the U.S. hit peak oil production, and OPEC drove prices up to record levels, there were discoveries of new sources of oil in Venezuela, Russia, the North Sea, and West Africa -- which increased supply enough to bring the price of oil back down for several decades and reduce OPEC's leverage.

And in the 70's and 80's, the new hybrid plants and oil-based fertilizers started finding wide application in many populous third world nations, which reduced rates of malnutrition and food deprivation.

The problem now is that the world has likely already hit peak oil (at least regarding cheap, and easily recoverable oil), and instead of regarding the Green Revolution as a reprieve to get population growth under control -- world population was allowed to double, and put the world back at risk of food scarcity. Peak oil and peak grain production, are two of the significant signs that we have reached a level where the Earth's natural economy is setting a limit to further growth of man-made economies. I would bet that real constraints on legitimate avenues for economic growth are a big reason behind the push to develop derivative investment products, that do little more than wage bets on existing investments.

If your worried about currencies, gold and silver is a safe haven.
I've got some gold coins....just for the hell of it! But, I'm more inclined to believe that a collapse of fractional reserve banking and paper currencies, would probably be a situation where direct bartering would likely be easier than trying to buy or sell stuff for gold or silver.

What we will have to deal with is out living our money. We should be so lucky. I'm not bullet proof, if the economy tanks, I will retire. The economy may dictate if I retire in style or not but I'm a survivor. I have cancer, I most likely will not have to worry about running out of money.
I know a lot of cancer survivors, and I hope your cancer is the sort that's more treatable and less likely to recur in the future.

More power to them as long as they get off their duff and quit crying and go out and find a job. They have too much time on their hands. :yes: My kids are doing fine. One is in college, the other has a good job, house, wife and kids. He works his butt off and is a good father.If all you see is doom and gloom, that will most likely be your fate.


If times get dangerous, I don't think anyone's kids will be completely safe, unless they are the billionaires capable of building their own fortresses and supporting private armies to defend them and their wealth.
But what about everyone else's kids? What about the ones in the overpopulated Third World, which are on the front line in dealing with the extreme effects of climate change? And what future generations? What sort of life will anyone have going into the next century if we consider the environmental changes that the nations of the world have done little or nothing to try to prevent? I can't help thinking of these clowns down in Alabama who tried to foist a personhood amendment on voters, and proclaim their respect for the unborn. How many of them would consider respecting the unborn as making sure we do not turn the Earth into a toxic wasteland, and use up all of the resources available now in a mad rush for material wealth. Respect for the unborn should mean that future generations have an opportunity to enjoy a decent life 100, 200 or a 1000 years in the future!

If you buck the trends, you might see that all you have to do in this day and time is be the next Mark Zuckerburg or create an I-phone app.
And for every Zuckerberg - who comes up with the new killer app, there are thousands or millions who will design nothing but open source shareware. And it's worth noting that in this age of increasing income stratification, the only place where someone new can just come in and start their own billion dollar business is in computers and information technology. And, most who have come up with some big, lucrative idea usually have to sell their companies to some big corporation or risk losing everything.
 

Shermana

Heretic
What's all this fearmongering nonsense about Peak Oil?

Where the oil is: 6 huge untapped fields - (1) - FORTUNE

Brazil alone has 123 billion untapped barrels, that's known about at least. There are possibly trillions in the oceans too. Venezuela's Orinoco belt has 513 billion barrels untouched. And it's not like Alaska doesn't have any.

And there's the potential for Hemp Oil too.

What we've hit is Politically-motivated-peak-oil-due-to-artificial-bans-on-new-sources.

Any talk of Peak oil is basically holding water for the establishment who is quite cozy with the current drilling arrangements.

As for Peak Grain production, try cutting out Ethanol for example. Africa holds the key to unlocking unimaginably high yields, especially in Zimbabwe and Uganda and Kenya, the problem is the politics, mismanagement, and underutilization. Russia and Ukraine barely tap a fraction of their potential as well.
 
Last edited:

Kathryn

It was on fire when I laid down on it.
When I've looked for work during slow economic times, I generally find a better job, and have more options to choose from. I think during recessions, companies have more of a focus on paying attention to who they hire, so things like knowing how to interview, being professional, speaking articulately, and actually having useful skills and experience, pay off even more.

Right on.

We are struggling with unemployment in part because employers are unwilling to hire more people due to the uncertainty of the COST of these employees as the health care legislation costs begin to take effect over the next two years.

I'd say that Washington has cut off it's nose to spite it's face.

I tell my employees - because I mean it - that stress breeds opportunity. Hang in there during lean times and you will be rewarded. I've been around the block a time or two at this stage in my life and I've seen it happen.

It's when the times are lean and those who do have jobs seem unwilling to actually work to keep them that I shake my head in wonderment. I've personally had to fire three people so far this year - for the stupidest, most avoidable reasons! All three are still unemployed (and we're not paying unemployment on them either, since they were terminated for good cause). I guarantee you - because I see and hear them - that at least two of the three are all up in arms about "unemployment and the economy" when they have brought unemployment and hard times upon themselves!
 

Reverend Rick

Frubal Whore
Premium Member
I guarantee you - because I see and hear them - that at least two of the three are all up in arms about "unemployment and the economy" when they have brought unemployment and hard times upon themselves!

You just have to ask yourself, would you hire anyone who just walks through the door?

Would you hire everyone who applies for work?

There are many jobs that go unfilled out there.

I realize that the economy and uncertainties about employee costs are a factor, but are there that many good applicants out there?

My point is, there are some folks I would not hire no matter what.

How many unemployed have a criminal record?

How many unemployed cannot pass a drug test?

How many unemployed do not even have a GED or a high school education?

How many unemployed have a terrible driving record?

How many unemployed will actually roll out of bed and even apply for a job?
 

Magic Man

Reaper of Conversation
That is almost exactly my sentiments, Kilgore. My bridge partner was raging on about how magnificent the #occupy "movement" was, that they were the speaking for the 99% and I corrected her and said something like, "Nope. They have hijacked a term and are anything but representative of the true 99%." Unsurprisingly, she thought I was been rude for saying so. Given that Muriel is just "left of Joseph Stalin" in her political beliefs, that does not bode well for the #occupy <whatever> dwindling crowd.

And yet they do represent the 99%. You can keep denying it, if it makes you feel better, but you're not going to change reality.

My guess is that the ultra left has shown its hand and we have begun to see that they have nothing in that hand - and as a result - will find their ideas simply ignored from now on. Well, one can hope, I suppose.

My guess is that you're a biased conservative who doesn't like reality and so keeps his head in the sand.

As for the Occupy movement, I think it's time for a change in direction. They've gotten people to pay attention now. I think the protests so far have been effective. But now, I think it's time to protest in a different way and get a clearer message out. Of course, part of the problem with getting a clearer message out is that it gets distorted by the media. Anyone truly paying attention can see clearly what their message is already.

The good news is that they're changing the conversation and bringing to light the real issues that are causing problems in our country. The bad news is that their methods are not making them likable. So, it's time to change the methods.
 

Alceste

Vagabond
Nothing to do with your comment? I see. So when you said:

You must have meant something other than completely abandoning the idea of growth via the traditional Capitalist method of investment and encouraging of such. I'll have to ask what you meant exactly.

1. Patently false. High incomes merely means more money they put into investments, the amount of people who go offshore is very small compared to those who invest directly back in the economy. Please explain why its "removed from the economy". Do you think no rich people have stock portfolios? Do you think they always send their money out of country? Do you think all of them are hoarding? What percentage of the nation's wealth do you think is being put out of circulation by these hoarders? Do you think low income people are the only people who spend their money back into the economy? When you say taxes keeps the money moving, moving towards who exactly? Are you saying the government spending is a surefire way of redirecting their money properly? Are you aware of how rampant cronyism is? Do you think no one invests in America whatsoever? Do you think that companies who outsource (due to excessive regulations more than just "workplace safety" as you put it) are not somehow contributing to American circulation at all? Are you saying to completely give up on the idea of redirecting investors to American job creating businesses? Sounds like it.

2. There's a difference between Perpetual growth and sustainable growth and maintenance of the economy. What do you mean sell our children's future? Isn't that what the government does by spending and spending into perpetual debt? Do you have the barest inkling of how any economic theory works? What is your idea of a "sustainable economic model"? Communism? I asked this question earlier, of what you think the actual solution is. You said it's "Not your job" to think of a solution, so I'm assuming your answer is basically "Down with Capitalism". That's fine, just be more honest about it. If you think Communism is the only answer and that no one should invest or try to get investment moving and that everyone should just support a Communist revolution (peaceful or violent), just say so.

This is a perfect example of the OWS mindset, no need to think about actual solutions or how to fix the system that's already in place, just complain and complain at those who are encouraged by the regulations in place to look elsewhere to maximize profits, and dance around your ideal of a "Sustainable system" aka Communism.

The short answer is no, I don't think any of the things you assume, challenge all your factual assertions and disagree with all your opinions. :)
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top