The socialist agenda behind all of the "Occupy" groups

Dave The Marine · Tue Dec 13, 2011 3:58 pm

Working alot not much time to respond to this, but I will say that I never meant to imply everyone who lost in the economic problems of the last couple years are at fault (or stupid). I lost money, and property value just like most other people did. Not only that the corporation I was working for took the opprotunity to downsize wages and let almost 2 dozen of us go (fired us to be more precise) and brought in others at a lesser amount. I wouldn't think that was what they were doing except for all had about 17 years with the company which put us near the top of what one would make in that position. Do I blame the corporation? I don't know was it a nation wide thing or a local thing?

At any rate I am well aware that some took it in the shorts so to speak, that did nothing wrong. My home is now worth about 70K less then it was 4 short years ago, and had I know that in advance I would have sold and lived in an apartment for a couple years then when the housing market crashed I could have got a bigger better house for the profit made on the one I sold. That said, to an extent we were robbed by those who caused the collaspse, but the blame can be laid far and wide many were involved, and some I am sure think they were doing the "good" thing by getting more people into homes. I have to go to work, I will certainly read and consider whats been said when I have a little more time.

Interbane · Wed Dec 14, 2011 12:02 pm

Blame is good to teach a lesson, but the cycle will go full circle unless there are rules put into place.

Some insight into regulation; I had a business. I had to have my business inspected by a local government employee. His requirements were stiff and made me frustrated. I had planned for the costs during capital development, but the delays were always painful. Without knowing my industry, do you think this sort of frustrating and complex regulation should be done away with? I definitely would have done better without that regulation.

Dave The Marine · Wed Jan 11, 2012 2:07 pm

There is no way to determine if a regulation is necessary without knowing the details. However bureaucratic red tape can be easily eliminated even from necessary regulation. The government issued 80,000 pages of regulation last year, I'll go out on a limb and say probably way more then half was redundant and unnecessary.

Kevin · Tue Feb 07, 2012 11:41 am


	Quote: This girl thinks making over $200,000 makes a person ridiculously rich.

Based on information from the IRS, fewer than 3% of tax returns (3.924 million returns out of 140+ million total returns) claimed more than $200,000 in adjusted gross income (AGI) in tax year 2009.

Interbane · Tue Feb 07, 2012 9:30 pm


	Quote: There is no way to determine if a regulation is necessary without knowing the details. However bureaucratic red tape can be easily eliminated even from necessary regulation. The government issued 80,000 pages of regulation last year, I'll go out on a limb and say probably way more then half was redundant and unnecessary.

The problem is that regulation is obscure due to sheer enormity. How do you govern that? Perhaps the information load requires a better interface. I've often thought that our government should have online voting features, and panels of college professors discussing points of interest on open forums, with results of their conversations somehow issued into a vote. Maybe regulation needs some such interface. Perhaps a Prezi style interface where categories can be zoomed in on ad infinitum.

When you say some regulation is redundant, I'd agree. But that isn't the same thing as unnecessary. Without the right amount of "redundancy" built into the system, it would be ineffective. There will always be loopholes, and people will always find them. If they exist, they will be used, and the intent of the regulation would be circumvented. For all the money oil companies make, I'm sure they could easily afford more redundant regulation concerning safety mechanisms on oil rigs.

Kevin · Mon Feb 13, 2012 6:14 am


	Robert Tulip wrote: Capitalism is the only thing that reduces poverty.

That's a bold claim, Mr. Tulip! I'll give capitalism this much, it's one better than feudalism. But that's nothing to really hang one's hat upon! What do you think of the idea that it's already dead? The wild-eyed threads here notwithstanding soicialism is dead, too. As I see it, what we have, and speaking now of just the USA, what the democrats and republicans work for, minus perhaps the soicial aspects (which are, unfortunately, unavoidably thought of whenever it is mentioned) is the third way of fascism. The power of the corporation is not a working example of capitalism but an attack that it is directed at it. Corporatism, being outside of capitalism and socialism, is fascism. An argument can be made that it's a good thing, but it is most certainly not capitalism that we're talking about. Well that's something like what has been mentioned already. More or less... not to attribute this to anyone else.


	Quote: explores the paradox of how conservative politics generates wealth but alienates the poor. I will shortly post about this in the thread on the second chapter, The Three Marias.

I haven't read the book, or your post for that matter (yet anyway) but "paradox" is far too strong a word. There is nothing hidden about it to anyone who isn't in the pocket of conservative politics. It's an answer realized by Karl Marx! As conservative politics win over, regardless of whether it's initiated through the republicans or democrats, the right cheek or the left, and as evidenced by the record of the last forty years let's say, wealth increases to a degree of truly gross national product while everyone goes into debt.

But rock on, Robert!

Penelope · Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:14 am


	Quote: With bankers' bonus season in full swing, and thanks to relatively recent European rules, we at least get to see exactly the sort of pay deals being awarded to the top bankers in the City. RBS chief executive Stephen Hester's bonus, which he eventually turned down following public outrage, will be followed by a series of other bonus announcements in the coming weeks. Most of the focus has been on the fact that these huge bonuses are being given in a time of austerity for everyone else, and that they're rewarding failure, not success, most notably in the case of RBS, whose share price remains painfully low, and where 21,000 people have been laid off. But if these weren't bad times for the majority, what type of success should be rewarded? Banks where bonuses have been high in the past and are expected to be high again this year include Barclays and Goldman Sachs. Goldman Sachs, of course, was a key perpetrator of the sub-prime mortgage crisis. And both banks are amongst the biggest global profiteers in commodity speculation. Rising commodity prices over the past few years have been the mainstay of investment banking profits. They have also played a role in food riots and revolutions around the world. In 2010, the same year as CEO Bob Diamond earned a £6.5 million bonus, Barclays earned an estimated £340 million from speculating in food futures markets, making it the UK's biggest player in these markets, and earning it the "worst company of the year" award at this year's Public Eye on Davos. Goldman Sachs, whose top risk-taking earners averaged £4 million bonuses in 2010, earned an estimated £1 billion in 2009 from food speculation. The result of this type of 'success' contributes to food price rises that were 6% in the UK towards the end of last year. For the poorest countries in the world, food prices have risen by almost 50% since 2007, putting basic staples out of the reach of the world's poorest people, and forcing millions of people into hunger and poverty.

Yeah! Rock on Robert. :angry:

Penelope · Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:25 am

I'm posting the rest of this article as I think it has its priorities right:-


	Quote: Other risky behaviour by the big banks includes debt-based investment, plunging Europe into financial chaos and raising risks for taxpayers and investors alike, investment in land deals in developing countries which forces people off their land and contributes to high food prices, and investment in toxic assets that contribute to runaway climate change, like the Canadian Tar Sands, where RBS has leveraged almost £7bn finance since it was bailed out. There was a buzz of CEO lip service to corporate responsibility at Davos, but dig beneath the surface and you'll see finance sector lobbyists taking every opportunity to fend off regulation that would embed corporate responsibility. RBS spent £2.5 million on lobbyists in Washington between 2008 and 2011, opposing measures to enable banking reform that would protect consumers and curb commodity speculation through the Dodd-Frank Wall Street reform act. And UK finance ministers met Barclays at least 15 times within the first year of the coalition government. So our judgement of bankers' pay shouldn't just be about the end result of the pay deal, but also about what kind of activity is being rewarded and encouraged in the first place. Regrettably, banks still reward a short-term profit, risk-taking approach, which continues to lead to the pursuit of socially, economically and environmentally damaging activities. Why not pay (modest) bonuses instead for keeping people in work when times are tough? For paying taxes? For pulling out of commodity trading? For investing in the long-term, not the short-term, for example by investing in renewables? For supporting small businesses? For improving corporate transparency? As our politicians play the blame game over excessive bonuses, and as a few corporate leaders are shamed into not taking what they think they deserve, real change will only come when we scratch beneath the layers of a poison system past its sell-by date. There's far more to excessive pay than meets the eye. And there's a lot more we can do about it beyond curbing this year's pay packets.

I must give due credit for this article written by Deborah Doane, who is Director at World Development Movement

Robert Tulip · Mon Feb 13, 2012 8:14 am

Kevin wrote:


	Robert Tulip wrote: Capitalism is the only thing that reduces poverty.

That's a bold claim, Mr. Tulip! I'll give capitalism this much, it's one better than feudalism. But that's nothing to really hang one's hat upon! What do you think of the idea that it's already dead?

Very silly, and rather exaggerated. Private property, free enterprise, secured debt, money and rule of law have produced the astounding increase in human wealth and happiness of the capitalist age. The only thing likely to stop it is a global war caused by climate change. But capitalism can prevent that if it is allowed to. Non-capitalist countries are stagnant and poor. Capitalist countries are vibrant and rich. Go figure.


	Quote: The wild-eyed threads here notwithstanding socialism is dead, too.

Socialism should have died with the Berlin Wall, but the vampire rises from the grave to suck innocent blood. Socialism still needs a stake through the heart blessed by garlic prayers.


	Quote: As I see it, what we have, and speaking now of just the USA, what the democrats and republicans work for, minus perhaps the social aspects (which are, unfortunately, unavoidably thought of whenever it is mentioned) is the third way of fascism.

Sad but true. The USA is deeply corrupt and is drifting away from rule of law towards civil war, due to the power of the military industrial complex. I like Ron Paul as he is endorsed by the Mises Institute.


	Quote: The power of the corporation is not a working example of capitalism but an attack that it is directed at it. Corporatism, being outside of capitalism and socialism, is fascism.

That was why when politics had integrity Standard Oil was busted up. Now the state has been purchased by the corporate oligarchs.

Quote:


	Quote: explores the paradox of how conservative politics generates wealth but alienates the poor.

..."paradox" is far too strong a word. There is nothing hidden about it to anyone who isn't in the pocket of conservative politics. It's an answer realized by Karl Marx!

No. Marx's idea of class struggle is stupid. What is needed is good regulation of capitalism by a strong state. It is not about the union of progressive forces, but the rational regulation of business. If you think you know how wealth creation is obvious, you ought to be able to get rich. Many are called but few are chosen. Growth is good for the poor, because their incomes rise roughly in proportion to the incomes of the rich.


	Quote: As conservative politics win over, regardless of whether it's initiated through the republicans or democrats, the right cheek or the left, and as evidenced by the record of the last forty years let's say, wealth increases to a degree of truly gross national product while everyone goes into debt.

The USA is straining under its flaccid corrupt incompetence in the face of China as a rising empire. America's problem is not too much capitalism but not enough.

Interbane · Mon Feb 13, 2012 7:30 pm

"Markets regulate better than governments can. Depending on government regulations to protect us significantly contributes to the bubble mentality." - Ron Paul

There is a bit of misinformation mixed up in this sentence from Paul. I'll need to reread a bit of my current book to make sure I have it correct, but government regulates business better than a market can in some aspects. It ties into game theory, where some human action/interaction is not able to be regulated by markets alone. A disinterested third party is required. The problem with American politics is that our government is no longer a disinterested third party.

Forum rules

The socialist agenda behind all of the "Occupy" groups Tweet This Topic

Who is online

Chat Room Always Open!