Occupy Wallstreet... and Bs As?

[Joe]

Why #OccupyWallStreet Doesn’t Support Obama: His “Nothing to See Here” Stance on Bank Looting – If you love capitalism, you are on the same side as the Occupy Wall Streeters. If you hate socialism, especially the ongoing multi-trillion welfare system that keeps otherwise insolvent banks and their corrupt management in place, then you are on the same side as the Occupy Wall Streeters. If you are a true conservative who believes in free markets, then you are on the side of Occupy Wall Street. If you’re a liberal who believes that governments need to redistribute wealth downward and not upward, then you are on the same side as Occupy Wall Street. Don’t let the mainstream media’s continued desperation to pigeonhole this movement as a left/right or socialist/capitalist thing. The TBTF banks including Goldman, JP Morgan, Citi and the rest of them lost all claims to being “capitalist enterprises” when they went explicitly on welfare under both the Bush and now Obama administrations. These people want rule of law and justice. Wake up, members of the Democrat/Republican Regime. Both parties are the enemy of the Occupiers.

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011...thing-to-see-here-stance-on-bank-looting.html

 

[Ries]

I to am a Yanqui and agree that corporate taxes should be lowered dramatically. Not sure what you mean by lowering income? I hope you aren't saying capping what someone can make.

And Joe, really?? Anyone that continues to throw out the "rich aren't paying there fair share" crap is kind of a hypocrite, don't you think? When you get the 47% that don't pay any FEDERAL income tax (that's what the argument is about), then we can talk. Until then the argument has zero ground to stand on. FAIR should include everyone (isn't that kind of the meaning?)

I'm one of the 53.

You seem a bit confused about the difference between "STATUTORY" and "EFFECTIVE" tax rates.

For instance, in the US, although the Statutory Corporate Tax rate is 35%, for over the last ten years, the Effective (that is, the actual tax rate paid after loopholes and deductions) has ranged from 20% to ZERO.
Compared to other nations, the actual tax rate paid (not the nominal tax rate before deductions) is one of the lowest worldwide in the USA.

Similarly, the "47%" you refer to pay a Statutory tax rate of about 15% on average- then, their Effective tax rate is often zero, after deductions and credits- JUST EXACTLY LIKE THE CORPORATIONS!

GE, Bank of America, Exxon, Chevron, Boeing, Goldman Sachs, Citigroup, and many other corporations paid ZERO last year- so they are in the 47% too. I am not sure how much lower than zero you can lower the corporate tax rate?

Guess they dont have any ground to stand on either, eh?

Another point to bring up is that the unemployment rate for recent Iraq and Afghanistan veterans is over 21%.
Personally, I dont believe they are all lazy or dont want to work.
These are kids who put their lives on the line for the USA, and then when they come home, there simply arent jobs. Not everybody is college material, or web page designers, and many of the infantry soldiers need blue collar jobs that pay a living wage- and those jobs are very very scarce on the ground.

 

[Joe]

Speaking of the military, many veterans are starting to show up at the protests:

http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed/update-wall-street-protests

I particularly like the sign carried by one uniformed vet:

"Second time I fought for my country, first time I've known my enemy."

 

[Lucas]

VIDEO - Michael Moore Tonight at #OccupyWallStreet: "This Is a Historic Day" (Day 19, 10/5/11)​

 

[sesamosinsal]

Perhaps Bradlyhale is right. If "we" have the resources to provide everyone everything they need then "we" should just provide it.

The only problem is that the resources aren't yours. There really aren't even ours. Everything belongs to this planet -- even our bodies.

First, for a resource-based economy to ever become reality, we'd have to change our value system (culture) in the U.S. -- by no means an easy task. While self-reliance and individualism are nice literary themes and often touted by U.S. politicians to drum up nationalist fervor, it's more mythical than anything else. No one ever gets anywhere without someone helping along the way. Elizabeth Warren said it best:

"'You built a factory out there? Good for you. But I want to be clear. You moved your goods to market on the roads the rest of us paid for. You hired workers the rest of us paid to educate. You were safe in your factory because of police-forces and fire-forces that the rest of us paid for. You didn’t have to worry that marauding bands would come and seize everything at your factory — and hire someone to protect against this — because of the work the rest of us did.'"

Thus, this idea that all people are entirely on their own and entirely responsible for their own actions is problematic for two reasons: 1) It simply isn't true; we are affected by each others' actions big and small, both directly and indirectly, and 2) it fractures organization of the citizenry. Most Americans who are doing well right now are likely not to care about the folks protesting on Wall Street, or anyone who is down on her/his luck, for that matter. American culture -- propagated by mass media -- simply tells us that we shouldn't care because most of what happens to you (except for a natural disaster, perhaps) is your own doing, and you're responsible for fixing it. Pull yourselves up from your bootstraps! This lack of empathy -- wonderfully exhibited in this thread, by the way -- has made organization against social problems (and their related economic problems) generally very difficult in the United States. You're a woman, and can't vote? I'm a man; it's your problem. You're black, and you can't go to school? I'm white; it's your problem. You're gay, and you can't get married? I'm straight; it's your problem. You don't have a job, and need money? I'm employed; it's your problem. "Fight your fights, and I'll fight mine" Self-reliance and individualism can be good, but they're used in American culture to make individuals believe that they're an island, and, in my opinion, that couldn't be further from the truth.

Second, we'd have to say adiós to capitalism, socialism, and communism, because this system is none of those. People often think a resource-based economy sounds like communism. However, it is not communism because there is no currency (monetary system), and the ultimate goal is to avoid any sort of "working class." This system is not about making everyone equal, per se. It's about using technology to do away with the resource scarcity that causes inequality, as well as so many micro (e.g., armed robberies) and macro (e.g., resource wars like Iraq, Afghanistan, Libya) social problems.

Ultimately, the goal would be to mechanize and automate jobs and dedicate ourselves to education, research, and sustainability. The jobs (if you want to call them that) that would exist would be in education and research, and those people would be using their knowledge making the lives of others better. Once we tear down these divisive value systems (me-me-me), this would be a bigger possibility. Currently, we have a lot of extremely intelligent people who make thousands or millions of dollars and contribute absolutely nothing to social progress, while those who do contribute to social progress (e.g., educators) get paid almost nothing. In the foreign exchange markets, traders can make hundreds of dollars a week in profit just by looking at a chart and a few indicators. Stock markets and FX markets are better than a casino. A similar story can be told for people who work in banks, financial aid offices at universities, etc.

In a resource-based economy, scarcity could be avoided because products would be manufactured with environmental sustainability, durability, and the consumers in mind -- not cost or profit. The earth has the resources to satisfy the needs of everyone on this planet, including food, water, electricity, education, transport, technology, etc. Yet, we only make these available to those who can pay with phony paper printed by a central bank. Moreover, have any of you ever questioned why we manufacture products that break easily? Why do we bother producing glass cups if they're just going to break when we accidentally drop them? Cheap chairs that break? Headphones that break? Products that last are not good for the industry that produces them, and thus sustainability and durability are of very little interest to companies that must sustain their profit margins more than Earth, its resources, and/or the creatures on it.

For those who think that mechanization/automation of jobs is not possible, it's already being done. (See Video) Nonetheless, the current paradigm can only tolerate so much technical unemployment, just as it can only tolerate so much material durability. Thus, so-called "technological unemployment" can only go so far. Data entry workers (replaced by computer programs), customer service representatives (replaced by online account management), factory workers (replaced by robotic assembly), cashiers (replaced by self checkout), and even the U.S. Postal Service (replaced by e-mail) are all good examples of how technology is replacing human resources. We can and should go a lot further, but as I said, the monetary system and the necessity of jobs complicate full implementation of technology to our benefit.

Sadly, this whole Occupy Wall Street protest is dwindling down to the old debate of rich and poor, republican and democrat, left and right, and a ton of other tired, boring, and sometimes false dichotomies. Maybe the next revolution will encourage people to fix the systemic cultural and economic problems and not just parts of them.

 

[captainmcd]

Bradleyhale, That was a thought provoking post! I am not sure that I would like to sit back and let robots and machines fill all of my needs, and like communism it seems to go against human nature. The jobs (if you call them that) would be in education and research, but for most there would be little meaning in life, and no satisfaction for a job well done.

Anyway, it has been an interesting discussion. I am at an age and position in life that fortunately I can retire and have my needs met, but I don't want that kind of life. As long as I am able I prefer to do meaningful work, not sit back and drink beer and watch T.V. I volunteer my time and skills for humanitarian relief work. I do not want to live in a mechanized world, I want to have human to human contact.

 

[captainmcd]

One of the reasons I am still working is that I can worry about problems I can have some degree of control over. If retired I spend time worrying about the problems of the world that I have no control over, such as politics.

As for the resource based economy I feel like P.J. O'Rourke who said:
"When politics are used to allocate resources, the resources all end up being allocated to politics."

 

[Joe]

This last decade we lost three greats: Johnny Cash, Bob Hope, and now Steven Jobs.

The world is truly a more bleak place: No Cash, No Hope, and now, no Jobs.

 

[mariposa]

excellent editorial in today's ny times:

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/opinion/sunday/protesters-against-wall-street.html?_r=1&partner=rssnyt&emc=rss

 

[Joe]

I think this movement makes a lot of people uncomfortable because it doesn't stick to the script of left vs. right, republican vs. democrat.

We've tried both of the traditional solutions: the democrats favor a lot of government spending: extended unemployment benefits, stimulus, shovel ready. Didn't work.

The republicans say just give money to the rich and they will create jobs. In fact we are not suppose to call them "rich" anymore. We're suppose to call them "job creators". And in fairness they did create jobs, unfortunately the jobs were in China and India.

After all the tax breaks for the "job creators" we have the highest unemployment two years after a recession than ever before in history.

Some of you say, stop complaining just go out and get a job. Now many companies won't consider hiring someone if they are currently unemployed: http://news.yahoo.com/unemployed-seek-protection-against-job-bias-084916836.html

With all the problems in Europe with banks going bust, this now has the real potential for turning real ugly, real quick. The crony capitalists had many opportunities to cool it, but greed knows no bounds. It may be too late at this point.