LOL! You captured my sentiments exactly. Thats why everyone loves socialism, Wall Street and OWS are the same, they just want money for themselves. no one stands by free market principles anymore. Socialism for the rich is just bad, its may even be worse than socialism for the poor.
@pjdsfavs Jobs being shipped over seas = caused by regulations. -
That wages have not risen to match inflation = lie. minimum wage in CA is now $8/hr -
That poor people are paying in the bulk of the system = lie. the top %1 pay %37 of tax revenue, top %10 pays %60 of taxes. Majority of poor people pay no taxes or get welfare.
That the system is designed to screw over the people and reward CEO's = caused by regulation. Protectionism, subsidies and bailouts.
@pjdsfavs " no growth in wages to match inflation in 30 years" please, cite your evidence. this statement seems to run counter to everything I can find in the literature.
@pjdsfavs I respectfully disagree that the system is designed to "screw people over." When I was a hardcore liberal, we discussed our design of destroying the US economy. That's why Wade broke off to start ACORN. We thought we could get enough people into poverty so they would want to join the communist/anarchist way. I left the movement. While some CEOs will screw people over, it's better than the psuedo-utopian fantasy that always leads to misery for all.
The problem with this video, and with the Ron Paul campaign btw, is that neither of them address the MASSIVE redistribution of wealth property. Would you play Monopoly with a cheater who agrees to play by the rules only after he controls the board? ARE YOU THAT STUPID? This is what we are headed for if Ron Paul and mundane idiot producers of simple-minded cartoons such as this one don't wake up and smell the propaganda.
The Tea Party stands for anti-centralized government. They want power to be returned to local politicians, who are more controllable. In particular, they want more control over their own money. People are never wise when spending other people's money. The same is true when the federal government uses our taxes.
Too bad Andrew has no concept of what OWS is really about. It's not about asking for handouts. It's about cutting the money ties between corporations and government. This video is terribly misguided.
@bek12 Ha Ha Ha, you are a funny guy..... Oh, that wasn't a joke? All I ever heard come from the ows fool was, give me money, pay my loan, guarantee my home loan, give me a good job regardless of my abilities. Thankfully their time has come and gone. Now hopefully adults will talk.
@ejfurniture Are you guys still hung up on the stereotype of some dumb, jobless kid protesting for free student loans? I thought we were past that. Oh, well... you can't fix ignorance when the person wants to remain ignorant.
@bek12 Yes we're still hung up on that stuff since that is what the "movement" was all about. At least that is what was expressed by most people that took part. Now if your view is to cut the money tie between corp. and gov. then welcome to the Tea Party. You are right, crony capitalism is one of the worst things that happen inside the gov. We don't need a bunch of "children" rapped up in a movement to vandalize and break laws to get that point across.
@ejfurniture No, the movement is about cutting corporate financial ties to government, and the repercussions to the middle-class. The Tea Party just hats government and wants to get rid of things that are crucial, such as the EPA. Who will regulate toxic elements in our food and water... corporations? Give me a break. I wouldn't piss on a member of the Tea Party if he was on fire. They're useless.
@ejfurniture And what will "the adults" talk about... the best way to get rid of unions, pensions, Medicare, and unemployment? Heck, you're already doing that.
@bek12 Your question does give me pause here. I guess the only people that have any legitimate answers to this problem is the Tea Party. What you and I need to do is work really hard this year to get as many Tea Party people elected as possible. This is the only way to get us out of this mess that the liberal Republicans and the really liberal Democrats have gotten us into. Welcome aboard!
@ejfurniture Sorry, I despise the Tea Party people. The Tea Party is anti-government. OWS is anti-corporate interests. Two very different things. I don't think government is inherently bad. The government should be BY the people FOR the people, not BY lobbyists FOR the corporations. That's the difference between OWS and the Tea Party. You've now been educated.
@bek12 Oh ok so you're a socialist. You believe the gov. has all the answers and the people need the great benevolent gov. to direct and protect them. I am sorry that America (the great satan) isn't up to your standards. May I encourage you to move to Cuba, I am sure you will be very happy there. In fact, it's quite the paradise. You can tell by all the people that try to emigrate to it.
@ejfurniture You're stereotyping incorrectly. I certainly don't think government is benevolent, but it's made up of people to help the people (or it should be, at least). I certainly don't think the US is "the great Satan." Btw, when you refer to America, you should know that also includes central and south America. And you can't even spell "immigrate." You can take Cuba and shove it up your ass. This is my country, and I'm here to stay and fight for it.
@bek12 Fight for it? That means you love what it is. It sound like you want to change it into Obama's image. If you actually loved it and wanted to fight for it you would look to hold our representatives to the standards of the founding fathers and what they wrote, such as the Constitution. But no, you want to turn us into a third world socialist country. Take from the rich and give to the poor. They tried this before, Russia. It didn't work so well for them. Learn some history.
@bek12 Are you really this stupid? Everybody that has a brain knows I was talking about the United States of America. Central and South America are different. They have their own countries there that are not the USA. Does this make since or are you to stupid to understand geography? By the way people in those Socialist hell holes are fleeing as fast as they possibly can to this country. They love freedom and opportunity as you obviously don't. Go to Mexico, try it out and see what you think
@ejfurniture I know what you meant, but I was pointing out you don't know what you're talking about. I have been to Uruguay, Ecuador, and several other of these countries. They are very nice places, and far from "hell holes." Nobody is fleeing from those countries, and in fact, the expat population from the US has increased dramatically. But I don't expect someone who can't spell "too" and "sense" properly to get what I'm saying or comprehend it. Mexico sucks, btw. I'd like to ship you there.
@bek12 Having a discussion with you is like arguing with a 3 year old. My only hope is that someone is reading our discussion and realize how bankrupt your views are and is encouraged to look into these topics for the truth. You are a lost cause but maybe someone out there is really questioning these topics and will look into it with an open mind. Someone who isn't happy with being forced fed liberal propaganda from the MSM. Congratulations, you can spell and type better. Feel better?
@ejfurniture Your spelling is just one small indication of your intelligence, as if your understanding of Latin American "hell holes." That's why I felt the need to point it out. Your use of the "MSM" concept created by Sarah Palin is another. You haven't even had a taste of my views, yet you've already labeled and made many assumptions about me. The fact that you think OWS is just about crying college kids further indicates you don't have a clue what it is you hate. You're unthinking.
@bek12 You make statements but give no back up for your view. You say the ows isn't a bunch of crying kids, but give nothing to back up your statements. You think like a child and your arguments are no better. I am done arguing with you. I hope you have a good Christmas and a good year despite your liberal views.
@ejfurniture You want evidence? It's everywhere... the news, YouTube, Internet articles. How you've avoided it so far is amazing to me. But hey, thanks for the Merry Christmas... after all, I'm a commie liberal who should be living in Cuba or some "hell hole" in South Carolina, ahem, I mean South America, so I probably don't even celebrate Christmas, right? lol Merry Christmas to you too, pal. Btw, I'm retiring in the "hell hole" that is Ecuador in a few years. It's a wonderful country.
@ejfurniture I don't have to back up the fact that OWS wants to cut the ties between corporations and government. Everyone should know that. It's like asking me to back up the fact that there's no Santa Claus. (Hope I didn't spoil that for you, btw.) You have a Christmas too, despite your unreasoned ideas about OWS.
@bek12 The Tea Party isn't anti-government, it's pro Constitution. Yes ows is anti-corporate but yet it wants good high paying jobs. George Washington said "Gov. is force. It's like a fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master". I'm sure you like ows fools don't care what George Washington thinks. This is why we need to keep the Gov. as small as possible. If you paid any attention to what Tea Party people say, you would know that we aren't for lobbyist either. Get a clue.
@ejfurniture I can quote multiple presidents of old that warned us of corporate power, and who quoted the dangers of concentrated wealth. A small government means less regulation, more overreaching by corporate interests. I'm pretty sure you're the guy that couldn't even spell "immigration", so I'm pretty sure I've got a lot more clues than you.
Have you looked at some of the statements made by OWS, or the various manifestos floating around? Maybe I'm confusing the essential with the merely coincidental, but I'm definitely seeing a lot of what the OP is lampooning.
I think the most common outcries I have seen are for additional redistributionism and for the cancellation of debt. As in, a bank that makes stupid loans should take responsibility, but a person who makes equally stupid investments should get cheese.
@PanzerDivisionBOM OWS hasn't made any statements, although individual protesters have. I do understand all the conservatives leaping on that, however. OWS needs a coherent message. The OWS movement is really about cutting the financial ties between government and corporations. Simple as that.
I hear what you're saying, and I'm certainly all about getting government out of private business and vice versa, and I'm not any more of a fan of the conservatives or of the status quo than you are.
But who's to say what the OWS is about? Even if there were at some point a central organization or structure (I don't even know, was there?), then it probably won't be representative of what the protests are now. People have come there from all walks of life, complaining about -
- many different problems. And when they can agree in general terms on what the problem is, they offer different analyses and propose different and incompatible solutions.
All that can be said for certain is that the OP is not completely tilting at windmills. The trends and ideas which he criticizes are there. A lot of people in the OWS are clamouring for more regulation and redistributionism, ignorant of how identical measures of the recent past contributed to our -
What ills their fathers brought upon them out of ignorance of economic cause and effect, they often chalk up to greed, and strive all the more hot-headedly to change once more.
Quoth one gentleman and scholar, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
I don't think all OWS participants are like that, and therein should perhaps be made a clearer caveat. But the End the FED-protestors are hardly at the forefront of the movement.
@PanzerDivisionBOM Was? Yes, there IS a central organization with structure. They have a web page, organizers, working groups, etc. They are organized, although you're absolutely right that it is composed of all sorts of people, thus the messages are mixed, unfortunately. I'd like to see them organize as coherently as the Tea Party has, although I think OWS is a larger movement overall.
Andrew Klavan is sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, islamophobic, racist, and bigoted. Now that I've dismissed his humanity, I don't have to deal with any of his ideas.
@sellsjeeps where i'm from libertarians are regarded as fascists who want to starve the poor to death and let the evil rich people get away with exploiting the dying poor.
this is the type of 'looter mentality' that Ayn Rand warns us about in her magnum opus "Atlas Shrugged." (although admittedly her perception towards wealthy businessmen is skewed; they can be morally bankrupt as well. ie. when asking for bailouts)
i think all WELFARE should be taken away ... Bailouts "welfare" let them fail ... people who don't have a job "welfare" let them fail ... when that money runs Dry, they'll get out and look for something ... thats why Illegals are coming to America ... it's cuz so many people are on welfare they don't want to work ...so illegals come in and fill that void ...Big companies take Bailouts "welfare" so they can lobby for a politician or more money for he's company .. End Welfare, fuck its almost 2012
Anyone who demands economic equality demands wealth confiscation and special privileges, and is therefore no different than Wall Street (who also demands wealth confiscation and special privileges)
@wildflower425 you're just irritated because Klavan just proved liberals wrong again. Either that or you are too stupid to understand it you uneducated moron
@FrancesKay1 Nice insult. You didn't make this video seem any more intelligent. Wasn't at all irritated. But if you're the type of person it caters to, it makes sense now. Thanks for enlightening me.
The first kind is the person who means well, and tries to get fact right, but fails through inability.
The second kind is the person who is WILLFULLY IGNORANT. They could easily CHECK THE FACTS before talking, but no, that's too much trouble. They would much rather just TALK RIGHT OUT OF THEIR ASS.
You are the second kind of idiot.
The Federal Reserve DOES NOT control the US Mint. That is the purview of the TREASURY DEPARTMENT.
Absolutely brilliant! Freedom works every time it's tried. The fact is the very very rich , like George Soros, have gotten much richer under Obama at our expense, so have members of Congress. When you hand so much power to the government why is anyone surprised that those who have the most means to buy favors end up doing so? Solution: Maintain the rule of law , provide for the common defense and get out of the way. It worked for the first 100 years and can work again.
To GrowTheTruth: It's OK to call everyone "Sweetie"; actress Alex Kingston's character on "Dr. Who", Dr. River Song, does this all the time and I find it charming! :-)
Those who oppose are missing the point. Occupiers are not asking anyone to "give them money" and they are NOT a bunch of dirty teenagers who refuse to work for a living. The POINT is that our government allows corporations to buy in and control it at will, denying the rights of citizens to oppose, while providing them with tissue-paper delusions that they do indeed still have a say in what the government does, and what they allow corporations to do. That is Quintessentially American.
@psstpassiton It's a little too simplistic to present the entire business community(or even Wall Street) as a rich-fat cat-smoking cigars-riding on $25 million boat, too. I don't see you complain about that though...
@kj37075 You realize that's still almost half of congress who are in business, right? The other half (lawyers and career politicians) are bought. They usually do favour simply because they're getting paid.
It should also interest you to know that 46% of congress is in the 1% (owning $1 million or more).
The triangular cycle @ 3:33 is the real problem. The best solution is removing government altogether - which will subsequently remove the lobbyists as well. Two birds, one stone.
Without government regulation, monopolies and oligopolies will run the economy (which, btw, they already do) and there will be absolutely no such thing as a "free market", where REAL competition exists. Limit everybody's income to (minimal wage)x100 (aim at 50 in the long run) and you get equal income distribution and REAL competition. You can't just ask corporate scumbags to be fair, that's what the PUBLIC has the government for. Or supposed to, anyway.
@nsu1997 The same incentive as now: to make more money. simple math: Let's take a minimal wage that stands at 10,000$ a year. Now, if we multiply it by 100 we get 1,000,000$ a year. Do many people make million bucks a year? I don't think so. Even if you multiply it by 50, it turns out to be 500,000$. A lot of money. This way there would be no more huge multinational corporations, but only countless small businesses and a FREE market, "guided as if by an invisible hand".
@NeverSeenAsaskatoon People don't take extraordinary risk for a capped return. Put yourself in their shoes...why would any ambitious person want their income indexed to a minimum wage?
Say I rehab houses for a living. If the gov't told me the most I was allowed to make was $5k per rehab why would I take on such risk and subject myself to such hard work? And conversely, why should someone who DOESN'T work hard and/or is taking little to no risk be allowed an "equal" distribution of income?
@nsu1997 No one would tell you how much to sell your services for. It's not 5k per rehab. It's around $1 million a year. It can even be $1 million per rehab, no one would mind. If we want more rich people who would not be filthy rich, but simply rich, we, as a society, must limit the personal income. This will only lead to creation of more OPPORTUNITIES to make money, more people would want and be able to enter the market and compete. No subsidies, endless opportunities for everyone.
@NeverSeenAsaskatoon 1st off how would u do limit income to $1M? Say if I rehab a 50-unit apartment building for a total cost of $3M and resell it for $5M (for a $2M profit) who & how exactly would keep me from making that extra million?
Secondly, your basic premise is that for one side to benefit, another must lose. The economy is not a zero sum game...U can make $100B and that doesn't stop me or anyone else from making $100B, nor am I any worse off because of what you make.
@NeverSeenAsaskatoon I would love to live in the world you describe, it would be wonderful because I would be able to ride my unicorn to work everyday.
And opportunities are explicitly and fundamentally limited if there if you impose an income cap. First of all no one has the opportunity to earn >1,000,000. They no longer have the opportunity to spend more and 1,000,000. The very first bionic heart will probably cost upwards of a million, oops no one can do that now.
@NelsonDemartini91 Yes, I know, world where the economy works for the people and promotes general well-being is really hard to imagine.
And you really don't see the problem with the system, where only the select few can afford a bionic heart and the rest just die of heart attacks? If no one could buy things that cost more than a million, then cheaper, affordable substitutes will be produced.
@NeverSeenAsaskatoon I can imagine it just as easily as I the worlds described by Orwell and Huxley
If no one can afford to buy goods because of a income cap then tech/med development will stall.
Unless of course you see the government as taking charge of development. In which case we would have a socialised monopoly. With no competition, the would be no drive for inprovements of service, product, technology.
You clearly have little understanding of economics, society or technology.
@NelsonDemartini91 Orwell and Huxley have nothing to do with it. They criticize oppressive, totalitarian regimes, not transparent, democratic governments that regulate the economy to avoid monopolies/oligopolies and oligarchies.
Can you please name at least one tech/med item that a person earning as much as a 100 people with minimal (U.S.) wages can't afford to buy? Can you give me this item's market price?
Companies could still develop anything they want cooperatively.
But once you get to $1,000,000 a year, what is the point of working any harder or taking and more risk? Why would you bother if the reward will be the same?
@NeverSeenAsaskatoon The purpose of taxation is not and SHOULD NOT be wealth redistribution. Such a policy would be a textbook definition of communism.
The purpose of taxation is to fund the government and the services it provides eg. electricity generation, the court system, the public service, heathcare (if you live in any first world country bar the US). The government is supposed to represent the people in deciding where this money should go and how much.
@GrowtheTruth - both groups were caricatured equally - that you saw only one caricatured shows your unwillingness to be fair minded
@psstpassiton - what he proposed is not what the ows folks want, sure they want less subsidies for corporations... but do they really want less subsidies (i.e. entitlements) for individuals. I suspect not.
@KentDirtbeard I'm more than fair-minded. I know there are many at the protests who are ignorant. Frankly, that speaks volumes about America's education system.
It is all about perception. He wants to see OWS in that manner, so that's what protests are to him. I, however, have seen both the educated & the uneducated side of it. I choose to ignore those who don't support the original principles of the movement, because they aren't accurate representations.
@KentDirtbeard Many at the protests wouldn't mind less subsidies for individuals. Fact is many just want the jobs that have been taken from them.
They want the opportunities their parents had, the chance to live without struggling to pay off astronomical student debt, & to stop stressing over how they'll pay for rent or groceries (many having to choose between the two).
So, the original purpose of OWS has nothing to do with entitlement & more to do with equal opportunity.
Andrew Klavan: What you've presented at the conclusion of the video as your brilliant solution is actually Occupy's demand: stop subsidizing hugely profitable industries on the backs of the middle-class. It's a little too simplistic to present the entire Occupy movement as a dippy, Marxist chick who wants free money. Try harder next time.
@psstpassiton Sooooo....why do they demand the government weave the nexus tighter? I've heard proponents argue that government should increasingly regulate the banking industry, but doesn't that make the problem worse? (Ex.: Food industry.)
Additionally, OWS seems more interested in spouting random feel-good nonsense straight from the English Teacher's wall. If they want us to join, they should say what their principles are, not take dumps on cars.
@psstpassiton It's simplistic because it's largely accurate. The majority of the OWS crowd doesn't know what it wants, and most of those who do don't realize their lack of logic. The REAL 99% (not the crackpot crowd) wants government to get out of everybody's business and let the economy work (=jobs). However WE think that government's to blame for ACCEPTING what can only be seen as bribes, while OWS blames the bribers. It's just as dumb as blaming McD's for tempting me with food. Oh wait...
No, you're not being honest about the full nature of OWS demands, nor of the full point of Klavan's video.
If all OWS was about was "stop subsidizing corporations" we would all be for it. But there is clearly also an element of "subsidize US instead."
Moreover, the MECHANISM to which OWS seems to look for this solution is BIG GOVERNMENT. But ironically, big government is THE CAUSE of this corporatism which you decry. And this is Klavan's point.
@psstpassiton you missed the other part of the conclusion, where the Occupy groups also want to be subsidized just like the businesses, instead of work for their own success. It's a double edged sword I'm afraid.
Yes, there are idiots in the Occupations. However, I think this video focuses on the confused, who have made their way into the movement, instead of focusing on what the movement has always been about.
Yes, there will always be those who are wealthier. It's not about them having more money. It's about them having aquired their wealth through corruption at the people's expense. This is about holding white collar criminals accountable & returning the wealth they've taken through that corruption.
@GrowTheTruth So you complain about cherry-picking when Occupy is criticized (I've yet to see someone sensible on any of the rallys. And the official crime statistics show that it's a quite accurate description of "the movement" for a satirical piece) but you have zero problem with the "1%" class warfare rethoric? How many of the 1% are criminals? How many got their wealth by cheating? You don't know, you don't care.
And shouldn't they protest the politicians who enable corruption?
@scepticsteve I'm aware that not every member of the 1% is corrupt or has gained their wealth through corruption. I do know many in the 1% who got their wealth by cheating & I do care.
They should protest the politicians, the bankers, the speculators, the businessmen & all whose actions in the quest for gain have hurt the nation. That's why there is Occupy DC protesting politicians, Occupy Wall Street protesting the stock markets & bankers, & others.
@GrowTheTruth As LadyLiberty said there are already plenty of laws to fight corrupt methods for gaining wealth. This isn't really just about them. It's about the entire top 1%. Many people at these rallies have displayed negative feelings towards any who should have more money than they do, and sometimes toward private property rights altogether. For clarification, I would like to have some of your examples of cheating, just to see where you put the line.
@gryphonlaments Those laws to fight corruption have loopholes & are easily changed by puppets or businessmen working in politics.
As for cheating, take Monsanto. They illegally dumped PCBs & mercury around Anniston, Alabama for over 40 yrs, which caused huge amounts of cancers & tumors.
Or the Bank of America, which encourages pushing "ghetto loans" onto immigrants, minorities & those with poor english & education, since riskier loans are more profitable for them.
@NelsonDemartini91 (2/2) The former banker told the New York Times, “some account executives earned a commission seven times higher from subprime loans, rather than prime mortgages. So they looked for less savvy borrowers — those with less education, without previous mortgage experience, or without fluent English — and nudged them toward subprime loans.”
So, I'm very aware about many of the problems. I suggest you start doing some research and you might understand as well.
@NelsonDemartini91 (1/2) If you don’t want to believe me, then that’s your prerogative. It won’t be because I don’t know what I’m talking about, but rather because you don’t have a basic understanding of how loan work.
Riskier loans are actually the most profitable. In fact, many loaners would give out money to borrowers with bad credit or without doing income checks. In fact, they would target the poor and uneducated.
@GrowTheTruth The people giving out subprimes loans were stupid/unscrupulous. A loan is only profitable IF the person recieving the loan is able to pay the loan back.
Giving loans to people who can't afford to make repayments was never going to be profitable.
The only thing that made them viable was packaging them up with healthy loans and selling the on.
Dishonesty and stupidity was the problem, not inequity.
@NelsonDemartini91 Actually, no. The loan is profitable whether it's paid back or not.
Goldman Sachs (among others), thanks to a tiny group of traders, generated one of the biggest windfalls the securities industry has seen in years by betting against these risky loans.
They knew the loans were crap & people wouldn't pay them back. If they default? They make money, because they ruin the economy so badly that the government has to bail them out of those bad assets, anyways.
@NelsonDemartini91 So, they'd encourage lenders to generate more of these risky loans that they know are going to fail, because it's a win-win situation for them.
If the people pay them back, then they get their money back with interest.
If not? Well, they drown the borrowers in debt, bet against the faulty subprime mortgages & loans, foreclose & auction off people's houses (even when they can't prove ownership of the mortgage anymore) & pocket the government bailout money.
@NelsonDemartini91 And, by the way, the reason why risky loans to the poor and uneducated are more profitable, is because they can get more money from chopping up, rebundling and selling people's mortgages and loans to investors, and then recieving millions in bailouts.
That is more profit for them than lending out the money and waiting for those people to pay it back over years and years.
@NelsonDemartini91 And, by the way, the reason why risky loans to the poor and uneducated are more profitable, is because they can get more money from chopping up, rebundling and selling people's mortgages and loans to investors, and then recieving millions in bailouts.
That is more profit for them than lending out the money and waiting for those people to pay it back over years and years.
@GrowTheTruth Thank you for your response. As for your first example, you are correct, that is certainly wrong and there are laws dealing with that already. Your second though I would disagree with. It's the job of the consumer to determine what will help or hurt him, it is the bank's job to make money. If they withhold information that's one thing, but otherwise consumers need to watch to make sure they don't make any poor economic choices.
@GrowTheTruth Wallstreet is corrupt. Their influence on these kinds of things should certainly be checked. Bail-outs, for example, probably shouldn't exist. The government should not be running a car company, particularly when it can barely run a country, and government involvement always increase the number of times money changes hands decreasing efficiency. We don't really need to change the laws very much, we mostly need to enforce them.
@gryphonlaments I think that's true. However, there needs to be a new system implimented that not only encourages enforcement of these laws, but makes it manditory. That's not going to happen if the public doesn't stand to hold people accountable and force those who won't enforce the law to deal with public discontent.
The public need to understand and accept their responsabilities as citizens. Government isn't something we can just let run on its own & then turn a blind eye to.
@GrowTheTruth Let me assure you the laws are already mandatory, and some get by when they shouldn't, but that is as common, if not more, with criminals who's criminal activity is not associated any corporation. For example, people who run gangs in North City or deal amphetamines in Crawford County will often bribe or scare their way out of jail. OWS has not helped with the first group and is full of examples of the second.
@GrowTheTruth I have seen the corruption of these unincorporated criminals first hand. I have seen it more times than I can count, law enforcement averting their eyes while people cook or kill. I know the businesses own many politicians, but I have a hard time believing that this man's company owned as many as he says. Perhaps I misheard, but it seemed that he was saying that he practically owned 100 congressmen. I also wouldn't trust a known liar.
@gryphonlaments The man went to jail for corruption. What the Hell does he have to gain by coming out and explaining that his company corrupted 100 congressmen? He has everything to lose by coming out and admitting that!
Besides, it's not just him. You're very naive if you don't understand just how truly, truly, truly corrupt the government is. Politics = money. Politicians make the most money by catering to businesses, who need legislation to bend in their favor.
@GrowTheTruth What did speculators do wrong? Speculation is very useful and they use their own money. You seek an easy scapegoat and a catchy phrase. Is the percentage in the top 2% of income earners (or do you mean top 1% wealthy?) who "cheated" different from the one in the 1%?
How many are in the 1%? How many left the 1% during the crisis, how many got in? You don't care. You have an arbitrary class definition (why not 0.1%? 1.1%?). It shows it's balony to begin with.
@scepticsteve Speculators drive up the prices of food, oil and other goods.
Also, due to the carbon offset schemes, public funds are being invested, even though the main beneficiaries will be private companies and financial speculators. As an example, benefits from carbon trading accruing largely to financial speculators, even though initial investments come from the public purse.
@GrowTheTruth That's incorrect. Speculation can raise or lower short-term prices. But that's a good thing. They bet on higher/lower future demand with their own money and risk. anticipating future demands corrects production (higher price = higher incentive to produce, lower price = invest less in lost causes).
Just read some economics 101 before you parrot demonization agitprop.
If speculators help the market, then why did the Consumer Federation of America find that speculators are adding about $600 to the average family’s annual gasoline tab?
I've no doubt that some speculation, when done properly and with regulation, is a good thing. However, many seculators have directly contributed to the sky-rocketing prices.
@GrowTheTruth Just google "townhall williams future markets", should be the first entry. Don't know why it screws up the link.
Speculation is perfectly fine. No regulation needed. If someone would drive the prices in the wrong direction (amplify the trend with lots of capital leverage) he would destroy himself long before he could do harm. You need to bet against the trend to succeed if you have good information. Otherwise you're dead. It's impossible to harm systematically.
@scepticsteve If it is impossible to harm systematically, then how has it been found time and time again that their actions harm the market prices for the public? Speculating on food prices has been directly linked to the hike in food cost.
Your understanding of the Futures market is somewhat deficient.
In the big picture, "speculating" on prices of food--or anything--has no effect on prices which does not "average out" the same over time. One positive effect speculation has is to BUFFER sharp changes in price.
Think about it. People wouldn't "speculate" higher prices unless objective facts point to future higher prices. The "speculation" merely "averages out" the market over a longer span of time.
@UncleIrv Is that the reason why the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) found food speculation was causing hunger by increasing price? Or why a June 2006 US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report on “The Role of Market Speculation in rising oil and gas prices,” noted, “…there is substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that the large amount of speculation in the current market has significantly increased prices.”?
@GrowTheTruth No, the reason why political actors make up this stuff is so they don't need to blame the politicians they get money from...
The food prices go up naturally from time to time. Speculation helps here to increase production before that happens (higher prices before). They also skyrocket because of bad policies like corn ethanol. Politicians need a scapegoat (like Obama the 1%).
Thinak about it, if speculators are successful, the food-shortage was sure to happen alrdy
No. The reason Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and the US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said those things is real simple. It's because they are FULL OF CRAP.
See, just because some think tank or bureaucracy "says something" does not make it true. Notice: different groups say DIFFERENT things. Some must be wrong.
There's a lot of FAULTY UNDERSTANDING OF ECONOMICS out there. There's also a lot of DELIBERATE OBFUSCATION FOR POLITICAL GAIN.
@UncleIrv If it has "no effect on prices" it has no effect. Then it cannot avergae something out or buffer. Basic logic. No cause (change in prices), no effect.
It is possible though, that a speculator has too little effect to change anything for others. then there is no harm done, either.
The last sentence is almost what I said. But speculators don't "avergae", they change the trend into a more realistic trajectory. There is real net value in speculation.
@GrowTheTruth Who "found" this time and time again? Think about it. If someone speculates on higher prices, then the prices become higher, what did he gain? Nothing. You can only be sucessful if you speculate against what others anticipate! Speculation cannot amplify (then the speculators would go bankrupt). Amplifying would mean failure (the information was bad and you speculated incorrectly).
Speculators bet AGAINST the general trend and smoothen the market, they cannot amplify.
@scepticsteve Dear God. =_= It has been proven to have an effect on prices. I can not even believe that you're trying to deny that speculating has an effect on prices, when it has been proven over and over again.
@GrowTheTruth I know it has. But it has a good effect on it. YOU argued it has no effect!!!!
You said it would average out. then it would make no difference (over time). But it DOES change the average!!!! That's why it has a positive effect (giving incentives to slow down or bring up production early, resulting in more or less production over time than the status quo) bringing in additional information!
@GrowTheTruth And again, if you don't want public funds being used by crony GE, complain against the politicians, not the successful "1%" regardless of personal guilt.
Microsoft in the 80s didn't spend a dime on Washington. Then they got sued for a shake down. Now they spend many millions. How to avoid this? Blame Bill Gates?
@scepticsteve What part of this don't you get? Many of the politicians ARE businessmen. You can't attack the businessmen without attacking the politicians. And you can't attack the politicians without attacking the businessmen.
I'm not saying that politicians aren't corrupt. They also need to be confronted and held accountable. But to place the blame completely on the politicians, while ignoring the corrupt corporations, is just as rediculous as ignoring the corrupt politicians.
@GrowTheTruth You should attack INDIVIDUALS instead of conducting class warfare!
Corporations often (not always) play the shake down game like Microsoft because they have to. Get the pimp, not the prostitute. Get GE, not Mom & Pop jewelry imports (top 1%).
And get the pimp, not someone innocent who earns as much as the pimp with perfectly legal stuff.
In other words "1%" automatically is stupid generalization. But the occupiers don't think about it. Just chanting slogans.
@scepticsteve 1% is in reference to the UN Report that found the richest 1% own 40% of all wealth.
It's a catchy slogan meant to emphasize the income inequality & stating that much of that inequality is due to corrupt individuals rigging the system & ignoring the damage their persuit of profit has on the human race.
So, we can argue over the semantics of a slogan, or we can discuss whether or not corruption is acceptable & what to do about it. That's the real goal.
Yes, CORRUPTION is bad. It should be prosecuted in every instance.
But INCOME INEQUALITY is not something which is inherently bad. A market economy cannot function without differences in income. There is no basis for assuming that "much" inequality is "due to corruption." Again, the problem is the corruption--not the inequality.
The only way "inequality" can be harmful is if the economy is a "zero sum game"--which it is NOT.
@UncleIrv Of course there are going to be differences in equality! Some will always own more than others.
However, when 1% of the world's population owns 40% of the wealth, there's something wrong & that level of inequality is due to rampant corruption.
If too few people have too much money, it's often more than they can spend. Millions sit in accounts instead of being put back into the economy. So, to make this clear, 400 people have more wealth than 155 million people combined.
@UncleIrv Now, some of those people made their money honestly, but there is a lot of money in those accounts that hadn't existed until someone made it out of thin air. What kind of damage do you think making up fiat money did to the economy?
Have any of those people been held accountable? Nope, but they are still out there making money at the expense of the public. That income inequality IS bad and that is the income equality Americans are faced with.
Individual private citizens cannot "make money out of thin air." They cannot "print money" aside from counterfeit. Only GOVERNMENTS can do that. (You are also misusing the term "fiat money.")
And YES, when governments do that, it has a VERY BAD effect!
And the Obama Administration is one of the worst violators in history. "Quantitative Easing" is nothing but PRINTING MONEY out of thin air. This is exactly what the Tea Party is fighting against.
@UncleIrv The Federal Reserve controls the US Mint. And the Federal Reserve is a private bank that is run by private bankers, who have the power to print America's money and lend it to the American government.
The American government does not control the Federal Reserve. Understand?
The Federal Reserve does NOT control the US Mint. The US Mint is controlled by the US Department of the Treasury, a fully governmental entity.
The Federal reserve may have INFLUENCE on monetary policy, but the US Government has the final say on when and how much money is printed.
Maybe you need to spend less time hanging out with your lefty friends smoking that "truth" you're growing, and more time double-checking this information they're giving you.
@UncleIrv You are very naive. The Federal Reserve has the power to directly print money out of thin air. It printed up and lent out over $7 trillion to bailout overseas banks, according to a recent partial audit.
You're clueless and I've nothing but pity for you that you live such a sheltered life.
@UncleIrv income inequality is not inherently bad, and some degree of inequality will be inevitable however, extreme levels of inequality are very bad for any society. with high levels of inequality, economies experience less sustained growth as it becomes increasingly difficult for people to access education. Also when there are no laws restricting the influence of money in politics, inequality translates into oligarchy or corporatocracy which is what we have now.
Your theory is interesting. Too bad REALITY refutes it.
If "extreme" income inequality shuts people out of education, then whatever inequality we have must not be extreme, because access to education is almost universal here. Education PRICES have been driven up by ANTI-MARKET leftism.
And obviously oligarchy hasn't totally taken hold yet, because if it had, we would not have the Tea Party--whose primary mission is to defeat the forces of oligarchy and corporatism.
@UncleIrv reality does not refute it, I do not make claims that are unsupported by evidence, several studies confirm my assertions, check out the september edition of fiance and development, the imf journal did an exhaustive study that backs this claim. Income inequality in the US has become more extreme in recent years, so we are starting to see the effects, clearly we are falling behind in the world, our high school math and reading scores are below most other industrialized economies
@dalbuydubsol "Income inequality in the US has become more extreme in recent years, so we are starting to see the effects, clearly.. our high school math and reading scores are below most other industrialized economies" - failing state of education has nothing to do with income inequality, we have 2nd most expensive education behind Swiss in the world, in terms of GDP, & everything to do with teachers' public unions running our education (into a ditch) proped up by Big government
Yeah, you're attempting to artificially conflate two unrelated things.
First, the IMF is far from impartial and is corrupt with leftists who impose their biased view. Their goal is to continue INCREASING the very statism that's CAUSING excess income inequality.
Second, the failure of schools is also a result of STATISM, as the system has devolved into a feeding trough for self-serving bureaucrats, purged of all merit-based incentives that would drive up quality.
@UncleIrv please, the IMF is far from leftist, they are often criticized by the left, I myself am no fan but I checked out the study with and open mind an found it to be legit, you are just dismissing it right away based on preconceived notions, so whos being impartial? There are a lot of problems with our public education system, that does not mean privatization is the answer, there are countries to left of us that are doing better, check out the Finnish system for a better model
@UncleIrv the tea party, haha, your joking right? the tea party was co-opted by the corporate controlled republican party and the crony capitalist Koch brothers. The Koch brothers bribe politicians and get handouts from the gov in return. Many of the tea party people will support Gingrich, the embodiment of crony capitalism and our corrupt political system, Ron Paul got it right when he told the tea party they were being taken for a ride, I commend occupy wall street for opposing both parties
As long as your communication is confined to boiler plate talking points, how can I take you seriously?
You know nothing about the Tea Party because you're an outsider relying solely on slanted media to form your opinions. If the Tea Party was "co-opted" by ANYONE'S money, where is my check?
Like hundreds of others who consider themselves Tea Party, I'm motivated solely by my own convictions. Can you imagine how ABSURD you guys sound to us, telling US who WE are?
@UncleIrv your right, I dont know you and you very well may be consistent in your views, and if you are I respect that, however, if you think its ok for the tea party to get into bed with the Koch brothers and accept their financial support, then you are a hypocrite, the Kochs crony capitalists activities are well documented...it is true that some tea party leaders have already endorsed Newt, the embodiment of crony capitalism(I didnt make that up) endorsing newt could not be more hypocritical
You miss the point. The Tea Party HAS NO STRUCTURE.
I'm not arguing that it's "okay" to get in bed with the Koch Bros. I'm pointing out that it's IMPOSSIBLE. How would such an arrangement work?
This is like saying that all "people named Joe" are in bed with some entity. THEY ARE INDIVIDUALS. Individuals DO NOT ACT COLLECTIVELY.
And I promise you, Tea Party people in general will not stay with Newt! Right now they're just voicing their dissatisfaction with Romney. It wont last.
@GrowTheTruth Who cares about income inequality? Is it about envy? Do you want the kulaks in a death camp because they own land? Income inequality is a fact of life. If someone is mor eproductive or serves his custumers better, he'll make more money. Nothing wrong with that. Stupid generalization.
Te poor in America are rich compared to the rest of the world. Very little of that comes from a "rigged" system. And if you want to eliminate the unfair stuff, protest corrupt politicians
@scepticsteve Dumb ass...income inequality is a problem when it involves a small number of people gaining a large portion of the world's wealth through corruption and actions that harm the public.
(notice, I'm not the person you're going back-n-forth with)
You keep confusing two completely different things:
"income inequality is a problem when it involves...corruption and actions that harm"
Income inequality is one thing. Corruption is another. THE CORRUPTION IS THE ONE THAT'S BAD. Income inequality, on the other hand, is NOT inherently bad, but simply an inescapable part of MARKET ECONOMY.
And the economy is NOT a zero sum game, as you keep inferring.
@GrowTheTruth "through corruption and actions that harm the public." Right. QED. Speculation doesn't do that. Income inequalityis not the problem, corruption and fraud is!
Fight corruption and fraud, not income inequality (which can be the result of many things and will always be there, in communist societies even more).
You're working on a non-harmful symptom instead of addressing a real problem by blaming the 1%!
@scepticsteve of course speculation does that. Its common knowledge that speculators artificially inflate oil prices through the easily manipulated futures market. So far the regulators have done nothing to stop excessive speculation most likely because they have been corrupted by industry. There is more supply of oil then there was two years ago and there is less demand so prices should have gone down when instead they went up, excessive speculation is responsible for this
Obama should see this, and the rest of the stupid government.
TWSceptic 1 day ago
"Actually that's the Bible"
*head explodes*
hahahahahahahahahahahahahaha that's great.
d3ltadrive 1 week ago 2
As Tolstoy said, differences between the two are the difference between cat shit and dog shit.
martydrooo 2 weeks ago 5
Extreme Socialism and big corporation capitalism-same shit different assholes.
HebrewFatherland 3 weeks ago 5
@HebrewFatherland I think you mean big corporation CRONY capitalism.
toddclemmer 1 week ago
@toddclemmer Yep
HebrewFatherland 1 week ago
LOL! You captured my sentiments exactly. Thats why everyone loves socialism, Wall Street and OWS are the same, they just want money for themselves. no one stands by free market principles anymore. Socialism for the rich is just bad, its may even be worse than socialism for the poor.
Hilarious :D
TheDeathstarrr 3 weeks ago 2
"Socialism for rich people"! That´s rich!
AndyAce83 4 weeks ago
"Women studies, with a concentration on vaginal methodologies of dissatisfaction."
I seriously LOL'd.
karozans 1 month ago 5
Excellent video, funny and accurate as always.
Riclists 1 month ago 3
@pjdsfavs Jobs being shipped over seas = caused by regulations. -
That wages have not risen to match inflation = lie. minimum wage in CA is now $8/hr -
That poor people are paying in the bulk of the system = lie. the top %1 pay %37 of tax revenue, top %10 pays %60 of taxes. Majority of poor people pay no taxes or get welfare.
That the system is designed to screw over the people and reward CEO's = caused by regulation. Protectionism, subsidies and bailouts.
We need less regulation, not more
david52875 1 month ago
@pjdsfavs " no growth in wages to match inflation in 30 years" please, cite your evidence. this statement seems to run counter to everything I can find in the literature.
MrHamncheez 1 month ago
Thats why we should all be libertarians
TheWhatupsun 1 month ago
@pjdsfavs I respectfully disagree that the system is designed to "screw people over." When I was a hardcore liberal, we discussed our design of destroying the US economy. That's why Wade broke off to start ACORN. We thought we could get enough people into poverty so they would want to join the communist/anarchist way. I left the movement. While some CEOs will screw people over, it's better than the psuedo-utopian fantasy that always leads to misery for all.
amoryverum 1 month ago 5
The problem with this video, and with the Ron Paul campaign btw, is that neither of them address the MASSIVE redistribution of wealth property. Would you play Monopoly with a cheater who agrees to play by the rules only after he controls the board? ARE YOU THAT STUPID? This is what we are headed for if Ron Paul and mundane idiot producers of simple-minded cartoons such as this one don't wake up and smell the propaganda.
vtcpdx 2 months ago
The Tea Party stands for anti-centralized government. They want power to be returned to local politicians, who are more controllable. In particular, they want more control over their own money. People are never wise when spending other people's money. The same is true when the federal government uses our taxes.
HalfWittee 2 months ago
Too bad Andrew has no concept of what OWS is really about. It's not about asking for handouts. It's about cutting the money ties between corporations and government. This video is terribly misguided.
bek12 2 months ago
@bek12 Ha Ha Ha, you are a funny guy..... Oh, that wasn't a joke? All I ever heard come from the ows fool was, give me money, pay my loan, guarantee my home loan, give me a good job regardless of my abilities. Thankfully their time has come and gone. Now hopefully adults will talk.
ejfurniture 2 months ago
@ejfurniture Are you guys still hung up on the stereotype of some dumb, jobless kid protesting for free student loans? I thought we were past that. Oh, well... you can't fix ignorance when the person wants to remain ignorant.
bek12 2 months ago
@bek12 Yes we're still hung up on that stuff since that is what the "movement" was all about. At least that is what was expressed by most people that took part. Now if your view is to cut the money tie between corp. and gov. then welcome to the Tea Party. You are right, crony capitalism is one of the worst things that happen inside the gov. We don't need a bunch of "children" rapped up in a movement to vandalize and break laws to get that point across.
ejfurniture 2 months ago
@ejfurniture No, the movement is about cutting corporate financial ties to government, and the repercussions to the middle-class. The Tea Party just hats government and wants to get rid of things that are crucial, such as the EPA. Who will regulate toxic elements in our food and water... corporations? Give me a break. I wouldn't piss on a member of the Tea Party if he was on fire. They're useless.
bek12 2 months ago
@ejfurniture And what will "the adults" talk about... the best way to get rid of unions, pensions, Medicare, and unemployment? Heck, you're already doing that.
bek12 2 months ago
@bek12 Your question does give me pause here. I guess the only people that have any legitimate answers to this problem is the Tea Party. What you and I need to do is work really hard this year to get as many Tea Party people elected as possible. This is the only way to get us out of this mess that the liberal Republicans and the really liberal Democrats have gotten us into. Welcome aboard!
ejfurniture 2 months ago
@ejfurniture Sorry, I despise the Tea Party people. The Tea Party is anti-government. OWS is anti-corporate interests. Two very different things. I don't think government is inherently bad. The government should be BY the people FOR the people, not BY lobbyists FOR the corporations. That's the difference between OWS and the Tea Party. You've now been educated.
bek12 2 months ago
@bek12 Oh ok so you're a socialist. You believe the gov. has all the answers and the people need the great benevolent gov. to direct and protect them. I am sorry that America (the great satan) isn't up to your standards. May I encourage you to move to Cuba, I am sure you will be very happy there. In fact, it's quite the paradise. You can tell by all the people that try to emigrate to it.
ejfurniture 2 months ago
@ejfurniture You're stereotyping incorrectly. I certainly don't think government is benevolent, but it's made up of people to help the people (or it should be, at least). I certainly don't think the US is "the great Satan." Btw, when you refer to America, you should know that also includes central and south America. And you can't even spell "immigrate." You can take Cuba and shove it up your ass. This is my country, and I'm here to stay and fight for it.
bek12 2 months ago
@bek12 Fight for it? That means you love what it is. It sound like you want to change it into Obama's image. If you actually loved it and wanted to fight for it you would look to hold our representatives to the standards of the founding fathers and what they wrote, such as the Constitution. But no, you want to turn us into a third world socialist country. Take from the rich and give to the poor. They tried this before, Russia. It didn't work so well for them. Learn some history.
ejfurniture 2 months ago
@bek12 Are you really this stupid? Everybody that has a brain knows I was talking about the United States of America. Central and South America are different. They have their own countries there that are not the USA. Does this make since or are you to stupid to understand geography? By the way people in those Socialist hell holes are fleeing as fast as they possibly can to this country. They love freedom and opportunity as you obviously don't. Go to Mexico, try it out and see what you think
ejfurniture 2 months ago
@ejfurniture I know what you meant, but I was pointing out you don't know what you're talking about. I have been to Uruguay, Ecuador, and several other of these countries. They are very nice places, and far from "hell holes." Nobody is fleeing from those countries, and in fact, the expat population from the US has increased dramatically. But I don't expect someone who can't spell "too" and "sense" properly to get what I'm saying or comprehend it. Mexico sucks, btw. I'd like to ship you there.
bek12 2 months ago
@bek12 Having a discussion with you is like arguing with a 3 year old. My only hope is that someone is reading our discussion and realize how bankrupt your views are and is encouraged to look into these topics for the truth. You are a lost cause but maybe someone out there is really questioning these topics and will look into it with an open mind. Someone who isn't happy with being forced fed liberal propaganda from the MSM. Congratulations, you can spell and type better. Feel better?
ejfurniture 2 months ago
@ejfurniture Your spelling is just one small indication of your intelligence, as if your understanding of Latin American "hell holes." That's why I felt the need to point it out. Your use of the "MSM" concept created by Sarah Palin is another. You haven't even had a taste of my views, yet you've already labeled and made many assumptions about me. The fact that you think OWS is just about crying college kids further indicates you don't have a clue what it is you hate. You're unthinking.
bek12 2 months ago
@bek12 You make statements but give no back up for your view. You say the ows isn't a bunch of crying kids, but give nothing to back up your statements. You think like a child and your arguments are no better. I am done arguing with you. I hope you have a good Christmas and a good year despite your liberal views.
ejfurniture 2 months ago
@ejfurniture You want evidence? It's everywhere... the news, YouTube, Internet articles. How you've avoided it so far is amazing to me. But hey, thanks for the Merry Christmas... after all, I'm a commie liberal who should be living in Cuba or some "hell hole" in South Carolina, ahem, I mean South America, so I probably don't even celebrate Christmas, right? lol Merry Christmas to you too, pal. Btw, I'm retiring in the "hell hole" that is Ecuador in a few years. It's a wonderful country.
bek12 2 months ago
@ejfurniture I don't have to back up the fact that OWS wants to cut the ties between corporations and government. Everyone should know that. It's like asking me to back up the fact that there's no Santa Claus. (Hope I didn't spoil that for you, btw.) You have a Christmas too, despite your unreasoned ideas about OWS.
bek12 2 months ago
@bek12 The Tea Party isn't anti-government, it's pro Constitution. Yes ows is anti-corporate but yet it wants good high paying jobs. George Washington said "Gov. is force. It's like a fire, a dangerous servant and a fearful master". I'm sure you like ows fools don't care what George Washington thinks. This is why we need to keep the Gov. as small as possible. If you paid any attention to what Tea Party people say, you would know that we aren't for lobbyist either. Get a clue.
ejfurniture 2 months ago
@ejfurniture I can quote multiple presidents of old that warned us of corporate power, and who quoted the dangers of concentrated wealth. A small government means less regulation, more overreaching by corporate interests. I'm pretty sure you're the guy that couldn't even spell "immigration", so I'm pretty sure I've got a lot more clues than you.
bek12 2 months ago
@bek12
Have you looked at some of the statements made by OWS, or the various manifestos floating around? Maybe I'm confusing the essential with the merely coincidental, but I'm definitely seeing a lot of what the OP is lampooning.
I think the most common outcries I have seen are for additional redistributionism and for the cancellation of debt. As in, a bank that makes stupid loans should take responsibility, but a person who makes equally stupid investments should get cheese.
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 months ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM OWS hasn't made any statements, although individual protesters have. I do understand all the conservatives leaping on that, however. OWS needs a coherent message. The OWS movement is really about cutting the financial ties between government and corporations. Simple as that.
bek12 2 months ago
@bek12
I hear what you're saying, and I'm certainly all about getting government out of private business and vice versa, and I'm not any more of a fan of the conservatives or of the status quo than you are.
But who's to say what the OWS is about? Even if there were at some point a central organization or structure (I don't even know, was there?), then it probably won't be representative of what the protests are now. People have come there from all walks of life, complaining about -
-
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 months ago
-
- many different problems. And when they can agree in general terms on what the problem is, they offer different analyses and propose different and incompatible solutions.
All that can be said for certain is that the OP is not completely tilting at windmills. The trends and ideas which he criticizes are there. A lot of people in the OWS are clamouring for more regulation and redistributionism, ignorant of how identical measures of the recent past contributed to our -
-
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 months ago
-
- present predicament.
What ills their fathers brought upon them out of ignorance of economic cause and effect, they often chalk up to greed, and strive all the more hot-headedly to change once more.
Quoth one gentleman and scholar, "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it."
I don't think all OWS participants are like that, and therein should perhaps be made a clearer caveat. But the End the FED-protestors are hardly at the forefront of the movement.
PanzerDivisionBOM 2 months ago
@PanzerDivisionBOM Was? Yes, there IS a central organization with structure. They have a web page, organizers, working groups, etc. They are organized, although you're absolutely right that it is composed of all sorts of people, thus the messages are mixed, unfortunately. I'd like to see them organize as coherently as the Tea Party has, although I think OWS is a larger movement overall.
bek12 2 months ago
Great video...so true!
kdx200r 2 months ago
Why don't I find new Klavan on the Culture videos?
HerrWagnerfreund 2 months ago
@HerrWagnerfreund
he switched from pjmedia to gbtv...look for "klavans very serious commentary"
claudryn 2 months ago
Andrew Klavan is sexist, intolerant, xenophobic, homophobic, islamophobic, racist, and bigoted. Now that I've dismissed his humanity, I don't have to deal with any of his ideas.
koyunbaba73 2 months ago
Libertarianism FTW!
sellsjeeps 2 months ago 16
@sellsjeeps where i'm from libertarians are regarded as fascists who want to starve the poor to death and let the evil rich people get away with exploiting the dying poor.
topperheartramada 1 month ago
this is the type of 'looter mentality' that Ayn Rand warns us about in her magnum opus "Atlas Shrugged." (although admittedly her perception towards wealthy businessmen is skewed; they can be morally bankrupt as well. ie. when asking for bailouts)
MacstersUndead 2 months ago
i think all WELFARE should be taken away ... Bailouts "welfare" let them fail ... people who don't have a job "welfare" let them fail ... when that money runs Dry, they'll get out and look for something ... thats why Illegals are coming to America ... it's cuz so many people are on welfare they don't want to work ...so illegals come in and fill that void ...Big companies take Bailouts "welfare" so they can lobby for a politician or more money for he's company .. End Welfare, fuck its almost 2012
SupaNami 2 months ago
I was waiting for her head to blow up the second time--darn it.
shellyscafe 2 months ago
love it!!!
asdamusic 2 months ago
Perfect example of how Socialism is cannibalism without the protein.
moralimpact 2 months ago
"Don't quote your stupid country songs at me."
MWAHAHAHAHA!
Yesica1993 2 months ago
Anyone who demands economic equality demands wealth confiscation and special privileges, and is therefore no different than Wall Street (who also demands wealth confiscation and special privileges)
redcups21 2 months ago
This video is stupid.
wildflower425 2 months ago
@wildflower425 you're just irritated because Klavan just proved liberals wrong again. Either that or you are too stupid to understand it you uneducated moron
FrancesKay1 2 months ago
@FrancesKay1 Nice insult. You didn't make this video seem any more intelligent. Wasn't at all irritated. But if you're the type of person it caters to, it makes sense now. Thanks for enlightening me.
wildflower425 2 months ago
this video is simple-minded
prinznevsky 2 months ago
Just like Andrew Klavan and his fan base
TheCaliCapitalist 2 months ago
Ron Paul 2012. Freedom for everyone. No socialism for anyone!
LibertarianChristian 2 months ago
About as fair a treatment of the mess as I have seen.
kartwriter83 2 months ago 30
There are two kinds of idiots in the world.
The first kind is the person who means well, and tries to get fact right, but fails through inability.
The second kind is the person who is WILLFULLY IGNORANT. They could easily CHECK THE FACTS before talking, but no, that's too much trouble. They would much rather just TALK RIGHT OUT OF THEIR ASS.
You are the second kind of idiot.
The Federal Reserve DOES NOT control the US Mint. That is the purview of the TREASURY DEPARTMENT.
But do babble on.
UncleIrv 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
Absolutely brilliant! Freedom works every time it's tried. The fact is the very very rich , like George Soros, have gotten much richer under Obama at our expense, so have members of Congress. When you hand so much power to the government why is anyone surprised that those who have the most means to buy favors end up doing so? Solution: Maintain the rule of law , provide for the common defense and get out of the way. It worked for the first 100 years and can work again.
CapitalistCrusader 2 months ago
Comment removed
CapitalistCrusader 2 months ago
To GrowTheTruth: It's OK to call everyone "Sweetie"; actress Alex Kingston's character on "Dr. Who", Dr. River Song, does this all the time and I find it charming! :-)
kfreasstudio 2 months ago
Those who oppose are missing the point. Occupiers are not asking anyone to "give them money" and they are NOT a bunch of dirty teenagers who refuse to work for a living. The POINT is that our government allows corporations to buy in and control it at will, denying the rights of citizens to oppose, while providing them with tissue-paper delusions that they do indeed still have a say in what the government does, and what they allow corporations to do. That is Quintessentially American.
Kaotiqua 2 months ago
@Kaotiqua Actually, yes they are and just re-iterated demands for student loan forgiveness and "free stuff" for teachers today. Google it.
LadyLiberty1885 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
This crapy video is a load of garbage!
Since when did the occupy wall street movement want ''rich'' people to give them free money?
Stupid fools did not even go to a protest and certainly don't know what the protest is about!
mrchibitix59 2 months ago
Comment removed
KennethJDeVries 2 months ago
I expected something intelligent with this video. Disappointment abounds.
bfreed01 2 months ago
Going for funny at the expense of real people who are shivering with real fear now that their lives and futures have been erased is in bad taste.
Besides the American Flag has six alternating red and white strips under the star pattern. What a totally UnAmerican Video, they should be ashamed.
pecuniarygmailcom 2 months ago
@psstpassiton It's a little too simplistic to present the entire business community(or even Wall Street) as a rich-fat cat-smoking cigars-riding on $25 million boat, too. I don't see you complain about that though...
DaniOcean 2 months ago
@kj37075 You realize that's still almost half of congress who are in business, right? The other half (lawyers and career politicians) are bought. They usually do favour simply because they're getting paid.
It should also interest you to know that 46% of congress is in the 1% (owning $1 million or more).
GrowTheTruth 2 months ago
The triangular cycle @ 3:33 is the real problem. The best solution is removing government altogether - which will subsequently remove the lobbyists as well. Two birds, one stone.
CherryGanz 2 months ago
waste of time...
therevepigee 2 months ago
YOUAREACORPORATEPROPOGANDA!
Without government regulation, monopolies and oligopolies will run the economy (which, btw, they already do) and there will be absolutely no such thing as a "free market", where REAL competition exists. Limit everybody's income to (minimal wage)x100 (aim at 50 in the long run) and you get equal income distribution and REAL competition. You can't just ask corporate scumbags to be fair, that's what the PUBLIC has the government for. Or supposed to, anyway.
NeverSeenAsaskatoon 2 months ago
@NeverSeenAsaskatoon What would be the incentive to take the risk of starting/running a business if your income is limited as you stipulated?
nsu1997 2 months ago
@nsu1997 The same incentive as now: to make more money. simple math: Let's take a minimal wage that stands at 10,000$ a year. Now, if we multiply it by 100 we get 1,000,000$ a year. Do many people make million bucks a year? I don't think so. Even if you multiply it by 50, it turns out to be 500,000$. A lot of money. This way there would be no more huge multinational corporations, but only countless small businesses and a FREE market, "guided as if by an invisible hand".
NeverSeenAsaskatoon 2 months ago
@NeverSeenAsaskatoon People don't take extraordinary risk for a capped return. Put yourself in their shoes...why would any ambitious person want their income indexed to a minimum wage?
Say I rehab houses for a living. If the gov't told me the most I was allowed to make was $5k per rehab why would I take on such risk and subject myself to such hard work? And conversely, why should someone who DOESN'T work hard and/or is taking little to no risk be allowed an "equal" distribution of income?
nsu1997 2 months ago
@nsu1997 No one would tell you how much to sell your services for. It's not 5k per rehab. It's around $1 million a year. It can even be $1 million per rehab, no one would mind. If we want more rich people who would not be filthy rich, but simply rich, we, as a society, must limit the personal income. This will only lead to creation of more OPPORTUNITIES to make money, more people would want and be able to enter the market and compete. No subsidies, endless opportunities for everyone.
NeverSeenAsaskatoon 2 months ago
@NeverSeenAsaskatoon 1st off how would u do limit income to $1M? Say if I rehab a 50-unit apartment building for a total cost of $3M and resell it for $5M (for a $2M profit) who & how exactly would keep me from making that extra million?
Secondly, your basic premise is that for one side to benefit, another must lose. The economy is not a zero sum game...U can make $100B and that doesn't stop me or anyone else from making $100B, nor am I any worse off because of what you make.
nsu1997 2 months ago
@NeverSeenAsaskatoon I would love to live in the world you describe, it would be wonderful because I would be able to ride my unicorn to work everyday.
And opportunities are explicitly and fundamentally limited if there if you impose an income cap. First of all no one has the opportunity to earn >1,000,000. They no longer have the opportunity to spend more and 1,000,000. The very first bionic heart will probably cost upwards of a million, oops no one can do that now.
NelsonDemartini91 2 months ago
@NelsonDemartini91 Yes, I know, world where the economy works for the people and promotes general well-being is really hard to imagine.
And you really don't see the problem with the system, where only the select few can afford a bionic heart and the rest just die of heart attacks? If no one could buy things that cost more than a million, then cheaper, affordable substitutes will be produced.
NeverSeenAsaskatoon 2 months ago
@NeverSeenAsaskatoon I can imagine it just as easily as I the worlds described by Orwell and Huxley
If no one can afford to buy goods because of a income cap then tech/med development will stall.
Unless of course you see the government as taking charge of development. In which case we would have a socialised monopoly. With no competition, the would be no drive for inprovements of service, product, technology.
You clearly have little understanding of economics, society or technology.
NelsonDemartini91 2 months ago
@NelsonDemartini91 Orwell and Huxley have nothing to do with it. They criticize oppressive, totalitarian regimes, not transparent, democratic governments that regulate the economy to avoid monopolies/oligopolies and oligarchies.
Can you please name at least one tech/med item that a person earning as much as a 100 people with minimal (U.S.) wages can't afford to buy? Can you give me this item's market price?
Companies could still develop anything they want cooperatively.
NeverSeenAsaskatoon 2 months ago
But once you get to $1,000,000 a year, what is the point of working any harder or taking and more risk? Why would you bother if the reward will be the same?
NelsonDemartini91 2 months ago
@NeverSeenAsaskatoon The purpose of taxation is not and SHOULD NOT be wealth redistribution. Such a policy would be a textbook definition of communism.
The purpose of taxation is to fund the government and the services it provides eg. electricity generation, the court system, the public service, heathcare (if you live in any first world country bar the US). The government is supposed to represent the people in deciding where this money should go and how much.
NelsonDemartini91 2 months ago
@GrowtheTruth - both groups were caricatured equally - that you saw only one caricatured shows your unwillingness to be fair minded
@psstpassiton - what he proposed is not what the ows folks want, sure they want less subsidies for corporations... but do they really want less subsidies (i.e. entitlements) for individuals. I suspect not.
KentDirtbeard 2 months ago
@KentDirtbeard I'm more than fair-minded. I know there are many at the protests who are ignorant. Frankly, that speaks volumes about America's education system.
It is all about perception. He wants to see OWS in that manner, so that's what protests are to him. I, however, have seen both the educated & the uneducated side of it. I choose to ignore those who don't support the original principles of the movement, because they aren't accurate representations.
GrowTheTruth 2 months ago
@KentDirtbeard Many at the protests wouldn't mind less subsidies for individuals. Fact is many just want the jobs that have been taken from them.
They want the opportunities their parents had, the chance to live without struggling to pay off astronomical student debt, & to stop stressing over how they'll pay for rent or groceries (many having to choose between the two).
So, the original purpose of OWS has nothing to do with entitlement & more to do with equal opportunity.
GrowTheTruth 2 months ago
Andrew Klavan: What you've presented at the conclusion of the video as your brilliant solution is actually Occupy's demand: stop subsidizing hugely profitable industries on the backs of the middle-class. It's a little too simplistic to present the entire Occupy movement as a dippy, Marxist chick who wants free money. Try harder next time.
psstpassiton 2 months ago 2
@psstpassiton Sooooo....why do they demand the government weave the nexus tighter? I've heard proponents argue that government should increasingly regulate the banking industry, but doesn't that make the problem worse? (Ex.: Food industry.)
Additionally, OWS seems more interested in spouting random feel-good nonsense straight from the English Teacher's wall. If they want us to join, they should say what their principles are, not take dumps on cars.
SteamCenturion 2 months ago
@psstpassiton It's simplistic because it's largely accurate. The majority of the OWS crowd doesn't know what it wants, and most of those who do don't realize their lack of logic. The REAL 99% (not the crackpot crowd) wants government to get out of everybody's business and let the economy work (=jobs). However WE think that government's to blame for ACCEPTING what can only be seen as bribes, while OWS blames the bribers. It's just as dumb as blaming McD's for tempting me with food. Oh wait...
KatieKanton 2 months ago
@psstpassiton
No, you're not being honest about the full nature of OWS demands, nor of the full point of Klavan's video.
If all OWS was about was "stop subsidizing corporations" we would all be for it. But there is clearly also an element of "subsidize US instead."
Moreover, the MECHANISM to which OWS seems to look for this solution is BIG GOVERNMENT. But ironically, big government is THE CAUSE of this corporatism which you decry. And this is Klavan's point.
UncleIrv 2 months ago
@psstpassiton you missed the other part of the conclusion, where the Occupy groups also want to be subsidized just like the businesses, instead of work for their own success. It's a double edged sword I'm afraid.
mme725 2 months ago
haha... Way to put in perspective Andrew. Thanks for posting.
jr52990 2 months ago 2
Yes, there are idiots in the Occupations. However, I think this video focuses on the confused, who have made their way into the movement, instead of focusing on what the movement has always been about.
Yes, there will always be those who are wealthier. It's not about them having more money. It's about them having aquired their wealth through corruption at the people's expense. This is about holding white collar criminals accountable & returning the wealth they've taken through that corruption.
GrowTheTruth 2 months ago
@GrowTheTruth So you complain about cherry-picking when Occupy is criticized (I've yet to see someone sensible on any of the rallys. And the official crime statistics show that it's a quite accurate description of "the movement" for a satirical piece) but you have zero problem with the "1%" class warfare rethoric? How many of the 1% are criminals? How many got their wealth by cheating? You don't know, you don't care.
And shouldn't they protest the politicians who enable corruption?
scepticsteve 2 months ago
@scepticsteve I'm aware that not every member of the 1% is corrupt or has gained their wealth through corruption. I do know many in the 1% who got their wealth by cheating & I do care.
They should protest the politicians, the bankers, the speculators, the businessmen & all whose actions in the quest for gain have hurt the nation. That's why there is Occupy DC protesting politicians, Occupy Wall Street protesting the stock markets & bankers, & others.
But I guess you ignored that?
GrowTheTruth 2 months ago
@GrowTheTruth As LadyLiberty said there are already plenty of laws to fight corrupt methods for gaining wealth. This isn't really just about them. It's about the entire top 1%. Many people at these rallies have displayed negative feelings towards any who should have more money than they do, and sometimes toward private property rights altogether. For clarification, I would like to have some of your examples of cheating, just to see where you put the line.
gryphonlaments 2 months ago
@gryphonlaments Those laws to fight corruption have loopholes & are easily changed by puppets or businessmen working in politics.
As for cheating, take Monsanto. They illegally dumped PCBs & mercury around Anniston, Alabama for over 40 yrs, which caused huge amounts of cancers & tumors.
Or the Bank of America, which encourages pushing "ghetto loans" onto immigrants, minorities & those with poor english & education, since riskier loans are more profitable for them.
GrowTheTruth 2 months ago
@GrowTheTruth Loans to poor people are not more profitable. You don't event know what the problem is, why should we trust your solution?
NelsonDemartini91 2 months ago
Comment removed
GrowTheTruth 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NelsonDemartini91 (2/2) The former banker told the New York Times, “some account executives earned a commission seven times higher from subprime loans, rather than prime mortgages. So they looked for less savvy borrowers — those with less education, without previous mortgage experience, or without fluent English — and nudged them toward subprime loans.”
So, I'm very aware about many of the problems. I suggest you start doing some research and you might understand as well.
GrowTheTruth 2 months ago
@NelsonDemartini91 (1/2) If you don’t want to believe me, then that’s your prerogative. It won’t be because I don’t know what I’m talking about, but rather because you don’t have a basic understanding of how loan work.
Riskier loans are actually the most profitable. In fact, many loaners would give out money to borrowers with bad credit or without doing income checks. In fact, they would target the poor and uneducated.
GrowTheTruth 2 months ago
@GrowTheTruth The people giving out subprimes loans were stupid/unscrupulous. A loan is only profitable IF the person recieving the loan is able to pay the loan back.
Giving loans to people who can't afford to make repayments was never going to be profitable.
The only thing that made them viable was packaging them up with healthy loans and selling the on.
Dishonesty and stupidity was the problem, not inequity.
NelsonDemartini91 2 months ago
@NelsonDemartini91 Actually, no. The loan is profitable whether it's paid back or not.
Goldman Sachs (among others), thanks to a tiny group of traders, generated one of the biggest windfalls the securities industry has seen in years by betting against these risky loans.
They knew the loans were crap & people wouldn't pay them back. If they default? They make money, because they ruin the economy so badly that the government has to bail them out of those bad assets, anyways.
GrowTheTruth 2 months ago
@NelsonDemartini91 So, they'd encourage lenders to generate more of these risky loans that they know are going to fail, because it's a win-win situation for them.
If the people pay them back, then they get their money back with interest.
If not? Well, they drown the borrowers in debt, bet against the faulty subprime mortgages & loans, foreclose & auction off people's houses (even when they can't prove ownership of the mortgage anymore) & pocket the government bailout money.
GrowTheTruth 2 months ago
@NelsonDemartini91 And, by the way, the reason why risky loans to the poor and uneducated are more profitable, is because they can get more money from chopping up, rebundling and selling people's mortgages and loans to investors, and then recieving millions in bailouts.
That is more profit for them than lending out the money and waiting for those people to pay it back over years and years.
GrowTheTruth 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@NelsonDemartini91 And, by the way, the reason why risky loans to the poor and uneducated are more profitable, is because they can get more money from chopping up, rebundling and selling people's mortgages and loans to investors, and then recieving millions in bailouts.
That is more profit for them than lending out the money and waiting for those people to pay it back over years and years.
GrowTheTruth 2 months ago
@GrowTheTruth Thank you for your response. As for your first example, you are correct, that is certainly wrong and there are laws dealing with that already. Your second though I would disagree with. It's the job of the consumer to determine what will help or hurt him, it is the bank's job to make money. If they withhold information that's one thing, but otherwise consumers need to watch to make sure they don't make any poor economic choices.
gryphonlaments 2 months ago
@GrowTheTruth Wallstreet is corrupt. Their influence on these kinds of things should certainly be checked. Bail-outs, for example, probably shouldn't exist. The government should not be running a car company, particularly when it can barely run a country, and government involvement always increase the number of times money changes hands decreasing efficiency. We don't really need to change the laws very much, we mostly need to enforce them.
gryphonlaments 2 months ago
@gryphonlaments I think that's true. However, there needs to be a new system implimented that not only encourages enforcement of these laws, but makes it manditory. That's not going to happen if the public doesn't stand to hold people accountable and force those who won't enforce the law to deal with public discontent.
The public need to understand and accept their responsabilities as citizens. Government isn't something we can just let run on its own & then turn a blind eye to.
GrowTheTruth 2 months ago
@GrowTheTruth Let me assure you the laws are already mandatory, and some get by when they shouldn't, but that is as common, if not more, with criminals who's criminal activity is not associated any corporation. For example, people who run gangs in North City or deal amphetamines in Crawford County will often bribe or scare their way out of jail. OWS has not helped with the first group and is full of examples of the second.
gryphonlaments 2 months ago
@gryphonlaments Wow. Do you ever have it confused. =_=
Here. Watch this, then tell me how less common corporate corruption is in politic:
/watch?v=xe1d32I_wUY
GrowTheTruth 2 months ago
@GrowTheTruth I have seen the corruption of these unincorporated criminals first hand. I have seen it more times than I can count, law enforcement averting their eyes while people cook or kill. I know the businesses own many politicians, but I have a hard time believing that this man's company owned as many as he says. Perhaps I misheard, but it seemed that he was saying that he practically owned 100 congressmen. I also wouldn't trust a known liar.
gryphonlaments 2 months ago
@gryphonlaments The man went to jail for corruption. What the Hell does he have to gain by coming out and explaining that his company corrupted 100 congressmen? He has everything to lose by coming out and admitting that!
Besides, it's not just him. You're very naive if you don't understand just how truly, truly, truly corrupt the government is. Politics = money. Politicians make the most money by catering to businesses, who need legislation to bend in their favor.
Clue in!
GrowTheTruth 2 months ago
@GrowTheTruth What did speculators do wrong? Speculation is very useful and they use their own money. You seek an easy scapegoat and a catchy phrase. Is the percentage in the top 2% of income earners (or do you mean top 1% wealthy?) who "cheated" different from the one in the 1%?
How many are in the 1%? How many left the 1% during the crisis, how many got in? You don't care. You have an arbitrary class definition (why not 0.1%? 1.1%?). It shows it's balony to begin with.
scepticsteve 2 months ago
@scepticsteve Speculators drive up the prices of food, oil and other goods.
Also, due to the carbon offset schemes, public funds are being invested, even though the main beneficiaries will be private companies and financial speculators. As an example, benefits from carbon trading accruing largely to financial speculators, even though initial investments come from the public purse.
So, no. They don't always use their own money.
GrowTheTruth 2 months ago
@GrowTheTruth That's incorrect. Speculation can raise or lower short-term prices. But that's a good thing. They bet on higher/lower future demand with their own money and risk. anticipating future demands corrects production (higher price = higher incentive to produce, lower price = invest less in lost causes).
Just read some economics 101 before you parrot demonization agitprop.
townhall (dot) com/columnists/walterewilliams/2008/05/28/futures_markets/page/full/
scepticsteve 2 months ago
@scepticsteve Your link is broken.
If speculators help the market, then why did the Consumer Federation of America find that speculators are adding about $600 to the average family’s annual gasoline tab?
I've no doubt that some speculation, when done properly and with regulation, is a good thing. However, many seculators have directly contributed to the sky-rocketing prices.
GrowTheTruth 2 months ago
@GrowTheTruth Just google "townhall williams future markets", should be the first entry. Don't know why it screws up the link.
Speculation is perfectly fine. No regulation needed. If someone would drive the prices in the wrong direction (amplify the trend with lots of capital leverage) he would destroy himself long before he could do harm. You need to bet against the trend to succeed if you have good information. Otherwise you're dead. It's impossible to harm systematically.
scepticsteve 2 months ago
@scepticsteve If it is impossible to harm systematically, then how has it been found time and time again that their actions harm the market prices for the public? Speculating on food prices has been directly linked to the hike in food cost.
GrowTheTruth 2 months ago
@GrowTheTruth
Your understanding of the Futures market is somewhat deficient.
In the big picture, "speculating" on prices of food--or anything--has no effect on prices which does not "average out" the same over time. One positive effect speculation has is to BUFFER sharp changes in price.
Think about it. People wouldn't "speculate" higher prices unless objective facts point to future higher prices. The "speculation" merely "averages out" the market over a longer span of time.
UncleIrv 2 months ago
@UncleIrv Is that the reason why the Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy (IATP) found food speculation was causing hunger by increasing price? Or why a June 2006 US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations report on “The Role of Market Speculation in rising oil and gas prices,” noted, “…there is substantial evidence supporting the conclusion that the large amount of speculation in the current market has significantly increased prices.”?
Because speculation averages out?
GrowTheTruth 2 months ago
@GrowTheTruth No, the reason why political actors make up this stuff is so they don't need to blame the politicians they get money from...
The food prices go up naturally from time to time. Speculation helps here to increase production before that happens (higher prices before). They also skyrocket because of bad policies like corn ethanol. Politicians need a scapegoat (like Obama the 1%).
Thinak about it, if speculators are successful, the food-shortage was sure to happen alrdy
scepticsteve 2 months ago
@GrowTheTruth
No. The reason Institute for Agriculture and Trade Policy and the US Senate Permanent Subcommittee on Investigations said those things is real simple. It's because they are FULL OF CRAP.
See, just because some think tank or bureaucracy "says something" does not make it true. Notice: different groups say DIFFERENT things. Some must be wrong.
There's a lot of FAULTY UNDERSTANDING OF ECONOMICS out there. There's also a lot of DELIBERATE OBFUSCATION FOR POLITICAL GAIN.
UncleIrv 2 months ago
@UncleIrv If it has "no effect on prices" it has no effect. Then it cannot avergae something out or buffer. Basic logic. No cause (change in prices), no effect.
It is possible though, that a speculator has too little effect to change anything for others. then there is no harm done, either.
The last sentence is almost what I said. But speculators don't "avergae", they change the trend into a more realistic trajectory. There is real net value in speculation.
scepticsteve 2 months ago
@GrowTheTruth Who "found" this time and time again? Think about it. If someone speculates on higher prices, then the prices become higher, what did he gain? Nothing. You can only be sucessful if you speculate against what others anticipate! Speculation cannot amplify (then the speculators would go bankrupt). Amplifying would mean failure (the information was bad and you speculated incorrectly).
Speculators bet AGAINST the general trend and smoothen the market, they cannot amplify.
scepticsteve 2 months ago
@scepticsteve Dear God. =_= It has been proven to have an effect on prices. I can not even believe that you're trying to deny that speculating has an effect on prices, when it has been proven over and over again.
That is pure denial. Unbelievable.
GrowTheTruth 2 months ago
@GrowTheTruth I know it has. But it has a good effect on it. YOU argued it has no effect!!!!
You said it would average out. then it would make no difference (over time). But it DOES change the average!!!! That's why it has a positive effect (giving incentives to slow down or bring up production early, resulting in more or less production over time than the status quo) bringing in additional information!
"Dear GOD"
scepticsteve 2 months ago
@GrowTheTruth And again, if you don't want public funds being used by crony GE, complain against the politicians, not the successful "1%" regardless of personal guilt.
Microsoft in the 80s didn't spend a dime on Washington. Then they got sued for a shake down. Now they spend many millions. How to avoid this? Blame Bill Gates?
I don't think so.
scepticsteve 2 months ago
@scepticsteve What part of this don't you get? Many of the politicians ARE businessmen. You can't attack the businessmen without attacking the politicians. And you can't attack the politicians without attacking the businessmen.
I'm not saying that politicians aren't corrupt. They also need to be confronted and held accountable. But to place the blame completely on the politicians, while ignoring the corrupt corporations, is just as rediculous as ignoring the corrupt politicians.
GrowTheTruth 2 months ago
@GrowTheTruth You should attack INDIVIDUALS instead of conducting class warfare!
Corporations often (not always) play the shake down game like Microsoft because they have to. Get the pimp, not the prostitute. Get GE, not Mom & Pop jewelry imports (top 1%).
And get the pimp, not someone innocent who earns as much as the pimp with perfectly legal stuff.
In other words "1%" automatically is stupid generalization. But the occupiers don't think about it. Just chanting slogans.
scepticsteve 2 months ago
@scepticsteve 1% is in reference to the UN Report that found the richest 1% own 40% of all wealth.
It's a catchy slogan meant to emphasize the income inequality & stating that much of that inequality is due to corrupt individuals rigging the system & ignoring the damage their persuit of profit has on the human race.
So, we can argue over the semantics of a slogan, or we can discuss whether or not corruption is acceptable & what to do about it. That's the real goal.
GrowTheTruth 2 months ago
@GrowTheTruth
You are confusing two different things.
Yes, CORRUPTION is bad. It should be prosecuted in every instance.
But INCOME INEQUALITY is not something which is inherently bad. A market economy cannot function without differences in income. There is no basis for assuming that "much" inequality is "due to corruption." Again, the problem is the corruption--not the inequality.
The only way "inequality" can be harmful is if the economy is a "zero sum game"--which it is NOT.
UncleIrv 2 months ago
@UncleIrv Of course there are going to be differences in equality! Some will always own more than others.
However, when 1% of the world's population owns 40% of the wealth, there's something wrong & that level of inequality is due to rampant corruption.
If too few people have too much money, it's often more than they can spend. Millions sit in accounts instead of being put back into the economy. So, to make this clear, 400 people have more wealth than 155 million people combined.
GrowTheTruth 2 months ago
@UncleIrv Now, some of those people made their money honestly, but there is a lot of money in those accounts that hadn't existed until someone made it out of thin air. What kind of damage do you think making up fiat money did to the economy?
Have any of those people been held accountable? Nope, but they are still out there making money at the expense of the public. That income inequality IS bad and that is the income equality Americans are faced with.
GrowTheTruth 2 months ago
@GrowTheTruth
Individual private citizens cannot "make money out of thin air." They cannot "print money" aside from counterfeit. Only GOVERNMENTS can do that. (You are also misusing the term "fiat money.")
And YES, when governments do that, it has a VERY BAD effect!
And the Obama Administration is one of the worst violators in history. "Quantitative Easing" is nothing but PRINTING MONEY out of thin air. This is exactly what the Tea Party is fighting against.
UncleIrv 2 months ago
@UncleIrv The Federal Reserve controls the US Mint. And the Federal Reserve is a private bank that is run by private bankers, who have the power to print America's money and lend it to the American government.
The American government does not control the Federal Reserve. Understand?
Please go read up on it.
GrowTheTruth 2 months ago
@GrowTheTruth
The Federal Reserve does NOT control the US Mint. The US Mint is controlled by the US Department of the Treasury, a fully governmental entity.
The Federal reserve may have INFLUENCE on monetary policy, but the US Government has the final say on when and how much money is printed.
Maybe you need to spend less time hanging out with your lefty friends smoking that "truth" you're growing, and more time double-checking this information they're giving you.
UncleIrv 2 months ago
@UncleIrv You are very naive. The Federal Reserve has the power to directly print money out of thin air. It printed up and lent out over $7 trillion to bailout overseas banks, according to a recent partial audit.
You're clueless and I've nothing but pity for you that you live such a sheltered life.
GrowTheTruth 2 months ago
@UncleIrv income inequality is not inherently bad, and some degree of inequality will be inevitable however, extreme levels of inequality are very bad for any society. with high levels of inequality, economies experience less sustained growth as it becomes increasingly difficult for people to access education. Also when there are no laws restricting the influence of money in politics, inequality translates into oligarchy or corporatocracy which is what we have now.
dalbuydubsol 2 months ago
@dalbuydubsol
Your theory is interesting. Too bad REALITY refutes it.
If "extreme" income inequality shuts people out of education, then whatever inequality we have must not be extreme, because access to education is almost universal here. Education PRICES have been driven up by ANTI-MARKET leftism.
And obviously oligarchy hasn't totally taken hold yet, because if it had, we would not have the Tea Party--whose primary mission is to defeat the forces of oligarchy and corporatism.
UncleIrv 2 months ago
@UncleIrv reality does not refute it, I do not make claims that are unsupported by evidence, several studies confirm my assertions, check out the september edition of fiance and development, the imf journal did an exhaustive study that backs this claim. Income inequality in the US has become more extreme in recent years, so we are starting to see the effects, clearly we are falling behind in the world, our high school math and reading scores are below most other industrialized economies
dalbuydubsol 2 months ago
@dalbuydubsol "Income inequality in the US has become more extreme in recent years, so we are starting to see the effects, clearly.. our high school math and reading scores are below most other industrialized economies" - failing state of education has nothing to do with income inequality, we have 2nd most expensive education behind Swiss in the world, in terms of GDP, & everything to do with teachers' public unions running our education (into a ditch) proped up by Big government
mowgly3000 2 months ago
@dalbuydubsol
Yeah, you're attempting to artificially conflate two unrelated things.
First, the IMF is far from impartial and is corrupt with leftists who impose their biased view. Their goal is to continue INCREASING the very statism that's CAUSING excess income inequality.
Second, the failure of schools is also a result of STATISM, as the system has devolved into a feeding trough for self-serving bureaucrats, purged of all merit-based incentives that would drive up quality.
UncleIrv 2 months ago
@UncleIrv please, the IMF is far from leftist, they are often criticized by the left, I myself am no fan but I checked out the study with and open mind an found it to be legit, you are just dismissing it right away based on preconceived notions, so whos being impartial? There are a lot of problems with our public education system, that does not mean privatization is the answer, there are countries to left of us that are doing better, check out the Finnish system for a better model
dalbuydubsol 2 months ago
@UncleIrv the tea party, haha, your joking right? the tea party was co-opted by the corporate controlled republican party and the crony capitalist Koch brothers. The Koch brothers bribe politicians and get handouts from the gov in return. Many of the tea party people will support Gingrich, the embodiment of crony capitalism and our corrupt political system, Ron Paul got it right when he told the tea party they were being taken for a ride, I commend occupy wall street for opposing both parties
dalbuydubsol 2 months ago
@dalbuydubsol
As long as your communication is confined to boiler plate talking points, how can I take you seriously?
You know nothing about the Tea Party because you're an outsider relying solely on slanted media to form your opinions. If the Tea Party was "co-opted" by ANYONE'S money, where is my check?
Like hundreds of others who consider themselves Tea Party, I'm motivated solely by my own convictions. Can you imagine how ABSURD you guys sound to us, telling US who WE are?
UncleIrv 2 months ago
@UncleIrv your right, I dont know you and you very well may be consistent in your views, and if you are I respect that, however, if you think its ok for the tea party to get into bed with the Koch brothers and accept their financial support, then you are a hypocrite, the Kochs crony capitalists activities are well documented...it is true that some tea party leaders have already endorsed Newt, the embodiment of crony capitalism(I didnt make that up) endorsing newt could not be more hypocritical
dalbuydubsol 2 months ago
@dalbuydubsol
You miss the point. The Tea Party HAS NO STRUCTURE.
I'm not arguing that it's "okay" to get in bed with the Koch Bros. I'm pointing out that it's IMPOSSIBLE. How would such an arrangement work?
This is like saying that all "people named Joe" are in bed with some entity. THEY ARE INDIVIDUALS. Individuals DO NOT ACT COLLECTIVELY.
And I promise you, Tea Party people in general will not stay with Newt! Right now they're just voicing their dissatisfaction with Romney. It wont last.
UncleIrv 2 months ago
@GrowTheTruth Who cares about income inequality? Is it about envy? Do you want the kulaks in a death camp because they own land? Income inequality is a fact of life. If someone is mor eproductive or serves his custumers better, he'll make more money. Nothing wrong with that. Stupid generalization.
Te poor in America are rich compared to the rest of the world. Very little of that comes from a "rigged" system. And if you want to eliminate the unfair stuff, protest corrupt politicians
scepticsteve 2 months ago
@scepticsteve Dumb ass...income inequality is a problem when it involves a small number of people gaining a large portion of the world's wealth through corruption and actions that harm the public.
It is baffling how ignorant you are.
GrowTheTruth 2 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@GrowTheTruth
(notice, I'm not the person you're going back-n-forth with)
You keep confusing two completely different things:
"income inequality is a problem when it involves...corruption and actions that harm"
Income inequality is one thing. Corruption is another. THE CORRUPTION IS THE ONE THAT'S BAD. Income inequality, on the other hand, is NOT inherently bad, but simply an inescapable part of MARKET ECONOMY.
And the economy is NOT a zero sum game, as you keep inferring.
UncleIrv 2 months ago
@GrowTheTruth "through corruption and actions that harm the public." Right. QED. Speculation doesn't do that. Income inequalityis not the problem, corruption and fraud is!
Fight corruption and fraud, not income inequality (which can be the result of many things and will always be there, in communist societies even more).
You're working on a non-harmful symptom instead of addressing a real problem by blaming the 1%!
Steve Jobs earning billions is fine! No problem!
scepticsteve 2 months ago
@scepticsteve of course speculation does that. Its common knowledge that speculators artificially inflate oil prices through the easily manipulated futures market. So far the regulators have done nothing to stop excessive speculation most likely because they have been corrupted by industry. There is more supply of oil then there was two years ago and there is less demand so prices should have gone down when instead they went up, excessive speculation is responsible for this
dalbuydubsol 2 months ago
@dalbuydubsol Nope. How do you make money if you