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.
Not if a company is worth in total more than a 100 billion. I still maintain that bailouts are good for companies and hence the economy in the short run without giving the economy a massive shake down when it's in a quagmire. To each his own.
Actually no. Considering the situation for a start-up company to enter a type of industry (department stores) where the major competitors are well-established giants that are known by nearly every American, it should be impossible to grow at such a rate to be bigger than all of those giants put together. Other companies like Microsoft with completely new products had no real competition when they started so they became rich quickly.
still maintain that bailouts are good for companies and hence the economy in the short run without giving the economy a massive shake down when it's in a quagmire. To each his own.
I don't think you noticed what you said correctly at first then made a false assertion. Bailouts are only good for companies not the ECONOMY. Bailouts go also against capitalism.
I don't think you noticed what you said correctly at first then made a false assertion. Bailouts are only good for companies not the ECONOMY. Bailouts go also against capitalism.
Perhaps you haven't read the entire thread. It saves companies, which if fail, cause the loss of millions of jobs, which affects other industries connected to the company, which affects the economy.
Bailouts don't go against capitalism.
Capitalism
an economic system in which investment in and ownership of the means of production, distribution, and exchange of wealth is made and maintained chiefly by private individuals or corporations, especially as contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth.
I wonder if people actually know what the terms are before bandying them around >>
Bailouts don't, but part of that definition says contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. Are government buyouts anti-capitalistic then?
Bailouts don't, but part of that definition says contrasted to cooperatively or state-owned means of wealth. Are government buyouts anti-capitalistic then?
Nope, because state owned means of wealth means the government or the country actually owns the company. E.g In the USSR, all of the oil companies/ministries, came under the government control. That's not capitalistic.
Giving out money to companies or government intervention is not breaching this definition. In fact, government intervention fits in nicely as a capitalist economic theory.
I mean like Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae, where the government actually owns them.
It's not government owned per se, but rather under the conservatorship of the government.
When referring to government control of private corporations such as Freddie Mac or Fannie Mae, conservatorship implies a more temporary control than does nationalisation.
conservatorship implies a more temporary control than does nationalisation.
The government never defined how long temporary is. They could control them indefinitely if they wanted to. That's beside the point though: It's still considered ownership.
The government also has the option to buy about 79% ownership in each bank automatically, thus nationalizing them. They didn't do that yet, but isn't the ability for them to do that anticapitalistic?
The government never defined how long temporary is. They could control them indefinitely if they wanted to. That's beside the point though: It's still considered ownership.
In the first place, it was already a hybrid, i.e it was a GSE started by Congress during the New Deal but also a publicly traded company from 1968 onwards until recently when it was proposed to delist them from the NYSE.
The government also has the option to buy about 79% ownership in each bank automatically, thus nationalizing them. They didn't do that yet, but isn't the ability for them to do that anticapitalistic?
