AGS Steam Games

Forums → WEPR → Occupy Wall Street

114 28994
ZipperedVenus42
offline
ZipperedVenus42
185 posts
Nomad

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
EmperorPalpatine
offline
EmperorPalpatine
9,439 posts
Jester

In the first place, it was already a hybrid


Ok. What about GM?

They aren't banks


fine, "Mortgage Associations"
Sssssnnaakke
offline
Sssssnnaakke
1,036 posts
Scribe

I know what capitalism is. I just didn't research it thoroughly until now. It is called crony capitalism. doesn't matter.. The businesses should have been left to make it or close. It is acceptable to receive a loan that should be repaid. This was not fair to the millions of small businesses that struggle everyday to stay open. And so what if people go jobless. It's only temporarily because there will be new growth in other businesses.

Sssssnnaakke
offline
Sssssnnaakke
1,036 posts
Scribe

I know what capitalism is. I just didn't research it thoroughly until now. It is called crony capitalism. doesn't matter.. The businesses should have been left to make it or close. It is acceptable to receive a loan that should be repaid. This was not fair to the millions of small businesses that struggle everyday to stay open. And so what if people go jobless. It's only temporarily because there will be new growth in other businesses.

nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

And so what if people go jobless.


Only people who haven't experienced it can be so heartless. The economy slumped in 2008, yet close to 10% still remain unemployed. People struggle to put food on the table, provide for their kids, are forced to live in tents, and all you can say is ''temporary''.

http://www.lifeslittlemysteries.com/images/stories/london-riots-02.jpg


It is acceptable to receive a loan that should be repaid.


Aren't you shooting yourself in the foot? They have to repay it.


Ok. What about GM?


The government has a 27% stake in it.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

Only people who haven't experienced it can be so heartless. The economy slumped in 2008, yet close to 10% still remain unemployed. People struggle to put food on the table, provide for their kids, are forced to live in tents, and all you can say is ''temporary''.


I have a hard time believing that the people in the photograph are innocent by any means. How many of them do you suppose went to Good Will to look for incredibly affordable shoes?

When you lose a job, you look for another one. Sometimes it is hard to find a new job, but it's never impossible. Anyone who puts fourth an honest effort WILL find one.

The problem with bail outs is that if a company doesn't repay the money that was used to bail them out, then the tax payers suffer. Sure, all the people working for the company gets to keep their jobs, but the businesses and people who are paying the taxes lose their money, their purchasing power, and sometimes their jobs.

The burden is merely shifted. Now, not all bailouts result in disasters. Sometimes a company will bounce back and pay off their debts. As I said earlier, the problem comes from the fact that the government is gambling with money that isn't theirs. If the government does screw up, which it often does, then even more debt is created and society is even worse off than before.

Let's say that the government hires people to create a bridge purely as a means of creating jobs. There are thousands of people hired, and it costs the government 2 million dollars. When the project is done, it's easy to see the bridge and the thousands of workers who were employed, it looks like society has profited.

However, we must learn to see the things that are not there. We must also look at the other ways the 2 millions dollars could have been spent. We don't see all the new coats, the new cars, the new televisions, the new video games, or the new make overs people could have had. We don't see the money that could have gone into people's education, their savings, their vacations, their road trips. We don't see the promotions that aren't had, or the new jobs that weren't created. We don't see the things that the 2 million dollars could have gone to. Even though all those hired people made money that went towards helping them live, we don't see the money that was taken from others that could have helped the other people live.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

I have a hard time believing that the people in the photograph are innocent by any means. How many of them do you suppose went to Good Will to look for incredibly affordable shoes?


I just dropped in a picture of the London riots because I was too lazy of finding a picture of a colony of hobos.

When you lose a job, you look for another one. Sometimes it is hard to find a new job, but it's never impossible. Anyone who puts fourth an honest effort WILL find one.


http://static-l3.blogcritics.org/09/06/21/106837/UNEMPLOY622.png

It hasn't been dropping for the past three years. That is a long time for many.

The problem with bail outs is that if a company doesn't repay the money that was used to bail them out, then the tax payers suffer. Sure, all the people working for the company gets to keep their jobs, but the businesses and people who are paying the taxes lose their money, their purchasing power, and sometimes their jobs.


Admittedly yes, taxpayers will lose money in the bailouts. But that is much better than losing much more through a complete collapse of companies. Yes blah blah, companies can be restarted, but the billions lost by investors, pension takers and workers laid off would far outweigh that.

We don't see all the new coats, the new cars, the new televisions, the new video games, or the new make overs people could have had.


What you list are merely consumer goods, i.e goods that are consumed and that's that. It won't help increase productivity (a bridge still provides transport. It's useless though to build one in no-man's land, so I'm assuming it's being built in a location where it will still be used).

It would be put to good use to in one of the examples you stated, which is education. It trains future workers for one.

We don't see the things that the 2 million dollars could have gone to.


The two million spent is spent on raw materials, the labour sourcing companies, the architects, the workers, and the lot, which spreads it out far more than you think. Merely spending on things like vacations or video games is not going to get anyone anywhere after your new toys collect dust at home.
Sssssnnaakke
offline
Sssssnnaakke
1,036 posts
Scribe

but the billions lost by investors, pension takers and workers laid off would far outweigh that.

I don't see any evidence that bailing out a company has helped the majority of the economy if you could please prove me wrong by showing evidence then I would love to see it. What woould help would be if we started with NASA and space exploration.
Here is evidence for and against bailouts but more against than for... http://www.dictionaryofeconomics.com/resources/default/bailout
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

What woould help would be if we started with NASA and space exploration.


And what would sending a rover to Mars do for the economy in the short run now? Create a dozen jobs for more scientist?

I don't see any evidence that bailing out a company has helped the majority of the economy if you could please prove me wrong by showing evidence then I would love to see it.


It prevented the failing of more banks/companies, saving millions of jobs.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

And what would sending a rover to Mars do for the economy in the short run now? Create a dozen jobs for more scientist?


It would generate more jobs than that, for example the Apollo program alone employed around 400,000 people.

It prevented the failing of more banks/companies, saving millions of jobs.


banks failing often result in a domino effect, so this may be true.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

banks failing often result in a domino effect, so this may be true.


There was a mini domino effect when Lehman fell.

It would generate more jobs than that, for example the Apollo program alone employed around 400,000 people.


Yes, but it would take years, no decades, for fruits to appear.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

It would generate more jobs than that, for example the Apollo program alone employed around 400,000 people.


We can employ 400,000 people to work on the world's largest toilet too, it doesn't really mean anything. Those 400,000 people that were hired were payed through money that could have gone to a number of other things. I'm not saying space exploration is bad, it's just that there's a tradeoff.

It prevented the failing of more banks/companies, saving millions of jobs.


Does the article take into consideration the number of jobs destroyed, or the number of jobs that weren't created because of the bailouts?

Government investments aren't necessarily going to be failures, but as I've argued before, they're gambling with other people's money. Not only that, but when the government is payed back, the people don't see a return in their paychecks.
nichodemus
offline
nichodemus
14,991 posts
Grand Duke

Does the article take into consideration the number of jobs destroyed, or the number of jobs that weren't created because of the bailouts?


Nope, but I'll be happy to accept that fact if you can provide data.
partydevil
offline
partydevil
5,129 posts
Jester

Nope, but I'll be happy to accept that fact if you can provide data.


i don't have data but i guess he is pointing at the financial work that could take years when a company like GM or other big one faills.
it would create lots of work.
and the jobs that are destroyed are ofcours from those that did not get a bailout.

i would like to see those numbers also. but i don't think they are out there. most is focusing on what happens now. not realy what happend in the 1st part of the crisis.
MageGrayWolf
offline
MageGrayWolf
9,462 posts
Farmer

We can employ 400,000 people to work on the world's largest toilet too, it doesn't really mean anything. Those 400,000 people that were hired were payed through money that could have gone to a number of other things. I'm not saying space exploration is bad, it's just that there's a tradeoff.


So we will be putting the money into the pockets of people who will in turn put that money back into the system while they work on projects that can be of great benefit to our future and current understanding of the universe. I think I could handle a tradeoff for that.
NoNameC68
offline
NoNameC68
5,043 posts
Shepherd

Nope, but I'll be happy to accept that fact if you can provide data.


It's hard to find data for events that never happened. I can't tell you how money would have been spent if it weren't used as bailout money. I can't tell you what the banks would have done, or what would have replaced the ones that fell. I know I'm shooting my self in the foot here, but I don't know what would have happened. I don't know how businesses and people alike would have spent their saved money.

So we will be putting the money into the pockets of people who will in turn put that money back into the system


That's like saying you take 50 dollars from man A and give it to man B, then claim that society benefits because man B spends that money into the market. You have to remember that man A is 50 dollars shorter, and that society no longer gains that 50 dollars from man A. In theory, there is no gain or loss.

No gain, no loss, so what's the big deal? The answer, morality. Is it okay to take from others through use of force, ever?

So we will be putting the money into the pockets of people who will in turn put that money back into the system while they work on projects that can be of great benefit to our future and current understanding of the universe. I think I could handle a tradeoff for that.


That's you, but what about everyone else? Others may believe that the future lies elsewhere. Others may not see space as something they want to put their money into. Should people have a say as to what they do and do not support?
Showing 76-90 of 114