FREIGHTYONE Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Yeah i don't think that was a CEO. Yeah, you're right. I'm pretty sure she's some sort of some sort of regional management. I sometimes like to over sensationalize things. pieinmyface.jpeg carry on. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
christo-f Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 this captures pretty well how i feel about cops. i'm a combat vet, and i understand what it means to itch for shit to 'go off' and to 'get some.' but these guys are itching for it to get real with civilians, not criminals. frustrating. I'm not sure that screaming and yelling stuff at them really equates to attempting to reason. Not supporting the cops (still haven't seen the footage of what happened and prob won't bother to watch as it's the same old story) and it's fun to watch cops come up against soldiers, they are NOT fans of that! But to me this didn't constitute "reasoning". From a professional perspective, as in crowd control, de-escalation, etc. the cops actually handled it well. Guess a healthy dose of fear and a few cameras work to keep cops chilled! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Yeah, you're right. I'm pretty sure she's some sort of some sort of regional management. I sometimes like to over sensationalize things. pieinmyface.jpeg carry on. Going door to door to give small businesses a howdy-do, is something the branch manager of a small bank would do. They tend do be cordial like that and dress nicely. I'm not sure that screaming and yelling stuff at them really equates to attempting to reason. Not supporting the cops (still haven't seen the footage of what happened and prob won't bother to watch as it's the same old story) and it's fun to watch cops come up against soldiers, they are NOT fans of that! But to me this didn't constitute "reasoning". From a professional perspective, as in crowd control, de-escalation, etc. the cops actually handled it well. Guess a healthy dose of fear and a few cameras work to keep cops chilled! I just laughed when you see the geared up riot squad sneaking up in the background when Sarge turns around and shouts "What the fuck do you think you're doing? This isn't a war zone." I don't see what the cops handled. There wasn't anything going on except a bunch of people standing around. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 he says he's frustrated with acts that took place before the video--cops were aggressively pulling and pushing people to force the direction of the crowd. perhaps "reasoning" wasn't the proper term, but it was at least a 'calling-on-their-shit' move which i appreciate. as i said in the ch0 occupy thread, his anger is justified whether he just witnessed violence moments before OR he has seen any of the footage of excessive police force that has taken place--the beatings, the running-over-with-scooters, the pepper spraying, etc. this is not a riot, it has been constitutionally protected freedoms of speech and assembly, the police actions have been mostly good, surprisingly, but there are obviously several incidents of excess which we should all be concerned about. to the list: #10. forgiveness of college debt: I don't know if i agree with this, it sounds nice to be debt free, but we took the debt on knowing it would follow us, I don't have an answer, just don't think this is it. #17. Consumer Financial Protection Bureau: I don't know enough about economics to get the long term affects of this, if anyone could clarify for me I'd appreciate. #18. foreclosure task force: this would have to be such a massive group, It would take years and years and likely billions to investigate all the cases. perhaps an application system from foreclosing individuals would streamline the process. overall I agree with most of it and would love to see any elected official take it and do something with it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shai Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 So here's some pics of Occupy Oakland...they're in no particular order. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shai Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shai Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup Posted October 19, 2011 Share Posted October 19, 2011 I really feel like the foreclosure situation is being handled at the best of the Attourney Generals' abilities. There's also a hundred private law firms that are suing banks for investors that originally bought the Mortgage-backed securities, and the people who own the mortgages. How's #16 different than whats already going on? Probably isn't. Definitely not for college students/grads being allowed to default on debt, Loans or credit cards. You bought the ticket you take the ride. Being allowed to defer while you can't find a job, ok. But its not fair either if you're collecting unemployment after you quit your current job because you realized you would actually be taking more money home if you didn't work and didn't have to pay your loans. There's gotta be a solution to that without leaving a college graduate with nothing. #17: The CFPB already exists. http://www.consumerfinance.gov/ It's basically trying to educate the dumbasses who have loans but don't understand how interest works, or are trying to buy unnecessary shit. My main concerns are: Social Security reform —***When Social Security sucks up 12% of our GDP in the next twenty years, AND continues to rise for the next generation, how do we make S.S. sustainable? HealthCare reform doesn't do much good if people are becoming sicker and sicker and paying more and more for healthcare because the world we live in is more and more toxic. Public Education should start at a Preschool level. Science has proven through various studies that the most important lessons a person can learn, such as compromise, anger/stress management, listening to/work well with others, are all things taught in preschool. After preschool its generally too late. There also needs to be a reform at a teacher's union and school district level so that good teachers are rewarded, and not just making their students "tuned for the test." I also think there should be a something regulating the prices of things, so nothing is artificially priced higher or lower than its market value. If something pollutes, but the cost of cleaning up that pollutant isn't included, it should be in the original cost of that item. Junk Food should have a tax on it that pays into medicare so when poor people get sick because of the shit they eat, they're at least covered. And we need to make DRASTIC policy changes to help alternative energy along. By 2030, if things go the way they're going, even as more car makers make more electric cars, EV's will only make up about 3% of the total cars on the road. If we start implementing solar, wind, geothermal, and more nuclear power, at MOST we'll cut our hydrocarbon usage by 10-20%. People are hoping to cut hydrocarbon use in half but that's not going to happen unless some geniuses get together and solve the problem. I do like the idea of giving people a male and female delegate. It ends that stupid rant about "oh lets have a woman this time!" I don't like every congressional district getting their own pair of delegates. If every vote is meant to be counted equally, why aren't there delegates per capita? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup forgot his password Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Not a free trade market you dunce cap. The cost of materials and time of all the things it takes to bring a horse to market, and the cost of materials and time to properly dispose of all waste thereafter. It would force companies like BP to invest heavily in cleaning technologies of oil spills, atmospheric carbon, etc. there needs to be a group of economists that set the prices of goods and services based on something more long term and lasting than trending consumerism. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup forgot his password Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 The other thing of mention regarding the toxic assets aka mortgage backed securities aka cdo's, is that the reason the housing market tanked so hard was because it was fueled by this decade or two of house trader, house flipping bullshit. You saw it on tv with shows on E dedicated to flipping houses. People were taking loans out on 2nd 3rd and 4th homes because they thought they were good investments. And they thought they were good investments because other people were buying them up too. These new houses didn't serve any function except as glorified rocks that people thought were worth something. Shockingly you see the exact same thing with the skyrocketing price of gold. There were also giant rings of people, especially in florida, who would buy a house with one mortgage, then flip the house to someone for $200000 more, pay for it with another mortgage and split the "profit." they would keep doing this for a few years until they got bored, defaulted on some insane mortgage and get caught for being stupid. What's even more disturbing about all the cdo's was that they by and large were bonds bought by your average joe shmoe who trusted the market with their life savings. And one of the banks that was by and large putting these cdo's together was the uk bank rbc (if I'm getting that acronym correct) 80% of which is owned by the British taxpayers. So if joe shmoe sues rbc for forging documents somewhere in their 5000 page toxic asset and wins, guess who's paying joe? The British taxpayers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I wouldnt say the problem was lying with the banks like RBS who held bad toxic assets, it was the investment arms of the banks that caused the problem by basically creating toxic cdos and selling them like they are going to make money on them, not to mention then betting against those cdos and also taking out huge insurance risk against those bad investment portfolios. Having watched a load of documentaries on the free market recently (loads of milton friedman and others) and nothing I have watched gives me any faith in the free market. The arguements for it benefitting people just seem pathetic, like benefitting people because they can get cheap technology but can't get a job because the free market goes where the labour is cheap. But I dont care so much about that, but financial services should be a heavily regulated business. Investment banks shouldnt be able to bet against investments they have sold as good investments failing becuae that is just a huge conflict of interest. No one benefits from a free financial market apart from the banks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 /\/\/\and the politicians. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 true Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shai Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 Yo Shai What am I looking at here? Something my friend Monica built. Unfortunately it got torn down a couple days ago before I got a chance to repaint it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 I wouldnt say the problem was lying with the banks like RBS who held bad toxic assets, it was the investment arms of the banks that caused the problem by basically creating toxic cdos and selling them like they are going to make money on them, not to mention then betting against those cdos and also taking out huge insurance risk against those bad investment portfolios. Having watched a load of documentaries on the free market recently (loads of milton friedman and others) and nothing I have watched gives me any faith in the free market. The arguements for it benefitting people just seem pathetic, like benefitting people because they can get cheap technology but can't get a job because the free market goes where the labour is cheap. But I dont care so much about that, but financial services should be a heavily regulated business. Investment banks shouldnt be able to bet against investments they have sold as good investments failing becuae that is just a huge conflict of interest. No one benefits from a free financial market apart from the banks. But RBS did create many of them. THat's the problem. Another great TAL ep. http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/418/toxie Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Decyferon Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 yea sorry I mean it wasnt just them it was all the investment wings of the banks doing it, the bloke that was running RBS at the time was a cunt, I know because I worked there at the time (insurance not banking) and when he visited we weren't allowed any personal stuff (pictures of our kids etc) at our desks and we were told if we see him not to address him unless he addressed us first like he was the fucking queen or something. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 i'm reading "THE BIG SHORT" by michael lewis right now, its a pretty in depth, yet easily read, look into the history of the economic collapse. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup Posted October 20, 2011 Share Posted October 20, 2011 haha then why call it a 'market' value? Now you're on some Orwellian shit. Anyway, you're conflating issues. It sounds like you want two things; a 'fair' price based on the cost of production, and a way to price environmental externalities associated with production. Well firstly I can tell you that efforts to achieve a 'fair' price have historically caused exactly the opposite; prices go up, quality goes down. Secondly I would like to say that any price you or anyone else comes up with to value these externalities would be as arbitrary as the notion of a 'fair' price. The reason people talk about market values is because the market is the only mechanism that can accurately value anything. If you want to legislate in order to price environmental damage, this might be called an imposed legislative value, but it would certainly not be a market value. tdlr; lrn 2 regulatory paradox. Wrong wrong wrong. Fair price is LESS arbitrary and volatile than a free market. Look at the difference between a $1 tomato from Florida and a $4 organic tomato grown locally. If you're an investor you may want whatever tomato posts higher profits faster, which would be the $1 tomato grown in florida that uses highly genetically modified tomatoes that grow in sand into these green, apple-hard tomatoes that can be transported anywhere. They utilize migrant slave labor to keep overhead low, they grow year-round, and have contracts with grocery stores in the winter, and fast-food chains year-round, so there's always a market for them. There's many issues with these tomatoes, first of all their growing methods are completely unsustainable: They're reliant on petroleum-based fertilizer, slave labor, fast food chains and uneducated consumers. These tomatoes also have almost no nutritional value. So when you think you're biting into a tomato, you're just eating carbs. The problem with that is health risks go up because the food we eat can't sustain life. So that investor isn't taking into consideration that the extra profits he's making off these $1 tomatoes are just going to paying for the rising cost of healthcare, the cost of state attorneys who have to investigate the violations of human rights, and the probability that these companies they're investing in will be shut down, or at least fined millions of dollars. Compare that with the $4 organic tomato. Instead of using petroleum based fertilizer it does its own compost. Instead of migrant workers it enlists volunteers within the community. Instead of no nutrients and causing cancer, it has tons of nutrients which fight cancer. The only "arbitrary externalities" are the weather or a worker calling in sick. The profits may be lower too but think of the money you're not spending on health bills or federal lawsuits. The issue isn't that there isn't enough transparency in a free market. The issue is that there CAN'T be transparency in a free market. Its way too connected and confusing for 99% of investors. No car company is going to make sales by telling their stock holders "This car is so reliable and well-built, consumers are likely NOT to buy another car for the next twenty years." Look at gold right now. You know what I see when i look at that? A bubble. Gold quadrupling in less than ten years, and doubling in less than two? Thats what the housing market did. Those prices aren't based on an increased practical use for gold. Its based on people being fucking idiots. Buying gold and houses are the equivalent of spending your life's savings on some football team's merchandise because you expect them to go to the Super Bowl this year. But you can't sell gold by saying you're just as well off with some 49er jerseys. You have make the great sell. What we need is a group of economists from macroeconomics, agrieconomics, etc deciding the fair, functional, pragmatic value of things. The companies that have the most sustainable manufacturing methods (IE the companies that consider deconstruction, reconstruction, and waste management as importantly as construction) will be the most valuable to investors. One more example: What you have here is a recent satellite photo of one of the great lakes. All that green stuff is toxic algae thats basically killed the ecosystem of an entire great lake. Green means no fishing, no fish, no oxygen even being produced. All that grey stuff is agricultural runoff. This isn't an isolated incident. As we see harbor seals dying on the shores of california we know it's happening in the pacific ocean. And that oil spill from BP has produced the largest toxic algae bloom the Gulf has ever seen. The effects of investing in companies that did not value waste management are being seen around the world and the problems they have caused are already too big to solve. The great lakes are fucked. Our oceans are fucked. I don't see how we're not already fucked, but if by some miracle we aren't, and we survive long enough, we need to create a system of economics that take precautionary measures and invests in sustainability. Our current economic system will thrive long after the planet is dead and the entire human race has cancer. How's that for being Orwellian? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 hahaha your fear is that you'd be forced to rely on a black-market for your junk food? How ass-backwards of a statement is that? If you're too lazy to write up what you think will happen, post some links or something. I've done the legwork for my argument. I don't see why I should have to do the legwork for yours too. What would happen would be this: You buy a pack of cigs. That pack of cigs has a tax on it that goes into funding healthcare for people with lung cancer that was caused directly by cigarettes. You're not paying MORE for the things you want over the span of your lifetime, because if you're a lifetime smoker you're eventually going to get lung cancer. You're just paying for that extra healthcare up front. The same goes for this internet habit of ours. We think it's free, but lets look at specifically online multiplayer video games. The online multiplayer habit of America alone uses a power grid the size of Chile. Videogamers should be forced to reconcile with the adverse side effects of adding more power plants to the grid just to keep up with their habit. That's fair. Simply living a sedentary lifestyle is unhealthy. Watching TV for an hour a day increases your risk of diabetes, heart disease, and premature death. If you're getting the health bill up-front, you might change your habits. Or at the very least you'll be financially covered when the health bills actually come. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mercer Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 As far a examples go, excessive cigarette taxes make for a poor argument. Fact is, the diseases people die from that are caused by smoking don't cost much. Lung cancer is the big one, but once diagnosed it's most likely inoperable and doesn't cost much. People who live to 90 something cost a lot more over a life time, if we're being fair here we should be taxing them more as well. Along with anything else that may not be popular like skydiving, video games, ect. taxes ect. Personally, I'd like more control and freedom over my own decisions than relying on the whims of the fickle masses. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fist 666 Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 to be clear--you think these solutions are going to come from wholly deregulated companies in a free market? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 You want me to attack a 46 page essay by Ludwig von Mises? Forreal? That's you doing the legwork to defend your point of view? Ok Mr. Filibuster, how bout i just post this instead: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105783108 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
KM4RT Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Soup...read Hayek. Decy/fist.....your understanding, and that of the general popular media, regarding the underlying causes of the gfc is flawed. I'll try to post some links later. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 You're on a role with the personal attacks. Be respectful and cut it out before i resort to calling you a dilweed and check out the bike threads. If this was an oxford debate, and you cited an entire 46 page booklet, you'd be called out for filibustering. That's not how you have a debate. You can cite quotations or find shorter and more relevant texts, but trying to say that I'm stressed and if I don't read a 46 page booklet I'm prolonging the inevitable conclusion of finding myself agreeing with you isn't the oxford thing to do. As those oxfordians would say, "it's wicked retarded, yo." It's YOUR duty to back up the things you say. Not mine. Edit: that reminded me of this too: http://www.intelligencesquared.com/events/free-market-capitalism-is-so-20th-century Another great podcast. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Soup Posted October 21, 2011 Share Posted October 21, 2011 Soup...read Hayek. Decy/fist.....your understanding, and that of the general popular media, regarding the underlying causes of the gfc is flawed. I'll try to post some links later. This is not the free-market economy any economist from a hundred years ago had in mind. THey might've figured that the larger companies would wipe out mom and pops due to "creative destruction," but they had no idea that these large companies would claim to be infallible, demand no government intervention, then move the market in the wrong direction and start a chain of defaults that nearly destroyed the entire economy. Hayek and Mises never foresaw the buying habits of modern investors/consumers. Free Market economy was also supposed to be too big to fail. Now It's clear that it's not. Not to mention that the second largest employer in the united states (behind the federal government) is a temp agency. Almost all the "jobs" that have been created in the last two decades has been temping. Nobody wanted any of this. You can hate on communism for its oppression of free speech and whatnot, but ask any Polak or eastern european who was alive during their communist regime and they all say the same thing: The job security and money was great. Not that I'm suggesting communism, just saying there's alternatives to capitalism that work better for the majority of people. Posting this for a second time: http://www.npr.org/templates/story/story.php?storyId=105783108 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.