Stand With The Wall Street Protesters

[Acting Like Godot]

There are different ways to determine the "size" of a business, of course.

Eg we can look at total assets (the value of everything it owns), or total revenue (the total amount of money it receives from customers eg in a single year), or market capitalization (total value of all its publicly traded shares). Or in more layman terms, we can consider the number of employees it has, or the number of countries it operates in.

The point is that there is no particular point right before which we say, "Tjis is a small business" and right after which we say, "This is a big corporation". It's just a sliding scale.

It's analogous to trying to define "rich man", "average Joe" and "poor man".

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

I did. To show that employing less people doesn't necessarily turn a big corporation into a small one, as ALG was arguing.

His argument was gong in the direction of less and less and less people. Eventually, you don't have enough people, and it will turn into a small business. His argument is sound.

[garentee]

Came across this opinion piece today.. states it all pretty much on the money... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/op...&smid=fb-share

This country has been bought and sold a long time ago less government will solve nothing.. the corporations are the government..Get the corporations out of the government then maybe it will be somewhat sane around these parts.. until that happens people are going to be getting shafted by corporate monyed interests and lobbyists in DC... Its a very sick system.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by garentee

Came across this opinion piece today.. states it all pretty much on the money... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/op...&smid=fb-share

This country has been bought and sold a long time ago less government will solve nothing.. the corporations are the government..Get the corporations out of the government then maybe it will be somewhat sane around these parts.. until that happens people are going to be getting shafted by corporate monyed interests and lobbyists in DC... Its a very sick system.

I think you are still missing the point. If corporations are in government, then making less government will in effect, take power away from corporations. How is that hard to understand? You can have all the guns you want, but without bullets, they become useless.

[Solipsist]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

I think you are still missing the point. If corporations are in government, then making less government will in effect, take power away from corporations. How is that hard to understand? You can have all the guns you want, but without bullets, they become useless.

Break all the hammers on the guns, I say. That way, you can have all the bullets and all the guns, and still not be able to fire anything, without risking hurting yourself.

[Andrew Gubb]

Originally Posted by garentee

Came across this opinion piece today.. states it all pretty much on the money... http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/10/op...&smid=fb-share.

Really liked this. Really eye opening.

[Gabo]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

In case you missed it, the government forced banks to give out those risky loans. So, as I've said before, it always leads back to the governments incompetence forcing business to do something they don't want to

I agree. This is something the OWS protestors can sympathize with as well, I'm sure. Bad government policy that forces risky lending causes market bubbles, which end up hurting the middle class most when they burst.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

In case you didn't realize:

(1) many banks did not receive any bailout at all and have already died (Lehman Brothers and Bear Stearns being two prominent examples, but certainly not the only examples)

That's good, they should fail for making such poor decisions. Unfortunately, many failing banks were bought out by the big banks that received bailout money, and now we have a very small number of still irresponsible banks that the government claims are "too big to fail".

(2) Basel 3 has already been rolled out, and will take effect by 1st January 2013, so how to act irresponsibly?

Basel III is like putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound. It is a marginal increase in the amount of capital banks are required to hold, but that isn't going to prevent poor lending decisions.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

I think you are still missing the point. If corporations are in government, then making less government will in effect, take power away from corporations. How is that hard to understand? You can have all the guns you want, but without bullets, they become useless.

What do you mean by making less government? Having less elected representatives? Wouldn't that just concentrate the power those individuals hold? Wouldn't that in turn make those corporations who influence those people effectively more powerful?

And how do you propose making less government anyway? According to the Tea party, the solution is to elect a republican. The last time the nation did that (Bush jr.), the debt blew up and military intervention(government funded) flew through the roof.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

What do you mean by making less government? Having less elected representatives? Wouldn't that just concentrate the power those individuals hold? Wouldn't that in turn make those corporations who influence those people effectively more powerful?

And how do you propose making less government anyway? According to the Tea party, the solution is to elect a republican. The last time the nation did that (Bush jr.), the debt blew up and military intervention(government funded) flew through the roof.

Less government, as in less power. Having less responsibility put on them. Ending programs that are going bankrupt and allow private sector to take care of it. I can go on and on, as there are a lot of things the government is handling, that they should not be. The less there is to do, then the less elected officials they are going to need. So while the power will be concentrated, there will be less of it to wield. The government shouldn't be allowed to give out subsidies or bailouts. I just killed off half the power business' have in government, and they won't need to hire lobbyist, and they can either make it or break it on their own. The last time the nation elected a republican, we had a terrorist attack. That kinda changed things up a bit, and people had no idea what to do. They handled it poorly. A democrat wouldn't have done any better, and would have been run out of office for doing it anything different. Because, Americans love their justice, and can't look far enough ahead.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by Gabo

That's good, they should fail for making such poor decisions. Unfortunately, many failing banks were bought out by the big banks that received bailout money, and now we have a very small number of still irresponsible banks that the government claims are "too big to fail".

I could be wring, but as far as I can see, in the U.S there is only one Big Bank that hasn't repaid its bailout money (Citicorp). As far as I know, Citi never bought out any failing bank either. Let me know if you know otherwise.

If I am correct, "Occupy Wall Street" may as well become "Occupy Citicorp".

Basel III is like putting a bandaid on a gunshot wound. It is a marginal increase in the amount of capital banks are required to hold, but that isn't going to prevent poor lending decisions.

That argument is passé, Gabo. The last time I looked, U.S banks were criticized for NOT lending out money.

Seems like U.S banks are in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If they lend, they are accused of making bad lending decisions, and if they don't lend, they are accused of not lending.

[SatvikBeri]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I could be wring, but as far as I can see, in the U.S there is only one Big Bank that hasn't repaid its bailout money (Citicorp). As far as I know, Citi never bought out any failing bank either. Let me know if you know otherwise.

If I am correct, "Occupy Wall Street" may as well become "Occupy Citicorp".




That argument is passé, Gabo. The last time I looked, U.S banks were criticized for NOT lending out money.

Seems like U.S banks are in a "damned if you do, damned if you don't" situation. If they lend, they are accused of making bad lending decisions, and if they don't lend, they are accused of not lending.

Citibank paid off its loans in late 2010 (I was there at the time, it was rather big news :P). To be precise, the US government sold their Citi stock for a total of $12bn profit on their $45bn investment.

On the other hand the government also guaranteed about $300bn of citibank assets-I have no idea what happened to those.

[garentee]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

I think you are still missing the point. If corporations are in government, then making less government will in effect, take power away from corporations. How is that hard to understand? You can have all the guns you want, but without bullets, they become useless.

As long as the government makes the laws, and corporations are in bed with the government the laws that are made will benefit the larger corporations..Certainly you are not expecting to eliminate law making from governments role are you? The answer is to not allow the corporations any ability to shape policy that will suit their needs..

[Acting Like Godot]

That all depends.

In the history of Thailand, we have ex-Prime Minister Thaksin, who gained power by constantly looking out for the farmers in the rural south. No big corporations there. The farmers all voted for him, and he became Prime Minister.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Less government, as in less power. Having less responsibility put on them. Ending programs that are going bankrupt and allow private sector to take care of it. I can go on and on, as there are a lot of things the government is handling, that they should not be. The less there is to do, then the less elected officials they are going to need. So while the power will be concentrated, there will be less of it to wield. The government shouldn't be allowed to give out subsidies or bailouts. I just killed off half the power business' have in government, and they won't need to hire lobbyist, and they can either make it or break it on their own. The last time the nation elected a republican, we had a terrorist attack. That kinda changed things up a bit, and people had no idea what to do. They handled it poorly. A democrat wouldn't have done any better, and would have been run out of office for doing it anything different. Because, Americans love their justice, and can't look far enough ahead.

It's fun saying ''I just killed off half the power the business has over government'' in writing. But what about real life? You said it yourself, a democrat wouldn't have done any better. So you can't reduce the size of government no matter who you vote for. Which is my point.

[pjhaggerty]

So, everybody here. Do you think the OWS protests will get bigger or will they go away?

I personally think bigger, but am curious to hear what you have to say.

[ChrisGinsburg]

Originally Posted by pjhaggerty

So, everybody here. Do you think the OWS protests will get bigger or will they go away?

I personally think bigger, but am curious to hear what you have to say.

They might get bigger but they seem to be losing steam. Not in the sense that people can't hack it or that people won't participate. More in that their message still seems like just an ideal to most who hear about it. There's still too many vague concepts and finger pointing going around. Then again, I may just not be keeping up with it well enough.

[pjhaggerty]

Originally Posted by ChrisGinsburg

They might get bigger but they seem to be losing steam. Not in the sense that people can't hack it or that people won't participate. More in that their message still seems like just an ideal to most who hear about it. There's still too many vague concepts and finger pointing going around. Then again, I may just not be keeping up with it well enough.

I actually think that's one of their strengths- without a really crystal clear message they are able to appeal to a wide range of people and incorporate them into the movement. I think it is better for them if they actively resist getting tied down to a specific message for now.

[Asmoday]

Originally Posted by Brutha

That's false.
Small business increased the amount of people that it employs in the last years while big business reduced the number of people that they employed.
Small business doesn't have the power to lobby the government to write law that help the business.

MBA-run publically traded companies act differently than owner-run businesses.

Finally, a statement of reason.

As someone who is...very involved with this movement, to say the least, and more importantly has been to four Occupy's in the last month, I'd like to set the record straight with one singular fact:

This is not a liberal or socialist movement.

Sure, SOME people down there are socialist, and many are liberal, buuuut...

I, and We, are not anti-Captialist. I am very pro-Capitalist. This is a movement against elite capture of the Republic, whereby the markets are siezed and distorted and turned into Crony Capitalism.

Period. Point blank. The media is and has been lying this entire time. And, its a subtle lie by omission -- they're picking and choosing who they interview, and who they show you on the nightly news.

Why? Because the 1% put bread on their table, and wanted to split this into left-right paradigm quickly, in a vain attempt to hinder it from becoming populist.

They're trying to lasso it and rein it in, slaving it to the system, just like they did with the Tea Party -- except tethering it to the left instead of the right.

That guys and gals, is the eyes-on, direct truth.

So yeah, straight from my little Occupy protestor mouth: Small business is pure, distilled, awesome.

[Bliss Sage]

Rein it in?
It's gone global now .

BBC News - 'Occupy' protests at financial crisis go worldwide

'Occupy Wall Street' protests go global - Asia-Pacific - Al Jazeera English

And at least on the Al Jazeera link above, you can see a map of all the places in the U.S. the protests have spread to. And it started just in one place. And now it's spreading to other countries. It's a snowball rolling out of control .

And I think this all began with the Tunisian who lit himself on fire last December. There is a tidal wave sweeping the globe. Amazing .

[Acting Like Godot]

It really did start with the various protests in many Middle Eastern countries earlier this year. Inspired the idea. Protesting on the streets is like the in-thing now.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

It really did start with the various protests in many Middle Eastern countries earlier this year. Inspired the idea. Protesting on the streets is like the in-thing now.

This is interesting to me, as Australia has always had street protests. For some of these middle eastern countries though, like Egypt, it's new territory and that sense of freedom for the protesters must be great. It's a good catharsis for them if nothing else.

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Protesting on the streets is like the in-thing now.

And that's what makes it a little suspicious, looks like staged, maybe it only happens in the media?

A good indicator for events that only happen in the media is to have a very close look at the images they pass around. If they speak of thousands of protesters and all the pictures you see show not more than 10 people, then ...

And most pictures are photoshopped anyway. Sometimes so badly that it's already embarrassing, like that fukushima thingy.

Same with videos and 'live broadcasts'. You can just fake anything.

Just have a look at this to get an idea: Stargate Studios Virtual Backlot Reel 2009 - YouTube

[russianrocket]

"The bankers have much to answer for, but these people aren’t even smart enough to ask the questions."

[Reefs]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

"The bankers have much to answer for, but these people aren’t even smart enough to ask the questions."

There is no responsibility to other people. There might be temporary agreements, but it's just not natural to nail your foot to the floor for the sake of others.

[Acting Like Godot]

Apparently there was an attempt to organise a similar event in my country (Singapore) too.

At first I thought it was a bit silly because the area they planned to occupy is so crowded on weekdays that it looks perpetually "occupied" anyway.

Then it appeared that the organisers realised it too. So they changed their plans and said that they would do the occupation on a Saturday instead.

The problem is that the same area becomes a ghost town on Saturdays and Sundays and no one will be there to pay any attention to the protest except the protestors themselves.

So anyway, interestingly enough, the event here in Singapore has nothing to do with the banks at all. People here trust their banks.

Instead the protestors plan to protest against our two sovereign wealth funds (yep, the same two giants that sought to take over Citibank and Merrill Lynch during the 2008 financial crisis).

This kinda tells me that people are protesting for all kinds of different stuff. It's just fashionable to go and Occupy someplace, anyplace, to make a statement about your unhappiness. And your unhappiness, well, it could be about anything ..... This whole "Occupy ______" movement lacks any real consistency or theme.

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

This kinda tells me that people are protesting for all kinds of different stuff. It's just fashionable to go and Occupy someplace, anyplace, to make a statement about your unhappiness. And your unhappiness, well, it could be about anything ..... This whole "Occupy ______" movement lacks any real consistency or theme.

Some professional protestors have had horribly abusive childhoods, and for them it is a way of channeling their anger and rage at their abusers. I'm not saying that is the case for all the people taking part in these protests, or any other protests for that matter, but I'm just saying that many people become professional protestors as a way of channeling their anger at their past abusers. That's not to say they aren't also angry at the issue at hand, whatever it is,but I think there will always be a certain level of just general catharting that goes on at protests.

It's an opportunity to express anger in a socially acceptable context, surrounded by loads of other people also expressing their anger.

[Reefs]

When those 'movement' stories occupy the headlines, what falls into the background? Usually it's some bad news about the economy. Are there any important business reports or announcements scheduled for October? Any investigations that are better done below the radar?

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Reefs

When those 'movement' stories occupy the headlines, what falls into the background? Usually it's some bad news about the economy. Are there any important business reports or announcements scheduled for October? Any investigations that are better done below the radar?

Good point.

These things can often be used as a 'distraction' from other stuff that may be going on behind the scenes.

[OptimistPrime]

Originally Posted by pjhaggerty

So, everybody here. Do you think the OWS protests will get bigger or will they go away?

Hmmm, I see that they've occupied Times Square.

I'd say that they'll get bigger before they get smaller. I wonder what will happen when winter sets in, though. Then again, I suppose it's always decent camping weather somewhere in the world. (Or in the U.S., for that matter.)

[Acting Like Godot]

Hey I just read the local newspaper on "Occupy Raffles Place". Raffles Place is the heart of Singapore's financial district. Apparently the protest was supposed to be held yesterday.

About 20 protesters showed up. They left after a few hours when it became evident that nobody was interested in them.

As I said, Raffles Place is a ghost town on weekends. They're lucky if they can get a burger after 5 pm, LOL.