It is surprising to me that there us no thread for this yet (at least not one that I have found) so I decided to make one here. The main purpose of this thread should be to discuss opinions, motives, effects, ethicality, etc. on the Occupy Wall Street movement, along with other Occupy movements.
----------------------------
Now for my personal opinion. I am all for the motive, but the means (such as the shutdown of bridges, causing reduction of transportation) are questionable.
I think that shutting down bridges is not an ethical way to go about a protest. However, being the first major global protest with this kind of purpose, this might have been the only option for OWS to gain notoriety.
Since I have been researching heavily into this, I am willing to answer any questions about the means and motive of the protests, along with explaining political terminology.
All countries that have "free health care" force you to pay for it through taxes. You don't have a choice. That's what I'm against.
I feel that everyone should have a choice as to whether they want to pay into health care or not and that everyone has to deal with whatever the consequences are
you have the choice here in the netherlands and in about all the countrys near to us.
No, before taxes.
taxes are needed. whitout taxes a country can not function. it wont even be able to build or maintain roads. taxes have been their for ages. and no1 likes it. you just gotta deal whit it. atleast in my country we get alot back for what we pay. (social security FTW)
taxes are needed. whitout taxes a country can not function. it wont even be able to build or maintain roads. taxes have been their for ages. and no1 likes it. you just gotta deal whit it. atleast in my country we get alot back for what we pay. (social security FTW)
the only system which can work without taxes is i think communism
Well said! I forgot to include that some companies become irresponsible, which is another way for a company to go into debt.
Well then, should such companies be given bailouts? I think they should, but with strings attached. Lots of strings. The consumers shouldn't have their supply of the good cut because a company has bad policies.
No, before taxes. There's no reason the government should act like a corporation but with more corruption. When a business has a bad policy, generally they go under and they are no longer a problem (unless they are bailed out). When the government makes a bad policy, it just keeps going. Since the government isn't using their own money to keep the business going, it's like a constant bail out.
Your roads, transport system, maintainece, legal system, defence system all need money to support. Paying taxes is just a form of payment for these things that are almost taken for granted.
Your roads, transport system, maintainece, legal system, defence system all need money to support. Paying taxes is just a form of payment for these things that are almost taken for granted.
I agree that we need taxation to support most of these things as of right now, namely military and our legal system. Although I am against taxation, these are things we would need to continue supporting with taxes until an alternative method of payment can be implemented, whatever the alternative may be.
As for roads, maintenance, and public transportation, we can accomplish keeping transportation up and cities fixed without the government fixing them. However, these are not high priority. The highest priority for me is to do away with entitlement programs and bailouts.
Well then, should such companies be given bailouts? I think they should, but with strings attached. Lots of strings. The consumers shouldn't have their supply of the good cut because a company has bad policies.
The customers do not own the company, and nor does the government. If the company makes a bad decision, then it should be allowed to fail, even if people are dependent on said business. When a company fails, another one will take its place. This is especially true with food, where there is a large number of brands selling the same goods.
Bailouts only help maintain corporate monopolies. If a business can hold monopoly without a bailout and their success comes from honest competition, then that's just how people chose to spend their money. When a business holds a monopoly because they were bailed out, then the people didn't choose for them to come back.
you have the choice here in the netherlands and in about all the countrys near to us.
Any country with national health care takes money from the people in the form of a tax. If they don't take that money as a form of tax, then it's not national health care.
The customers do not own the company, and nor does the government. If the company makes a bad decision, then it should be allowed to fail, even if people are dependent on said business. When a company fails, another one will take its place. This is especially true with food, where there is a large number of brands selling the same goods.
With many major car companies failing at a go, I would think it hard for them to just be let go and done away with since the supply shock will be disastrous until some company manages to fill their shoes in quite a few years.
With many major car companies failing at a go, I would think it hard for them to just be let go and done away with since the supply shock will be disastrous until some company manages to fill their shoes in quite a few years.
Any major company that fails will have the slack picked up by competitors. This is especially true when talking about car manufactures, where there is a lot of competition. By bailing out irresponsible giants, you hurt all their competition, big or small.
Let's say that Company A sells a good that costs 10 dollars, and let's assume company B sells a similar good at the same price. Both companies are feeling threatened by one another. Both companies realize that the cheapest they can sell their products while making an efficient profit is 8 dollars. Company B lowers their price down to 8. Feeling threatened, Company A lowers their price to 6 dollars, hoping to undercut Company B out of business.
Months later, Company B finds themselves with less customers and are now close to going out of business. Company A is also on the verge of going out of business, despite having many more customers. Company A realizes that the goods they sold were far too cheap, and have accumulated a lot of debt since they slashed their prices. Because of this, the only way Company A can stay in business is if they start selling their goods for 12 dollars a good. They know that they can't raise prices that much without driving away their customers. Customer A finds themselves in a bind. They took a risky maneuver that backfired on them.
Free Market Ending: Company A goes out of business and everyone starts using Company B again. Company B, which never slashed prices at unrealistic levels, continues to sell goods while maintaining a profit. Those who want Company B's goods pay 8 - 10 dollars a good. (that's assuming that Company B now holds a monopoly). The tax payers don't have any increase in their taxes.
Corporatist Ending (Bailout): Company A is bailed out by the government. Company A decides to raise their prices so that they are the same as Company B, but the damage is done and Company B is eventually starved. Company A continues to progress. The tax payers saw an increase in their taxes because of the bailout. These tax payers include people who bought the cheaper product already, bought Company B's product, or never bought either one of the products. All the parties are paying for Company A's reckless behavior, and none of them benefit -- except for maybe those who bought their good from Company A, but since they too have to pay more in taxes, which means they would have been better off buying the 8 dollar good from Company B than the 6 dollar plus a tax hike from Company A.
---------------------------------------
Bailouts reward businesses for making reckless decisions, and even though people may rely on those goods, the people who are hurt the most are those who don't buy goods from the bailed out company. If Company A is bailed out, then the only people who (questionably) benefit are those who were customers for Company A, where customers of every other company or no company at all were hurt.
I know my example is quite simplified, but there are so many different scenarios and other complications that there is no way I could cover everything. However, the main idea behind the example should be clear, and it is that main idea that I wanted to stress.
Let me correct a few of my typos:
"Because of this, the only way Company A can stay in business is if they start selling their goods for 12 dollars (- a good). They know that they can't raise prices that much without driving away their customers. Company A finds themselves in a bind. They took a risky maneuver that backfired on them. "
"All the parties are paying for Company A's reckless behavior, and none of them benefit -- except for maybe those who bought their good from Company A, but (- since) they too have to pay more in taxes, which means they would have been better off buying the 8 dollar good from Company B than the 6 dollar good plus a tax hike from Company A. "
agree that we need taxation to support most of these things as of right now, namely military and our legal system. Although I am against taxation, these are things we would need to continue supporting with taxes until an alternative method of payment can be implemented, whatever the alternative may be.
we can name it different but in the end it's still money you have to pay the government.
Any country with national health care takes money from the people in the form of a tax. If they don't take that money as a form of tax, then it's not national health care.
wrong and wrong. A. it's not a tax. NO ITS NOT. B. it is national health care. by law we are forced to pay for it. but if we don't then they simply wont pay for anything. (their is the choise you wanted) if you don't pay they are not going after you and are surely not spending time in jail. also unlike taxes, the time period you don't pay for health care. you don't have to pay for later on anyway. you can stop paying and start paying whenever you want. they are not going after your money like they do whit taxes.
(in the point of bailouts i'm compleetly whit you =) )
Let's say that Company A sells a good that costs 10 dollars, and let's assume company B sells a similar good at the same price. Both companies are feeling threatened by one another. Both companies realize that the cheapest they can sell their products while making an efficient profit is 8 dollars. Company B lowers their price down to 8. Feeling threatened, Company A lowers their price to 6 dollars, hoping to undercut Company B out of business..................
There are a few kinds of companies due to different market structures. Perfect competition (I.e goods sold are all similar or almost similar) are price takers. They don't set prices because if one company ups the price, nobody buys from them since almost all goods are the same from all companies.
Monopolistic competition companies, (I.e those with slight variations) are price takers too since their products are almost homogenous.
Oligopolies and monopolies are price setters however. Apple and Windows can set their own prices because their products are completely homogenous. (Of course, they can't set it astronomically high or too low).
So what you have given is an example of perfect comp, or mon comp, since they sell similar, homogenous goods.
The example you provided is not valid since if A and B sell similar goods, they would both price it around the same price, as close as possible to the cost price, but not too low (Eg, Your 6 dollars), such that they will make a loss since 8 dollars is the most efficient (Which means in economic terms, most profit maximising). Both companies are of course, assumed to be rational enough not to start a price war and lower below cost price (Which I am going to assume is somewhere near 6 dollars since you did say it let to debt in your example).
Both companies cannot raise their goods' prices because if A increases to 12, people will buy from B, knowing that both A and B sell similar goods. B benefits by not increasing prices.
The car industry is not such a market, it's more an oligopoly and near a monopoly (For certain types of cars.). Case doesn't apply here.
B. it is national health care. by law we are forced to pay for it. but if we don't then they simply wont pay for anything. (their is the choise you wanted) if you don't pay they are not going after you and are surely not spending time in jail.
The healthcare bill in America states that anyone who does not pay for National Health Care will be fined.
If health care is optional, then it isn't universal, because not everyone (who are citizens) are covered.
Wood - King
FlagDelete
Let's say that Company A sells a good that costs 10 dollars, and let's assume company B sells a similar good at the same price. Both companies are feeling threatened by one another. Both companies realize that the cheapest they can sell their products while making an efficient profit is 8 dollars. Company B lowers their price down to 8. Feeling threatened, Company A lowers their price to 6 dollars, hoping to undercut Company B out of business..................
There are a few kinds of companies due to different market structures. Perfect competition (I.e goods sold are all similar or almost similar) are price takers. They don't set prices because if one company ups the price, nobody buys from them since almost all goods are the same from all companies.
Monopolistic competition companies, (I.e those with slight variations) are price takers too since their products are almost homogenous.
Oligopolies and monopolies are price setters however. Apple and Windows can set their own prices because their products are completely homogenous. (Of course, they can't set it astronomically high or too low).
So what you have given is an example of perfect comp, or mon comp, since they sell similar, homogenous goods.
The example you provided is not valid since if A and B sell similar goods, they would both price it around the same price, as close as possible to the cost price, but not too low (Eg, Your 6 dollars), such that they will make a loss since 8 dollars is the most efficient (Which means in economic terms, most profit maximising). Both companies are of course, assumed to be rational enough not to start a price war and lower below cost price (Which I am going to assume is somewhere near 6 dollars since you did say it let to debt in your example).
The company can go into debt in a number of different ways. They could spend money they didn't have on new projects that fail, they can make bad investments. I merely provided an example to show that competing businesses that do not make bad decisions are hurt, where reckless companies come out ahead.
More reasons why some companies need bailouts, the fallout would be massive and not just harm the workers, but the economy itself.
The short term effect would be pretty massive, but all those workers would find new jobs. All the resources that went to GM would be freed up to go towards other things. I would also like to remind you that the bailout was, what, 50 billion dollars?
I know that GM is paying back the money used to bail it out, but it's a gamble as to whether GM will succeed or not. I'm not saying all bail outs are failures, but the government is taking risks with our money.
"appel" has a product called Mac. wich is simular to microsoft's product called "windows". because there are atleast 2 companys whit this product, it's not a monopoly. (there are other companys working on new OS like google for example) both companys also have other products whit even more competition. (apple not in console gaming. microsoft not (barely) in pocket devices)
if 1 of them ****s up and fails, other companys/people will jump in the gap.
GM fell because of a host of bad policies.
they simply failed and should not be bailed out. nothing last forever, the government shouldn't try to keep evrything as it is.
More reasons why some companies need bailouts, the fallout would be massive and not just harm the workers, but the economy itself.
as it might be, i believe it's for the beter. it will lead to loads of small new auto companys to fill the gap. and lots of competition is good in my eye's. atleast beter then a few big one's. why? because if a big company fails you get this BS. when a small one fails, nothing bad realy happens. it is better and safer for the economy. so letting a big guy fall is a good thing for the economy in the long run.
B. it is national health care. by law we are forced to pay for it. but if we don't then they simply wont pay for anything. (their is the choise you wanted) if you don't pay they are not going after you and are surely not spending time in jail.
The healthcare bill in America states that anyone who does not pay for National Health Care will be fined.
If health care is optional, then it isn't universal, because not everyone (who are citizens) are covered.
Let's say that Company A sells a good that costs 10 dollars, and let's assume company B sells a similar good at the same price. Both companies are feeling threatened by one another. Both companies realize that the cheapest they can sell their products while making an efficient profit is 8 dollars. Company B lowers their price down to 8. Feeling threatened, Company A lowers their price to 6 dollars, hoping to undercut Company B out of business..................
There are a few kinds of companies due to different market structures. Perfect competition (I.e goods sold are all similar or almost similar) are price takers. They don't set prices because if one company ups the price, nobody buys from them since almost all goods are the same from all companies.
Monopolistic competition companies, (I.e those with slight variations) are price takers too since their products are almost homogenous.
Oligopolies and monopolies are price setters however. Apple and Windows can set their own prices because their products are completely homogenous. (Of course, they can't set it astronomically high or too low).
So what you have given is an example of perfect comp, or mon comp, since they sell similar, homogenous goods.
The example you provided is not valid since if A and B sell similar goods, they would both price it around the same price, as close as possible to the cost price, but not too low (Eg, Your 6 dollars), such that they will make a loss since 8 dollars is the most efficient (Which means in economic terms, most profit maximising). Both companies are of course, assumed to be rational enough not to start a price war and lower below cost price (Which I am going to assume is somewhere near 6 dollars since you did say it let to debt in your example).
The company can go into debt in a number of different ways. They could spend money they didn't have on new projects that fail, they can make bad investments. I merely provided an example to show that competing businesses that do not make bad decisions are hurt, where reckless companies come out ahead.
More reasons why some companies need bailouts, the fallout would be massive and not just harm the workers, but the economy itself.
The short term effect would be pretty massive, but all those workers would find new jobs. All the resources that went to GM would be freed up to go towards other things. I would also like to remind you that the bailout was, what, 50 billion dollars?
I know that GM is paying back the money used to bail it out, but it's a gamble as to whether GM will succeed or not. I'm not saying all bail outs are failures, but the government is taking risks with our money.
Have they now? Short term and long term in this case might take decades to support hundreds of thousands of new jobs.
but the government is taking risks with our money.
Don't they always? Everything has a risk. Buying new fighter jets, building new infrastructure, they all have risks.
I merely provided an example to show that competing businesses that do not make bad decisions are hurt, where reckless companies come out ahead.
Yes. But the bailouts in this case are generally for bad policies, not reckless undercutting. Well, for the financial sector, it's because of one big scam the insurance companies, rating companies and banks have done. Inside Job. Amazing film.
All the resources that went to GM would be freed up to go towards other things. I would also like to remind you that the bailout was, what, 50 billion dollars?
Resources going to where? Free dole outs to the jobless? Hiring more police to deal with hundreds of thousands of workers?
"appel" has a product called Mac. wich is simular to microsoft's product called "windows". because there are atleast 2 companys whit this product, it's not a monopoly. (there are other companys working on new OS like google for example) both companys also have other products whit even more competition. (apple not in console gaming. microsoft not (barely) in pocket devices)
You should know that I was referring to the computer industry. It's useless comparing market structures for two different products.
it will lead to loads of small new auto companys to fill the gap. and lots of competition is good in my eye's. atleast beter then a few big one's.
Large companies have many benefits. Economies of scale for one. More R & D funds is another. More capital to invest in overseas markets.
