Wall Street Protesters

RvB:
After the imminent domain disaster by the City of Richfield in getting Best Buy's HQ on 35/494 they had to lay low before pulling the same BS a mile and a half to the north...

The beauty of the 53/47 nonsense is how the 53% just ignores how they're a bad day away from being in the other chunk.

On the other hand, you've got these protestors setting up their social media camps by using inexpensive laptops that benefit from cheap foreign labor, while protesting that cheap foreign labor has taken away opportunity for jobs in the US. Yet "the lunatic right" is apparently the only banner under which cognitive dissonance is accused of taking residence. God I love irony.
 
[quote name='nasum']RvB:
After the imminent domain disaster by the City of Richfield in getting Best Buy's HQ on 35/494 they had to lay low before pulling the same BS a mile and a half to the north...

The beauty of the 53/47 nonsense is how the 53% just ignores how they're a bad day away from being in the other chunk.

On the other hand, you've got these protestors setting up their social media camps by using inexpensive laptops that benefit from cheap foreign labor, while protesting that cheap foreign labor has taken away opportunity for jobs in the US. Yet "the lunatic right" is apparently the only banner under which cognitive dissonance is accused of taking residence. God I love irony.[/QUOTE]

Unless the protesters have the same power as individuals to change manufacturing polices like Steve Jobs, your comparison falls flat.

The consumer didn't ship those jobs overseas; the corporations did and with the dual purpose of more profits and curbstomping the labor movement.
 
[quote name='dohdough']The consumer didn't ship those jobs overseas[/QUOTE]

for once I'm not trying to be a dick, but we as consumers are most definitely culpable in this regard due to our demand for shinier and flashier gadgets at increasingly lower prices. What price inflation would you be willing to pay for a PC fully made in the US with your living wage labor? What's a cheap laptop go for, $500? What are you willing to pay for that?

Know what premium I pay for an American guitar that isn't that much different from it's Japanese or Mexican counterpart? Roughly 80%. Considering the number of hands on an assembly line project such as a cheap laptop, I would expect the premium to be closer to 125-150%.

back to full on dick mode, crap on Apple all y ou want, but Acer/dell/hp/sony/etc... probably outsources in the same factory if not one on the same block...
 
I'm not saying that we don't hold any responsibilty as consumers, but that there are degrees of responsibilty that should lean more on those with the power to actually make systemic change. The fact that people were and would pay crazy prices for an iphone tells me that there's definately some consumer elasticity on higher prices. But obviously, we're still stuck on stagnant wages amongst other social ills. All these things are steps towards a goal and not the goals themselves.

I'd say more, but typing on a tablet is painful.
 
Consumers do hold some burden for just wanting things as cheap as possible.

But with electronics, there really isn't any options. As far as I know they're aren't computers, tablets, cell phones, TVs etc. being made in the US or other first world countries in factories that pay living wages AND care about working conditions etc.

So you either do without, or support companies that definitely have some terrible business practices in the form of sweatshops, low wages to factory workers etc.

Personally, I have a problem with sweatshops and slavish working conditions in them for sure. But it's pretty much impossible to avoid that without missing out on a lot of gadgets that improve my life--so I guess I contribute to that problem.

The lower wages I don't care as much about--I hate that America has lost jobs, but those low wages are generally more than those foreign workers would be making without the factory jobs so that part of it doesn't bother me much.

As economies improve, the sweatshops will close down and move elsewhere. Example: cheap stuff and electronics used to be mostly from Taiwan years ago. That country's economy has improved and most of the factory jobs have left for China and other developing nations.
 
[quote name='IRHari']Ron Paul blames the recession on Wall Street? Not just the CRA and/or Fannie & Freddie?[/QUOTE]

April 18, 2007:

"Explosions in CEO salaries can be a sign of a federal credit bubble, which occurs when Federal Reserve Board-created credit flows into certain sectors such as the stock market or the housing market. Far from being a sign of the health of capitalism, excessive CEO salaries in these areas often signal that a bubble is about to burst. When a bubble bursts, people at the bottom of the economic ladder bear the brunt of the bust."​


November 13, 2000:

"Commercial debt was but $50 billion in 1994 and is now ten times higher now at $551 billion. The money supply is now growing at greater than a 10% rate and the derivatives market, although difficult to calculate, probably exceeds $75 trillion.

...

Our foreign policy, which continues to obligate our support around the world, shows no signs of changing and will contribute to the crisis and possibly our bankruptcy."
February 7, 2001:

"My concerns are threefold: the health of the economy, the potential for war, and the coming social discord. If our problems are ignored, they will further undermine the civil liberties of all Americans. The next decade will be a great challenge to all Americans."

"Boom times built on central-bank credit creation always end in recession or depression ... We must face the fact that the business cycle, with its recurring recessions, wage controls, wealth transfers, and social discord are still with us and will get worse unless there is a fundamental change in economic and monetary policy.
September 6, 2001:

"Paper money helps the strong and hurts the weak before it self-destructs and undermines international trade. The US dollar, with its reserve-currency status, provides a much greater benefit to American citizens than that which occurs in other countries that follow a similar monetary policy. It allows us to export our inflation by buying cheap goods from overseas, while our dollars are then lent back to us to finance our current account deficit. We further benefit from the confidence bestowed on the dollar by our being the economic and military powerhouse of the world, thus postponing the day of reckoning. This permits our extravagant living to last longer than would have otherwise occurred under a gold standard.

Some may argue that a good deal like that shouldn't be denied, but unfortunately the piper must eventually be paid. Inevitably the distortions, such as our current account deficit and foreign debt, will come to an end with more suffering than anyone has anticipated."

"Fiat money has been around for a long time off and on throughout history. But never has the world been so enthralled with the world economy being artificially structured with paper money and with a total rejection of the anchor that gold provided for thousands of years. Let there be no doubt, we live in unprecedented times, and we are just beginning to reap what has been sown the past thirty years. Our government and Federal Reserve officials have grossly underestimated this danger."

"The next recession, from which I'm sure we're already suffering, will be even more pervasive worldwide than the one in the 1930s due to the artificial nature of modern globalism, with world paper money and international agencies deeply involved in the economy of every nation. We have witnessed the current and recent bailouts in Mexico, Argentina, Brazil, Turkey and the Far East. While resisting the market's tendency for correction, faith in government deficits and belief in paper money inflation will surely prolong the coming worldwide crisis."

"Instead of the newly inflated money being directed toward the stock market, it now finds its way into the rapidly expanding real-estate bubble. This, too, will burst as all bubbles do. The Fed, the Congress, or even foreign investors can't prevent the collapse of this bubble, any more than the incestuous Japanese banks were able to keep the Japanese 'miracle' of the 1980s going forever."

"A major problem still remains. Ultimately the market determines all value including all currencies. With the current direction of the dollar certainly downward, the day of reckoning is fast approaching. A weak dollar will prompt dumping of GSE [i.e. Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac] securities before treasuries, despite the Treasury's and the Fed's attempt to equate them with government securities. This will threaten the whole GSE system of finance, because the challenge to the dollar and the GSEs will hit just when the housing market turns down and defaults rise. Also, a major accident can occur in the derivatives markets where Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac are deeply involved in hedging their interest-rate bets. Rising interest rates that are inherent with a weak currency will worsen the crisis.

The weakening dollar will usher in an age of challenge to the whole worldwide financial system. The dollar has been the linchpin of economic activity, and a severe downturn in its value will not go unnoticed and will compound the already weakening economies of the world. More monetary inflation, even if it's a concerted worldwide effort, cannot solve the approaching crisis. The coming crisis will result from fiat money and monetary inflation; therefore, more of the same cannot be the solution."

"The Fed never admits it, and the Congress disregards it out of ignorance, but the serious harm done by artificially low interest rates--leading to mal-investment, overcapacity, excessive debt and speculation causes the distortions that always guarantee the next recession.

Serious problems lie ahead.
If the Fed continues with the same monetary policy of perpetual inflation, and the Congress responds with more spending and regulations, real solutions will be indefinitely delayed."

"A realization that we cannot continue our old ways may well be upon us, and, the inflating, taxing, regulating, and centralized planning programs of the last thirty years must come to an end.
April 28, 1997:

"So in an age when you have tremendous excessive credit, money and credit, you have more speculation. Consumers speculate, they spend too much money, a businessman speculates, invests in things he probably should not, but also governments do the same thing. They spend money that they should not have. But in this area of derivatives, we have things like swaps, futures, and options, repos, and the foreign currency market. Right now there is $20, $21 trillion worth of these derivatives floating around out there outside of the measurement by our conventional money supply, which means that this participates in this huge financial bubble that exists around the world."...

"[T]he time will come, because we will go bankrupt, because no country has ever done this before. No country can live beyond its means endlessly. No country can spend and inflate and destroy its money. There will be this transfer of wealth. It happened in many, many countries in this century ... The middle class suffers the most."
April 28, 1998:

"Stock prices, though, are greatly inflated ... The NASDAQ is now selling at 85 times earning. There is no doubt that most stock prices are grossly inflated and probably represent the greatest financial bubble known in history."

"The basic cause of any financial bubble is the artificial creation of credit by a central bank (in this case our Federal Reserve). Artificially creating credit causes the currency to depreciate in value over time. It is important to understand the predictable economic problems that result from a depreciating currency:

1. In the early stages it is difficult to forecast exactly who will suffer and when.

2. Inflated currency and artificially low interest rates result in mal-investment that produces over capacity in one area or another.

3. Wealth generally transfers from the hands of the middle-class into the hands of the very wealthy.

...

"n the midst of a deep recession, the scapegoats will be found and alien workers will always be a target. The greatest danger in a collapsing financial bubble is that the economic disruptions that follow might lead to political turmoil. Once serious economic problems develop, willingness to sacrifice political liberty is more likely, and the need for a more militant government is too often accepted by the majority."

"Liberals are heedless of the significance of monetary policy and its ill effects on the poor. They have no idea that the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich occurs as a result of monetary policy and serves to hurt the very people they claim to represent."

"With daily pronouncements that inflation is dead, the stage is set for unlimited credit expansion whenever it becomes necessary. Just as deficit spending and massive budgets will continue, we can expect the falling value of the dollar, long term, to further undermine the economic and political stability of this country and the world. Until we accept the free market principle that governments cannot create money out of thin air and that money must represent something of real value, we can anticipate a lot more confiscation of wealth through inflation."
Lots of quotes in the Bush years about empire, etc as well. Bolded parts were from the initial source, I don't have the desire to highlight the points I feel may be most pertinent to the discussion.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']
No? We'll just continue to quote the Federal rate when it makes your argument, but include all the other taxes when it doesn't. Okay then. Sounds fair.

.[/QUOTE]

just so long as we don't talk about the obscene about of money- (as a percentage of the whole) the rich are making...right?

oh and if we add all those other taxes in it would look WORSE for the rich, not better. Ever wonder why conservative talking heads don't bring that point up?
 
[quote name='cochesecochese']Should I even bother starting a new thread or should we just try and turn this one around?[/QUOTE]

I say keep this one going on topic.

For example, the 53% BS is an implicit "argument" that poor people should be taxed more.

Apparently taxed enough already was only for bankers.
 
[quote name='Msut77']I say keep this one going on topic.

For example, the 53% BS is an implicit "argument" that poor people should be taxed more.

Apparently taxed enough already was only for bankers.[/QUOTE]

Not only do I have a hard time talking to conservatives about this point, but I have similar difficulties getting through to them that Cain's tax plan is a really bad idea for most everybody you'll see in every day life.

It's as if they have a "well I'm getting lashed, so they need to get lashed too" mentality.
 
[quote name='5of9']Is anyone on the side of these Bozos? Who the F**k has time to camp out on wall street and protest for 3 weeks? GET A G*D DAMN JOB and get off the streets!.......losers......rassin,frasssin....[/QUOTE]

http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1

On phone, can't paste pretty. Look at the pretty graphs and get a god damn job. If you can find one.
 
[quote name='usickenme']just so long as we don't talk about the obscene about of money- (as a percentage of the whole) the rich are making...right?[/quote]

"obscene amount"?

Come back with these two figures. For whatever year's most recent tax data you can find, what percentage of total income did the "Top 1%" earn and what percentage of total Federal Income taxes did they pay in?
In 2010, according to the IRS, the Top 1% had about 20% of the nation's total AGI. They paid in about 38% of all Federal Income taxes. The bottom 50% had about 13% of the nation's total AGI. They paid in about 3% of all Federal Income taxes.

If you're concerned about the percentage of money they're making, you should look at the percentage of the collected taxes they pay.

oh and if we add all those other taxes in it would look WORSE for the rich, not better. Ever wonder why conservative talking heads don't bring that point up?

You think?
I don't have the data (in fact, I don't think you'll likely to find the data complied anywhere), but a few logical thoughts come to mind. Your "poorest of the poor" likely don't own property (rent., etc.) - and probably don't come anywhere near the amount of property owned by the "Top 1%" - so there's probably a few percentage points there.

Sales taxes? Well, if we're to believe that the poorest of the poor have to spend 100% of what they earn to survive, it's likely a large majority of that is spent on food - which is generally taxed at a lower rate. They're probably not out there buying luxuries that are taxed at the higher rate. So there's a few more points there.

They probably spend more on gas as well. With their Hummers, private jets, etc. There's more money going to the tax man.

I'm guessing their utilities are probably a bit higher too. Takes a lot more to heat/cool those huge mansions vs. the run-down trailer that the "poorest of poor" rent and can't afford to heat. There's some decent size taxes on those utility bills.

Then - this doesn't even take into account the various credits that everyone's entitled to. If you're poor and have a tax liability of $1,000 - then take the credit for having two kids, you end up with a negative tax liability. ("Here, have free money from the government. Don't worry, we'll print more!)

Meanwhile, if you're rich, and, say, have a tax liability of $3 Million, that $2,000 credit isn't going to go very far in dinging your tax liability.
 
The word is "proportion."

As in, a "proportion" of one's income in taxes.

If I can trade 10X my current income (just to enter the top 2% of income earners) for 1.5X the amount of gas tax per year, you think I'd turn that down?

Raw amounts are for suckers. Proportion is where it's at, and where the wealthy have no case.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']The word is "proportion."

As in, a "proportion" of one's income in taxes.

If I can trade 10X my current income (just to enter the top 2% of income earners) for 1.5X the amount of gas tax per year, you think I'd turn that down?

Raw amounts are for suckers. Proportion is where it's at, and where the wealthy have no case.[/QUOTE]

Yeah, because the increased gas tax is the only increased tax/government fee the rich have to pay in.

And proportion... is that like having a 20% proportion of AGI, but footing a nearly 40% proportion of the Federal income tax?
 
[quote name='UncleBob']"obscene amount"?

Come back with these two figures. For whatever year's most recent tax data you can find, what percentage of total income did the "Top 1%" earn and what percentage of total Federal Income taxes did they pay in?
In 2010, according to the IRS, the Top 1% had about 20% of the nation's total AGI. They paid in about 38% of all Federal Income taxes. The bottom 50% had about 13% of the nation's total AGI. They paid in about 3% of all Federal Income taxes.

If you're concerned about the percentage of money they're making, you should look at the percentage of the collected taxes they pay.



You think?
I don't have the data (in fact, I don't think you'll likely to find the data complied anywhere), but a few logical thoughts come to mind. Your "poorest of the poor" likely don't own property (rent., etc.) - and probably don't come anywhere near the amount of property owned by the "Top 1%" - so there's probably a few percentage points there.

Sales taxes? Well, if we're to believe that the poorest of the poor have to spend 100% of what they earn to survive, it's likely a large majority of that is spent on food - which is generally taxed at a lower rate. They're probably not out there buying luxuries that are taxed at the higher rate. So there's a few more points there.

They probably spend more on gas as well. With their Hummers, private jets, etc. There's more money going to the tax man.

I'm guessing their utilities are probably a bit higher too. Takes a lot more to heat/cool those huge mansions vs. the run-down trailer that the "poorest of poor" rent and can't afford to heat. There's some decent size taxes on those utility bills.

Then - this doesn't even take into account the various credits that everyone's entitled to. If you're poor and have a tax liability of $1,000 - then take the credit for having two kids, you end up with a negative tax liability. ("Here, have free money from the government. Don't worry, we'll print more!)

Meanwhile, if you're rich, and, say, have a tax liability of $3 Million, that $2,000 credit isn't going to go very far in dinging your tax liability.[/QUOTE]

Sounds like someone doesn't understand the concept of marginal utility.

Also, income doesn't equal wealth and income doesn't mean wages.

I'd also like to see the source of your figures.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I'd also like to see the source of your figures.[/QUOTE]

There's this thing called Google. If you don't like my figures, go find your own. Just like my original post suggested.
 
Myke, you're also free to provide alternative figures. I'm interested in hearing the explanation as to why someone with 20% of the pie should foot 40% of the bill while someone with 13% of the pie should get by with only 3% of the bill.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']There's this thing called Google. If you don't like my figures, go find your own. Just like my original post suggested.[/QUOTE]
I'm not going to go on a wild google-chase everytime you say something stupid. You told someone to find some numbers and you provided some of your own. If you didn't have a history of highly questionable sources, this woulsn't be an issue. So maybe instead of getting butthurt, you should work on having more reputable sources.

[quote name='UncleBob']Myke, you're also free to provide alternative figures. I'm interested in hearing the explanation as to why someone with 20% of the pie should foot 40% of the bill while someone with 13% of the pie should get by with only 3% of the bill.[/QUOTE]
Let's play with your numbers. First, you said the top 1% made 20% of the AGI in the US in 2010 compared to the lower 50% that made 13%. That would mean that the top 50% made 87% of all AGI. I know you're going to throw out the 53 percenters farce, but that still doesn't change the fact that they made 87% of all the AGI. And since we're playing with percentages on earnings, let's look at how many people in each percentage: top 1% = 1.4 million/bottom 50% 69 million. It's even from a conservative source! http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/

Forbes top 400 have an estimated worth of $1.5 trillion. If those numbers doesn't tell you how fucked the bottom 50% of the population have it, I don't know how else to fucking explain this to you either.



For fun:
half-of-america-has-25-of-the-wealth.jpg

http://www.businessinsider.com/15-c...2010-4#half-of-america-has-25-of-the-wealth-2
 
It isn't just rich have gotten richer. It is that the poor and middle class have gotten poorer. We are basically being strip mined by these creeps and people are starting to wake up to that fact.
 
UB - the fallacy of the "percentage of a percentage" argument is that you have to assume that there is only one money and this small percentage of people have this large percentage of that one money.

It doesn't work that way.

It also removes the reality of the situation entirely. Look from the bottom up for once. If you make $25k a year and buy one gallon of milk and one loaf of bread each week at $3.50 each, that's $364 per year. That is 1.46% of your income devoted to bare necessity. What's the % of your income if you make $250k per year? Well, it's 1/10th so just pop that decimal over and voila it's all of .146%. Now, the higher income folks are supposedly wealthier and make more purchases right? Will they purchase 10x as much bread and milk as someone else? Nah. That's absolutely ridiculous. Do they buy a Bentley every year instead of a Kia Rio every ten years that ends up being held together by duct tape? Nope. They sit on their wealth, which in turn creates a situation where there are less economic transactions at the top and significantly more at the bottom. So the peasants (of which you are one Mr. Blue Shirt) that you hold in such contempt are actually the drivers of the economy. They buy just as much food because they need to eat as much to sustain their human bodies as the fabulously wealthy. Just like you, the guy making 48X your yearly income will only buy one copy of Gears of War 3, because they only need one copy of the game. Now they might buy 8 games a year instead of the 4 or 5 that you may buy, but that isn't some huge economic shift in terms of transactions.

Sales tax! Sales tax is a higher percentage of your income that you pay when your income is lower. That's a very simple reality that you simply can't deny.

These high income and high wealth folks aren't Hank Reardon for god's sake! They aren't heroic. They don't "create" jobs! It's all a myth. Job creation occurs when there is high demand and production needs to meet supply. High demand occurs when money is widely distributed (a lot of people want and are able to purchase Gears of War 3, as opposed to a lot of people want but only 1% of people are able to buy Gears of War 3), which creates production jobs (more money being spread around, the profit motive is still there for the investors and owners) and so on and so forth. I could go all the way down the supply chain rabbit hole if would help. In the end, highly concentrated wealth and/or income is BAD for everyone other than those that have it. Actually, that's in the middle. In the end highly concentrated income and/or wealth is terrible for everyone because there eventually comes a time when there is no demand because the majority can't afford anything and thus falleth the house of cards.
 
[quote name='Msut77']It isn't just rich have gotten richer. It is that the poor and middle class have gotten poorer. We are basically being strip mined by these creeps and people are starting to wake up to that fact.[/QUOTE]

A large portion of those 99%ers are living paycheck to paycheck which is no way for the population of one of the supposedly richest countries in the world to live. The recession is over for the country's wealthiest, the rest of us are all still struggling.
 
This economic depression is not allowed to be a demand-side problem, nasum. It has to be supply-side. Because tax cuts (except for pesky payroll tax cuts for the plebes, as Republicans voted against those this week) lead to companies hiring employees to serve, manufacture, organize, and stock...

...items that consumers aren't buying.

The staunch refusal of supply-siders to recognize even the potential of demand-side problems is why we can not have nice things. The CEO of JP Morgan Chase needs more money in his pocket to buy an aeroplane; we don't need more money to buy a flat-screen tv so that Samsung needs to hire more employees.

Nonsense.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']So... the top 1% control 33.8% of the wealth... and pay nearly 40% of Federal Income Taxes. Proportions.[/QUOTE]
The population of the top 1% is 49 times smaller than the bottom 50%. Which also means that the 1% also controls much more capital, 1.65 times, than the bottom 50%.

Now let's put actual dollars into the equation: 1%=$330,000 and more vs bottom 50%=$33,000 and under. Assuming that both groups are wage earners and not capital gains, the 1% pays about an effective tax rate of 29%($94,000) while the bottom pay 14%($4,500).

The problem with pointing at the top 1% is that when you break that down even further, the top 1% of the 1%(.1%) makes at least $1,900,000(average is $6,200,000) and pays 16.4% of all taxes based on AGI. Which means that 99% of the top 1% pays 17.6% of all taxes based on AGI. The problem is that when we're talking effective tax rates, incomes at the top .1% is no longer taxed based on wages, but capital gains, which is 15% fucking percent. Not to mention that the top .1% controls more wealth

The top .1% can cry me a river and start complaining when we start eating them after they've pushed us to starvation.

I'm not going to analyze this any further when I know I'm going to get a less than half-assed response. And if you can't see the difference in utility between someone making $33,000 and $6,200,000 and assume they should share the same tax burden, then you already know what you can do with yourself.

tax calculator: http://www.moneychimp.com/features/tax_brackets.htm
conservative source on top .1%: http://www.weeklystandard.com/blogs...more-income-tax-bottom-80-percent_594000.html
 
This is actually a very good read:
http://www.dangerousminds.net/comme...ker_explains_what_really_happened_to_america/

first image in article may be a bit risque for the NSFW crowd so I'll spoiler the tex below:
everything behind the tag is work safe, text only

This is a guest editorial from Dangerous Minds reader Em, expanding on some pointed commentary he’s made elsewhere on this blog. Em—who’ll keep his last name to himself, thank you very much—works in the financial industry:
During the 2008 economic crash I was employed by a large British multinational bank and, as a result, watched from abroad as the economy of my home country collapsed. Now that I’m employed by a big US multinational here in the Citi of New York, my opinion about what happened hasn’t really changed. Unfortunately, until the recent Occupy Wall Street protests, it looked as if the right was going to successfully rewrite the story of what caused the US financial collapse by knitting together their usual mishmash of half-baked economic nonsense while the so-called ‘left’ (ie, anyone who didn’t buy into the rapidly solidifying narrative) sat on the sidelines, apparently unable to counter these idiotic and demonstrably false notions. You know the theories: Rich people create jobs, Unions kill competitiveness, and the financial collapse was caused not by too little government intervention, but too much, through the quasi-private Fed. In other words, all the things that seemed directly opposite to what the real causes were (and continue to be) of the US’s fiscal woes.
The reality, of course, is just the opposite of what’s often said, and all you really need to do is take a quick look at the facts.
Put simply, the problem with our current economic situation in the US is that the middle class was effectively de-capitalized starting in the late 1970s and in particular starting with the presidency of Ronald Reagan.
This matters because it’s not the wealthy that create jobs, it’s the middle class. A fact: 65% of all job creation in the US occurs in companies with 50 employees or less. This is clearly not the realm of the ultra-rich, who have no real desire to create another large company. In fact, the idea that cutting the personal taxes of, for instance, the CEO of my company would create more jobs is laughable. Would he use his own money to hire additional employees? The idea just doesn’t make any sense. No, jobs are created by the middle class as they try to become wealthy, but only if the middle class is sufficiently equipped with capital, education, free time and other basics.
One accidental byproduct of the labor movement of the early 20th century was a strong middle class that had access to education and other basic services. More importantly, with Union wages, they now had some excess capital which they bet on countless small opportunities they saw in every sector of the economy. As those businesses developed, they gave rise to the unprecedented economic growth and prosperity of the 1950s and 1960s and, of course, plenty of jobs. A particularly timely example in fact can be seen in the story of Steve Jobs, who came from working class parents and started Apple computers in a garage. All of the jobs created by Jobs at Apple computer were therefore a result of second-generation working class prosperity and capital, combined with a solid education system. That’s the American story, not “give billionaires more money and they’ll make more jobs”.
So what happened to our economy? What caused the fiscal collapse? Simply put, the financial collapse of 2008 was the result of a long-term assault on the working class, particularly in the form of Union Wages. Starting with Ronald Reagan and his sacking of the striking Air Traffic controllers, the US began a long, steady assault on Union power and wages in the US. For instance, in 1983 US Union membership was at around 20%, whereas today it is merely half that. Globalization hasn’t helped, as workers were repeatedly told that their high union wages were causing their jobs to be sent overseas. As a result, through the 90s and into the first decade of the 20th century, the working class had been in effect de-capitalized and prevented from investing in all of those opportunities that working people have always seen out of the corner of their eye, as they shoveled coal, or wired up office buildings, or sold home heating. And because all of those businesses were never started, they therefore never grew into larger businesses thus generating all of those jobs that the businesses of previous generations had created.
Of course, there have been ‘drugs’ administered that allowed us to ignore what was really happening and the vast gaping wound that was developing: One of these drugs was ultra-cheap capital, and as the wealthy (who were already wealthy and didn’t need to create new businesses) looked for places to put their money, Wall Street obligingly created special derivative securities that allowed, theoretically, the true risk to be tamed and (they claimed) packaged, so that the wealthy could invest in the housing market, this latter of course spurred on by the cheap money the Fed was throwing out limousine windows on The Street.
Were it not for the housing bubble, we might have noticed that the economy had been hollowed out and shipped largely overseas. We therefore convinced ourselves that everything was going fine, and that ‘laissez faire’ capitalism was continuing to deliver the goods. This was, of course a lie: This was by no means laissez faire and those most particularly hoodwinked by the shell-game economy thought that the Fed was to blame.
Of course, the Fed was sort of to blame, but the fact was that the Fed was really just overextended, using its special powers to cover the deepening hole in the economy.
You could, of course, argue that all of this was inevitable: With China and the BRIC countries coming on line and driving the cost of manufacturing down to practically nothing, the Unions had to give up their gains or else jobs would have departed the US even more quickly.
That, of course, is also bullshit. An interesting fact: The two European countries with plenty of extra cash, Germany and Sweden, are also the two most unionized countries in the western world. What? Yes: Germany in particular is practically pwnd by its auto worker unions, and the result is a stable and prosperous economy, with plenty of cash left over even after absorbing the economic basket case of East Germany (remember them?). Meanwhile, Mercedez and BMW continue to clobber Detroit, so the problem clearly isn’t too much union power in the US: It’s too little.
Come to think of it, why is it that unionized workers in the US have had to compete with third-world wage slaves working in dangerous factories that belch hideous levels of pollution into the rapidly heating skies? Of course, a truly protectionist trade policy would make US goods uncompetitive and keep us beholden to US factory bosses. But a carefully deployed trade policy that protects US union gains by making the playing field level, that’s what is necessary. In other words, there should be significant tariffs on goods coming into the US that are made in countries that do not have real pollution controls in place, or that subject their workers to inhumane or dangerous working conditions.
So that’s it: The US sold out the middle class in order to benefit a group of extremely wealthy individuals who aren’t equipped to efficiently utilize such high concentrations of capital. The right argues that this is good for business and results in jobs, but the reason this clearly does not work is because the right’s economic theories are based on a revisionist history in which the US unions never existed. The unions did exist in the US, and for a time they were reasonably (though not overly) powerful, and to that same extent we enjoyed a few generations of prosperity that will never return unless we examine the facts carefully and divest ourselves of all of the pseudo-economic theories of the right.
About the author: Em was a founding member (with John Cale and others) of the New York punk band Doppler Effect in the early 1980s. After living in China in the late 80s, Em worked in the physics and electrical engineering space until 2002, at which time he moved into the financial world. In July of 2010, Em returned to the US after living in London for several years. He is a member of the UMOUR art/event collective. He blogs at The Magic Lantern, his"litterbox of the soul.”

Bold emphasis from original if it remains.
 
[quote name='UncleBob']

If you're concerned about the percentage of money they're making, you should look at the percentage of the collected taxes they pay.

[/QUOTE]


are you really a nitwit or do you just play one on the internet. The point is that everyone always focus on percent of taxes paid and ignores percent of income earned (or wealth). Let's show all of the equation not just half. And I know it is not equal but the rich benefit more than the poor- so they should pay more.

The rich pay more in taxes because they make more. It's a good problem to have and no one is in a rush to be poor so they can pay less taxes. (Despite some wealthy folks play the" I'm poor on paper" game to avoid paying.


Now your second assumption is I think is wrong. Very wrong. I found 1 study about the overall tax rates of different incomes for an average family of 3 in 2009. This included all tax (sales, property, payroll, etc.). Obviously a few assumptions were made.

The study was for 51 cities in the US and incomes from 25K to 150K were studied so it is limited. But the results will surprise you. Not me.

On average, the 25K income group paid MORE (as a percentage) in all taxes than the 150K group. 2.9% more. This was true in all but 6 cities. At most the 150k group paid 3% more in Richmond. At most the 25k group paid 7% more in Seattle and few others an 6.9%

http://cfo.dc.gov/cfo/frames.asp?doc=/cfo/lib/cfo/09STUDY.pdf

I doubt this would change at higher income levels but I can't find the data.
 
OWSTeaPartyVenn.jpg


How the 53% movement doesn't see this is just completely beyond me.

FTFA:
...Tea partiers and Occupy Wall Street protestors could vote for different candidates in 2012, fight vociferously about the ideal size of the federal government, and meanwhile cooperate to prevent big business and co-opted bureaucrats from capturing money that could be better spent (on tax cuts or deficit reduction or infrastructure or social welfare benefits, depending on the outcome of another fight). If the United States and the USSR struck mutually beneficial treaty agreements during the 1980s, if the ACLU and the NRA have usefully allied on civil liberties issues, despite their strikingly different donor bases, there is no reason save stubbornness and political immaturity that the Tea Party and Occupy Wall Street can't find areas on which to cooperate. Perhaps the Cato Institute and the Center for American Progress can co-host the summit, and Rand Paul and Dennis Kucinich can co-sponsor the resulting reform legislation.
 
Well, they're upset by the status quo, much like tea partiers. Unlike the tea partiers, however, they've identified the appropriate root causes and solutions to the problems of concentrated power.

So, perhaps you're right after all.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']This economic depression is not allowed to be a demand-side problem, nasum. It has to be supply-side. Because tax cuts (except for pesky payroll tax cuts for the plebes, as Republicans voted against those this week) lead to companies hiring employees to serve, manufacture, organize, and stock...

...items that consumers aren't buying.

The staunch refusal of supply-siders to recognize even the potential of demand-side problems is why we can not have nice things. The CEO of JP Morgan Chase needs more money in his pocket to buy an aeroplane; we don't need more money to buy a flat-screen tv so that Samsung needs to hire more employees.

Nonsense.[/QUOTE]

aNRe5l.jpg
 
I don't really think that's the point he's trying to make. I think he's saying both sides aren't thinking it through entirely or presenting their case completely.

Tea Party makes the Republicans look crazy. I'm guessing come Election Time next year if Occupy Wall Street (or whatever they call it then) will make Democrats look crazy too. Politicians getting behind a protest group is pretty dangerous.
 
[quote name='willardhaven']So Occupy Wall Street protestors are Tea Partiers who can think?[/QUOTE]

Somewhat fair somewhat not. I think that unlike the Tea Party they seem to have the abilty to use common sense and spot some basic problems we as a civilization are having. They can tell something is wrong and they can tell a part of the problem.

Thing is though that even if they are on the right side, by and large they seem to be just as ignorant as the Tea Party people were/are. I have seen so many signs and watched so many interviews with these people were they say stuff like Obama ended the war/reduced the number of troops. They seem like they have enough intelligence to recognize that there is a serious problem, but are completely ignorant of anything other then that banks, the rich and corruption are a big part of the problem.

I am really torn personally. I think we need big protests(much bigger then these too unless they turn violent). I am also very glad there are people fighting this stuff......but unless people start to educate themselves and more importantly REMAIN educated then nothing will change. These protests could have half the nation rioting and congress would basically create a bill, wait for the protestors to calm down and then they would gut the bill.
 
[quote name='KingBroly']I don't really think that's the point he's trying to make. I think he's saying both sides aren't thinking it through entirely or presenting their case completely.

Tea Party makes the Republicans look crazy. I'm guessing come Election Time next year if Occupy Wall Street (or whatever they call it then) will make Democrats look crazy too. Politicians getting behind a protest group is pretty dangerous.[/QUOTE]

I dont think so. I think that most of these people are and will remain normal middle class Americans not saying or doing anything too crazy. That said again they will disperse, fail to educate themselves on policy and the status quo will continue.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']They seem like they have enough intelligence to recognize that there is a serious problem, but are completely ignorant of anything other then that banks, the rich and corruption are a big part of the problem.

I am really torn personally. I think we need big protests(much bigger then these too unless they turn violent). I am also very glad there are people fighting this stuff......but unless people start to educate themselves and more importantly REMAIN educated then nothing will change.[/QUOTE]

I disagree. People in the 50s and 60s weren't too educated but for the most part the middle class had it way better back then.

We don't need to be a nation of policy wonks, we just need to get our priorities back in order. The first step is shining a big light of the excesses and abuses of the uber-rich, I applaud these occupy wall street protesters - they are true American heroes.
 
[quote name='camoor']I disagree. People in the 50s and 60s weren't too educated but for the most part the middle class had it way better back then.

We don't need to be a nation of policy wonks, we just need to get our priorities back in order. The first step is shining a big light of the excesses and abuses of the uber-rich, I applaud these occupy wall street protesters - they are true American heroes.[/QUOTE]

We have cut education time and time again since then. People went from having the TV to distract them to having TV, video games, smart phones, the internet(PORN!), netflix that gives you millions of movies on stream etc etc. People have far more things to distract them these days. Add to the lack of funding of public schools and the number of distractions that people are working longer and harder and then finally put a nice little cherry on top called a generation raised feeling entitled(good ole boomers)and you have a group thats far more ignorant now. O and I forgot gerrymandering and the media dividing our views on everything in to two nice little party lines.

We dont need to be a nation of policy wonks, that is correct. However people used to at least read the paper on the weekend. People wernt wonks, but they had a basic idea of what was going on and how things worked. We have went from the days where people took pride in Democracy and saw it as their duty and their right to inform themselves and vote, to the days where people just feel its an option and thus dont bother.

Like I said goverment could and most likely will announce they are prosecuting some bankers or passing some regulations or something else that will make the protestors happy. They will disperse. Congress will then gut the fuck out of any regulations or the bankers will settle out of court for a slap on the wrist. If these people are as ill educated then as they are today then they will never even realize it happens. It will take years for it to sink in that things are the status quo still and years more for another successful protest to rise up.

Knowledge is what keeps Democracy healthy. Knowledge is power
 
I am just going to throw this out there.

Anyone who bitches about "class warfare":

A) Has no idea what they are talking about.

B) Are admitting there are social classes in this country and therefore lose basically any argument they think are making.
 
I'm fine with it being class warfare, because the phrase indicates that the lower classes, who have been strip-mined of their rights and living standard for 2-3 decades now, has finally discovered just that. And they're standing up to those who have perpetrated it.

So, yeah. It's class warfare. But it's a good damned bit better than class subjugation, which is what those on the right insist upon.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']We have cut education time and time again since then. People went from having the TV to distract them to having TV, video games, smart phones, the internet(PORN!), netflix that gives you millions of movies on stream etc etc. People have far more things to distract them these days. Add to the lack of funding of public schools and the number of distractions that people are working longer and harder and then finally put a nice little cherry on top called a generation raised feeling entitled(good ole boomers)and you have a group thats far more ignorant now. O and I forgot gerrymandering and the media dividing our views on everything in to two nice little party lines.

We dont need to be a nation of policy wonks, that is correct. However people used to at least read the paper on the weekend. People wernt wonks, but they had a basic idea of what was going on and how things worked. We have went from the days where people took pride in Democracy and saw it as their duty and their right to inform themselves and vote, to the days where people just feel its an option and thus dont bother.

Like I said goverment could and most likely will announce they are prosecuting some bankers or passing some regulations or something else that will make the protestors happy. They will disperse. Congress will then gut the fuck out of any regulations or the bankers will settle out of court for a slap on the wrist. If these people are as ill educated then as they are today then they will never even realize it happens. It will take years for it to sink in that things are the status quo still and years more for another successful protest to rise up.

Knowledge is what keeps Democracy healthy. Knowledge is power[/QUOTE]
I disagree because there's more than a little revisionism going on. I'd actually argue that people are actually better educated today than they were 50-60 years ago and that they were just as knowledgeable, for better or worse, as we are now, if you put union sentiment aside. The 50's and 60's, and beyond, were still Very sexist, racist, heterosexist, homophobic, etc. We might have more of a variety of distractions today, but Leave It To Beaver as well as other forms of media were just as manipulative of the cultural narrative. Hell, they had the Beverly Hillbillies shill cigarettes. Things were just a different kind of horrible and more in your face back then.

[quote name='mykevermin']I'm fine with it being class warfare, because the phrase indicates that the lower classes, who have been strip-mined of their rights and living standard for 2-3 decades now, has finally discovered just that. And they're standing up to those who have perpetrated it.

So, yeah. It's class warfare. But it's a good damned bit better than class subjugation, which is what those on the right insist upon.[/QUOTE]
Yeah, I'm also more than ok with calling it class warfare. Although, I think a better analogy than strip-mining would be getting fracked.:lol:
 
I wasnt speaking to those distractions manipulating our views. I was saying that people spend their time more and more on things other then educating themselves. The number of people who read in this country has dropped dramatically, that alone should refute the idea that people today are as educated. People dont read the paper, hell even the local news is "to depressing" for most people.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']I'm fine with it being class warfare, because the phrase indicates that the lower classes, who have been strip-mined of their rights and living standard for 2-3 decades now, has finally discovered just that.[/QUOTE]

And let's note that the 'We are 53%'ers are engaging in class warfare too, pitting the middle class and the poor against the middle class and the poor.
 
So there has been a lot of violent acts and rioting commited at various protests across the globe today.....yet in the last month of the OWS protest iv not seen any reports of protestors here in the US getting violent let alone rioting.

I am not sure what to think about this. On one hand its kind of amusing that the US with its big "rough and tough, we love our guns cowboy" type stereotype has been if anything the most peaceful. I am not really sure what it says about us. It could be taken as a sign of just how passive and brainwashed we all are, or as a sign of genuine respect for our system even if its corrupt.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']I wasnt speaking to those distractions manipulating our views. I was saying that people spend their time more and more on things other then educating themselves. The number of people who read in this country has dropped dramatically, that alone should refute the idea that people today are as educated. People dont read the paper, hell even the local news is "to depressing" for most people.[/QUOTE]
I don't think that reading makes anyone more or less contemplative and introspective or more conscious of the world around them. I'd also wager that shows on tv today have more depth than those of that era. As far as historiagraphy, science, and math go, we objectively more educated than that era. Reading is only one aspect of education. Hell, I read a lot when I was a kid too, but my literature consisted of comicbooks, Herbert's Dune, Anne Rice, and Simmons' Hyperion; not Plato, Socrates, Sun Tsu, Debois, Smith, Zinn, Chomsky, Marx, or any other intellectuals.

I just don't buy it about them being more educated unless you're talking about class consciousness, which is important, but still isn't the be all end all of comparing educational attainment or knowledge. In matter of fact, we're probably more knowlegagble about the atrocities around the world today than even 30 years ago.

I mean I see what you're kinda getting at, but just because people are checking out and not paying as much attention, doesn't mean that they aren't concerned or not knowlegable. What you see as apathy doesn't necessarily translate into ignorance.
 
[quote name='dohdough']I don't think that reading makes anyone more or less contemplative and introspective or more conscious of the world around them. I'd also wager that shows on tv today have more depth than those of that era. As far as historiagraphy, science, and math go, we objectively more educated than that era. Reading is only one aspect of education. Hell, I read a lot when I was a kid too, but my literature consisted of comicbooks, Herbert's Dune, Anne Rice, and Simmons' Hyperion; not Plato, Socrates, Sun Tsu, Debois, Smith, Zinn, Chomsky, Marx, or any other intellectuals.

I just don't buy it about them being more educated unless you're talking about class consciousness, which is important, but still isn't the be all end all of comparing educational attainment or knowledge. In matter of fact, we're probably more knowlegagble about the atrocities around the world today than even 30 years ago.

I mean I see what you're kinda getting at, but just because people are checking out and not paying as much attention, doesn't mean that they aren't concerned or not knowlegable. What you see as apathy doesn't necessarily translate into ignorance.[/QUOTE]

So you think someone that sits around watching dancing with the stars now would be just as informed as someone in the 1940s who instead read the paper every night?

I think your insane if you think that someone in this day and age is as likely to know congress overturned health regulations or increased their taxes as someone from older eras. People now days have no freaking clue of what is going on. Just get out there and talk to people and its abundantly clear that people are ignorant as hell. Christ why the hell do you think most people are against the health care law and think Obama has raised their taxes?

Actually iv been watching the Wonder Years on netflix and I think comparing it to TV today gives a good example of the then vs the now. In the Wonder Years or if you watched old black and white TV from that era what did you see? You saw the dad sitting around reading the paper. At dinner the TV was often on and it always was the news. Nowdays you turn on something and you see the dad sitting and watching football and everyone playing with their damned phones.

Me and you have disagreed on many issues in the past, but this is honestly one where I cant disagree with you strongly enough. Reading is vital, through reading we educate ourselves on issues that effect every facet of our lives. So when people stop reading the newspaper and books in general and instead sit around playing with their phones then it should be be an obvious fact that people can not be as educated now days.

Edit - Also just a quick FYI. When I say educated I often mean informed. I do not purely mean the level of education they obtained as in the level of schooling. I am referring to obtaining knowledge that makes you informed on important issues. THAT is what people no longer do and that is why the Tea Party idiots thought Obama was a socialist and that is why these wall street people think things like Obama reduced the number of troops as President.
 
I think reading can make one more introspective and contemplative.

But there's clear self selection bias as that's really only true for people who read widely, read challenging things, read things from different view points etc. And people who seek out that stuff are already more introspective/contemplative and that's why they seek it out.

Reading simple fiction, comic books, magazines etc. isn't any better than watching sitcoms and reality TV IMO.

And I'm not trying to puff myself up as I mostly read simple fiction like fantasy etc. myself. I spend so much time reading and writing for work I don't have much energy to read challenging stuff in my spare time.
 
[quote name='dmaul1114']I think reading can make one more introspective and contemplative.

But there's clear self selection bias as that's really only true for people who read widely, read challenging things, read things from different view points etc. And people who seek out that stuff are already more introspective/contemplative and that's why they seek it out.

Reading simple fiction, comic books, magazines etc. isn't any better than watching sitcoms and reality TV IMO.

And I'm not trying to puff myself up as I mostly read simple fiction like fantasy etc. myself. I spend so much time reading and writing for work I don't have much energy to read challenging stuff in my spare time.[/QUOTE]

But do you think that someone that sits around watching dancing with the stars and playing Xbox is as well informed as someone that reads the nytimes and reuters on a daily basis?

I agree obviously that if you are reading comic books or fantasy smut(not knocking either, hell im about to go read some Wheel of Time myself)that you are the same as someone that sits and watchs TV. But I cant honestly believe that many people think watching TV, playing games and texting your friends makes you as knowledgeable as reading the paper.
 
[quote name='MSI Magus']So you think someone that sits around watching dancing with the stars now would be just as informed as someone in the 1940s who instead read the paper every night?

I think your insane if you think that someone in this day and age is as likely to know congress overturned health regulations or increased their taxes as someone from older eras. People now days have no freaking clue of what is going on. Just get out there and talk to people and its abundantly clear that people are ignorant as hell. Christ why the hell do you think most people are against the health care law and think Obama has raised their taxes?

Actually iv been watching the Wonder Years on netflix and I think comparing it to TV today gives a good example of the then vs the now. In the Wonder Years or if you watched old black and white TV from that era what did you see? You saw the dad sitting around reading the paper. At dinner the TV was often on and it always was the news. Nowdays you turn on something and you see the dad sitting and watching football and everyone playing with their damned phones.

Me and you have disagreed on many issues in the past, but this is honestly one where I cant disagree with you strongly enough. Reading is vital, through reading we educate ourselves on issues that effect every facet of our lives. So when people stop reading the newspaper and books in general and instead sit around playing with their phones then it should be be an obvious fact that people can not be as educated now days.

Edit - Also just a quick FYI. When I say educated I often mean informed. I do not purely mean the level of education they obtained as in the level of schooling. I am referring to obtaining knowledge that makes you informed on important issues. THAT is what people no longer do and that is why the Tea Party idiots thought Obama was a socialist and that is why these wall street people think things like Obama reduced the number of troops as President.[/QUOTE]
I think you're slightly misinterpreting my argument. Even beyond what I'm saying about awareness of current events and issues, there has always been a carefully constructed narrative that has been perpetuated by the media. Things are seemingly more sensationalized now, but we have to acknowledge that systems of control evolve over time.

In the 40's, the US propoganda machine was just as in full swing as it is today. In the 50's, we had the Red Scare...the 60's had Kennedy and race wars, but the point is how many people were actually educated about those things enough to discuss them or have an informed opinion? If you think that the teabaggers are a bunch of know-nothings that just manifested as a result of being baby-boomers, you couldn't be more wrong. The fact of the matter is that we've always had a very strong rightist know-nothing element in the US and the only thing that changed was the superficial target of their ire.

Do these look familiar?

kingcommunisthighlander-782355.jpg


death-to-all-race-mixers.jpg


schoolintegration5.jpg


edit: tl;dr: Most people have always been dumb no matter the era.
 
I think we are arguing two different things. I understand that there has always been a level of control in the media, but more importantly I understand that many news sources have an agenda.

All I was arguing in my initial post is that if you do not educate yourself on the issues then nothing will change no matter how hard you fight. As I said before these protestors could create a list of a thousand demands and have every last one of them meet......but once dispersed how will they ever know that those changes remain if they just go home and play Halo?
 
bread's done
Back
Top