Wall Street Protests

[Solluna]

http://http://www.guardian.co.uk/com...reet-anonymous

It's the infamous hackers named Anonymous. I wouldn't be surprised if Bank of America is next.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by Cado

Yes, and it's the financial industry that decided to take a lot of risky bets with those mortgages as well as other assets.

Most of those risky bets were in essence mandated by the government. The government made the banks extend their mortgage offers to ever-poorer buyers. Was it a risky bet? Sure. Would the banks have take the bet if an alphabet soup of federal regulators didn't force them to? No. If you go back to the 70's before the government got in the mortgage game in a big way, you'll see that money center and investment banks wanted nothing to do with mortgages because of the risk and their erratic behavior. In 1978 there wasn't a single bank on Wall Street with a mortgage department. Mortgages were almost entirely the domain of thrifts (aka savings and loans). The government moved them into the Wall Street domain and created mortgage bonds as a means of bailing out thrifts that had mismanaged their mortgage portfolios and were going under.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

Way to totally fail to grasp the point. No one's making any lists, and you can withdraw your money any time you want - the banks don't give a ****. But while you're up on that high horse, you might want to consider:

- is your employment financed by a bank?
- is your pay (or other source of income) delivered by a bank?
- is you housing financed by a bank (either now, or at the time of its construction)?
- were you educated in a building built by bonds underwritten by a bank?
- are you posting over internet infrastructure financed by a bank?
- are the clothes you're wearing manufactured by a firm financed by a bank?
- is the food you're eating grown on land or by a firm financed by a bank?

Fact is, if you don't have banks people are un(der)employed, starving, homeless, uneducated, poorly clothed, and certainly not posting on the internet. Which, if you look at the parts of the world where there isn't a strong banking system, is pretty much how the median person lives. Everyone posting on this board, by virtue of being able to post here, owes a MASSIVE debt of gratitude to banking that I suspect many of you fail to grasp.

I and my employer participate in a Federally protected credit union, an institution vastly different from banks such as Citibank, Bank of America and other corporate banks. The Federal protection comes from my own and other citizen's tax money.

I live out of my car and am saving money for a set of polystyrene dome houses (quite affordable without a bank loan in a year or two).

I went to mandatory public education and chose to never pursue a college degree.

I jack public wi fi.

I acquired most of my clothes from used clothing donations. Waste not want not.

I don't buy much food. I forage and garden quite a bit. Didn't need any bank loans to do that. I like to buy at farmer's markets whenever I can.

Now let's address your assertion that I should be on my knees worshiping the banks. After all with such a blase assertion I could say you should be on your knees worshiping 'the farms' as food is integral to life.

I do not worship people who provide me services which may augment my life. I realize we are all part of an interconnected web. We provide services to each other to survive collectively. While certain parts of the collective are more vital and others are useless or even harmful to worship any one organ, especially when it is not working as intended, is silly. I don't worship my brain, or my heart any more than I worship my big toe.

Now let's address your assertion that the debt owed to banks is real and should be augmented with substantial gratitude. The debt is firstly one undertaken by the one who has to pay that debt, the banks hold no responsibility for that they just provide a currency that everyone recognizes as valuable. Why does everyone recognize it as valuable? This isn't because the bankers have some amazing creative power to provide value, such currencies are the manifestation of increasing collective need to trade real value. Where one currency disappears, another reappears due to the manifestation of a collective need for economic connectivity. The value the banks have is not given to the people, it is in fact the exact opposite. The value banks have is given to them by the people who use their paper currency not backed by anything of real value.

It is a modern version of the collective's need for a central locus of power, something to focus on that keeps all the gears turning in sync. When the locus of power gains a mind of its own and decides it wants to live for its own sake, as many banks and the ones benefiting from people indebting themselves to them are doing, the collective suffers and eventually expels the cancerous locus from the collective body.

Same thing that happens when in a Monarchy your King becomes incredibly cruel, ruthless and greedy. The locus of power no longer serves to keep the kingdom running like a well oiled machine, thus it must be replaced. Either by a new King, a new Ideal, a new Religion or a new Central Bank.

Money itself, is more about mass psychology than economics.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Humanity needs a new locus of power, something that is not money, religion, science, primal dominance, nationalism, communism or any of the things we have tried thus far. That is what these protests are about, whether the protesters know it or not.

[ChrisGinsburg]

It does seem rather ignored by the mainstream media. Not that I am in the least bit surprised although I would have thought they could spin the story to make everyone afraid. You know, how each and every news story keeps everyone perpetually shaking in fear.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

I live out of my car...

I went to mandatory public education and chose to never pursue a college degree.

I jack public wi fi.

I acquired most of my clothes from used clothing donations...

I forage...

So pretty much you're a bum. I think it's safe to say our respective philosophies are more than a little responsible for our respective results.

[garentee]

[QUOTE=SnerpGoodWord;989309]So pretty much you're a bum.

No he just is not you.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

So pretty much you're a bum. I think it's safe to say our respective philosophies are more than a little responsible for our respective results.

You are an incredibly stunted and close minded individual. I choose to live the way I do. I bet you didn't even read my full post, you just noticed my lifestyle choices fit your definition of shiftless loser and immediately you decided you are a better person than me. I have absolutely no monetary debts. None. Can you say the same?

As it is the U.S. is a culture which treats its homeless (whether they are by choice or by hardship) with a great deal of disdain and prejudice for little real reason. The homeless are one of the most disrespected groups of people in this country.

You can tell a great deal about a man, or a country, by how they treat those who have nothing to give them.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

I choose to live the way I do.

OK. Lots of people say that. Your description of your lifestyle still suggests you're a bum.

I have absolutely no monetary debts. None. Can you say the same?

Yes. Other than occasionally taking trading positions that have aspects of debt associated with them (for example, being short a T-bond future) I have no debt of any sort.

As it is the U.S. is a culture which treats its homeless (whether they are by choice or by hardship) with a great deal of disdain and prejudice for little real reason. The homeless are one of the most disrespected groups of people in this country.

That's because they're typically societal parasites.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

OK. Lots of people say that. Your description of your lifestyle still suggests you're a bum.

Yes. Other than occasionally taking trading positions that have aspects of debt associated with them (for example, being short a T-bond future) I have no debt of any sort.

That's because they're typically societal parasites.

Tell me how not owning a house makes me a parasite. Explain it, rationally, without using meaningless words like 'bum'. My friends and community all appreciate my existence as far as I am aware. I strive to be a symbiotic member of the ecosystem, rather than follow the parasitic ecosystem destroying lifestyle choices most humans unwittingly make. I am not perfect by any means but I do not see any real parasitic elements in my life.

I do not get welfare, food stamps or any other direct help from the government. I have never even called 911 for police or medical assistance, thankfully.

I explained why bankers and corporations who begin to exploit and denigrate their customers are parasitic and are some of humanity's worst bloodsuckers. I foisted an explanation for my claims, one you failed to read. All you've done so far is called me a 'bum'. An empty word and an arrogant assertion.

I do not want to turn this into a pissing contest, which you seem keen on doing. I refer you to my original explanation of the underlying psychological motivations for the protest. Continue calling me a 'bum', 'parasite' or other base and juvenile insults and I will consider this disagreement over with myself as the victor.

[KaleidoskopicVision]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

That's because they're typically societal parasites.

To say that anything aside from not owning property is typical of the homeless shows a gross ignorance of the diversity and immensity of the group of people whom, for whatever reason, do not own property or have a permanent or semi-permanent residence. To say that parasitic relationships are typical of such a vast group of people is laughable at best and displays an unfortunate ignorance on your part.

No matter one's economic standing, it is what intentions rest within your heart that truly count. A rich man is certainly capable of immensely more parasitic activity than any single penniless person.

The amount of money that goes to supporting the homeless is minute, puny compared to the amount of money spent on imperialist endeavors by the U.S.

What is imperialism? Predation on nations and peoples, resources and land which cannot muster a strong defense. When the predation occurs in excess, it is parasitic. Much of the world's problems stem from this endless hunger for more. I suspect you may be afflicted with this particular hunger, Snerp, which is why I must sound like a blubbering idiot to you.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

Continue calling me a 'bum', 'parasite' or other base and juvenile insults and I will consider this disagreement over with myself as the victor.

I don't really have anything to say about how you live but it's quite interesting to me how almost all discussions on the internet (Including Personal Development) are centered around people trying to be victorious in one way or another. I often wonder what exactly people are trying to 'develop' as they participate here or if they even know what it is they're looking for.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by KaleidoskopicVision

Tell me how not owning a house makes me a parasite. Explain it...

You yourself said you went to public school, and yet based on what you said you don't pay into the public school system directly (via property taxes) or indirectly (via paying rent to someone who pays property taxes).

Similarly, you said you "jack" wi-fi, and at least where I come from "jack" is slang for steal.

You said you get your clothes from donations - presumably those intended to help the truly poor and destitute.

That's three examples of apparently parasitic behavior from one post. Now, it's possible that I mis-understood you on one or more points. It's also possible if I had a bigger window into your life I would find many more examples.

[Shift]

I'm quite pleased to see that KV's life doesn't revolve around money and I admire his way of living. In fact, I think he's doing the world a service.

The bottom line is that most people have far, far more than they need and never even consider the options that KV is living. He's being treated as unpatriotic for NOT spending all of his of money.

The patriotic thing to do would be to live in a house that you can't actually afford, buy an expensive car that will cost you double between gas, repairs, and insurance, buy all of your clothes new so that you can throw them in a landfill a year or two later, acquire basic needs like a cell phone and internet (instead of using the public options, like Starbucks), and above all else, don't explore other options.

I think this conversation is more about being right than about practicality. Referring to someone as a bum for not living the American Dream is sad.

[moonrambler]

Snerp -- surely you're well-spoken enough to make your points without name-calling.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

You said you get your clothes from donations - presumably those intended to help the truly poor and destitute.

Trust me, there is no shortage whatsoever of donated clothing in this country. Thrift shop warehouses have it up to the rafters. They don't even know what to do with it all.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

Trust me, there is no shortage whatsoever of donated clothing in this country. Thrift shop warehouses have it up to the rafters. They don't even know what to do with it all.

That's quite true. My girlfriend worked at Savers for a little bit and people would even donate expensive unused with tag still on clothing, purses etc.

On another tone, the whole parasite argument is the ultimate irony. As a society, culture and as a species we are the most damaging parasite this earth has ever seen. People seemingly become angered when they see homeless or other people more obviously being parasitic because they are unable to confront their own parasitic tendencies within. You can't search for meaning in your life without at some point being confronted with the fact that your existence and participation in the way modern society operates is more detrimental than helpful to life itself.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

Snerp -- surely you're well-spoken enough to make your points without name-calling.

I just call them like I see them. It's not always flattering, but then flattery isn't always appropriate.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

Trust me, there is no shortage whatsoever of donated clothing in this country.

And that speaks highly of the commitment to charity in the US. But most people, when donating clothes, are trying to help someone in need (which I'll define as someone who would like to support themselves, but due to circumstances can't) rather support an intentional drop-out life style.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

I just call them like I see them. It's not always flattering, but then flattery isn't always appropriate.

From the Forum Rules: Exercise good judgment, reasonableness, and mutual respect - This is a community for smart people who share an interest in personal growth, so please treat it as such. Personal attacks and name-calling . . . will not be tolerated. Recognize that there's a human being behind every post, and behave accordingly.

[SnerpGoodWord]

As far as I'm concerned respect is earned, and can be lost.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

As far as I'm concerned respect is earned, and can be lost.

Can you have a discussion with someone whose lifestyle you disagree with, without resorting to name-calling? Or not?

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

Can you have a discussion with someone whose lifestyle you disagree with, without resorting to name-calling? Or not?

Certainly - but such a discussion is impossible to hold without putting accurate labels on the behavior or lifestyle in question. It's a pointless exercise in euphemism to talk about something without naming it. I suppose 'parasite' could be replaced with 'differently contributing' for maximum politically correct surrealism.

[Sbonn]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

And that speaks highly of the commitment to charity in the US. But most people, when donating clothes, are trying to help someone in need (which I'll define as someone who would like to support themselves, but due to circumstances can't) rather support an intentional drop-out life style.

@snerp..... KV very well might be getting clothing donations from people he knows personally. Perhaps he is using the word donation vs. the phrase Hand me down. I feel you are coming to a conclusion without having all the information.

@KV ... I am grateful to read you're willing to take the road less traveled with respect to choosing to live a lifestyle that is in harmony with our environment.

[moonrambler]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

Certainly - but such a discussion is impossible to hold without putting accurate labels on the behavior or lifestyle in question. It's a pointless exercise in euphemism to talk about something without naming it. I suppose 'parasite' could be replaced with 'differently contributing' for maximum politically correct surrealism.

I think it's one thing to point out examples of why you think someone is engaging in parasitic behavior, and quite another thing to announce "you're a bum." Particularly when KV says he works, earns money and does not receive direct government assistance. He also said he jacks "public" wi-fi -- which I assume is the free wi-fi we get in coffee shops and train stations.

Lots of people who went to public school don't pay property taxes or rent. You're calling all of them parasites?

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by Sbonn

@snerp..... KV very well might be getting clothing donations from people he knows personally. Perhaps he is using the word donation vs. the phrase Hand me down. I feel you are coming to a conclusion without having all the information.

It's certainly possible - as I stated in a previous post, I have only the information provided. I tried to respond in an unbiased way, but could certainly have mis-interpreted something - language on the internet is an imprecise thing. For example "jacking" wi-fi might mean using the free wi-fi at the coffee shop, and if so that wouldn't be much of an example of parasitic behavior.

[ZephyrusX]

There is a difference between describing a person's life and blatantly dehumanizing another population. Personally, I find it really offensive that you keep referring to the homeless as parasites - something that is not even human. You keep doing it. It is not just this thread.

It is not a matter of political correctness; it is a matter of treating human beings with respect.

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

Certainly - but such a discussion is impossible to hold without putting accurate labels on the behavior or lifestyle in question. It's a pointless exercise in euphemism to talk about something without naming it. I suppose 'parasite' could be replaced with 'differently contributing' for maximum politically correct surrealism.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by moonrambler

I think it's one thing to point out examples of why you think someone is engaging in parasitic behavior, and quite another thing to announce "you're a bum."

It's seems to be an accurate term to describe someone living out of their car. If 'bum' what you're objecting to I have no problem not using it. It's not a critical piece of the issue I'm getting at which is

1) the debt of gratitude that everyday people owe to banking
and
2) issues of personal contribution

Lots of people who went to public school don't pay property taxes or rent. You're calling all of them parasites?

Seems like it would be a rare situation to me. Most people either own a place to live (and thus pay taxes), or rent one, or have someone in their immediate family doing one of the two for them.

[SnerpGoodWord]

Originally Posted by ZephyrusX

There is a difference between describing a person's life and blatantly dehumanizing another population. Personally, I find it really offensive that you keep referring to the homeless as parasites - something that is not even human.

Read your dictionary:

dictionary.com:
parasite
...
2. a person who receives support, advantage, or the like, from another or others without giving any useful or proper return, as one who lives on the hospitality of others.

I can see how, if one mis-defined the words such that it implied inhuman when the definition is explicitly the opposite, one could be offended

[Sbonn]

Originally Posted by SnerpGoodWord

It's certainly possible - as I stated in a previous post, I have only the information provided. I tried to respond in an unbiased way, but could certainly have mis-interpreted something - language on the internet is an imprecise thing. For example "jacking" wi-fi might mean using the free wi-fi at the coffee shop, and if so that wouldn't be much of an example of parasitic behavior.

I would also like to say that donated clothing could very well be purchased for nominal prices from goodwill and like places and still be considered donated clothing..

Then perhaps a different approach to this exchange between you and KV might be worth considering. You could try asking him questions and allowing him to respond. This would be more constructive and allow for better dialog without judgement.

He owns a car btw: he does pay taxes maybe not in the way you are envisioning taxes should be paid but they are taxes none the less. He works: taxes and SS are coming out of his check.

Last time I checked it is not against the constitution to choose to live in the manner that he has selected. I think it is awesome that he feels free enough in his belief system that he does not need to conform to what society thinks is the correct way to live ones life.