Occupy Wall Street

[Soup forgot his password]

Agreed, but is it possible for Occupy Oakland to take over a residence and leave absolutely no mark of ever being there? Any wear on the place is going to affect property value for the next guy. If it cares about their fellow man then I think Occupy Oakland is better off dropping the entire "we deserve to steal things because the cops are targeting us" schtick and find some legal avenue, because that's what Occupy Wallstreet did by taking zuccotti park and politically it was the right move to make. If they took time square or somewhere privately owned there would've been a whole lot more media backlash.

[shai]

In most cases the property looks better than it did before the move in. A lot of the folks who are into this (and were doing it long before OWS) clean up the lot, plant gardens, do interior/exterior repairs...but all you're going to hear about in the press is the bad cases where a bunch of hyped-up kids wreck the spot (i.e. the Traveler's Aid building).

[McLovin]

im too lazy to look through this entire thread and research it myself.. but can anyone tell me what the soul purpose/purposes of occupy wall street is...

[theprotester]

No.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

LOL!

[McLovin]

of course not.. nobody can

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

It actually can be explained, it just shouldn't have to be.

 

To put it in a very small nutshell, government policy is the reason for these protests. Be it the wars, bail out's, immigration reform, the police state, unemployment etc and etc..

 

Also the problem with the movement is that it has no leadership, so lot's of people attached themselves to the movement that have causes and reasons to be there that had nothing to do with the original intent of the movement.

[Decyferon]

It is also people who are against a capitalist free market

[theprotester]

I thought they were pro capitalism? Isn't that the whole point, let the market correct itself without intervention?

[Decyferon]

I mainly heard people advocating tough regulation of financial markets and firms, havent heard much of people saying that the market should be more free.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

See my post, pretty sure I covered what you are mentioning in "bailouts", and my last statement.

 

You can't oppose something that wasn't in place for it to be the problem. There was no free market.

[Decyferon]

It isn't just about bailouts, it is about corporate greed, why CEOs are getting paid 300/400 times more than average workers when they don't do anything to better the business or are even in failing businesses.

 

Everything I have heard people talk about through the different occupy movements have been about anti capitalism, not anti government.

 

I just read a book by an economist that was talking about the free market and how it isn't really a good thing, it made a lot of sense. You need a balance between the market having room to move and regulation protecting the interests of the country.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

"I read a book by an economist that was talking about the free market and how it really isn't a good thing".

 

Great, really.

 

You probably caught onto the movement after it started to gain wide spread media attention. This was going on weeks before it was ever on the news.

 

Look, the Tea Party movement now does not represent what the group started out as. People saw an opportunity to take advantage of a situation and push their agenda. Now you have a group of people that originally started out as a Libertarian movement by Ron Paul (and his base) and now these people are supporting candidates like Mitt Romney and Rick Santorum, fuck they can't even decide. They talk all kinds of garbage that has nothing to do with what the original intent that the group was for. The same thing happened with Occupy. Also the media comes in and spin's the story and runs with it.

 

That is not to say that all different kinds of people have different opinions and approaches to what they think should be done, and how we should go forward into the future. As I said, lots of people joined the movement, and if you went through any of the parks you could just see how diverse the crowd was, so to say it was for or against anything is kind of a silly thing to say.

[Decyferon]

People always latch on and ride the success of different movements, all I was saying is the original messages I heard coming out of the occupy movement was anti capitalist and calling for greater regulations of the financial markets and curbing of the excessive pay. Then again I am talking more of the experience of the occupy movements in the UK.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

In a round about way it's the same thing.

 

It's just the perspective imo that is wrong. You say you want more regulation, but the bail out's were a result of that very same regulation. But that's the bad part, I assume you are referring to the regulation that occur's before the problem starts so there is no problem. However this line of thought failed there as well, which allowed the problem to take place.

 

This has been argued before and I don't know why I'm even beginning to start this again.

 

When Anonymous put out the message for all of this, they talked about corporate greed the bail outs, and corruption, yes, but to me they are all one and the same. Those things don't disappear in any system you'd like to create (minus the bailouts).

[CILONE/SK]

I know I have dipped out for a little bit. i have been busy working and what not.

 

This post is bound to stir the pot, but I really have to wonder what you guys think about:

 

The derivatives market, occupy, and the free market (libertarianism)?

 

The current speculation market as it relates to the oil industry and the occupy movement?

 

No matter what I have heard about the "free market" and libertarianism, the occupy movement, and capitalism, I have not heard anything that seems to address the issues that derivatives and the speculation markets cause.

 

When it all comes down to the nuts and bolts of it all, these markets are the cause of numerous problems that are affecting America today, yet no one seems to be addressing them.

 

 

There is a long lasting occupy movement down the street from my work. I have talked to them and asked them about these issues, and it is like talking to grade school students about college issues. They just had no idea about what I was talking about.

 

What do you guys think about this?

[theprotester]

I pretty much have said all along that there is no direction or focus, it's just a bunch of pissed off entitlement generation hipsters having a whinge because it's more fun than going to look for a job.

[CILONE/SK]

But that does not mean they do not have a point.

 

I just think the derivatives and speculation markets are to blame for the most part with regards to the issues that do come out of occupy, and they just do not know enough about it to express it.

[McLovin]

without capitalism would we not be speaking to each other right now on these computers? you should all be bowing down on your knees saying "thank you capitalism" three times fast while looking at yourself in the mirror .. <-- says my friend lol

[Fist 666]

you get dumber all the time.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it Fist666 again.

[Decyferon]

I know I have dipped out for a little bit. i have been busy working and what not.

 

This post is bound to stir the pot, but I really have to wonder what you guys think about:

 

The derivatives market, occupy, and the free market (libertarianism)?

 

The current speculation market as it relates to the oil industry and the occupy movement?

 

No matter what I have heard about the "free market" and libertarianism, the occupy movement, and capitalism, I have not heard anything that seems to address the issues that derivatives and the speculation markets cause.

 

When it all comes down to the nuts and bolts of it all, these markets are the cause of numerous problems that are affecting America today, yet no one seems to be addressing them.

 

 

There is a long lasting occupy movement down the street from my work. I have talked to them and asked them about these issues, and it is like talking to grade school students about college issues. They just had no idea about what I was talking about.

 

What do you guys think about this?

 

When you have financial institutions hiring quantum physicists and scientists and math wizards to come up with these complex financial products something is very wrong. The financial markets have been viewed as this wonderful creator of wealth, so most of the western world has neglected their manufacturing and other actual product creation markets in favour for these complex financial schemes. It is a house built on cards.

 

The reason our countries got so strong was that we had good strong industries, industries that were protected with government regulation (protectionist policies, tax breaks) and they flourished.

 

Business has a tendancy to just look for short term returns to please their shareholders, most shareholders dont care about the long term startegies for companies because they can get out quickly and are there to make money. The fact that most people are just grabbing at money is actually more detrimental to the long term welfare of companies because sometimes it is the long term plan not the short term return that is more important. Just look at Toyota, they were not the most productive wealth creating company, but through long term goals, government policy to protect the company from competition and they are nnow a huge company that is very productive.

[ILOTSMYBRAIN]

D:X

[CILONE/SK]

I just read that whole thing and was going to comment, and you pulled it.

[Decyferon]

yea I would have been interested to see what he would say, ILOTS has some interesting responses generally

[Soup forgot his password]

When you have financial institutions hiring quantum physicists and scientists and math wizards to come up with these complex financial products something is very wrong. The financial markets have been viewed as this wonderful creator of wealth, so most of the western world has neglected their manufacturing and other actual product creation markets in favour for these complex financial schemes. It is a house built on cards.

 

Really? You don't want math wizards working in financial institutions? Where would you have them work?

 

 

Anywho I assume the "house of cards" analogy is referring to subprime lending since that's the nearest example I can think of in banking. Here's the thing about a house of cards: when it falls it takes everything with it. Subprime lending in the end fucked over the people who invented the thing just as much as everyone else. Im not talking about the CEO's with golden parachutes. I'm talking about the actual inventors who stare at computers most of their lives, crunching numbers, trying to make their bosses happy.

[Decyferon]

the inventors are starring at their computers creating these things because that iss what the ceos want them to do, maximise profit as much as possible with no thought to anything else.

 

I am not really that bothered with the whole occupy thing, all I think is thatthere should be much strict rules on financial transactions and tougher, better managed regulation of financial institutions.

[Walid Jumblat]

edit.....ignore

[Soup forgot his password]

the inventors are starring at their computers creating these things because that iss what the ceos want them to do, maximise profit as much as possible with no thought to anything else.

 

You're either unionized or unemployed aren't you? I'm guessing the latter since you spelled maximize with an s. If you worked like normal people you'd know that the ONLY reason you have a job is to increase profits, not the other way around. If a company does well, you do well. If a company does NOT do well you do NOT do well.

 

I am not really that bothered with the whole occupy thing, all I think is thatthere should be much strict rules on financial transactions and tougher, better managed regulation of financial institutions.

 

Now you're still missing my earlier point. CEOS WANT TO INCREASE PROFITS. THEY DONT WANT BADDLY DESIGNED CDO'S. SUBPRIME MORTGAGES TURNED OUT TO BE A BADDLY DESIGNED CDO THAT HURT THE COMPANY, THEREFOR SUBPRIME MORTGAGES NO LONGER EXIST. THE RULES YOU WANT TO CREATE ARE ALREADY INHERENT IN THE CURRENT FINANCIAL SYSTEM.

 

And one more thing for you to think about. What you want is for the government to step in and control banks. They have that in china, and many economists blame china for the housing collapse in America. The chinese government can print all the money they want and did so to a tune of trillions of US dollars. Then they bought US debt and made it incredibly cheap for american banks to loan out money because of the chinese-caused inflation, which in turn caused the housing bubble, and the housing collapse. The reason why the economic crisis is seemingly over is because China has seemingly halted their inflation.

/oversimplification for TLDR purposes

[Decyferon]

no I do have a job and I am not unionized thanks Soup, it is generally spelt with an S in the UK, maximise not maximize.

 

Profit isn't the only goal of business, if you maximise short term profits it generally has a negative impace on the longer term prospects of the company. You can cut employee benefits to improve profit (less productive less morale with the workers), you can cut training for workers (less outlay in training and increase in profits but not so good for long term prospects), you could outsource your production (increase in profits, sometimes drop in product quality thus hitting the brand reputation). To say that profit is the only reason for business does not show the whole picture unless you have no interest in your company actually having any longer term prospects.

 

Also people don't just work for profit, they also work for self improvement, society, a sense of commitment, obviously they wouldnt do it for free however they may earn less than they can in other professions due to their beliefs, the free market alwayts assumes that people solely work for profit.

 

 

It isn't all about the sub-prime mortgages. There are other things like short selling that have negative effects (I know some countries have now banned this practise too).

 

I do not ask for governments to control banks, I am not advocating for state run banks, I am saying the regulation of the financial markets should be stricter, with regulators that actually understand the market they are regulating (something we didn't have before).

 

Also those CEOs that gambled on the subprime markets had nothing to loose, even if it did go all pear shaped they would walk away with a golden handshake from the company and receive huge amounts of money from the company firing them. That is wrong. There is zero consequences for the companies or individuals involved. Not to mention the completely ass backwards way the credit rating agencies work but that is something different.