Stand With The Wall Street Protesters

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

No one has to work. I know a guy, has a tiny little house, rides a scooter, abd makes bamboo sculptures for people. Doesn't work. Then again, there are things that people do for money that don't consider it work.

Yes, and we could all live this way too, but most people choose not to, so they must make money instead.

[elucidate]

I just got back from the city, where they have been staging an "Occupy Melbourne" event there. I didn't know it was on, but I went and had a look and from the outside it looked like a hippie market, with stalls and food and drum sessions...a great big black kewpie doll representing "mutant corporations" which I took photos of, but don't have the cord to transfer it onto here.

Basically, I found the circle where all the intellectual, academic people were sitting and taking turns to talk about why they were here and apart from all the head nodding and hand clapping going on, I got the feeling many people there were very stoned and not really with it. It took them four days just to get to the point where they were discussing why they were actually there, and getting clear about it...so I thought that was a bit funny.

There were a lot of socialists there, and they love to sit around talking about the issues and what's wrong, but very little action.

It's good that people are talking at least and brainstorming, but it didn't have the feel of revolution to me...?

[elucidate]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

Why isn't anyone talking about economic inequality in this thread? Did you know that 1% of the US population holds 40% of the nation's wealth? And that real wages have been dropping since the 1980s?

What happens when money concentrates in the hands of a few? This is basic economics.

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

If you really want to know what's going on, and why this is happening, read that.

Yes, it does seem a bit funny, since that is what the issue really is about.

It seems more like a commentary session as though we were all journalists keeping track of the event and reporting to everyone., and having little squabbles in between info.

[garentee]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

I am not terribly impressed by this statement, because there are all kinds of corporations in the world.

Some sell flowers. Others publish books. Some build homes. Others sell holidays. Some cook food. Some sell gold. Some make clothes. Some sell boats. Some sell Internet subscription packages. Some make chairs. Some sell bottles. Some sell conferences. Some make movies. Some build roads. Some make shoes. Some sell medicines. Some make cooking pots. Some make watches. Some run schools. Some make planes. Some sell pencils. Some make glass. Some build airports. Some make cameras. Some make rubber hoses. Some sell spectacles. Some make bricks. Some sell carpets. Some make chocolates. Some grow fruits. Some make golf clubs. Some sell electrical plugs. Some refine oil. Some make paint. Some sell radios. Some make space rocket parts. Some sell condoms. Some offer bus services. Some operate gyms. Some run hotels. Some sell server space. Some manufacture batteries. Some sell burgers. Some sell beds and mattresses.

I don't think you can make any easy generalisations about corporations inflicting horror on the world.

Do not misunderstand me.. I know that not all corps do harm, I also know that there are many corporations that inflict serious harm on peoples ways of life. I have no problem whatsoever with a corporation that harms no one. My beef is that there are some that cause massive economic,human and environmental damage in order to make a buck. I also have a problem with the apparent marriage of corporations with the government, so that in essence the corporations run the government..The lines are certainly blurred

[Acting Like Godot]

Interesting article. Although I have to say that it is rather misleading in some ways.

For exmaple, it talks about the "top 1%" and then it talks about CEOs.

This is misleading because CEOs do not represent the average person in the top 1% of the population. CEOs are a much rarer species.

Let's put it this way. Suppose the average big corporation in the US (something like American Airlines, or Cargill, or Bank of America, or Caterpillar) has 100,000 employees. The CEO is the top guy, out of 100,000 employees.

So it is much more accurate to say that the CEO represents the top 0.001% of the population, rather than the top 1%. In other words, the CEO category is 1000 times more exclusive than the 1% category.

The average guy in your top 1% is probably just some ordinary doctor or lawyer.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Interesting article. Although I have to say that it is rather misleading in some ways.

For exmaple, it talks about the "top 1%" and then it talks about CEOs.

This is misleading because CEOs do not represent the average person in the top 1% of the population. CEOs are a much rarer species.

Let's put it this way. Suppose the average big corporation in the US (something like American Airlines, or Cargill, or Bank of America, or Caterpillar) has 100,000 employees. The CEO is the top guy, out of 100,000 employees.

So it is much more accurate to say that the CEO represents the top 0.001% of the population, rather than the top 1%. In other words, the CEO category is 1000 times more exclusive than the 1% category.

The average guy in your top 1% is probably just some ordinary doctor or lawyer.

When it comes to wealth, they are the top 1%. Where do you get that they are the top .001? How much money do you think they have? multi millionaires and billionaires are the top 1%.

[Peterw]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Interesting article. Although I have to say that it is rather misleading in some ways.

For exmaple, it talks about the "top 1%" and then it talks about CEOs.

This is misleading because CEOs do not represent the average person in the top 1% of the population. CEOs are a much rarer species.

Let's put it this way. Suppose the average big corporation in the US (something like American Airlines, or Cargill, or Bank of America, or Caterpillar) has 100,000 employees. The CEO is the top guy, out of 100,000 employees.

So it is much more accurate to say that the CEO represents the top 0.001% of the population, rather than the top 1%. In other words, the CEO category is 1000 times more exclusive than the 1% category.

The average guy in your top 1% is probably just some ordinary doctor or lawyer.

So the 1% consists mainly of people who have chosen to work hard, study and do what it takes to get into that 1%?

Doesn't sound too bad to me. It amazes how many of the people protesting are stoned hippies and people who choose not to study and work hard to make a better life for themselves.

I know there are plenty of people who have lost their jobs and/or taken pay cuts because of the recession caused by the crashing of the financial system. I was one of them last year when I couldn't find a contract for nearly 6 months and almost went bankrupt.

I never blamed that situation on anyoine else or expected anyone else to take responsibility for my life situation though. Come December I'll be out of a contract again so I've booked 3 weeks of intensive study and 4 exams so that come January I can go out and get a £500+/day contract.

That's my decision to invest that time and money into developing myself so I can then go out and make a ton of money to plough into my trading business and become financially free.

When I've reached that goal I'm sure there will be plenty of stoned hippy socielists who have chosen to not do anything like that who will believe it 'unfair' that I'm in the situation I'm in.

I chose my path and they chose theirs - no one's forcing anyone down any path. There are jobs and opportunities there for anyone who wants them. I'll get a very good one in January, don't know what it will be yet but I'll get one. I've had nothing given to me and don't want it - just following my plan and working hard to get into the 1%.

If you want that for yourself what's stopping you from making a plan and following it?

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

When it comes to wealth, they are the top 1%. Where do you get that they are the top .001? How much money do you think they have? multi millionaires and billionaires are the top 1%.

Sure, they are in the top 1%.

But within the top 1%, they are the top 0.1%. That is, they are the top 0.1% of the top 1%.

Let me explain that again.

Pick 100 random Americans. The top earner among them can be said to be the top 1%.

Pick 1,000 random Americans. The top earner among these 1,000 people can be said to be the top 0.1%.

Pick 10,000 random Americans. The top earner among these 10,000 people can be said to be the top 0.01%.

Pick 100,000 random Americans. The top earner among these 100,000 people can be said to be the top 0.001%.

Now, if the CEO is the top earner in a company, and the company has 100,000 employees, then he is the top 0.001%.

This is already a stringent way of looking at it, since if you take the 100,000 employees as a proxy of the American population, you are already assuming that there are no unemployed people in the populaton.

If you wanted to include the unemployed folks, the CEO becomes even more "top".

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Sure, they are in the top 1%.

But within the top 1%, they are the top 0.1%. That is, they are the top 0.1% of the top 1%.

Let me explain that again.

Pick 100 random Americans. The top earner among them can be said to be the top 1%.

Pick 1,000 random Americans. The top earner among these 1,000 people can be said to be the top 0.1%.

Pick 10,000 random Americans. The top earner among these 10,000 people can be said to be the top 0.01%.

Pick 100,000 random Americans. The top earner among these 100,000 people can be said to be the top 0.001%.

Now, if the CEO is the top earner in a company, and the company has 100,000 employees, then he is the top 0.001%.

This is already a stringent way of looking at it, since if you take the 100,000 employees as a proxy of the American population, you are already assuming that there are no unemployed people in the populaton.

If you wanted to include the unemployed folks, the CEO becomes even more "top".

Well, every single rich person is the top .0001% of the population. But as far as top 1%, CEO's are not 1% OF the top 1%. i don't know where you are getting your numbers. Yes, out of their employees, they are the top .001%.

Bill Gates is the top .001%. CEO's, are in the 1%, if not somewhere between 1-5% depending on what company they run.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

multi millionaires and billionaires are the top 1%.

Let's be even more precise.

Forbes 2011 says that there are 200 billionaires in the USA. Meanwhile the population of the USA is about 310,000,000.

Therefore billionaires represent about 200 / 310,000,000 of the population. Approximately the top 0.00006%.

Which is much more exclusive than merely being in the top 1%.

[Acting Like Godot]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Bill Gates is the top .001%.

That's not very precise.

If Bill Gates is the richest man in the USA and the U.S population is 310,000,000, then Bill Gates is actually the top

1/310,000,000 x 100%

or the top 0.00000032% of the population.

To say that Bill Gates is in the top 0.001% merely suggests that he is some sort of average CEO ....

instead of CEO of the largest or second largest company (by market capitalisation) in the whole world (not merely the USA).

[Spinoza]

Originally Posted by Criseyde

Why isn't anyone talking about economic inequality in this thread? Did you know that 1% of the US population holds 40% of the nation's wealth? And that real wages have been dropping since the 1980s?

What happens when money concentrates in the hands of a few? This is basic economics.

Who Rules America: Wealth, Income, and Power

If you really want to know what's going on, and why this is happening, read that.

I want to address this; I have done a bit of research in this area. One thing is in general if you look at the top 1% or top 10% the amount of taxes they pay is proportional to the wealth they own. The top 1% pays roughly 35% of income taxes; the top 20% pay roughly 95% of income tax.

The rich get richer and the poor get poorer. The poor can't get any poorer, they have zero or many times a negative net worth. That is unlikely to change anytime soon. Just by inflation of money alone the wealthiest will be getting wealthier over time so of course there will always be a growing discrepancy between them.

Now just for full disclosure, I do believe like Warren Buffet that the super rich do not pay their equitable share of taxes, although you have to look at much finer gradation of wealth to see the discrepancy. It’s the wealthiest top .3% where you start getting into the population (IMHO) that aren't paying their equitable share of taxes.

The next question is what to do about it. Raise the taxes on the top income bracket? Something else? I do have an idea on how to address it but wonder what others think we should do.

Last, is the American dream dead? I know here in the Midwest where I live you can get an absolutely beautiful large house in a well to do community for roughly 180,000. This is the kind of home that people in many other countries would consider to be huge by their standards. Two people making 35,000 a year can afford that kind of home here. Two people without a college degree can work their way up to 35,000 a year. You could work at McDonald's and reach roughly that salary by working your way to store manager over say 10 years. Is it a little tougher to carve out your piece of the American pie now a days? Hell yes. Is it still doable? That’s a big yes as well.

[Spinoza]

I saw a documentary last night that kind of made we want to join the protests. I'm not a huge believer in corporate cronyism but I have to say if half of what was presented in the documentary was true some people in the FDA need to get their asses kicked. It seemed to show clear proof that the drug industry has way to much influence over what government is doing.

Stanislaw Burzynski - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

The documentary was called "Burzynski, Cancer is Serious Business"
"

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by garentee

I think it is very interesting that the people who are belly aching about this movement are people who wrap themselves in the flag and pontificate about the constitution. This is the first amendment at work... people who are voicing their opinion. Freedom of speech.. Weather or not this accomplishes anything is a different story, but I would far sooner have someone voicing their opinions about an injustice then sitting on their hands and silently suffering at the hands of an injustice. That is what victims of abuse do who do not speak up about their experiences.

who are you talking about here exactly?

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

First, I didn't tell YOU to shove it. I said it to your take from the rich give to the poor philosophy. Unless YOU are your comment, then you can't be insulted by it. You can't read intent on the internet, nor do you know me enough to know my intent.

Where exactly am I supposed to shove the philosophy? You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. The point is you can make your points without being vulgar, as you've shown time and again.

Originally Posted by Acting Like Godot

Look, this is a very grandiose-sounding but very empty statement and you know it.

Property is not the source of slavery. The source of slavery is whites going to Afrixa, forcibly capturing blacks and bringing them back to America to work on their cotton fields. I understand that was abolished quite align time back, so what is this talk of slavery all about exactly. I'm sitting right now in my luxurious private property surrounded by assets but I don't see any slaves around.

Property is not the cause of death in the world (unless you are thinking of your own cigarettes when you say "property"). The causes of death vary according to whether it's developed or developing countries we're talking about, but principally the leading causes of death are heart disease, COPD, cancer, HIV complications. Not property.

As for war, in fact the world is a very peaceful place. There are 196 countries in the world, of which, according to Wikipedia, there are only 3 countries with an ongoing military conflict (Sudan, Libya, Syria). So far, the total number of deaths in these three conflicts is about the same average number of Americans who die in car accidents per year. Tragic, but at the same time do note that none of these 3 countries are known to be capitalist or consumerist.

I thought I should clarify that passage since pretty much everyone misinterpreted it. What I am saying is that the concept of property is behind all those horrible things. If you look throughout history you'll understand what I'm saying. The world is mostly peaceful today. Great. Totally irrelevant.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

Where exactly am I supposed to shove the philosophy? You're trying to have your cake and eat it too. The point is you can make your points without being vulgar, as you've shown time and again.


I thought I should clarify that passage since pretty much everyone misinterpreted it. What I am saying is that the concept of property is behind all those horrible things. If you look throughout history you'll understand what I'm saying. The world is mostly peaceful today. Great. Totally irrelevant.

Wait, I thought only I misread what you write?

If pretty much everyone misinterpreted it, then perhaps the majority read it correctly, and you wrote it wrong?

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Peterw

So the 1% consists mainly of people who have chosen to work hard, study and do what it takes to get into that 1%?

Doesn't sound too bad to me. It amazes how many of the people protesting are stoned hippies and people who choose not to study and work hard to make a better life for themselves.

I know there are plenty of people who have lost their jobs and/or taken pay cuts because of the recession caused by the crashing of the financial system. I was one of them last year when I couldn't find a contract for nearly 6 months and almost went bankrupt.

I never blamed that situation on anyoine else or expected anyone else to take responsibility for my life situation though. Come December I'll be out of a contract again so I've booked 3 weeks of intensive study and 4 exams so that come January I can go out and get a £500+/day contract.

That's my decision to invest that time and money into developing myself so I can then go out and make a ton of money to plough into my trading business and become financially free.

When I've reached that goal I'm sure there will be plenty of stoned hippy socielists who have chosen to not do anything like that who will believe it 'unfair' that I'm in the situation I'm in.

I chose my path and they chose theirs - no one's forcing anyone down any path. There are jobs and opportunities there for anyone who wants them. I'll get a very good one in January, don't know what it will be yet but I'll get one. I've had nothing given to me and don't want it - just following my plan and working hard to get into the 1%.

If you want that for yourself what's stopping you from making a plan and following it?

No offense Peter you seem like a nice guy, but your post exemplifies what is wrong with individualistic societies. Everything you've said is true and yet, going by your logic, as long as there's a job for you then there is nothing to worry about. If unemployment rises, inflation rises, tuition fees rise, health insurance fees rise, the price of gas rises, life expectancy falls, levels of education generally fall well we all just have to suck it up and look harder for work and live with less. And when people notice these things happening and protest against them they are ridiculed and called names. As long as people close their eyes to the big picture the wealth disparity will keep on widening, and opportunities for the average individual will keep vanishing.

EDIT: You don't have to stop your life to support them either. You can always go down and check it out for a bit. Give donations or give time. And you can go on with your plan as well.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

Wait, I thought only I misread what you write?

If pretty much everyone misinterpreted it, then perhaps the majority read it correctly, and you wrote it wrong?

Maybe I did! You stand corrected

[Spinoza]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

No offense Peter you seem like a nice guy, but your post exemplifies what is wrong with individualistic societies. Everything you've said is true and yet, going by your logic, as long as there's a job for you then there is nothing to worry about. If unemployment rises, inflation rises, tuition fees rise, health insurance fees rise, the price of gas rises, life expectancy falls, levels of education generally fall well we all just have to suck it up and look harder for work and live with less. And when people notice these things happening and protest against them they are ridiculed and called names. As long as people close their eyes to the big picture the wealth disparity will keep on widening, and opportunities for the average individual will keep vanishing.

EDIT: You don't have to stop your life to support them either. You can always go down and check it out for a bit. Give donations or give time. And you can go on with your plan as well.

No offense, but the some of us are unconvinced that the issue is being caused by 'individualistic societies' or the 'concept of property'. If you said the problem was corruption or abuse of a government regulation then we would be all ears and want to show us where. Instead you need to connect the dots how those two concepts are causing everything you suggest. Because from where I am standing it’s not obvious. Not only that if you really want to convince me tell me what your solution is, with the caveat it needs to be a practical, implementable solution that is equitable to all parties.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Spinoza

No offense, but the some of us are unconvinced that the issue is being caused by 'individualistic societies' or the 'concept of property'. If you said the problem was corruption or abuse of a government regulation then we would be all ears and want to show us where. Instead you need to connect the dots how those two concepts are causing everything you suggest. Because from where I am standing it’s not obvious. Not only that if you really want to convince me tell me what your solution is, with the caveat it needs to be a practical, implementable solution that is equitable to all parties.

The rich have too much, and are getting more and more money, so you need to give more to the poor. DUH.

[Peterw]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

No offense Peter you seem like a nice guy, but your post exemplifies what is wrong with individualistic societies. Everything you've said is true and yet, going by your logic, as long as there's a job for you then there is nothing to worry about. If unemployment rises, inflation rises, tuition fees rise, health insurance fees rise, the price of gas rises, life expectancy falls, levels of education generally fall well we all just have to suck it up and look harder for work and live with less. And when people notice these things happening and protest against them they are ridiculed and called names. As long as people close their eyes to the big picture the wealth disparity will keep on widening, and opportunities for the average individual will keep vanishing.

EDIT: You don't have to stop your life to support them either. You can always go down and check it out for a bit. Give donations or give time. And you can go on with your plan as well.

This is what gets me though - my big picture is different to their big picture. There will be a new contract for me next year because I've invested time money and effort into making myself marketable. The way I see it is that if things are tough then you do what you have to to adapt and survive.

If you want change and aren't happy with your situation then you need to change your big picture. Complaining and expecting other people to do it for you won't get you anywhere.

I've built myself up from nothing and there's nothing to stop anyone doing the same. This is why I have trouble with the complaining/entitlement mentality.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by Peterw

This is what gets me though - my big picture is different to their big picture. There will be a new contract for me next year because I've invested time money and effort into making myself marketable. The way I see it is that if things are tough then you do what you have to to adapt and survive.

If you want change and aren't happy with your situation then you need to change your big picture. Complaining and expecting other people to do it for you won't get you anywhere.

I've built myself up from nothing and there's nothing to stop anyone doing the same. This is why I have trouble with the complaining/entitlement mentality.

I get his point. Like, if you are in a physical competition, and the top people are either freakishly strong, or are using performance enhancers, there is only so much you can do, with out going to the judges and complaining that they shouldn't be able to do that. I get that. He, just has no clear answer as to what to do. The way things are probably should change. While you and I will actually DO stuff to better ourselves, things like government intermingling with business should end. Banks forced to give mortgages to EVERYONE should end. Many things should be changed in our society, even if WE can still manage just fine through out all the situations. Things need to change, but I just don't feel that these protesters are willing to change anything themselves, vs having the government change everything for them. Wallstreet is probably laughing at these people right now.

Why aren't they in front of the white house? Isn't it the government that created all these situations, and aren't they made that business' have control in government? So why can't anyone answer me when I ask " why aren't they protesting government". Oh yeah, that's right, they want governments assistance in their lives, so why would they protest it?

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Spinoza

No offense, but the some of us are unconvinced that the issue is being caused by 'individualistic societies' or the 'concept of property'. If you said the problem was corruption or abuse of a government regulation then we would be all ears and want to show us where. Instead you need to connect the dots how those two concepts are causing everything you suggest. Because from where I am standing it’s not obvious. Not only that if you really want to convince me tell me what your solution is, with the caveat it needs to be a practical, implementable solution that is equitable to all parties.

First of all I'm not certain individualism is the cause of all this. But it certainly facilitates the perpetuation of this growing inequality. Regarding property, I can understand that it's not obvious to you or most everyone. It's just one of those concepts we're all born into and take for granted without questioning. The source of most if not all conflict is the belief that this piece of land or that material over there is ''mine'' not ''yours''. That stems from the belief in property. We wouldn't have fought over land if we just accepted our differences and accepted the land for what it was. We wouldn't be competing against one another if it wasn't for the belief that we should acquire more to be more happy (the pursuit of happiness and the accumulation of wealth go hand-in-hand together in the capitalist mindset). I hope I'm making more sense to you now.

Now when you set your caveat I need to ask you one thing: Is the status quo everything you're asking of my solution? If not then maybe you should take a deeper look at your concern for equality. Personally, I don't believe equality to be a good objective. As long as the concept of property exists. People who have lived in communist societies mostly report on their losses of freedoms and governmental abuses. I believe what is realistic right now is to seek equality of opportunity. Tax the wealthy their fair share first of all and close all the loopholes. Nationalize privately-owned prisons, which are known to have incentives to imprison people, guilty or innocent (see Michael Moore's Capitalism: a love story for more on this). Create incentives for people to start their own small businesses, like tax credits. There needs to be more small businesses as they are the ones who hire people and really help the economy grow.

It's what I have for now. What about you? Do you see the problem being raised? Do you have any solutions to it?

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by Peterw

This is what gets me though - my big picture is different to their big picture. There will be a new contract for me next year because I've invested time money and effort into making myself marketable. The way I see it is that if things are tough then you do what you have to to adapt and survive.

If you want change and aren't happy with your situation then you need to change your big picture. Complaining and expecting other people to do it for you won't get you anywhere.

I've built myself up from nothing and there's nothing to stop anyone doing the same. This is why I have trouble with the complaining/entitlement mentality.

No. The big picture is the big picture. Not mine or yours or theirs. We're thinking in terms of general well-being. I think those people at the protests are trying to change the big picture. And you know who's got an entitlement mentality? Goldman Sachs. They live it and get away with it too.

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

First of all I'm not certain individualism is the cause of all this. But it certainly facilitates the perpetuation of this growing inequality. Regarding property, I can understand that it's not obvious to you or most everyone. It's just one of those concepts we're all born into and take for granted without questioning. The source of most if not all conflict is the belief that this piece of land or that material over there is ''mine'' not ''yours''. That stems from the belief in property. We wouldn't have fought over land if we just accepted our differences and accepted the land for what it was. We wouldn't be competing against one another if it wasn't for the belief that we should acquire more to be more happy (the pursuit of happiness and the accumulation of wealth go hand-in-hand together in the capitalist mindset). I hope I'm making more sense to you now.

Now when you set your caveat I need to ask you one thing: Is the status quo everything you're asking of my solution? If not then maybe you should take a deeper look at your concern for equality. Personally, I don't believe equality to be a good objective. As long as the concept of property exists. People who have lived in communist societies mostly report on their losses of freedoms and governmental abuses. I believe what is realistic right now is to seek equality of opportunity. Tax the wealthy their fair share first of all and close all the loopholes. Nationalize privately-owned prisons, which are known to have incentives to imprison people, guilty or innocent (see Michael Moore's Capitalism: a love story for more on this). Create incentives for people to start their own small businesses, like tax credits. There needs to be more small businesses as they are the ones who hire people and really help the economy grow.

It's what I have for now. What about you? Do you see the problem being raised? Do you have any solutions to it?

Well, as you said, in a communism society, no one owns property, so no one will fight over property, right?

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

I get his point. Like, if you are in a physical competition, and the top people are either freakishly strong, or are using performance enhancers, there is only so much you can do, with out going to the judges and complaining that they shouldn't be able to do that. I get that. He, just has no clear answer as to what to do. The way things are probably should change. While you and I will actually DO stuff to better ourselves, things like government intermingling with business should end. Banks forced to give mortgages to EVERYONE should end. Many things should be changed in our society, even if WE can still manage just fine through out all the situations. Things need to change, but I just don't feel that these protesters are willing to change anything themselves, vs having the government change everything for them. Wallstreet is probably laughing at these people right now.

Why aren't they in front of the white house? Isn't it the government that created all these situations, and aren't they made that business' have control in government? So why can't anyone answer me when I ask " why aren't they protesting government". Oh yeah, that's right, they want governments assistance in their lives, so why would they protest it?

Solipsist touched upon this point. There seems to be a dead angle in a lot of protester's views. Government is absolutely responsible for a large part of this mess. The problem is corruption between governments and certain corporations. This movement is dangerously close to (if not already doing it) ignoring the government's contributions to corruption. Let me tell you that there is a lot of corruption in government where I live. At all levels.

The tea party seemed to address the governmental corruption. And with the mainstream media spinning every story into left/right wing the population is divided and ineffective. The corruption in the corporatocracy continues.

I think they absolutely should head down to Washington as well.

[russianrocket]

Thieves preying on Wall Street protesters - NYPOST.com

Check it out. The part that I liked the most was this gem.

"“I had my Mac stolen -- that was like $5,500. Every night, something else is gone. Last night, our entire [kitchen] budget for the day was stolen, so the first thing I had to do was . . . get the message out to our supporters that we needed food!”


I wish I could afford $5,500 Mac! Talk about wealth inequality.
I guess the protesters now understand the concept of spreading the wealth. Their wealth, is being spread, instead of the other way around. I guess they don't see the irony of complaining about people wanting to take their stuff.

[MariconesUnited]

Maybe they're not just protesting for themselves only?

[russianrocket]

Originally Posted by MariconesUnited

Maybe they're not just protesting for themselves only?

If you can afford a $5500 mac, you are BARELY part of the 99%. You're right up there in the 5% mark if not higher. Doesn't take away from the irony. People who are capable of buying something like that, are intelligent enough to make their own mark on the world instead of protesting.

And some of the anti Semitic rhetoric coming out of there, is just amazing.

The picked a bad time of the year for this tho. No way they will stick it out through winter.

[MariconesUnited]

Originally Posted by russianrocket

If you can afford a $5500 mac, you are BARELY part of the 99%. You're right up there in the 5% mark if not higher. Doesn't take away from the irony. People who are capable of buying something like that, are intelligent enough to make their own mark on the world instead of protesting.

And some of the anti Semitic rhetoric coming out of there, is just amazing.

The picked a bad time of the year for this tho. No way they will stick it out through winter.

I have my doubts about your math, but Warren Buffet is in that 1%. Is that irony as well? I think it's kind of funny that making a mark and protesting are mutually-exclusive concepts in your mind. I can think of tons of people who have protested and made their marks.

Anti-semitism? Ugly. Where?