Forums → WEPR → Occupy Wall Street
| 114 | 27899 |
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.
Here are a variety of links to discuss:
http://bicyclebarricade.wordpress.com/2011/11/19/open-letter-to-chancellor-linda-p-b-katehi/
http://www.progressive.org/occupy_wall_st_broadan_approach.html
http://occupywallst.org/
------------------------------
Also, remember to keep the material on this forum non-flammatory. Any political ideas are allowed, even including Marxism, neoliberalism, etc..
- 114 Replies
Obama said the same thing.
here you do not get fined if we don't pay for it.
we simply wont get the health security for the time we don't pay. if we need to go to the docter during that period then we have to pay the docter from our own money. wich is much more then the monthly payment of 90 euro.
if you don't pay it's your own risk.
when you pay them, they will pay for you when needed.
levied upon incomes, property, sales, etc.
thats not how it works here. you just pay for basic security. and when it seems your making alot of use of the medical world. then you have to pay more. (up to 300 a month in extreme cases)
If health care is optional, then it isn't universal, because not everyone (who are citizens) are covered.
it's our choise to pay for the participation in the program.
You should know that I was referring to the computer industry.
the computer industry is much bigger then those 2 companys.
Large companies have many benefits.
not when they fail and needs tax money to stay alive. unhealty companys should't be bailed out. it's not fair for competition either.
the computer industry is much bigger then those 2 companys.
Yes, I am aware of that. Which is why I mentioned oligopoly. I mentioned two companies because Nemo's example had two.
Oligopoly
noun
the market condition that exists when there are few sellers, as a result of which they can greatly influence price and other market factors.
not when they fail and needs tax money to stay alive. unhealty companys should't be bailed out. it's not fair for competition either.
Do you understand what economies of scale are? Read the link before shooting off that they don't have benefits even when they fail. Competition is healthy yes, but not for certain industries.
Three more benefits here:
Interdependence: Each oligopolistic firm keeps a close eye on the activities of other firms in the industry. Decisions made by one firm invariably affect others and are invariably affected by others. Competition among interdependent oligopoly firms is comparable to a game or an athletic contest. One team's success depends not only on its own actions but on the actions of its competitor. Oligopolistic firms engage in competition among the few.
Rigid Prices: Many oligopolistic industries (not all, but many) tend to keep prices relatively constant, preferring to compete in ways that do not involve changing the price. The prime reason for rigid prices is that competitors are likely to match price decreases, but not price increases. As such, a firm has little to gain from changing prices.
Nonprice Competition: Because oligopolistic firms have little to gain through price competition, they generally rely on nonprice methods of competition. Three of the more common methods of nonprice competition are: (a) advertising, (b) product differentiation, and (c) barriers to entry. The goal for most oligopolistic firms is to attract buyers and increase market share, while holding the line on price.
Furthermore there are some industries (Oligopolies and monopolies) that are not suited for small firms. High barriers of entry, little money to invest much, leading to bad quality products, more homogeneous products that don't differentiate.
Every movement in history has started off a little disorganized. It's still new, give it time. I think by Spring we're going to see a lot more direction and a lot more participation.
I am a huge supporter, I live in a small town and we not only go to the nearest big city but we also protest right here in our town. The main goal right now is to get everyone aware, to educate. If one person holds up a sign and one other person reads it, that's one more person aware of it. They can choose to ignore or they can choose to get involved.
Interdependence
same happens whit lots of small companies.
Rigid Prices
i prefer the different. lots of competition that go as low as they are able to. so the consumers can search for the best price/quality products.
Nonprice Competition
see the last bit i wrote =) i like price competition.
Furthermore there are some industries (Oligopolies and monopolies) that are not suited for small firms.
true that.
however usualy those industries have a high demand. and when they fail. a other company in that same industry will grow fast.
however usualy those industries have a high demand. and when they fail. a other company in that same industry will grow fast.
This is false. Tell me. If Windows falls, is there a similar company who can step up and massively ramp up it's computer production by millions? Is there a company that can match its R & D facilities? Not in decades.
same happens whit lots of small companies.
False. Small companies on a hold tend to have more homogeneous products, i.e products that are similar. They take prices set by the free market, and don't depend on each other to set prices.
i prefer the different. lots of competition that go as low as they are able to. so the consumers can search for the best price/quality products.
Small companies = Lower Capital = Lower quality products since there are lesser resources to invest.
This is false. Tell me. If Windows falls, is there a similar company who can step up and massively ramp up it's computer production by millions? Is there a company that can match its R & D facilities? Not in decades.
apple and google.
maybe some asian company can start growing in that field then.
or new smaller companys could do all the different parts of microsoft. whit apple and google leading the market.
the point is that over time the gap will be filled because there is demand for the product.
why keep a old unhealthy company alive. and spend billions of tax money on it. if you could also let the company fall, tell evry1 that the money is gone. (to bad for all investers) amd help/give new companys a chance. those that are good survive, grow and fills the gap.
False. Small companies on a hold tend to have more homogeneous products, i.e products that are similar. They take prices set by the free market, and don't depend on each other to set prices.
your right. (not compleetly on the homogeneous products in some industries but thats a side-note)
i think it's beter that way.
Small companies = Lower Capital = Lower quality products since there are lesser resources to invest.
to stay whit the example of microsoft, i think there are more then 1 very rich companys that can make very good quality products. also keep in mind that the information will not be lost. the people that now work for microsoft will spread the knowlets they have. and maybe starting their own new microsoft.
and whitin that industry there are enoufg examples how insanely fast some companys have grown.
if there is enoufg demand there will only shortly be a gap.
apple and google.
They produce different systems that are not all people can accept.
the point is that over time the gap will be filled because there is demand for the product.
Over time. Decades as mentioned.
tell evry1 that the money is gone.
It's not just the investors. Ever considered how Microsoft gets its keyboards, chips, computer parts? Other companies make them, Microsoft doesn't do it entirely. These companies down the supply chain will be affected, and further down, the industries that provide the raw materials. It ripples down the whole economy.
if there is enoufg demand there will only shortly be a gap.
Demand doesn't control everything. There are various factors that affect supply and demand.
and whitin that industry there are enoufg examples how insanely fast some companys have grown
Example.
They produce different systems that are not all people can accept.
people will have to. microsoft is gone.
Over time. Decades as mentioned.
more like 5 year or so.
It's not just the investors. Ever considered how Microsoft gets its keyboards, chips, computer parts? Other companies make them, Microsoft doesn't do it entirely. These companies down the supply chain will be affected, and further down, the industries that provide the raw materials. It ripples down the whole economy.
they will have to find ways to keep making the money.
**** happens and it hurts, but when it's over you feel beter.
Demand doesn't control everything. There are various factors that affect supply and demand.
if a company can't handle the demand then some other company can take a part aswell. supply wouldn't be the problem since loads of other companys are jumping to sell their product (those from last quote)
Example.
youtube,google,facebook,asus,norton
and most recent MaxLinear whit a 8784% 3-year growth.
half a million in 2006 and 51,4 million in 2009.
Example.
Walmart hasn't even been around for 50 years and is now the largest retailer and the largest private employer in the world. Macy's and Sears originated in the mid to late 1800s. JCP and Target (Dayton Dry Goods) were founded in 1902. For walmart to surpass all of these large competitors even after they had a 50+ year headstart on marketing and growth is quite substantial.
Thoughts on TheAmazingAtheist's Video? Given the talk of of what these companies produce. I'm interested in what he's saying at around 2:24 about how these companies don't actually offer anything.
(Needless to say this video has get's a language disclaimer)
Occupy Reality
Yes 50 years. That's a long time.
to bad you only reply to emperor's example. and not the examples i gave.
his example is from other industries. the industry from his example (retail) can do very good whit only small companys so it's not relevant. and as you said. 50 years is a long time.
but what about the examples i gave? or arn't they importend?
Thoughts on TheAmazingAtheist's Video? Given the talk of of what these companies produce. I'm interested in what he's saying at around 2:24 about how these companies don't actually offer anything.
for a change i disagree whit him, the companys owners do not manipulate the system to make pizza. the systems is changing that makes them needed to lower/higher the intrest rates.
but i dunno (barely know) the 2 companys said in the video so i dunno what industry they are in and what they offer people in exchange for money. i might be wrong.
but what about the examples i gave? or arn't they importend?
I was on my phone, hence I didn't see it.
youtube,google,facebook,asus,norton
Facebook, Youtube, Google are social websites. They don't need huge engineering divisions like Microsoft does. They grow because of our huge social needs, and because they're essentially free (To start an FB page takes seconds. Buying a computer? Two thousand dollars).
As for Asus, it runs Windows as its operating system. Made by Microsoft.
Facebook, Youtube, Google are social websites. They don't need huge engineering divisions like Microsoft does. They grow because of our huge social needs, and because they're essentially free (To start an FB page takes seconds. Buying a computer? Two thousand dollars)
but they have the money now.
atm they depend on microsoft and apple to be able to provide their product. if they fall away. then the companys that i listed are still in need to keep it all working.
they will offer the ex-microsoft employes a contract and start growing in the way of microsofts products.
they have billions to invest to grow like that. and they have the need to do this.
As for Asus, it runs Windows as its operating system. Made by Microsoft.
i didn't know i only looked at the numbers.
You must be logged in to post a reply!