[Official] The Occupy Movement

[bergmann620]

The thing most people in these threads miss, time and again, is the gaping chasm of difference between the everyday people of the parties, and the people representing them in Washington.

There are likely a few actual statesmen scattered around the capital, but the vast majority on both sides are little more than prostitutes. Their 'principles' are derived from the most recent batch of polling data, their policies are written by special interests, and their communication is a series of code words meant to give the crowd at home a big thumbs-up.

If they ever really 'fixed' things, they would have nothing to campaign on, and that is the most terrifying nightmare any of them could ever dream up. Until we come up with a way to make it less profitable to be in Washington, things will keep going the way they have.

[Jaxi]

You really believe that gas and toll taxes are the only thing that build / maintain roads? Maybe you should read a book. And while you're at it, add public school systems to the list.

You really really REALLY should not use the public school system as an example of a working socialist system. So much money, and absolutely terrible results. It's just not a good argument lol.

[NeftBat]

No, i'm saying that plenty of well paying employment has left the country under the guise of "globalism = good!". That's been a fairly impactful effect on jobs in this country, end of story. As for your other question, it has nothing to do with the original question posed.

Well the original question was what are the rich doing to keep you from becoming wealthy so I think its a fair follow up question given your response. I still don't see how any one is keeping you from achieving any reasonable financial goals of your own. So some jobs have left the country, ok. Its not like all jobs have. Or even all good paying jobs. In fact if you are in the right industry and location, or can relocate, this country still offers plenty of good, well paying work.

[Deleted]

If you find a worker willing to die in a factory fire or be mangled in machinery go ahead.

Strawman

Sometimes I swear you don't actually exist in the real world.

Ad Hominem

Right because there isn't a history of companies turning a blind eye to risks and dangers in the name of profit.

Strawman, again - if government manages to deliver good information to either of the parties, that's definiately good
(assuming cost of delivery < value of information). But ultimately, the parties should be allowed to make their own decisions.

No you see they had to treat people like shit, the invisible hand made them.

...?

Good response Wells, good response. /Applaud.

[Munk]

Our banking system wouldn't survive this at all really. I really think you should watch this if you haven't already. About 45 minutes, but it's quite well worth your time: http://vimeo.com/2244372

Isnt at the end of the day what the OWS(and I thought you as well) wanted? An end to the current banking model? The difference I feel is that with the market doing it on its own the system shows that it works and would bare no long-term scars from the change. If you just march in throw out the current leaders/system and try to just instill something new its not organic growth and is bound to show the stress from it not being natural growth/change.

Diurdi; as I never had any debate classes the term strawman was foreign to me until i just looked it up. The idea seems straight forward enough but Im not sure I understand how it applies in this situation. I know its a slight derail but could you explain for me?

[Deleted]

Isnt at the end of the day what the OWS(and I thought you as well) wanted? An end to the current banking model? The difference I feel is that with the market doing it on its own the system shows that it works and would bare no long-term scars from the change. If you just march in throw out the current leaders/system and try to just instill something new its not organic growth and is bound to show the stress from it not being natural growth/change.

If you "leave the market to it's own" in the sense that you don't bailout losers with government money or try to "stimulate it" - the banking system will change "naturally". Competition ftw.

It has been propped up far too long but now even the most desperate measures can't prevent it from imploding.

[NeftBat]

Our banking system wouldn't survive this at all really. I really think you should watch this if you haven't already. About 45 minutes, but it's quite well worth your time: http://vimeo.com/2244372

Yea I've heard all that stuff before in regards to the video. Would our banking system survive in its current form? No probably not. But that is not the end of the world. Business must learn to adapt over time. Many industries would be affected by what I had said, some even wiped out. But that's ok. It is ridiculous to expect people to continue to live irresponsibly just because the current system works off it. I'm not going to buy a new car because its good for the economy. It would be a horrible financial choice for me. The best thing I, or any one, can do for the economy is be fiscally responsible. It may hurt at first, but it will be worth it in the long run.

[Wells]

You really really REALLY should not use the public school system as an example of a working socialist system. So much money, and absolutely terrible results. It's just not a good argument lol.

Our school systems slip is a relatively new thing and public school systems the world round perform well.

Strawman

it quit literally is not. You said if workers are ok with a lack of safety laws they shouldn't be forced to have them around.

Ad Hominem

Nope. I didn't say you're wrong because what ever. I just said your statement is so ridiculous in the context of the real world it boggles the mind.

Strawman, again - if government manages to deliver good information to either of the parties, that's definiately good

try to actually yell strawman when its a strawman. Companies have a long history of turning a blind eye to risks.

Diurdi; as I never had any debate classes the term strawman was foreign to me until i just looked it up. The idea seems straight forward enough but Im not sure I understand how it applies in this situation. I know its a slight derail but could you explain for me?

Its his favorite new fallback every time someone points out how terrible his ideology is.

[BLCalliente]

Corn subsidies to the best of my knowlege exist to make the growing of corn still worthwhile. Corn is such a cheap source of both food and bio-fuel it can often not return enough money on its own to be worth the cost of planting/harvesting it, and yet if the price went up on corn based products it would have a huge negative effect on the cost of living.

Instead of oh...you know...letting the market take care of it? That's the great thing about america! We have a free market that regulates itself! No more regulation! Oh wait...SOMETIMES regulation is good like when it makes agribusiness giants a crapload of money. Those government payouts are ok. Not to normal people who can't find work though. Don't pay them anything.

You wont get wealthy doing any of the jobs being shipped overseas. You might make a living but its hardly high-pay employment.

Yeah, being unemployed because the job was shipped overseas. It's a moral victory. You weren't going to get wealthy anyway.

[Munk]

Yea I've heard all that stuff before in regards to the video. Would our banking system survive in its current form? No probably not. But that is not the end of the world. Business must learn to adapt over time. Many industries would be affected by what I had said, some even wiped out. But that's ok. It is ridiculous to expect people to continue to live irresponsibly just because the current system works off it. I'm not going to buy a new car because its good for the economy. It would be a horrible financial choice for me. The best thing I, or any one, can do for the economy is be fiscally responsible. It may hurt at first, but it will be worth it in the long run.

Ive been waiting for as long as ive been interested in politics for a candidate (from either side) to run on this basis with no expectations of remaining in office so that unpopularity for the insuing hardship would be largely immaterial. Do the right thing and talk a walk unless by some miracle people are smart enough to recognize it being necessary and somehow seem to want you back.

In a lot of ways I view beign the leader of the free world a lot like being a good father... I know its a stretch but hear me out. You can either be the kids best friend or you can do whats right to make sure they grow up right. More often than not the parents that try to be best buds end up with broken relationships because eventually the kids grow up and realize they took the easy route not the right route in terms of doing the best for the child. I feel like too many presidents have tried to be popular and friendly and havent had the spine to make the hard decisions necessary to help the US grow and be healthy. Ive seen a lot of half measures and stutter steps but noone willing to say yeah, look i know its going to be hard and the short term WILL suck but as we adapt, we will grow and experience long term gain because of it.

[Wells]

Seriously though, history has shown us time and time again that not only are regulations necessary, but that they can be good for the economy.

http://www.demos.org/pubs/goodrules_1_11.pdf

[Jaxi]

Our school systems slip is a relatively new thing and public school systems the world round perform well
is.

If by relatively new you mean several decades then sure. Isn't curious how our spending methods have maintained an inverse relationship with our school performance?

[Deleted]

Its his favorite new fallback every time someone points out how terrible his ideology is.

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

That's exactly what you're doing. And then you're attacking that misinterpretation or ridiculing the misinterpretation.

Your response to me was an absolutely pathetic and lazy post with no relevant substance.

[the1seth]

http://occupywallst.org/forum/propos...all-st-moveme/

Sorry to say, but they're nutjobs. I would break down every one of their demands, but they're so insane there really isn't a point...

yup this right here ^

[Wells]

Good response Wells, good response. /Applaud.

Why? You've quite literally argued that people were only treated like shit because the market made it so.

You place profit margins above human suffering.

[Jaxi]

Seriously though, history has shown us time and time again that not only are regulations necessary, but that they can be good for the economy.

http://www.demos.org/pubs/goodrules_1_11.pdf

No one said (well I don't know if they did actually) that they arent. There is a limit though... Remember, if it wasn't for banks the great depression would have happened much earlier. They bailed out America back when J P Morgan told them to.

[Wells]

A straw man is a component of an argument and is an informal fallacy based on misrepresentation of an opponent's position.

That's exactly what you're doing. And then you're attacking that misinterpretation or ridiculing the misinterpretation.

I'm attacking the real world implications of your high minded notions.

[Munk]

Instead of oh...you know...letting the market take care of it? That's the great thing about america! We have a free market that regulates itself! No more regulation! Oh wait...SOMETIMES regulation is good like when it makes agribusiness giants a crapload of money. Those government payouts are ok. Not to normal people who can't find work though. Don't pay them anything.






Yeah, being unemployed because the job was shipped overseas. It's a moral victory. You weren't going to get wealthy anyway.

Im not saying I agree with the subsidies, I was just explaining what I THOUGHT to be true about it. I was hoping someone with more info would actually correct me.

As for the second comment again you fail to miss the point. Im not defending jobs going overseas, nor am I saying they NEED to come back. Im simply pointing out that for the sake of the question it was meant to answer it is NOT an adequate response. Ive yet to see anyone realize it in spite of me directly pointing it out multiple times.

[Deleted]

You place profit margins above human suffering.

No, what I do is place them both into the same equation - which is how the REAL WORLD works.

In some industries you simply got to endure some suffering, no amount of money will help that. And most often it's not smart to even fully minimize the suffering by spending millions to make the job environment of one person slightly better.

What the market does is to go for the best "bang for buck" balance between risk and reward or suffering and reward.

[Munk]

I'm attacking the real world implications of your high minded notions.

I can appreciate your standpoint here Wells and personally id hold that some regulations to preserve reasonable safety of workers are good however some jobs are just inherantly dangerous and that danger cannot be mitigated by any ammount of regulations. I would hold the position that said jobs should never be able to strong arm workers into needlessly dangerous situations although at the end of the day if a guy wants to mine coal he should be allowed provided he has the mineral rights to that land.

I think what Diurdi was trying to get at, using my coal miner as an example is that the business gains far more from an experienced coal miner foreman who can yield far more ore than encouraging unsafe habits where that invaluable experience and capital equipment would be lost IE it regulates it self for the sake of profits (to an extent) but no ammount of regulation can make it danger free? Can we all agree on that?