Thoughts about Occupy Wall Street?

[bean]

People have died here too, Don...with no insurance, or insurance that told them to go home because they hit their lifetime maximum.

I live just a few minutes from the Canadian border. I don't know many Canadians that would trade their system for ours..A health care system isn't a public park or a housing project.

As far as taking what half of people earn as being immoral, please define the word "earn." Not all income generated in this country is "earned" in my estimation...The store owner down the street in small town America is "earning" her money. She might clear 75k in the year. Then again, we're not talking about her--working 7-6 Monday thru Sat..She's earned that money no doubt. Can you say the same about hedge fund managers and investment bankers? What about those who prey on the poor, the students, and those with weak credit with their varied schemes? Are they earning money?

You have pointed out before the danger of coveting. Luther also deals with stealing in his explanation of the seventh commandment.
Thou shalt not steal.

What does this mean?

We should fear and love God that we may not take our neighbor's money or property, nor get them by false ware or dealing, but help him to improve and protect his property and business (that his means are preserved and his condition is improved).

[DaisyDeadhead]

Don, Myotch, etc. --Right now, education is the thing. Example: some Occupiers went to the malls on Black Friday with "buy local" signs. Customers are like, "but we ARE buying local"... um, no. Walmart is in Arkansas.

The fact that people have no idea what "buy local" means, is part of the problem. A major reason I am unemployed is because the work I did for years, call center work, is now outsourced. People know they are calling India (I actually talked to Guyana the other day... GUYANA!) but don't understand how this state of affairs came to be or how to change it.

Likewise, if the Occupiers of the Fed will use the opportunity to explain about central banks or ANYTHING AT ALL, that is good. Knowledge is power. As it is, we cannot have a working democracy with a populace that is this ignorant and out-of-it. During today's Occupation, I got asked some similar primitive questions. I don't mind answering, that is why I am there, but it IS alarming. Why are people so clueless about their own govt and the actions of their own govt? This transcends right and left, and we can't even start solving the problems if people don't even know how it got that way.

And, what Bean said.

[DaisyDeadhead]

(11-23-2011 08:21 PM)myotch Wrote:  Daisy, Dubya was called "chimp" and there were plenty of monkey posters of Bush. It's only racist when Obama is mocked - every caricature drawn, every unflattering nickname, all must be dubiously racist, right?

You misunderstood me here. I am talking about lone crackpots making more noise than everyone else, not who is or who is not racist. Racists and anti-semites (often the same people) are major crackpots, as are conspiracy theorists, so they immediately grab any opportunity to float to the top. (pardon mixed metaphors there) I am saying that we have crackpots who can't wait to make TV/Youtube interviews, same as the Tea Party did. Please be aware of this dynamic.

And you will ALWAYS see more of these people, since that seems to be the nature of the beast. (Ego, ego, ego.)

I think the constant OWS mantra "I don't speak for the movement, I only speak for myself!"--came out of the experiences of watching the Tea Party get publicly represented by fruitcakes. The Tea Party crackpots WOULD say "I speak for the Tea Party"--even when they clearly didn't. And I think this awareness/gestalt ("nobody speaks for the movement, everyone speaks for themselves") came on the backs of the Tea Party's exploitation by mass media. This way, that can't happen to us the way it did to them.

I had many friends in the local Tea Party, and none were racists or anti-semites, they were nice people. As the local Occupiers are.

Hope that made better sense.

[myotch]

I'm all for "buy local". I don't really like Walmart. The way they used "imminent domain" to get some of their prime realty is disgusting.

ON THE OTHER HAND, Walmart, Home Depot, and Lowes have ungodly low prices that we on more fixed incomes simply cannot ignore, and local stores cannot compete with. When faced with two equal evils, should one look out for a winning, radical self-interest? Or a losing, radical, communal interest? As much as I don't like Walmart, they probably already have $75 of my next paycheck in Christmas lights alone (if Lowes or Home Depot don't have sales).

Here's where capitalism works, though. There is a competition for the distribution of goods. Walmart won. No amount of government regulation would solve any supposed Walmart question in a way palatable to the American voter. I would RATHER go to a bookstore and feel the book I am going to buy, and I would also RATHER pay Amazon's prices. Delayed gratification at a savings, or instant gratification at a premium?

The great thing about America is that YOU could come up with a better distribution method than Walmart, and get paid handsomely for your risk.

My household is a financial-based institution just as any company is. Price, a lot of the time, determines my purchasing decision, simply because I am a good and faithful servant to my family first, a steward of the family's finances. My kid wants to build his own computer - am I going to buy the pieces from a locally-franchised radio shack, a mom-n-pop computer parts shop, or some place like TigerDirect.com and NewEgg.com? As a steward of the family's finances, I'm probably going to shop online.

---

I find it ironic that a centralized government is inefficient, and a centralized business is not. I also find it ironic that those who prefer centralized government hate the success of centralized business. In a perfect world, neither government nor business would be centralized, and economies would be, as government, more locally focused.

[DaisyDeadhead]

(11-27-2011 09:12 PM)myotch Wrote:  Here's where capitalism works, though. There is a competition for the distribution of goods. Walmart won.

Walmart is cheap only because they pay Chinese workers pennies. If those goods were made here, AS THEY USED TO BE, WHEN WALMART FIRST STARTED OUT, they wouldn't be as cheap... but then, people might be unemployed and would have more money to spend in the first place.

Paying call center workers 1/10 of what they paid me, is WRONG. You should not be allowed to call yourself an American company if MOST of your workers (talking about call centers now) are not even IN the country.

That is not capitalism, but CORPORATE IMPERIALISM, a whole nother thing. In my humble opinion of course.

[DaisyDeadhead]

Where did Don go? His posts on this thread are gone, and apparently, everywhere else too? Is he banned? If not, what pissed him off?

I have only said NICE things about Congressman Paul so it wasn't ME!

[myotch]

China also has a a communist-socialist economy. Paying workers "pennies" is still paying a living wage other there. China manufactures goods that people the world over buy, not just Walmart customers.

With that in mind, maybe you should address China's minimum wage issues with...China? It makes more sense than addressing the issue with an American cheap-goods distributor and warehouse wholesaler.

While you are talking to the far-left chinese government, feel free to bring up religious freedom and their racial hegemony while you are at it. But those are whole 'nother topics.

[bean]

Daisy, I hope nothing made him upset! I enjoyed the back and forth with Donb123. He's cool. We don't agree on lots of issues but we do agree on lots of others.

Pretty sure he enjoyed getting his points in. He makes good points, I just can't agree with all of them. It sure seemed all good and civil to me!!

Donb123, if you are out there you have to come back. We can't argue why we need more democracy without you saying why we don't!

[Elijah Craig]

Based on the negative rep that I and RobMille have received from Donb123, I think it is safe to say he got upset with us and left. He posted that article that asserted that Social Security was "in large part responsible income inequality." I called it absurd right-wing propaganda. He gave me negative rep for that and began to take pot shots saying I wasn't interacting with the article. When I actually did, he said something about me "not being able to leave it alone" and "not having read the article." In fact I read both the article and the 67 page report from the CBO that it referenced (the article directly contradicted the CBO report but claimed to be supported by it).

I guess I could have been more gentle but... he's a grown man and blatant propaganda bothers me. We're entitled to our own opinions but not our own facts. It can be mathematically proven that Social Security reduces inequality, because it takes proportionally more from the richer Americans and spreads the money fairly evenly among all Americans.

[DaisyDeadhead]

(11-28-2011 07:19 PM)myotch Wrote:  China also has a a communist-socialist economy. Paying workers "pennies" is still paying a living wage other there. China manufactures goods that people the world over buy, not just Walmart customers.

With that in mind, maybe you should address China's minimum wage issues with...China? It makes more sense than addressing the issue with an American cheap-goods distributor and warehouse wholesaler.

While you are talking to the far-left chinese government, feel free to bring up religious freedom and their racial hegemony while you are at it. But those are whole 'nother topics.

Although I admire the good Chairman as a tactician, his personal philosophy of governing leaves a lot to be desired. I hope you remember he outlawed my own faith and exiled our leader, akin to the Pope in exile? So, yes, I know from China's flaws.

As for the cheap goods in China, I'm certainly willing to listen to creative protectionist free-market arguments, like those proposed by Dr Paul.

China is now far, far, far from its socialist roots. Do I have to tell you what Chairman Mao would have said about Starbucks, 50 cents of sugary froth sold for several dollars? The term "blow a gasket" comes to mind.

I can go on about Chinese communism and its "errors" for several pages--and do not want to bore you. Suffice to say: true socialism has only been practiced in a few countries, for like 10 minutes. I would prefer democratic socialism, as practiced in Europe. Meaning, I would like political parties (plural) with socialists being one of these (or possibly a Labor Party) not just the Two Majors, which I think holds the electoral process hostage. Several political parties, for instance, Tea Party, libertarians, Occupy, whoever else... in addition to traditional Dems and Repubs, in a coalition government, would be preferable in many ways. The corruption in the two major parties is horrific. The horse trading in a coalition govt would force people work together to achieve their goals, rather than just try for simple majorities.

Don dropped me a note and said he decided to move on.