About the; "Treating employees more "justly" means paying MORE", "YOU WANT poor to PAY MORE?"
Why put the burden on the working people, and consumers anyway? The vast amount of the value produced lies in the corporation itself and their shareholders. People can't buy back the actual product, so we get plagued with overproduction and also poverty. There's no reason to accommodate their corporate interests but the desire to keep capitalism alive.
The police are primarily the tool of the bourgeoisie to curb the working class, it's only sometimes that they'll possibly turn over to the struggling side, when they have relations with the people on the barricades, or happened to be attacked themselves. Some of the police can turn over.
We are not going to get cops on ourside heckling Newt and then the protesters won't heckle Obama and it will quickly look like the protesters are a fringe far left group. OWS DON'T HECKLE NEWT DAMN IT. He burys himself talking you bury us not letting him talk. Shit I put out the worst videos on these criminals but this? Will only cause violent outburst that make us look bad. OccupyIdeas has the right idea get the cops on ourside. Cops attend these events and have to rough us up on camera.
The biggest problem with getting the cops on your side is the sheer amount of radical leftist elements within the movement who are against authority or structure of any kind. Such people despise cops, war veterans, politicians - basically anyone who tries to contribute to society.
The voice of the ordinary man, the man who loves his country and is protesting to make it a better place, need to be stronger than those of the malcontent and the Anarchist.
Great points, police and military are key to awaken to the globalist banker occupation. Not to awaken them and have them throw down their weapons but to use their power to arrest the criminal oligarchs that have taken over every facet of of our lives. From their Rockefeller funded green revolution, to their take over of our medical system with poison Prescriptions & spiked vaccines. To a Rothschild controlled collapse of our financial systems to consolidate wealth. The system must be rebuilt.
Rep. Ted Deutch (FL-19), a Dem on the House Judiciary Committee, introduced the Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED) Constitutional Amendment. The OCCUPIED Amendment both overturns the Citizens United Supreme Court decision that wrongly awarded the Constitutionally-protected free speech rights of people to corporations and totally bans corporate money from America's electoral process.
@sparkyj99 You oppose the media from having the right to free speech? They include many corporations. According to you, as soon as we become stockholders, we have no right to free speech?
@luvcheney1 ~~> Speech is speech... Money is not speech... I do like the rout this amendment is going but would call for public campaign finance & term limits... Contributions should be a $3 box you check when filing your taxes... I am not for big money buying politicians... I am not for billion dollar commercial campaigns... Holders can give their 3 bucks just like everybody elce & give Trump speehes all they wish... When Political office is for profit, WE THE PEPLE LOSE..
@sparkyj99 Yes, Speech is Speech, and television, print, internet ads are speech. If individuals can pool money together, that is all corporations are doing, pooling the money of individuals. People own corps. Reality is that in US, people who dont have money have issues. This is the easiest nation on Earth to succeed, so if you dont, YOU fucked up, and need to look in the mirror, to find the reason. Illegals aliens succeed, without English, or education, or money. It`s easy! WORK!
@luvcheney1 ~~> Your talking to me like I don't have a job... I do... I work in petroleum... You talk like I don't take responsibility... I do... And I pay my taxes too... I seriously suggest you get up on how much money politicians are getting for legislating in favor of the big guy... I don't need a 3 ring circus for president of the reality tv world... The speech money corrupts... Public campaign finance it takes out the root of the evil... I suggest E-Verify for your "Illeagal" issue
@luvcheney1 ~~> Sorry, I read that wrong... But public finance is still my bit... Your right it is hard to fail and I do not support the nanny state but I like how Norway funds education... One of the reasons for the "entitled" state is from defunding education... When I was in school we were taught home ec/shop/mechanics and such... We were taught how to manage a check book & change a tire... Those electives are gone & now WE are lacking those critical skills because of budget cuts...
@sparkyj99 Norway is small, with lots of oil money, it can afford to be stupid, and stupidity will not have consequences for them. The public school system in the US isnt being defunded at all, it is being broken by 2 factors: 1) increasing numbers of employees and costs in bureaucratic jobs, not classrooms 2) Out of control retirement and benefit packages. The spending is far greater, but restraining spending isnt taken from bureaucracy, nor unions benefits, but current classes.
@luvcheney1 ~~> Schools are being defunded and one reason is due to the foclosure problem and lack of property tax revenue... And some states mishandled the pension funds which are paid into by the employees as well as the employer side contributions, which are negotiated at hire... These public employees used to be celebrated but are now called pigs... Their pay stimulates the local economies... Why would you want an uneducated population unless there was something to gain in the ignorance??
@sparkyj99 Public Employees wages and benefits are far higher than in the private sector, for similar work. Foreclosures affect the public, everyone is forced to cut back, private sectors workers fired, less hours. Govt MUST do the same, as the money isnt there. Unfair to have workers who fund their own pensions funding the pensions of govt workers too. It is absurd to think taxing me, and giving it to govt workers stimulates anything. Where do you get such nonsense?
@luvcheney1 ~~> So instead of investing in ed you would rather cut it & fund the militrization of police?? Or a bigger budget for the governors office?? That is what they did in my state... Or on the federal level, increase funds to defence contractors to serve a meal to our troops at $30 per when WE used to feed ourselves at 30 cents per... Or instead of welfare to work programs, just cut services & have starving peoples because of lack of employment when food stamps are direct stimulus...
@sparkyj99 part3) How many issues you bring up, without a point? Invest in ed, militarize police, governors office, defence contractors, meals, welfare to work, food stamps are stimulus. 7? Defense contractors are mainly used in the US for the following reason: It enables us to outsource some jobs to private contractors, enabling us to keep our military doing military work. It increases the ability of what we can do. But, we could draft students & Occupiers, get them to cook instead?
@luvcheney1 ~~> You said public wages are far higher... How much does a defense contractor make compared to our G.I.s?? Try 70 to 400k (just passed senate cap per contracted employee) to a GIz 12k a year (which is less then min wage)... There would be no need for the draft if we had a stronger GI bill & more insentives as far as pay... But hey, our tax dollars pay for the war profiteers instead of funding our boys on the field and their families at home...
~~> Food stamps incorporated with the welfare to work programs are a low cost way to get people on thier feet... Food stamps are spent in the grociers who inturn employ & purchase more from aggra corps & other food supplies... The food products are also state taxed so a percentage of that money goes directly back to the states... Welfare to work is the cost of employing instructors... Not a big price to pay to get people ready for the work force... Too bad its more profitable to outsource
@sparkyj99 $12k a year? Really? Plus housing. Food. Free Medical. After service aid for college? GI bill? Pension in 20yrs, if you choose a career? Lets try and be at least a little honest here. Military contractors exist because the military hasnt been funded enough to complete the missions it has been assigned. PContractors enable military to do more. This is political. Fund larger military, or reduce scope of missions, or combination of both.
@luvcheney1 ~~> Pay now 1.5k a month (was 1k last I knew), Free housing if you live on base, $200 food assist for non active duty, yes free medical/dental care, GI Bill is college assist but is far differnet then the MGIBill being that they must pay in a large protion & maintain a good gpa, it is not all paid for... Military contractors exist because capitalism & lobbists... Everything they do WE used to do ourselves for cheaper... Cost plus contracts are not a good deal for the purchaser...
@luvcheney1 part2) Constant $ spending, per pupil in K-12, increased 25%, 1995-2005. Reported per kid costs are lies, they do NOT report Capital Costs (buildings), debt service, employee benefits (all reported on any Corp balance sheet). Median costs for Public Education are 93% higher for Public Schools, compared to Private Schools. Due to Govt- Union near monopoly, we pay nearly double, for far worse results.
@luvcheney1 ~~> I cant talk about how much private school teachers make because I'm not privey to those facts but I know that in my community of 35 homeowners, maybe 5 or 6 of them can afford private school at 10k a year for 1 child and none could afford it for 3... I do believe that 2.5k in property tax is a deal for the grade A public school on the corner... Private schools just insures the poor folks don't get the education they need to prosper or end up burried in debt before their 1st job
~~> You keep downing pensions and bennifits like they are the pits when that is what the American Dream was built on... I have been fortunate to work for men who valued the labors of others and were proud to offer bennifits... The way you talk about it is as if I would be taking advantage of them for accepting it... I do not feel entittled but do feel apppreciated.. And when they hit hard times the employees took a cut in pay till they got out of the hole... This is how it should be...
@sparkyj99 It has nothing to do with being "appreciated", or not. Benefits are part of your wage, your compensation. You are paid an amount of total compensation that creates balance (equilibrium) between the demand for those with your abilities, and the supply of positions available. This may be very high, or not. Study a graph, the "Supply and Demand model" until you get it. If you dont study it, understand it, or see the validity, you will never have a clue.
@luvcheney1 ~~> Benifits are part of a teachers salary too... Agreed upon at time of hire... What is your point?? Your supply & demand has nothing to do with education because there is tons of demand and not enough supply... In my business we have tons of demand but no funding... Supply & demand only applies if you have customers to purchase your wares... Public education has no place in this discussion as it is not for profit but for posterity...
~~> You do realize that public affairs are not supposed to be run like a for profit corp... Once the buildings (most are old in my area) are paid for then there are the costs to run them like heating/cooling which should be prorated for the public good, but the corporate electric company isn't in the business of giving anything away without a profit, so they can gouge or lobby for tax credits to provide power at a lesser fee... We just built the 1st green school here, overhead is far less...
@sparkyj99 A "paid for" building, or a paid for home, is an asset. The asset can be sold, and the capital invested in something else, that pays income, or profit. My home can be rented to someone. Paid for Govt building are still a cost, unless you think Capital has no value. Schools are paid for with bond issues (paid off by taxpayers),
which are NEVER included in the BS cost per student figures. ( nor in the BS MediCare overhead figures. Private corps MUST include these costs).
@luvcheney1 ~~> AMERICA IS NOT A PRIVATE CORPORATION... Capital has value but is not a cost... Building is paid for, costs are taxes & maint... I could let it sit and pay the costs or rent it out for profit... Public education is not a for profit... MediCares overhead costs are closer to 1.5% as opposed to private where overhead is more like 11 to 15% for employer provided and 15 to 30 for personal insurance (09/10 #'s)... The reason, there is not bottom line to increase for medicare...
@sparkyj99 Private insurance doesnt have IRS, as an off- books billing dept, nor force private business to collect the premiums for MediCare either, do they? Private ins doesnt have the Pres, and the Congress, state legislatures to serve as Board members and Mgt, off the books, do they? MediCare spends far less on fraud detections, and finds less too. Seniors KNOW those large stick homes they paid off have a cost to keep, thats why many sell and downsize, turning assets into income.
@luvcheney1 But the BIGGEST reason Medicare has lower overhead costs, apart from the non- reporting of real costs thrust onto others, is the fact that they serve old people. Old people cost more, per person. MediCare receives about triple the money, per insured, as do private insurers. since old people have expensive problems, & private insurers serve the young. Billing $80 Dr visit has same overhead cost as billing $5000 for MRI, but overhead % is smaller, with the higher charge.
@luvcheney1 ~~> So is an mri worth 5k?? In other countries they run $35 US and patients get as many as needed to find the problem... Here if you go to the wrong imaging center your stuck with the bill... Ins companies have been screwing us forever and now you want to down the program that has taken care of grandma on the cheap?? I couldn't afford to pay her medical bills on $50 a week.... That wouldn't even cover 1 MRI would it... See "Sick Around The World"...
@sparkyj99 Statistically in the US, the percent of infirm people who are able to get MRI`s, Cat Scans, angioplasty is FAR, FAR higher than elsewhere in the world. I got 2 MRI`s, 3 yrs ago. One was an Open MRI, and the other closed. One was about $500 (open), the other, in a world class place, $5000. The day I decided to get the MRI, that afternoon, I had it. This isnt possible elsewhere.
@sparkyj99 The largest Private insurance co is United Health (UNH), and makes about 4% after tax profit. Before tax about 6%, govt takes its cut, about 1/3 of profit. Capital is to be employed, for a return. My home was paid off 15 years ago, I pay no rent, nor mortgage, but lose return on capital. If I were to sell it, & downsize, I can increase the return, Therefore, It most certainly does cost me more to live here, than elsewhere.
@sparkyj99 Your say the reason is "bottom line". The "bottom line" is 4%. Public school teachers salaries, and benefits, med care, pensions, etc are far higher than those of Private schools. They are over market. The issue is local govts dont have enough money, so they continue to pay contracted benefits, pensions wages, but that doesnt leave enough for the fucking service; education! Same with cops, fire. They pay the retired, fire those to protect us. We pay, for nothing.
@luvcheney1 ~~> 1 class with 15 students at 10k per year less 35k for the teacher leaves a hell of a bottom line... If the teachers are degreed & produce better results then they should be paid less from the private school?? Or public schools should lower their pay standards for teachers because their counterparts make less?? I don't see your rational in the race to the lower wage for better profits... See "college inc"... Weathery areas pay more taxes & thus have better schools...
@sparkyj99 Wash DC was using vouchers for blacks in some areas, before Obama elected. Results were far, far better, at less cost. Obama stopped the program, because govt unions dont like it. Now, all blacks in DC get the same, shitty education. There is NO reason for taxpayers to pay far more, for far less. Students deserve better educations, not just ones that shut unions up.
@luvcheney1 ~~> Are your local taxes going up?? Because mine have went down for the past 3 years because my property value is going down because of the foreclousres... The forclosures are inturn lowering the public services revenue... But that is how it works here... If vouchers to good schools are the answer, who wants to send their kids to the shitty schools??
@sparkyj99 No, property taxes are going down. The issue is this, with less revenue, local districts HAVE to fulfill past promises to teachers and unions, for those not working. The only way to cut, is in the classes! Same for cops, fire depts! Now, our taxes pay not so much for service today, but those who dont work. Vouchers do this, they give a check ONLY reedemable for schools. You go wherever you want. Private, or govt. If you live in a bad school area, enroll elsewhere. see next
@sparkyj99 Because of choices, the better schools will attract more vouchers, more money, and hire more people to work, and expand. The bad schools die off. Some public schools may survive. Who cares? The point is though that choices create competition, and better schools grow. Just like in the real world, companies that customers like, grow bigger. In ca, we have govt "charter schools". You can CHOOSE them, nobody is ASSIGNED to them! My daughter attends one, its much better.
@luvcheney1 ~~> One of the reasons for the race to the top program... Our origingal debate was over teacher pay... Would you say that the rise of Walmart was do to consumer choice or the decline of the middle class?? And would call walmarts low prices via near slave wages created competition?? And what did it do for our economy & workforce?? I have nothing against private buisness or schools... It is consumer choice, but some folks cannot afford a choice...
@sparkyj99 You are way to vague for me to answer anything. "Slave Wage" as a reason for WM`s low prices, what do you mean? Low wages in the US? Or products made at low wages in China? WalMart does MORE GOOD for the poor, than Obama will ever do.
@luvcheney1 ~~> Both... They don't hire full time to avoid bennifits & send good stuff to the dump instead of offering it to the employees at a prorated price or ship to a third world as charity... It is more profitable to trash it and claim the losses... And what has walmart done to mainstreet?? Mom & pops can't compete with the big box stores... Mom & pops paid an "Appreciated" pay as opposed to min wage... I never said crap about BO other then the race to the top program... Stop grasping
@sparkyj99 If a product is unfit to sell, then it is unfit to give away to employees either. It is insane to contemplate taking unfit products and shipping them to the 3rd world for nothing. WalMarts after tax profit is just under 4%, and anything that is done to increase costs must get passed on to their customers. People enjoy inexpensive prices. They are free to go shop at Union supermarkets, and get fucked. Mom and Pop charge more. You support higher prices for the poor!
@luvcheney1 ~~> No I support better pay for poor folk... Right now people have no choice to purchase a higher quality more expensive item because NO ONE CAN AFFORD IT... I never said the items were unfit, just unsold.. Like winter cloths in the summertime... Items are marked down and tossed if not sold... Thousands of pounds trashed for claims...
@sparkyj99 Most of the major supermarkets, who are the competitors of WalMart, have unions, and higher pay and benefits. Of course, if you allow people to make a free choice, they drive on over to WalMart. Mom & Pop stores, have no advantage from the economies of scale, and free people drive past them as well. With 4% profit, paying more money to workers will mean higher prices, and we already can observe free people dont want that. Why do you oppose a corp doing what people want?
@luvcheney1 ~~> I live in a right to work for less state and the walmart employess can't afford to shop at walmart... Walmart is loosing business to the dollar stores... I don't know what their profit margin is but will check it out and get back to ya on that next week... What a shame that a big billion dollar company won't cut into profits to profit thier workers who give them their wealth and still claim to be an American company... American wages for American workers...
@sparkyj99 It takes 1 min to figure out a profit margin on a public corp. The fact it will take you till next week indicates perfectly that you havent a clue how to do it. 4% is overall, so on food it is less, electronics is more. If you THINK there is room to cut, without price hikes, you havent a clue. Of course, you just proved it.
@luvcheney1 Walmart's revenues in 2010 were 405 billion. Four percent of that is 16.2 billion. Walmart employs about 2 million people. The vast majority of them make about 15.5k per year. Thus, if one quarter of the profit margin were spent on raising salaries, Walmart could raise wages by about 13%. Now I don't care much to determine whether Walmart is an ethical company or not, but given your self assured confidence, I thought I'd offer some evidence contradicting your position.
@sirmailbox You state the profit margin CAN be cut by 25%. That isnt evidence. In general, economic opinions we are exposed to omit the train of consequences to actions. It is easier to just see the first step. "Raise wages"! As if there are no consequences to that. "Pay people MORE!". Many agree with this, it sounds quite compassionate. Are there consequences? Who cares? It feels good to support it! Following a complex trail of consequences is too much thinking to bother with.
@luvcheney1 ~~> What an uneducated answer that was... BTW, 2010'z GPM was 24.8% which left the NPM at 5.1% not 4%... Yes, it is easier to say let them have cake then to do research... The question is, when do WE stop giving away our cake... Supply side economnics never works when the workforce cannot consume... I take it you enjoy the thought of slave labor in the states... Good luck with that...
@sparkyj99 WalMart, 1/31/11? After tax profit margin is found by dividing NET income by Total Revenue. I suspect you are simply dividing Gross Profit by Total Revenue, which would be about 25.2%. The actual, after tax profit is about 3.89%. (before tax revenue is 5.6%) and taxes are 32.2% of net profit. ( 1/3). Obviously, after tax is what can be distributed as a dividend, and taxed again at 15% as a Cap Gain. 1/31/11 Revenue 421.9 Bill,net income (after tax profit) 16.4B.
@luvcheney1 You're off topic, extrapolating my comment into space, and not responding to my argument. You offered the profit margin as evidence that wages couldn't *possibly* be raised without increasing prices. I did some back of the envelope calculations and showed that, at least prima facie, it seemed plausible. You then claim "that isn't evidence" and proceed to speak in generalizations.
@luvcheney1 The only thing that might qualify as a response was your statement "you state the profit margin CAN be cut by 25%". This is bizarre. The relevance of the profit margin--the whole reason you presumably brought it up--is that we're assuming it's some measure of disposable revenue. If you're assuming the opposite--that in fact, even the profits are indispensable--then you're just assuming what you're trying to prove.
@luvcheney1 In other words, if the profit margin isn't an accurate measure of disposable revenue, as you seem to hint in your comment--then why in the world are we talking about it?
@sirmailbox Increasing wages means WalMart would have to do 1, or both, of these: Make LESS money, or raise prices. Both actions make it less competitive with existing retailers. Taking less $ reduces share value, as profit drives share $. This would drive capital away, slow or stop corp growth, enable other corps to gain ground. OR it raises prices, also helping competitors to gain ground. In either case, the retailer people prefer is hurt. Profit over time returns to normal levels.
@luvcheney1 (part 1) "[Walmart would have to either] make less money or raise prices." This is in direct contradiction to your initial claim--that wages couldn't be increased except through price increases. Now you seem to admit that, actually, wages could be increased at the cost of profit--which is exactly what I was arguing!
@luvcheney1 (part 2) Your new argument is that, with fewer profits, they'll be less competitive, and hence this option must be ruled out. Don't you see the obvious reductio ad absurdum coming from that? The conclusion that follows from your line of thinking is the following: companies who pay more are less competitive, thus they must pay as little as possible--the end result is minimum wage for every worker. I don't want to gloat man, but you have really dug yourself into a hole here.
@sirmailbox You say, "Your new argument is that, with fewer profits, they'll be less competitive, and hence this option must be ruled out." Perhaps you might consider exactly WHY a Corp would voluntarily make itself less competitive than other corps? What the long term results of this are? GM paid very good wages and benefits. Far higher than competitors. Great for workers! Eventually, competition prevented it from passing those costs to consumers. Toyota and others set prices. next
@luvcheney1 Why would a corporation wish to make fewer profits in order to pay their workers reasonable wages? Oh, I don't know--maybe because it's the ethical thing to do. You said you work in petroleum--I presume you do well for yourself? Can I ask whether you'd find it acceptable to make barely livable wages for the sake of your company's profits? How easy it is to dismiss the needs of others when you lack nothing yourself. Shameful. I'm done.
@sirmailbox You`re done! You wont make a logical refutation of consequences. You say paying more can be done without consequences? There ARE. You switch from economic argument, to a moral one. What`s moral about causing a decline in WalMart, growth in its competitors, who pay similar wages? WM is larger, because people like it better, namely because it is more efficient and cheaper. Your "idea" will reduce size of WM, where poor, mid class PAY LESS! YOU WANT poor to PAY MORE?
@luvcheney1 Sometimes we must do what is difficult for the betterment of our people and society. America seems to forget that constant consuming. Besides he point it seems to me wasn't to crush Walmart but instead to have Walmart (and it's competitors) treat their employees more justly. You know the people who actually have the needs. Just seems that way from what I read.
@BlotterPapers I agree with your feelings! The problem I have with that "feeling" is simple. Treating employees more "justly" means paying MORE. Its EASY to see benefits to employees IF that course was followed. Its HARD to see the consequences of that policy, to consumers, stockholders, and the competitive position of the corporation, with higher costs. The Morality of your "feeling" STOPS further thought on consequences. You will NEVER see the harm, to those you purport to help
@sirmailbox Part2) With lower labor, Toyota was able to make a reasonable profit, and at a competitive price to Toyota, GM would lose money. After several years of losses, GM stock was worth 50 cents a share. The End. So, WHO killed GM? Keep in mind, there is a thriving auto industry in the US, that survived the crash without bailouts, in right to work states. Union jobs as % of total have disappeared, the industries are gone. OVER market wages kill the job, sooner or later.
@sirmailbox Part3) You say, "that in fact, even the profits are indispensable-"? Do you have the opinion that profit is NOT indispensable? There can be nothing more obvious than that! I actually am sorry I didnt notice this first, because now I see where you get the ridiculous wording of "disposable revenue". Please, expound on this concept. That investors will build buildings, buy land, pay taxes, run enterprises, for nothing.
@sparkyj99 Well, that's not quite true. We disagree with him on this and many other points, but his arguments are good, and they do not eschew complexity like many other arguments Left and Right. There's alot to be gained from listening to him. It's incumbant upon us to question our own assumptions and maintain a critical distance from even our most deeply-held convictions.
@luvcheney1 ~~> Hey you flake... I don't get on the internet over the weekend... But you go ahead and talk crap... It seems as if somone already gave you some numbers to digest... Keep fighting for the big guy... Hows that trickle feel...
@sparkyj99 Next time we or on the net at the same moment, ask me for the margin of any major publically traded corp, and I can provide it in 1 minute. Your inability to do so proves you havent ever been doing so. Therefore, you really have no idea WHAT margins are.
@sparkyj99 Public school teachers paid far more, and higher benefits. They are paid way over market. US public- union monopoly 24 th in world, by results, at very high cost. Private schools almost 1/2 the cost, with better results. Allow vouchers to parents, allowing choice. Better schools will grow, the worst will die, imporoving quality, and choice for parents. Current system gives poor opportunities to poorest areas in inner cities, while wealthier areas get better. Fair?
@luvcheney1 ~~> In my state public teahers only make about 5k more per year while still having to pay into their chosen bennifits package... And the private school teachers do not have to be held to the same degree standards... 32-45k is what a public teacher makes here while still having to purchase supplies out of pocket... Teachers choose to go to the private schools because of over crowding classes and lack of funding to deal with the problem... Money always buy a better quality of life
@sparkyj99 You say they get $5K more, but I know that the pensions, and med benfits are far, far higher, if they are like anywhere else in the US. Many private sector employees pay 100% of their own pensions, through Ira`s, and 401K`s max out at 4% typically for the match. You teachers may pay in but not 96%-100%! You keep say money causes private schools to do better? They do better all right, AT FAR LOWER COSTS per pupil, not HIGHER!
This seems to be the general tone (of reasonable people) here on youtube about the pepper spraying at the Davis protest: "Legal or illegal, I don't see how any police officer with a pinch of dignity could stand to pepper-spray people in the face, while they are sitting peacefully and non-aggressively." -
@OccupyIdeas I agree! Batons are far more appropriate when people refuse to disperse after they have been ordered to. After all, nobody has any property rights in America. Anyone can invade any property. Its our RIGHT!
@luvcheney1 The banks and corporations that run this nation don't seem to have any opposition for illegally foreclosing on as many as 5,000 US veterans. The news is just coming out.
@luvcheney1 There are bigger crimes being committed by banks, corporations, and government. Like the multi-trillion dollar war that cost American tax-payers $1 billion each day to fund. How about the 46 million Americans that live in poverty (a record high which translate 1/6 American). How about the bailouts that McCain and Obama pushed so that CEOs can give themselves hugh bonuses while telling America there is no money for education. We should focus on those problems for now.
@NeatNetwork How many unsupported assertions can a Lib make in 500 characters? 1) bank crime 2) govt crime 3) $1 bill a day War 4) 46 mill in poverty 5) bailouts for CEO`s 6)Bonuses 7)no money spent on education? Congratulations! I like debating morons. So, pick one issue, even one not listed, and support your opinion on it, and I will respond to it. Perhaps we may agree, or not. But, I think you see up, as down. Pick your BEST subject Ace.
@luvcheney1 I can take time to explain to you but you probably won't listen to me. If you genuinely want the sources where these assertions come from, I will be glad to show you. Otherwise, you can visit my channel and there are countless of media outlets that I put together to help my fellow Americans.
@NeatNetwork Certainly you can appreciate that just saying "bank crime", only one of your assertions, is a very large subject. On just this one assertion, I can have many subjects. Of course, many Libs as well think the 2008 crisis in general may be "bank crime", or Wall Street", so I cant answer it, nor know what the fuck you mean, and that is just one subject. S&L crisis? Blankfein? Document Robo- signing? You are a jerk. You cant even fucking state a point. Loser!
24 hours/7 days a week of unfiltered facts about crimes committed at the highest level of government, corporations and banks.
Here's a WAR CRIME: Youtube Collateral Murder
Another war crime, invading 3 wars that are unconstitutional and international illegal. 59% of the US budget goes to defense. So we are to support companies that profit from war and destroy our education system? You think we are going to allow for that? Fuck you!
@NeatNetwork 59%? Bullshit! I bet that is Lib spin perhaps 59% of discretionary? What kind of stupid crap are you peddling moron? Think I dont know what the fucking defense spending is? The War cost? Obama allocated $140 bill, for one year, 2 wars. You claimed $1 bill a day? Thats $365 bill you piece of shit liar.
@NeatNetwork One problem with this debate is that left and right use diff. sources: right see us government spending dotty com. Left see war resisters doting org. Two pie charts, two completely different estimations of gov. military spending.
@NeatNetwork not sure. Does a corp support govspendingdotdotdotcom? It's a mistake for lefties to believe that right wingers are either selfish, brainwashed or stupid - and visa versa. In general the two sides are - when it's all hashed out - only separated by a few degrees. These days, both want less private-government corruption. They just point to diff sides of the equation as the problem.
@OccupyIdeas Note from "war resisters", "*Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from military; We use 80% because we believe if there had been no military spending most (if not all) of national debt would have been eliminated." True, analysts differ. Some arent insane.
"I work in law enforcement. We are told to use the "+1 model" for use of force. You can go one level above the amount of resistance received from a person considered to be a threat. "Threat" being the key word. These cops used the +3 model on people who posed no threat. Wrong on all levels." - alund1306 in ref. to the pepper spraying of seated protesters at UC Davis. Armyveteran101st and others in the know, does this sound right, or is alund off base?
The cops are not supposed to take sides, and their only duty is to uphold the law, which is what they've been doing, by and large. Yes, there are a few bad cops that do things they shouldn't do, but they are a small minority. However, the OWS movement is made up of all kinds of people that don't necessarily have the cause of exposing economic inequality in mind. Many do, but many others have taken advantage of OWS to break the law and disturb the public order, and that can't be allowed to stand.
@armyveteran101st Strange. We were just about to write you! We wanted to thank you for flooding these boards with reasoned arguments:) we may disagree on a few points, but we're both trying to get people to understand that "the cops" are just normal men and women trying to do their jobs in high pressure environments. We do disagree re "sides," though. Cops make moral decisions, like soldiers, and, as you know, they don't have to follow orders (though not doing so often makes their job harder).
@OccupyIdeas I thank you for your comment, but I beg to differ on one point: Police officers, like Soldiers, take an Oath and are sworn to uphold the law and perform their duties, which most definitely include following the orders that come down to them from the civilian authority. The military and law enforcement are very similar in that respect. That's why you see many veterans such as myself, who choose to work in law enforcement and security after our active duty in the military is over.
@armyveteran101st So...what happens when they feel that orders given don't align with the law? This is the crux of this issue. We're sure other people bring this up with you, right? As we know, 1) the Nuremberg Defense does not work; and 2) higher-ups, once polt support wanes for the orders they've given, have no problem throwing footsoldiers under the bus. There's a long history of this, represented most famously of course by Lt. Calley, but no doubt you've seen more quotidian instances of this
@OccupyIdeas You know, during Army training they teach you the Laws of Warfare, and how military justice works. They teach you that you have a duty not to follow any UNLAWFUL orders issued to you, keyword being UNLAWFUL. You can't possibly compare this situation with the Nazis at Nuremberg or with the My Lai Massacre, because there is a world of difference. The cops at UC Davis were following a lawful order to deal with the protesters after they chose to engage in unlawful behavior.
@armyveteran101st haha, no, we're not among the cops are nazis! crowd:) But first amendment rights are malleable. Often they rely on a judge's interpretation, so the police (at davis, but particularly here at berkeley, where we can attest to the fact that the officers were not simply "nudging" us) are in a difficult position. Orders given may not always be lawful. At Zucotti, for instance, 2 diff judges made 2 different decisions re the camps. Bloomberg went with the one who ordered dispersal.
@OccupyIdeas A judge cannot issue an unlawful order, because that is the end of his/her time on the bench. I admit that there are bad cops who take things too far and violate people's rights, but they are by no means a majority, or even a sizable number. I can safely tell you that the way in which the authorities in general have dealt with these protests has been lawful and quite restrained. You can break the law only so much before the authorities become obligated to put a stop to it.
@armyveteran101st The problem is, when it comes to free speech, judges are not in agreement about its limits, so one judge may issue an injunction AGAINST removing protesters (as happened with the 1st judge Bloomberg contacted) while a 2nd may decide to remove them. Neither is necessarily unlawful, just diff interps. And the police may be caught in the middle. Also, even if they follow SOP, a judge may rule that police acted too aggressively in a given situation (as has already happened in NY).
@armyveteran101st ...courts weigh the right to free speech against other interests, and some courts weigh it higher (or lower) than others. One may decide that the officer behaved lawfully, another that the officer did not. This is tough for cops, as I'm sure you know, but it does illuminate the fact that law is far from unchanging or concrete. This is what we meant by taking sides.
@111111Revenge 1st Amendment rights allow free speech, but rights of Occupiers do not supercede rights of others. For example, Occupiers can go in a park, if others can too. 24 hrs a day, if others can too. But they cant pitch tents, if others can not. They can walk on sidewalks, if others can too. But if others can not do business, or get to work, or buy product, then are denying the rights of others. The cant clog streets, people with trucks, autos have a right to the streets.
@luvcheney1 Being able to sip coffee in the park, though nice, was not why the founders wrote the 1st amendment. All actions are in fact not equal in this regard. The right to petition the govt for redress stands above other concerns. The conservative media is simply spewing lies - though neither the MSM or liberal media (TYT, MSNBC) has talked about this either. tea partiers, given their ostensible love for "the founders" should b the first to know this, and should be screaming at Fox.
The judiciary has over time granted more or less weight to certain claims to free speech. We cannot "yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" for instance, because our right to free speech is outweighed in this instance by other concerns. Legal precendent can be found on both sides of the argument, but those that study the founders, and especially men like George Mason, understand that no element of free speech has greater weight than protest.
@OccupyIdeas "Protest", "free speech" do NOT give protestors right to disrupt everyone elses rights. Govt must allow your right of free speech, but that gives NO right to disrupt others freedoms. Now, when you have no vote, and a fucking king, or dictator, things are different. "ACLU Your Right to Protest, 1st Amend activities cant overly interfere with normal use of location.", "Expressive activity allowed in public
forums if it does not interfere with the rights and activities of others"
@luvcheney1 Great source! Thanks! Though, despite the matter-of-fact ACLU tone, like all con law these points are very much open to interpretation. Even as we debate, different judges in NY disagree over whether Occupy had the right to remain in the park with their tents. As you know, Bloomberg did have to go to a second judge. The ACLU pubs these pamphlets to inform people of their rights. Since they don't want people arrested, their recs are on the conservative side. Best to play it safe...
@luvcheney1 (part 2)...but do not describe, or account in any way for the malleability of these rights. Basically, they're designed to keep you out of trouble even if you go in front of the most politically conservative court. Diff courts over time have weighted speech rights differently, depending upon the situation. With each new free speech case they have to weigh relative concerns. (The 1st amendment, wonderfully and frustratingly, has always been up for interpretation and reinterpretation.)
@OccupyIdeas Bloomberg went to 2 judges, but the Ocuppy movement has been doing their thing for weeks! They have been given a VERY generous interpretation! I want to know, if the KKK wanted permanent access to the park in NYC, would Bloomberg allow it? Would the Univ allow KKK at Sproul Plaza to camp? Your support of their unlimited permanent access to disrupt the rights of everyone else has NOTHING to do with Free Speech and the 1st Amendment at all, it only has to do with YOUR personal bias.
@luvcheney1 We would of course fight for the rights of the kkk to march, as the ACLU has done, but to set up camp - THAT is EXACTLY what we're talking about in terms of courts having the discretion to decide on matters of free speech.Whether we like it or not, the courts DO decide who actually has free speech, when, and what the limits are - often courts disagree. (We were about to say: "very good point," but then we realized that the KKK is a hate group, so the comparison doesn't quite work.)
@luvcheney1 (part 2) ...because as a hate group we doubt they could provide a reason the court would find compelling. All we're saying is that you have to avoid absolutes when discussin ght 1st amend. You can't say a group can or can't do this, that it's aainst the law, because the law has always been protean. eg can't say we have an inalienable right to speak out against a war because we know citizens have been imprisoned for just that. Judges have always considered the who what when and where
@OccupyIdeas So NOW you find compelling an argument that the right to our Free Speech and the 1st Amendment is predicated on the actual point of view! YOU say it can be selectively applied. I can see that a judge, a court might decide on the right to protest based on the location, or the circumstances of how many protestors, toilets available, how the rest of the public uses the area and such. But YOU think our Constitutional Rights are based on the IDEAS. Well, well! Game over Comrade!
@luvcheney1 we're playin a game? Find another eg.; the kkk doesn't work because hate speech is not protected. This has nothing to do with our pov. We're saying that since courts regard free speech and peaceable assembly rights as the rights that protect all other rights, laws that infringe on free speech rights are subject to strict scrutiny. And, since over time diff courts have made diff decisions about these laws, one cannot make claims about absolute limits. There's no counter arg to that.
@OccupyIdeas Sorry, I missed the part of the Constitution that doesnt protect hate speech. Please direct me? And, after you find it for me, we need to agree to ban ALL the Occupy protestors while we are at it, as long as I can find some Occupiers who SEEM to me to hate the 1% at the top. Who seem to hate corporations, CEO`s, Big Bankers, and their bonuses? No, no haters in the Occupy Movement! You sir, are being a hypocrite, and disingenuous.
@luvcheney1 seriously? 1) you've read the 1st amendment. You know it's extremely broad. We've never been talking about what's "in the constitution," only about how courts have interpreted the law; all we're saying is that diff courts have interp the law diff at diff times. 2) KKK=Occupy Protesters? We're not cherry picking some KKK member who might be racist. It's the avowed mission of the org. Which brings us to this: with what criticisms in the OWS Oct. 5 declaration do you actually disagree?
@OccupyIdeas Whether I disagree with the Ocuppiers or not has nothing to do with their 1st Amend rights. 1st Amend doesnt distinguish between hate speech, and even if it did, we have tons of hate speech from Libs lately, over the rich, Corporations, etc. But, it doesnt matter, as far as a right to speech. What matters is laws. 1st amendment doesnt nullify other property rights, or the rights of others. It is absurd to think a judge can decide WHAT political view is protected.
@OccupyIdeas I looked at that document, thanks for the reference, but that is the biggest piece of crap I ever saw. I think its GREAT you guys wrote it down though, so we can see what degree of stupidity we are dealing with. The standard of living we all have is BECAUSE of corporations. Economies of scale lower prices so much even losers can drive fine automobiles, have computers. 1000`s of yrs of history man lived a brutish life, working 15 hrs a day, kids too, just to eat, die at 40yrs of age
@luvcheney1 So we either have no corps OR complete corp dominance with some corps actually writing the reg laws designed to reg them (like we do now)? That's a false choice, and one consistently being posed on Fox News. We have a better choice: responsible govt. Again, this is what the maj. of occ protesters want. Can you pick one critique on the dec. with which you disagree?
@OccupyIdeas Fox didnt even exist until 1995 or so. You guys think ALL conservative ideas come from Fox? WTF do you think we did BEFORE then? Buckley, Hazlitt, Rothbard, Rand, Von Mises, Friedman, etc. This is simply a cheap technique to marginalize anyone disagreeing with YOU. Let me say this : O`Reilly is #1 on Fox, and HE thinks Speculators regulate the price of oil, Oil corps do, and he is a populist lunatic, pathetic in his stupidity. STOP marginalizing ME with Fox, I see through O`Reilly.
@OccupyIdeas Sorry. No more Fox. Although, to be fair, we were not associating you with Fox, only pointing out that Fox has consistently been offering this false choice between the status quo and socialism. Though it was for argument's sake, your comment seemed to follow this false choice logic - no corps or dying at 40. Anyway, we do want to know what criticsim on the dec you disagree with, precisely because you are the sort that can refrain from ad hominem attacks and address issues.
@OccupyIdeas Sorry. No more Fox. Although, to be fair, we were not associating you with Fox, only pointing out that Fox has consistently been offering this false choice between the status quo and socialism. Though it was for argument's sake, your comment seemed to follow this false choice logic - no corps or dying at 40. Anyway, we do want to know what criticsim on the dec you disagree with, precisely because you are of the sort that can refrain from ad hominem attacks and address issues.
@OccupyIdeas You associate ANY conservative view with Fox. This is typical, because you think all media MUST be Lib. Fox is more conservative, but So? I dont like MSNBC. So what? I dont freak out because you dont watch Fox! I speak for ME. I am Free Market. I do NOT support the status quo. I.E, I oppose bailouts, to all. No bank bailouts, no GM, much fewer personal bailouts like, food stamps, unemployment, welfare. ANY added cost to corps increases price of products. Excess regs hurt poor.
@luvcheney1 1) We only associate conservatives with Fox when they use Fox arguments (eg false choices). When they do not, we do not. 2) So the 99%ers point to corp-gov corruption and lay the weight more heavily on the corp side (since - they feel - they're following the money). You lay it more heavily on the gov side, but, still, do you disagree with any of the criticisms in the Oct. 5 declaration that you read? Would you say that any of them are false? which one(s)?
@OccupyIdeas 1)Being conservative to you, means Fox. O`Reilly, #1 at Fox, and cable, is as silly about Wall Street greed as Ocuppiers. 2) I mentioned 2 general concepts pertaining to many of the Oct 5 ideas. I repeat: NO BAILOUTS, personal, or corporate. ( I support much smaller, short term, personal safety net only). Many of the statements of OCT 5 substantially raise costs to corps, if enacted. Costs are passed through, to consumers. OWS therefore wants higher prices on the poor, I DONT.
@OccupyIdeas A great deal of local opposition to WalMart`s entry into a new market comes from businesses. The fear they have to a WalMart is of course normal, and understandable. Many smaller businesses can NOT compete with WalMart on selection and variety of goods, nor on their low prices. So business people lobby their local govt for protection, so their small selections of expensive goods can still be sold. Funny, I thought this kind of Capitalism was something OWS opposes?
@luvcheney1 So, what you saw in the video. Good thing or bad? What's your take? Do you want to live in a country where all the towns look the same, dominated by 5 or 10 multinationals, or one, as we had for most of the 20th century, where the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was actually enforced, and where smaller businesses did have a place on the landscape?
@OccupyIdeas Standard Oil got broken up. Why? It sold too cheap. Cant have that! We need to break large corps up, make them less efficient, to the point they MUST charge more, enabling the other inneficient corps to stay in business. Then, we all pay high prices, reward inefficiency, punish efficiency. Constitutionally, I see no reason a community cant ban WalMart, by limiting sq ft. But this only protects the inefficient businesses. The rich can pay the inefficient more, the poor can NOT.
@luvcheney1 Ah, but you have to think in large structural terms. Monopoly helps to create vast economic divides where the rich can pay and the poor cannot. This is one important reason (aside from their stifling of entrepreneurial growth and undue political influence) that even wealthy legislators realized something had to be done about monopolies (and, later, corrupt govt/industrial complexes). Believe us, we know it's not all Fox News. This utopian free market ideology is not new at all.
@OccupyIdeas Natural monopolies, ( those created by free market, not legislated into existence by the Govt), become monopolies because they have pleased their customers, through prices, quality, service or other factors important to consumers. WalMart is a good example, its prices are cheap. When WM opens in a new town, if people didnt like WM, the corp couldnt take away customers from the local businesses charging MORE. It gains market share because free people WANT it. Thats LIBERTY.
@luvcheney1 (Part 2) Since we were initially simply trying to find a point of agreement though, we're still wondering. What you saw in the video. Good thing or bad? Do you want to live in a country where all the towns look the same, dominated by 5 or 10 multinationals, or one, as we had for most of the 20th century, where the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was actually enforced, and where smaller businesses had a place on the landscape?
@OccupyIdeas How the country develops is up to the people. It is very, very clear that the people will choose where to shop, based on low prices. I also believe that local Govts are free to respond to their constituencies. If local Govts prefer to protect a few local businesses, at the expense of the greater population, that is fine. The locals are free to move away, where there are better shopping options, or they can just drive into another locality that allows Liberty to shop.
@OccupyIdeas Part3) I shop WM, not everything, my local chain super sells fine meat on sale at lower prices than WM. I buy dresses at Macy`s for my wife, at very high prices, and high heels there too, at high prices, as I like her to have fine things, as she is very beautiful, and I enjoy seeing her look good. Your obsession with me having to decide how I want the country, shows your bias. You, and I, should do what WE want. Deciding for others is NOT MY business. People VOTE, with their MONEY!
@luvcheney1 1) No bias. We were only asking for your personal perference re our specific query. And we're still waiting for your answer:) 2) Wait, you think Walmart is a "natural monopoly??" We know YOU KNOW that is not true, right? You could no doubt prvide US with a long list of the ways it depends on our govt. 3) Another false choice: protecting local businesses "at the expense of the greater pop." That ignores the principal we outlined earlier re monopolies and macro-level wealth outcomes.
(part 2) We need to find another term for what you mean by natural monopoly, since that term already exists to describe something else, but we do want to discuss it because it speaks directly to a blindspot in free market (FM) logic: the actual role of the state. FMers cite regs and taxes, but they seldom point to the multitude of other priv/pub interactions: those nec. ones which well-read FMers like you recognize: infrastructure, contract law; but also those which corps have made necessary...
@OccupyIdeas (part 3)...through their historically consistent "bad practices." Govts have long protected powerful monopolies against their own workers and the communities which they ostensibly serve (in the US and abroad). This is not a debated historical point. Gov. protection of private interests (which then trickle down to others in the metropole) was a pivotal impetus for colonialism and is the driving force behind post-colonial asymetric relations. There has never been a "natural monopoly."
@OccupyIdeas I suppose you are now going to say because Govt builds roads, anyone who uses a road is govt property, and govt can dictate conditions to them? Lets not bury your BS in words. Use examples. I guess if someone at WalMart uses MediCaid, therefore WM is subsidized by Govt? So, WM is responsible for socialism in the US? WM is big all right, but there is NO way they can control Govt appetite for power. By natural monopoly, I mean a co that gets very big, by fact people buy there.
@OccupyIdeas Personally, I like WM, I like the option of being able to shop there. I also like the quaint old streets, that arent modern malls either, but those are mostly today tourist
@OccupyIdeas But, I am sick of your wanting ME to pick what the market does. I buy where I want, and that is the power I have, balanced by wherever everyone else chooses to buy. I think Studebakers and Hudson`s were beautiful cars, but, its wasnt my call to make. Now, to the degree govt does what it does, corps sell to the public, and if they want to buy somewhere, let them.
@OccupyIdeas "Govts have long protected powerful monopolies against their own workers and the communities which they ostensibly serve (in the US and abroad)." The confusion here lies in the idea that a businessman who seeks protection from competition, by govt, somehow indicts Capitalism. It does NOT. AT&T was a monopoly, regulated into one, by govt. Thats not capitalism. ( Reagan fixed that issue). Free market folks just dont want gov breaking up companies just because they are big. So?
@luvcheney1 1) Thanks for your answer. "I buy where I want, and that is the power I have." We disagree. We are consumers, but we are citizens first (or, if we want to get hippie or Christian, humans first). That means we can and do have the power and responsibility to choose the kind of country we want to live in; 2) we like your vision of a natural monopoly company, one that gets very big by the fact that people buy there. But we'd have to first see proof that such a company has ever...
@luvcheney1 (2)...existed, anywhere, in the history of the world. OWS favors actual capitalism, where citizens rooted in their communities engage in actual free trade rather than a global economy ruled by Goldman Sachs, Walmart and Monsanto, which is really a system of central planning much like what we attribute to the actual practice of communism.
@OccupyIdeas And so now we have it. Blindness to the benefit of comparative advantage. We finally come full circle, all the way around, the desire on you "lovers of freedom" to dictate to others how/ what they can buy, after they labor, invest, pay their lawful taxes. After all that, the "freedom" you see is that others have no right to decide for themselves who they want to do business with. There are 2 issues here. First is the principle of freedom of choice. To respect the rights of others.
@luvcheney1 1) Great point re larger trading networks. We definitely don't want to see a return to isolated markets, but a happy trade medium could and should be reached. 2) Look one level deeper. If one does love freedom, one should be able to acknowledge that choosing between walmart, macy's and 7 to 10 other giant conglomerates isn't really freedom. The longer current business practice continue the more our freedom of choice (at least as consumers) is actually circumscribed. You see that.
@OccupyIdeas Big retailers are RESULT of freedom of choice! If folks disliked big stores, they wouldnt have customers, would they? They exist, because people like them. I know some people think like you say you do. It ought to be obvious though that there are not enough of you to eliminate the big corps, and create the smaller businesses you prefer existed. If most people thought like you, and took your dollars to places you would like, the big stores would die, small ones appear. NOT HAPPENING
@luvcheney1 1) YOU think like we do. Big retailers are NOT the result of freedom of choice. They are the result, as you should know, given your politics, of government-industry collaboration. If govt stayed out of business - as you prefer it - these conglomerates would not exist. This speaks to our earlier point: there has never been is is not now any natural monopoly. And we're not just talking infrastructure or healthcare, we're talking subsidies at all levels of corp production, sweetheart...
@OccupyIdeas The ONLY way you are going to have smaller, more expensive, small inventory retailers is by RESTRICTING freedom. They do that here in Calif often. WalMart then finds a city jurisdiction somewhere else, in a location that allows them to come in, and then WM draws customers out of the neighboring city, and the jobs and tax revenues too, to the adjoining city. The city you would like, effectively commits suicide. I really dont care, go ahead, hang yourself. Pay less, live better.
@luvcheney1 (2)...tax deals, loans at rates small business owners could never get, refusals to police immigration, trade agreements which favor agribusiness in the global north. You're right about gov. involvement being a huge problem. That's why we don't understand your continued backing of the corp agenda. It goes against your own poltics. 2) yes, WM DOES do that, which is why solutions need to be macro structural instead of local. (Silly to address air pollution town by town, right? Same.)
@OccupyIdeas (2) Ancient cities in Mesopotamia made the 1st great leap forward in living standards, through specialization. Small agricultural groups, living independently making clothes, shoes, farming and growing led to low living standards. Cities, medium of exchange, enabled specialization, where one raised cattle, another made shoes, another candles, etc. Each one working at his own best skill. Higher productivity, if one limits activities to his best skill. You shrink the world to a city?
@OccupyIdeas Certainly you are aware of Rome`s roads, and how they expanded, bring the provinces into trade, and a great deal of wealth. Never thought about the "dark ages" and why they were dark? Low living standards of course. Feudalism, small little kingdoms, and little widespread trade. Where exactly did we see the Renaissance take hold? Venice? Canals? Why canals in Venice? To look "pretty", or what? The gondolas had lobbyists, for the guys who sing in the boats? Canals for TRADE. WEALTH.
@OccupyIdeas Lets change subjects. Outsourcing, decline of wages, wealth of the 99%. With Gold Standard, trade deficits leave dollars overseas, foreigners trade back dollars, for gold. Without even balance, gold flows OUT. This cant go on long!. So, govt devalues, raising Gold price. From $35 to $70, for example. Dollar is cheaper, so foreign products are more expensive, domestic ones cheaper. Balance returns, BUT 2 problems: we get poorer, and we SEE gold being better than dollar. see gold2
@OccupyIdeas gold2) When govt devalues, it immediately sucks for the population, but the outflow of gold is stopped. When US went OFF gold standard, the dollar became reserve currency. Now we have trade deficits, dollars piling up abroad, but foreigners save them as reserves, as if they are gold. They arent coming back for now! It keeps us from devaluing. So, imports are cheaper, dollar articficially overvalued. Because we dont devalue, jobs flow out of US. see gold3
@OccupyIdeas gold3) If gold were still the standard, govt would have to limit money printing, or lose gold, or devalue. Losing gold and devaluing are both bad options, so govt is effectively stopped from printing. But since the world was stupid enough to make dollar reserve currency, we have been exempt from devaluing, and able to print. Imports are too cheap, and outsourcing and job loss happen. INFLATION ruins our wages, savings, encouraging debt. We are getting fucked, this is the reason.
@luvcheney1 We have gold standard people among us (and many more in the movement in general), though others of us are skeptical, including me. We're not economists, but it seems as if the standard currency argument, while it may affect those factors which you outline, is somewhat of a red herring, in that it does not address the key issue: even if we used rice, or silver, or f-ing carrots, the great wealth produced by the many is rising too quickly to the top and not trickling down sufficiently.
This has been flagged as spam show
About the; "Treating employees more "justly" means paying MORE", "YOU WANT poor to PAY MORE?"
Why put the burden on the working people, and consumers anyway? The vast amount of the value produced lies in the corporation itself and their shareholders. People can't buy back the actual product, so we get plagued with overproduction and also poverty. There's no reason to accommodate their corporate interests but the desire to keep capitalism alive.
Nationalize under workers' control.
Counterreactionary 2 months ago
The police are primarily the tool of the bourgeoisie to curb the working class, it's only sometimes that they'll possibly turn over to the struggling side, when they have relations with the people on the barricades, or happened to be attacked themselves. Some of the police can turn over.
Counterreactionary 2 months ago
We are not going to get cops on ourside heckling Newt and then the protesters won't heckle Obama and it will quickly look like the protesters are a fringe far left group. OWS DON'T HECKLE NEWT DAMN IT. He burys himself talking you bury us not letting him talk. Shit I put out the worst videos on these criminals but this? Will only cause violent outburst that make us look bad. OccupyIdeas has the right idea get the cops on ourside. Cops attend these events and have to rough us up on camera.
DionAFields 2 months ago
Gene Sharps book "From Dictatorship to Democracy" is a great book for people who want to learn how to make Occupy effective.
toddmg 2 months ago
you know what separates the working class from these low class worthless Occu-turds. WORK...that simple. Fucking Occu-crap !
antidoteco 2 months ago
Unsupported? lol
NeatNetwork 3 months ago
The biggest problem with getting the cops on your side is the sheer amount of radical leftist elements within the movement who are against authority or structure of any kind. Such people despise cops, war veterans, politicians - basically anyone who tries to contribute to society.
The voice of the ordinary man, the man who loves his country and is protesting to make it a better place, need to be stronger than those of the malcontent and the Anarchist.
Acknowledge them. Respect them. That's all
louthegiantcookie 3 months ago
Great points, police and military are key to awaken to the globalist banker occupation. Not to awaken them and have them throw down their weapons but to use their power to arrest the criminal oligarchs that have taken over every facet of of our lives. From their Rockefeller funded green revolution, to their take over of our medical system with poison Prescriptions & spiked vaccines. To a Rothschild controlled collapse of our financial systems to consolidate wealth. The system must be rebuilt.
Drumvain 3 months ago
~~> (O.C.C.U.P.I.E.D. Amendment)
Rep. Ted Deutch (FL-19), a Dem on the House Judiciary Committee, introduced the Outlawing Corporate Cash Undermining the Public Interest in our Elections and Democracy (OCCUPIED) Constitutional Amendment. The OCCUPIED Amendment both overturns the Citizens United Supreme Court decision that wrongly awarded the Constitutionally-protected free speech rights of people to corporations and totally bans corporate money from America's electoral process.
sparkyj99 3 months ago
Comment removed
luvcheney1 3 months ago
This has been flagged as spam show
@sparkyj99 You oppose the media from having the right to free speech? They include many corporations. According to you, as soon as we become stockholders, we have no right to free speech?
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 ~~> Speech is speech... Money is not speech... I do like the rout this amendment is going but would call for public campaign finance & term limits... Contributions should be a $3 box you check when filing your taxes... I am not for big money buying politicians... I am not for billion dollar commercial campaigns... Holders can give their 3 bucks just like everybody elce & give Trump speehes all they wish... When Political office is for profit, WE THE PEPLE LOSE..
sparkyj99 3 months ago
@sparkyj99 Yes, Speech is Speech, and television, print, internet ads are speech. If individuals can pool money together, that is all corporations are doing, pooling the money of individuals. People own corps. Reality is that in US, people who dont have money have issues. This is the easiest nation on Earth to succeed, so if you dont, YOU fucked up, and need to look in the mirror, to find the reason. Illegals aliens succeed, without English, or education, or money. It`s easy! WORK!
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 ~~> Your talking to me like I don't have a job... I do... I work in petroleum... You talk like I don't take responsibility... I do... And I pay my taxes too... I seriously suggest you get up on how much money politicians are getting for legislating in favor of the big guy... I don't need a 3 ring circus for president of the reality tv world... The speech money corrupts... Public campaign finance it takes out the root of the evil... I suggest E-Verify for your "Illeagal" issue
sparkyj99 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 ~~> Sorry, I read that wrong... But public finance is still my bit... Your right it is hard to fail and I do not support the nanny state but I like how Norway funds education... One of the reasons for the "entitled" state is from defunding education... When I was in school we were taught home ec/shop/mechanics and such... We were taught how to manage a check book & change a tire... Those electives are gone & now WE are lacking those critical skills because of budget cuts...
sparkyj99 3 months ago
@sparkyj99 Norway is small, with lots of oil money, it can afford to be stupid, and stupidity will not have consequences for them. The public school system in the US isnt being defunded at all, it is being broken by 2 factors: 1) increasing numbers of employees and costs in bureaucratic jobs, not classrooms 2) Out of control retirement and benefit packages. The spending is far greater, but restraining spending isnt taken from bureaucracy, nor unions benefits, but current classes.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 ~~> Schools are being defunded and one reason is due to the foclosure problem and lack of property tax revenue... And some states mishandled the pension funds which are paid into by the employees as well as the employer side contributions, which are negotiated at hire... These public employees used to be celebrated but are now called pigs... Their pay stimulates the local economies... Why would you want an uneducated population unless there was something to gain in the ignorance??
sparkyj99 3 months ago
@sparkyj99 Public Employees wages and benefits are far higher than in the private sector, for similar work. Foreclosures affect the public, everyone is forced to cut back, private sectors workers fired, less hours. Govt MUST do the same, as the money isnt there. Unfair to have workers who fund their own pensions funding the pensions of govt workers too. It is absurd to think taxing me, and giving it to govt workers stimulates anything. Where do you get such nonsense?
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 ~~> So instead of investing in ed you would rather cut it & fund the militrization of police?? Or a bigger budget for the governors office?? That is what they did in my state... Or on the federal level, increase funds to defence contractors to serve a meal to our troops at $30 per when WE used to feed ourselves at 30 cents per... Or instead of welfare to work programs, just cut services & have starving peoples because of lack of employment when food stamps are direct stimulus...
sparkyj99 3 months ago
@sparkyj99 part3) How many issues you bring up, without a point? Invest in ed, militarize police, governors office, defence contractors, meals, welfare to work, food stamps are stimulus. 7? Defense contractors are mainly used in the US for the following reason: It enables us to outsource some jobs to private contractors, enabling us to keep our military doing military work. It increases the ability of what we can do. But, we could draft students & Occupiers, get them to cook instead?
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 ~~> You said public wages are far higher... How much does a defense contractor make compared to our G.I.s?? Try 70 to 400k (just passed senate cap per contracted employee) to a GIz 12k a year (which is less then min wage)... There would be no need for the draft if we had a stronger GI bill & more insentives as far as pay... But hey, our tax dollars pay for the war profiteers instead of funding our boys on the field and their families at home...
sparkyj99 3 months ago
~~> Food stamps incorporated with the welfare to work programs are a low cost way to get people on thier feet... Food stamps are spent in the grociers who inturn employ & purchase more from aggra corps & other food supplies... The food products are also state taxed so a percentage of that money goes directly back to the states... Welfare to work is the cost of employing instructors... Not a big price to pay to get people ready for the work force... Too bad its more profitable to outsource
sparkyj99 3 months ago
@sparkyj99 $12k a year? Really? Plus housing. Food. Free Medical. After service aid for college? GI bill? Pension in 20yrs, if you choose a career? Lets try and be at least a little honest here. Military contractors exist because the military hasnt been funded enough to complete the missions it has been assigned. PContractors enable military to do more. This is political. Fund larger military, or reduce scope of missions, or combination of both.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 ~~> Pay now 1.5k a month (was 1k last I knew), Free housing if you live on base, $200 food assist for non active duty, yes free medical/dental care, GI Bill is college assist but is far differnet then the MGIBill being that they must pay in a large protion & maintain a good gpa, it is not all paid for... Military contractors exist because capitalism & lobbists... Everything they do WE used to do ourselves for cheaper... Cost plus contracts are not a good deal for the purchaser...
sparkyj99 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 part2) Constant $ spending, per pupil in K-12, increased 25%, 1995-2005. Reported per kid costs are lies, they do NOT report Capital Costs (buildings), debt service, employee benefits (all reported on any Corp balance sheet). Median costs for Public Education are 93% higher for Public Schools, compared to Private Schools. Due to Govt- Union near monopoly, we pay nearly double, for far worse results.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 ~~> I cant talk about how much private school teachers make because I'm not privey to those facts but I know that in my community of 35 homeowners, maybe 5 or 6 of them can afford private school at 10k a year for 1 child and none could afford it for 3... I do believe that 2.5k in property tax is a deal for the grade A public school on the corner... Private schools just insures the poor folks don't get the education they need to prosper or end up burried in debt before their 1st job
sparkyj99 3 months ago
~~> You keep downing pensions and bennifits like they are the pits when that is what the American Dream was built on... I have been fortunate to work for men who valued the labors of others and were proud to offer bennifits... The way you talk about it is as if I would be taking advantage of them for accepting it... I do not feel entittled but do feel apppreciated.. And when they hit hard times the employees took a cut in pay till they got out of the hole... This is how it should be...
sparkyj99 3 months ago
@sparkyj99 It has nothing to do with being "appreciated", or not. Benefits are part of your wage, your compensation. You are paid an amount of total compensation that creates balance (equilibrium) between the demand for those with your abilities, and the supply of positions available. This may be very high, or not. Study a graph, the "Supply and Demand model" until you get it. If you dont study it, understand it, or see the validity, you will never have a clue.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 ~~> Benifits are part of a teachers salary too... Agreed upon at time of hire... What is your point?? Your supply & demand has nothing to do with education because there is tons of demand and not enough supply... In my business we have tons of demand but no funding... Supply & demand only applies if you have customers to purchase your wares... Public education has no place in this discussion as it is not for profit but for posterity...
sparkyj99 3 months ago
~~> You do realize that public affairs are not supposed to be run like a for profit corp... Once the buildings (most are old in my area) are paid for then there are the costs to run them like heating/cooling which should be prorated for the public good, but the corporate electric company isn't in the business of giving anything away without a profit, so they can gouge or lobby for tax credits to provide power at a lesser fee... We just built the 1st green school here, overhead is far less...
sparkyj99 3 months ago
@sparkyj99 A "paid for" building, or a paid for home, is an asset. The asset can be sold, and the capital invested in something else, that pays income, or profit. My home can be rented to someone. Paid for Govt building are still a cost, unless you think Capital has no value. Schools are paid for with bond issues (paid off by taxpayers),
which are NEVER included in the BS cost per student figures. ( nor in the BS MediCare overhead figures. Private corps MUST include these costs).
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 ~~> AMERICA IS NOT A PRIVATE CORPORATION... Capital has value but is not a cost... Building is paid for, costs are taxes & maint... I could let it sit and pay the costs or rent it out for profit... Public education is not a for profit... MediCares overhead costs are closer to 1.5% as opposed to private where overhead is more like 11 to 15% for employer provided and 15 to 30 for personal insurance (09/10 #'s)... The reason, there is not bottom line to increase for medicare...
sparkyj99 3 months ago
@sparkyj99 Private insurance doesnt have IRS, as an off- books billing dept, nor force private business to collect the premiums for MediCare either, do they? Private ins doesnt have the Pres, and the Congress, state legislatures to serve as Board members and Mgt, off the books, do they? MediCare spends far less on fraud detections, and finds less too. Seniors KNOW those large stick homes they paid off have a cost to keep, thats why many sell and downsize, turning assets into income.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 But the BIGGEST reason Medicare has lower overhead costs, apart from the non- reporting of real costs thrust onto others, is the fact that they serve old people. Old people cost more, per person. MediCare receives about triple the money, per insured, as do private insurers. since old people have expensive problems, & private insurers serve the young. Billing $80 Dr visit has same overhead cost as billing $5000 for MRI, but overhead % is smaller, with the higher charge.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 ~~> So is an mri worth 5k?? In other countries they run $35 US and patients get as many as needed to find the problem... Here if you go to the wrong imaging center your stuck with the bill... Ins companies have been screwing us forever and now you want to down the program that has taken care of grandma on the cheap?? I couldn't afford to pay her medical bills on $50 a week.... That wouldn't even cover 1 MRI would it... See "Sick Around The World"...
sparkyj99 3 months ago
@sparkyj99 Statistically in the US, the percent of infirm people who are able to get MRI`s, Cat Scans, angioplasty is FAR, FAR higher than elsewhere in the world. I got 2 MRI`s, 3 yrs ago. One was an Open MRI, and the other closed. One was about $500 (open), the other, in a world class place, $5000. The day I decided to get the MRI, that afternoon, I had it. This isnt possible elsewhere.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@sparkyj99 The largest Private insurance co is United Health (UNH), and makes about 4% after tax profit. Before tax about 6%, govt takes its cut, about 1/3 of profit. Capital is to be employed, for a return. My home was paid off 15 years ago, I pay no rent, nor mortgage, but lose return on capital. If I were to sell it, & downsize, I can increase the return, Therefore, It most certainly does cost me more to live here, than elsewhere.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@sparkyj99 Your say the reason is "bottom line". The "bottom line" is 4%. Public school teachers salaries, and benefits, med care, pensions, etc are far higher than those of Private schools. They are over market. The issue is local govts dont have enough money, so they continue to pay contracted benefits, pensions wages, but that doesnt leave enough for the fucking service; education! Same with cops, fire. They pay the retired, fire those to protect us. We pay, for nothing.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 ~~> 1 class with 15 students at 10k per year less 35k for the teacher leaves a hell of a bottom line... If the teachers are degreed & produce better results then they should be paid less from the private school?? Or public schools should lower their pay standards for teachers because their counterparts make less?? I don't see your rational in the race to the lower wage for better profits... See "college inc"... Weathery areas pay more taxes & thus have better schools...
sparkyj99 3 months ago
@sparkyj99 Wash DC was using vouchers for blacks in some areas, before Obama elected. Results were far, far better, at less cost. Obama stopped the program, because govt unions dont like it. Now, all blacks in DC get the same, shitty education. There is NO reason for taxpayers to pay far more, for far less. Students deserve better educations, not just ones that shut unions up.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 ~~> Are your local taxes going up?? Because mine have went down for the past 3 years because my property value is going down because of the foreclousres... The forclosures are inturn lowering the public services revenue... But that is how it works here... If vouchers to good schools are the answer, who wants to send their kids to the shitty schools??
sparkyj99 2 months ago
@sparkyj99 No, property taxes are going down. The issue is this, with less revenue, local districts HAVE to fulfill past promises to teachers and unions, for those not working. The only way to cut, is in the classes! Same for cops, fire depts! Now, our taxes pay not so much for service today, but those who dont work. Vouchers do this, they give a check ONLY reedemable for schools. You go wherever you want. Private, or govt. If you live in a bad school area, enroll elsewhere. see next
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@sparkyj99 Because of choices, the better schools will attract more vouchers, more money, and hire more people to work, and expand. The bad schools die off. Some public schools may survive. Who cares? The point is though that choices create competition, and better schools grow. Just like in the real world, companies that customers like, grow bigger. In ca, we have govt "charter schools". You can CHOOSE them, nobody is ASSIGNED to them! My daughter attends one, its much better.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 ~~> One of the reasons for the race to the top program... Our origingal debate was over teacher pay... Would you say that the rise of Walmart was do to consumer choice or the decline of the middle class?? And would call walmarts low prices via near slave wages created competition?? And what did it do for our economy & workforce?? I have nothing against private buisness or schools... It is consumer choice, but some folks cannot afford a choice...
sparkyj99 2 months ago
@sparkyj99 You are way to vague for me to answer anything. "Slave Wage" as a reason for WM`s low prices, what do you mean? Low wages in the US? Or products made at low wages in China? WalMart does MORE GOOD for the poor, than Obama will ever do.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 ~~> Both... They don't hire full time to avoid bennifits & send good stuff to the dump instead of offering it to the employees at a prorated price or ship to a third world as charity... It is more profitable to trash it and claim the losses... And what has walmart done to mainstreet?? Mom & pops can't compete with the big box stores... Mom & pops paid an "Appreciated" pay as opposed to min wage... I never said crap about BO other then the race to the top program... Stop grasping
sparkyj99 2 months ago
@sparkyj99 If a product is unfit to sell, then it is unfit to give away to employees either. It is insane to contemplate taking unfit products and shipping them to the 3rd world for nothing. WalMarts after tax profit is just under 4%, and anything that is done to increase costs must get passed on to their customers. People enjoy inexpensive prices. They are free to go shop at Union supermarkets, and get fucked. Mom and Pop charge more. You support higher prices for the poor!
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 ~~> No I support better pay for poor folk... Right now people have no choice to purchase a higher quality more expensive item because NO ONE CAN AFFORD IT... I never said the items were unfit, just unsold.. Like winter cloths in the summertime... Items are marked down and tossed if not sold... Thousands of pounds trashed for claims...
sparkyj99 2 months ago
@sparkyj99 Most of the major supermarkets, who are the competitors of WalMart, have unions, and higher pay and benefits. Of course, if you allow people to make a free choice, they drive on over to WalMart. Mom & Pop stores, have no advantage from the economies of scale, and free people drive past them as well. With 4% profit, paying more money to workers will mean higher prices, and we already can observe free people dont want that. Why do you oppose a corp doing what people want?
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 ~~> I live in a right to work for less state and the walmart employess can't afford to shop at walmart... Walmart is loosing business to the dollar stores... I don't know what their profit margin is but will check it out and get back to ya on that next week... What a shame that a big billion dollar company won't cut into profits to profit thier workers who give them their wealth and still claim to be an American company... American wages for American workers...
sparkyj99 2 months ago
@sparkyj99 It takes 1 min to figure out a profit margin on a public corp. The fact it will take you till next week indicates perfectly that you havent a clue how to do it. 4% is overall, so on food it is less, electronics is more. If you THINK there is room to cut, without price hikes, you havent a clue. Of course, you just proved it.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 Walmart's revenues in 2010 were 405 billion. Four percent of that is 16.2 billion. Walmart employs about 2 million people. The vast majority of them make about 15.5k per year. Thus, if one quarter of the profit margin were spent on raising salaries, Walmart could raise wages by about 13%. Now I don't care much to determine whether Walmart is an ethical company or not, but given your self assured confidence, I thought I'd offer some evidence contradicting your position.
sirmailbox 2 months ago in playlist More videos from OccupyIdeas
@sirmailbox You state the profit margin CAN be cut by 25%. That isnt evidence. In general, economic opinions we are exposed to omit the train of consequences to actions. It is easier to just see the first step. "Raise wages"! As if there are no consequences to that. "Pay people MORE!". Many agree with this, it sounds quite compassionate. Are there consequences? Who cares? It feels good to support it! Following a complex trail of consequences is too much thinking to bother with.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 ~~> What an uneducated answer that was... BTW, 2010'z GPM was 24.8% which left the NPM at 5.1% not 4%... Yes, it is easier to say let them have cake then to do research... The question is, when do WE stop giving away our cake... Supply side economnics never works when the workforce cannot consume... I take it you enjoy the thought of slave labor in the states... Good luck with that...
sparkyj99 2 months ago
@sparkyj99 WalMart, 1/31/11? After tax profit margin is found by dividing NET income by Total Revenue. I suspect you are simply dividing Gross Profit by Total Revenue, which would be about 25.2%. The actual, after tax profit is about 3.89%. (before tax revenue is 5.6%) and taxes are 32.2% of net profit. ( 1/3). Obviously, after tax is what can be distributed as a dividend, and taxed again at 15% as a Cap Gain. 1/31/11 Revenue 421.9 Bill,net income (after tax profit) 16.4B.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 You're off topic, extrapolating my comment into space, and not responding to my argument. You offered the profit margin as evidence that wages couldn't *possibly* be raised without increasing prices. I did some back of the envelope calculations and showed that, at least prima facie, it seemed plausible. You then claim "that isn't evidence" and proceed to speak in generalizations.
sirmailbox 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 The only thing that might qualify as a response was your statement "you state the profit margin CAN be cut by 25%". This is bizarre. The relevance of the profit margin--the whole reason you presumably brought it up--is that we're assuming it's some measure of disposable revenue. If you're assuming the opposite--that in fact, even the profits are indispensable--then you're just assuming what you're trying to prove.
sirmailbox 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 In other words, if the profit margin isn't an accurate measure of disposable revenue, as you seem to hint in your comment--then why in the world are we talking about it?
sirmailbox 2 months ago
@sirmailbox Increasing wages means WalMart would have to do 1, or both, of these: Make LESS money, or raise prices. Both actions make it less competitive with existing retailers. Taking less $ reduces share value, as profit drives share $. This would drive capital away, slow or stop corp growth, enable other corps to gain ground. OR it raises prices, also helping competitors to gain ground. In either case, the retailer people prefer is hurt. Profit over time returns to normal levels.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 (part 1) "[Walmart would have to either] make less money or raise prices." This is in direct contradiction to your initial claim--that wages couldn't be increased except through price increases. Now you seem to admit that, actually, wages could be increased at the cost of profit--which is exactly what I was arguing!
sirmailbox 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 (part 2) Your new argument is that, with fewer profits, they'll be less competitive, and hence this option must be ruled out. Don't you see the obvious reductio ad absurdum coming from that? The conclusion that follows from your line of thinking is the following: companies who pay more are less competitive, thus they must pay as little as possible--the end result is minimum wage for every worker. I don't want to gloat man, but you have really dug yourself into a hole here.
sirmailbox 2 months ago
@sirmailbox You say, "Your new argument is that, with fewer profits, they'll be less competitive, and hence this option must be ruled out." Perhaps you might consider exactly WHY a Corp would voluntarily make itself less competitive than other corps? What the long term results of this are? GM paid very good wages and benefits. Far higher than competitors. Great for workers! Eventually, competition prevented it from passing those costs to consumers. Toyota and others set prices. next
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 Why would a corporation wish to make fewer profits in order to pay their workers reasonable wages? Oh, I don't know--maybe because it's the ethical thing to do. You said you work in petroleum--I presume you do well for yourself? Can I ask whether you'd find it acceptable to make barely livable wages for the sake of your company's profits? How easy it is to dismiss the needs of others when you lack nothing yourself. Shameful. I'm done.
sirmailbox 2 months ago
@sirmailbox You`re done! You wont make a logical refutation of consequences. You say paying more can be done without consequences? There ARE. You switch from economic argument, to a moral one. What`s moral about causing a decline in WalMart, growth in its competitors, who pay similar wages? WM is larger, because people like it better, namely because it is more efficient and cheaper. Your "idea" will reduce size of WM, where poor, mid class PAY LESS! YOU WANT poor to PAY MORE?
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 Sometimes we must do what is difficult for the betterment of our people and society. America seems to forget that constant consuming. Besides he point it seems to me wasn't to crush Walmart but instead to have Walmart (and it's competitors) treat their employees more justly. You know the people who actually have the needs. Just seems that way from what I read.
BlotterPapers 2 months ago
@BlotterPapers I agree with your feelings! The problem I have with that "feeling" is simple. Treating employees more "justly" means paying MORE. Its EASY to see benefits to employees IF that course was followed. Its HARD to see the consequences of that policy, to consumers, stockholders, and the competitive position of the corporation, with higher costs. The Morality of your "feeling" STOPS further thought on consequences. You will NEVER see the harm, to those you purport to help
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@sirmailbox Part2) With lower labor, Toyota was able to make a reasonable profit, and at a competitive price to Toyota, GM would lose money. After several years of losses, GM stock was worth 50 cents a share. The End. So, WHO killed GM? Keep in mind, there is a thriving auto industry in the US, that survived the crash without bailouts, in right to work states. Union jobs as % of total have disappeared, the industries are gone. OVER market wages kill the job, sooner or later.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@sirmailbox Part3) You say, "that in fact, even the profits are indispensable-"? Do you have the opinion that profit is NOT indispensable? There can be nothing more obvious than that! I actually am sorry I didnt notice this first, because now I see where you get the ridiculous wording of "disposable revenue". Please, expound on this concept. That investors will build buildings, buy land, pay taxes, run enterprises, for nothing.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@sirmailbox ~~> He's cool with an underpaid population uncapable of purchasing what they make...
sparkyj99 2 months ago
@sparkyj99 Well, that's not quite true. We disagree with him on this and many other points, but his arguments are good, and they do not eschew complexity like many other arguments Left and Right. There's alot to be gained from listening to him. It's incumbant upon us to question our own assumptions and maintain a critical distance from even our most deeply-held convictions.
OccupyIdeas 2 months ago
@luvcheney1 ~~> Hey you flake... I don't get on the internet over the weekend... But you go ahead and talk crap... It seems as if somone already gave you some numbers to digest... Keep fighting for the big guy... Hows that trickle feel...
sparkyj99 2 months ago
@sparkyj99 Next time we or on the net at the same moment, ask me for the margin of any major publically traded corp, and I can provide it in 1 minute. Your inability to do so proves you havent ever been doing so. Therefore, you really have no idea WHAT margins are.
luvcheney1 2 months ago
@sparkyj99 Public school teachers paid far more, and higher benefits. They are paid way over market. US public- union monopoly 24 th in world, by results, at very high cost. Private schools almost 1/2 the cost, with better results. Allow vouchers to parents, allowing choice. Better schools will grow, the worst will die, imporoving quality, and choice for parents. Current system gives poor opportunities to poorest areas in inner cities, while wealthier areas get better. Fair?
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 ~~> In my state public teahers only make about 5k more per year while still having to pay into their chosen bennifits package... And the private school teachers do not have to be held to the same degree standards... 32-45k is what a public teacher makes here while still having to purchase supplies out of pocket... Teachers choose to go to the private schools because of over crowding classes and lack of funding to deal with the problem... Money always buy a better quality of life
sparkyj99 3 months ago
@sparkyj99 You say they get $5K more, but I know that the pensions, and med benfits are far, far higher, if they are like anywhere else in the US. Many private sector employees pay 100% of their own pensions, through Ira`s, and 401K`s max out at 4% typically for the match. You teachers may pay in but not 96%-100%! You keep say money causes private schools to do better? They do better all right, AT FAR LOWER COSTS per pupil, not HIGHER!
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 ~~> Lower costs and bigger profits... Public schools are non profits...
sparkyj99 3 months ago
This seems to be the general tone (of reasonable people) here on youtube about the pepper spraying at the Davis protest: "Legal or illegal, I don't see how any police officer with a pinch of dignity could stand to pepper-spray people in the face, while they are sitting peacefully and non-aggressively." -
ReducedToAsh
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas I agree! Batons are far more appropriate when people refuse to disperse after they have been ordered to. After all, nobody has any property rights in America. Anyone can invade any property. Its our RIGHT!
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 The banks and corporations that run this nation don't seem to have any opposition for illegally foreclosing on as many as 5,000 US veterans. The news is just coming out.
NeatNetwork 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 There are bigger crimes being committed by banks, corporations, and government. Like the multi-trillion dollar war that cost American tax-payers $1 billion each day to fund. How about the 46 million Americans that live in poverty (a record high which translate 1/6 American). How about the bailouts that McCain and Obama pushed so that CEOs can give themselves hugh bonuses while telling America there is no money for education. We should focus on those problems for now.
NeatNetwork 3 months ago
@NeatNetwork How many unsupported assertions can a Lib make in 500 characters? 1) bank crime 2) govt crime 3) $1 bill a day War 4) 46 mill in poverty 5) bailouts for CEO`s 6)Bonuses 7)no money spent on education? Congratulations! I like debating morons. So, pick one issue, even one not listed, and support your opinion on it, and I will respond to it. Perhaps we may agree, or not. But, I think you see up, as down. Pick your BEST subject Ace.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 I can take time to explain to you but you probably won't listen to me. If you genuinely want the sources where these assertions come from, I will be glad to show you. Otherwise, you can visit my channel and there are countless of media outlets that I put together to help my fellow Americans.
NeatNetwork 3 months ago
@NeatNetwork Certainly you can appreciate that just saying "bank crime", only one of your assertions, is a very large subject. On just this one assertion, I can have many subjects. Of course, many Libs as well think the 2008 crisis in general may be "bank crime", or Wall Street", so I cant answer it, nor know what the fuck you mean, and that is just one subject. S&L crisis? Blankfein? Document Robo- signing? You are a jerk. You cant even fucking state a point. Loser!
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 Google
wikileaks
realnewsnetwork
democracy now
24 hours/7 days a week of unfiltered facts about crimes committed at the highest level of government, corporations and banks.
Here's a WAR CRIME: Youtube Collateral Murder
Another war crime, invading 3 wars that are unconstitutional and international illegal. 59% of the US budget goes to defense. So we are to support companies that profit from war and destroy our education system? You think we are going to allow for that? Fuck you!
NeatNetwork 3 months ago
@NeatNetwork 59%? Bullshit! I bet that is Lib spin perhaps 59% of discretionary? What kind of stupid crap are you peddling moron? Think I dont know what the fucking defense spending is? The War cost? Obama allocated $140 bill, for one year, 2 wars. You claimed $1 bill a day? Thats $365 bill you piece of shit liar.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 We are here to stay for a long while.
NeatNetwork 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 "...in 500 characters." Good line.
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
@NeatNetwork One problem with this debate is that left and right use diff. sources: right see us government spending dotty com. Left see war resisters doting org. Two pie charts, two completely different estimations of gov. military spending.
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas You mean real news vs corporate news?
NeatNetwork 3 months ago
@NeatNetwork not sure. Does a corp support govspendingdotdotdotcom? It's a mistake for lefties to believe that right wingers are either selfish, brainwashed or stupid - and visa versa. In general the two sides are - when it's all hashed out - only separated by a few degrees. These days, both want less private-government corruption. They just point to diff sides of the equation as the problem.
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas Note from "war resisters", "*Analysts differ on how much of the debt stems from military; We use 80% because we believe if there had been no military spending most (if not all) of national debt would have been eliminated." True, analysts differ. Some arent insane.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
"I work in law enforcement. We are told to use the "+1 model" for use of force. You can go one level above the amount of resistance received from a person considered to be a threat. "Threat" being the key word. These cops used the +3 model on people who posed no threat. Wrong on all levels." - alund1306 in ref. to the pepper spraying of seated protesters at UC Davis. Armyveteran101st and others in the know, does this sound right, or is alund off base?
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
The cops are not supposed to take sides, and their only duty is to uphold the law, which is what they've been doing, by and large. Yes, there are a few bad cops that do things they shouldn't do, but they are a small minority. However, the OWS movement is made up of all kinds of people that don't necessarily have the cause of exposing economic inequality in mind. Many do, but many others have taken advantage of OWS to break the law and disturb the public order, and that can't be allowed to stand.
armyveteran101st 3 months ago
@armyveteran101st Strange. We were just about to write you! We wanted to thank you for flooding these boards with reasoned arguments:) we may disagree on a few points, but we're both trying to get people to understand that "the cops" are just normal men and women trying to do their jobs in high pressure environments. We do disagree re "sides," though. Cops make moral decisions, like soldiers, and, as you know, they don't have to follow orders (though not doing so often makes their job harder).
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas I thank you for your comment, but I beg to differ on one point: Police officers, like Soldiers, take an Oath and are sworn to uphold the law and perform their duties, which most definitely include following the orders that come down to them from the civilian authority. The military and law enforcement are very similar in that respect. That's why you see many veterans such as myself, who choose to work in law enforcement and security after our active duty in the military is over.
armyveteran101st 3 months ago
@armyveteran101st So...what happens when they feel that orders given don't align with the law? This is the crux of this issue. We're sure other people bring this up with you, right? As we know, 1) the Nuremberg Defense does not work; and 2) higher-ups, once polt support wanes for the orders they've given, have no problem throwing footsoldiers under the bus. There's a long history of this, represented most famously of course by Lt. Calley, but no doubt you've seen more quotidian instances of this
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas You know, during Army training they teach you the Laws of Warfare, and how military justice works. They teach you that you have a duty not to follow any UNLAWFUL orders issued to you, keyword being UNLAWFUL. You can't possibly compare this situation with the Nazis at Nuremberg or with the My Lai Massacre, because there is a world of difference. The cops at UC Davis were following a lawful order to deal with the protesters after they chose to engage in unlawful behavior.
armyveteran101st 3 months ago
@armyveteran101st haha, no, we're not among the cops are nazis! crowd:) But first amendment rights are malleable. Often they rely on a judge's interpretation, so the police (at davis, but particularly here at berkeley, where we can attest to the fact that the officers were not simply "nudging" us) are in a difficult position. Orders given may not always be lawful. At Zucotti, for instance, 2 diff judges made 2 different decisions re the camps. Bloomberg went with the one who ordered dispersal.
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas A judge cannot issue an unlawful order, because that is the end of his/her time on the bench. I admit that there are bad cops who take things too far and violate people's rights, but they are by no means a majority, or even a sizable number. I can safely tell you that the way in which the authorities in general have dealt with these protests has been lawful and quite restrained. You can break the law only so much before the authorities become obligated to put a stop to it.
armyveteran101st 3 months ago
@armyveteran101st The problem is, when it comes to free speech, judges are not in agreement about its limits, so one judge may issue an injunction AGAINST removing protesters (as happened with the 1st judge Bloomberg contacted) while a 2nd may decide to remove them. Neither is necessarily unlawful, just diff interps. And the police may be caught in the middle. Also, even if they follow SOP, a judge may rule that police acted too aggressively in a given situation (as has already happened in NY).
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
@armyveteran101st ...courts weigh the right to free speech against other interests, and some courts weigh it higher (or lower) than others. One may decide that the officer behaved lawfully, another that the officer did not. This is tough for cops, as I'm sure you know, but it does illuminate the fact that law is far from unchanging or concrete. This is what we meant by taking sides.
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
I think this video is great! Good idea!
OWS
huntingtonbeachify 3 months ago
@111111Revenge 1st Amendment rights allow free speech, but rights of Occupiers do not supercede rights of others. For example, Occupiers can go in a park, if others can too. 24 hrs a day, if others can too. But they cant pitch tents, if others can not. They can walk on sidewalks, if others can too. But if others can not do business, or get to work, or buy product, then are denying the rights of others. The cant clog streets, people with trucks, autos have a right to the streets.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 Being able to sip coffee in the park, though nice, was not why the founders wrote the 1st amendment. All actions are in fact not equal in this regard. The right to petition the govt for redress stands above other concerns. The conservative media is simply spewing lies - though neither the MSM or liberal media (TYT, MSNBC) has talked about this either. tea partiers, given their ostensible love for "the founders" should b the first to know this, and should be screaming at Fox.
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
The judiciary has over time granted more or less weight to certain claims to free speech. We cannot "yell 'fire' in a crowded theater" for instance, because our right to free speech is outweighed in this instance by other concerns. Legal precendent can be found on both sides of the argument, but those that study the founders, and especially men like George Mason, understand that no element of free speech has greater weight than protest.
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas "Protest", "free speech" do NOT give protestors right to disrupt everyone elses rights. Govt must allow your right of free speech, but that gives NO right to disrupt others freedoms. Now, when you have no vote, and a fucking king, or dictator, things are different. "ACLU Your Right to Protest, 1st Amend activities cant overly interfere with normal use of location.", "Expressive activity allowed in public
forums if it does not interfere with the rights and activities of others"
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 Great source! Thanks! Though, despite the matter-of-fact ACLU tone, like all con law these points are very much open to interpretation. Even as we debate, different judges in NY disagree over whether Occupy had the right to remain in the park with their tents. As you know, Bloomberg did have to go to a second judge. The ACLU pubs these pamphlets to inform people of their rights. Since they don't want people arrested, their recs are on the conservative side. Best to play it safe...
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 (part 2)...but do not describe, or account in any way for the malleability of these rights. Basically, they're designed to keep you out of trouble even if you go in front of the most politically conservative court. Diff courts over time have weighted speech rights differently, depending upon the situation. With each new free speech case they have to weigh relative concerns. (The 1st amendment, wonderfully and frustratingly, has always been up for interpretation and reinterpretation.)
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas Bloomberg went to 2 judges, but the Ocuppy movement has been doing their thing for weeks! They have been given a VERY generous interpretation! I want to know, if the KKK wanted permanent access to the park in NYC, would Bloomberg allow it? Would the Univ allow KKK at Sproul Plaza to camp? Your support of their unlimited permanent access to disrupt the rights of everyone else has NOTHING to do with Free Speech and the 1st Amendment at all, it only has to do with YOUR personal bias.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 We would of course fight for the rights of the kkk to march, as the ACLU has done, but to set up camp - THAT is EXACTLY what we're talking about in terms of courts having the discretion to decide on matters of free speech.Whether we like it or not, the courts DO decide who actually has free speech, when, and what the limits are - often courts disagree. (We were about to say: "very good point," but then we realized that the KKK is a hate group, so the comparison doesn't quite work.)
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 (part 2) ...because as a hate group we doubt they could provide a reason the court would find compelling. All we're saying is that you have to avoid absolutes when discussin ght 1st amend. You can't say a group can or can't do this, that it's aainst the law, because the law has always been protean. eg can't say we have an inalienable right to speak out against a war because we know citizens have been imprisoned for just that. Judges have always considered the who what when and where
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas So NOW you find compelling an argument that the right to our Free Speech and the 1st Amendment is predicated on the actual point of view! YOU say it can be selectively applied. I can see that a judge, a court might decide on the right to protest based on the location, or the circumstances of how many protestors, toilets available, how the rest of the public uses the area and such. But YOU think our Constitutional Rights are based on the IDEAS. Well, well! Game over Comrade!
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 we're playin a game? Find another eg.; the kkk doesn't work because hate speech is not protected. This has nothing to do with our pov. We're saying that since courts regard free speech and peaceable assembly rights as the rights that protect all other rights, laws that infringe on free speech rights are subject to strict scrutiny. And, since over time diff courts have made diff decisions about these laws, one cannot make claims about absolute limits. There's no counter arg to that.
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas Sorry, I missed the part of the Constitution that doesnt protect hate speech. Please direct me? And, after you find it for me, we need to agree to ban ALL the Occupy protestors while we are at it, as long as I can find some Occupiers who SEEM to me to hate the 1% at the top. Who seem to hate corporations, CEO`s, Big Bankers, and their bonuses? No, no haters in the Occupy Movement! You sir, are being a hypocrite, and disingenuous.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 seriously? 1) you've read the 1st amendment. You know it's extremely broad. We've never been talking about what's "in the constitution," only about how courts have interpreted the law; all we're saying is that diff courts have interp the law diff at diff times. 2) KKK=Occupy Protesters? We're not cherry picking some KKK member who might be racist. It's the avowed mission of the org. Which brings us to this: with what criticisms in the OWS Oct. 5 declaration do you actually disagree?
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas Whether I disagree with the Ocuppiers or not has nothing to do with their 1st Amend rights. 1st Amend doesnt distinguish between hate speech, and even if it did, we have tons of hate speech from Libs lately, over the rich, Corporations, etc. But, it doesnt matter, as far as a right to speech. What matters is laws. 1st amendment doesnt nullify other property rights, or the rights of others. It is absurd to think a judge can decide WHAT political view is protected.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas I looked at that document, thanks for the reference, but that is the biggest piece of crap I ever saw. I think its GREAT you guys wrote it down though, so we can see what degree of stupidity we are dealing with. The standard of living we all have is BECAUSE of corporations. Economies of scale lower prices so much even losers can drive fine automobiles, have computers. 1000`s of yrs of history man lived a brutish life, working 15 hrs a day, kids too, just to eat, die at 40yrs of age
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 So we either have no corps OR complete corp dominance with some corps actually writing the reg laws designed to reg them (like we do now)? That's a false choice, and one consistently being posed on Fox News. We have a better choice: responsible govt. Again, this is what the maj. of occ protesters want. Can you pick one critique on the dec. with which you disagree?
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas Fox didnt even exist until 1995 or so. You guys think ALL conservative ideas come from Fox? WTF do you think we did BEFORE then? Buckley, Hazlitt, Rothbard, Rand, Von Mises, Friedman, etc. This is simply a cheap technique to marginalize anyone disagreeing with YOU. Let me say this : O`Reilly is #1 on Fox, and HE thinks Speculators regulate the price of oil, Oil corps do, and he is a populist lunatic, pathetic in his stupidity. STOP marginalizing ME with Fox, I see through O`Reilly.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas Sorry. No more Fox. Although, to be fair, we were not associating you with Fox, only pointing out that Fox has consistently been offering this false choice between the status quo and socialism. Though it was for argument's sake, your comment seemed to follow this false choice logic - no corps or dying at 40. Anyway, we do want to know what criticsim on the dec you disagree with, precisely because you are the sort that can refrain from ad hominem attacks and address issues.
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas Sorry. No more Fox. Although, to be fair, we were not associating you with Fox, only pointing out that Fox has consistently been offering this false choice between the status quo and socialism. Though it was for argument's sake, your comment seemed to follow this false choice logic - no corps or dying at 40. Anyway, we do want to know what criticsim on the dec you disagree with, precisely because you are of the sort that can refrain from ad hominem attacks and address issues.
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas You associate ANY conservative view with Fox. This is typical, because you think all media MUST be Lib. Fox is more conservative, but So? I dont like MSNBC. So what? I dont freak out because you dont watch Fox! I speak for ME. I am Free Market. I do NOT support the status quo. I.E, I oppose bailouts, to all. No bank bailouts, no GM, much fewer personal bailouts like, food stamps, unemployment, welfare. ANY added cost to corps increases price of products. Excess regs hurt poor.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 1) We only associate conservatives with Fox when they use Fox arguments (eg false choices). When they do not, we do not. 2) So the 99%ers point to corp-gov corruption and lay the weight more heavily on the corp side (since - they feel - they're following the money). You lay it more heavily on the gov side, but, still, do you disagree with any of the criticisms in the Oct. 5 declaration that you read? Would you say that any of them are false? which one(s)?
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas 1)Being conservative to you, means Fox. O`Reilly, #1 at Fox, and cable, is as silly about Wall Street greed as Ocuppiers. 2) I mentioned 2 general concepts pertaining to many of the Oct 5 ideas. I repeat: NO BAILOUTS, personal, or corporate. ( I support much smaller, short term, personal safety net only). Many of the statements of OCT 5 substantially raise costs to corps, if enacted. Costs are passed through, to consumers. OWS therefore wants higher prices on the poor, I DONT.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 1st - happy thanksgiving! 2nd - we wanted to get your take on this: (google
"Town keeps Walmart out, opens own store.") We were thinking this was something we all might see as a good thing.
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas A great deal of local opposition to WalMart`s entry into a new market comes from businesses. The fear they have to a WalMart is of course normal, and understandable. Many smaller businesses can NOT compete with WalMart on selection and variety of goods, nor on their low prices. So business people lobby their local govt for protection, so their small selections of expensive goods can still be sold. Funny, I thought this kind of Capitalism was something OWS opposes?
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 So, what you saw in the video. Good thing or bad? What's your take? Do you want to live in a country where all the towns look the same, dominated by 5 or 10 multinationals, or one, as we had for most of the 20th century, where the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was actually enforced, and where smaller businesses did have a place on the landscape?
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas Standard Oil got broken up. Why? It sold too cheap. Cant have that! We need to break large corps up, make them less efficient, to the point they MUST charge more, enabling the other inneficient corps to stay in business. Then, we all pay high prices, reward inefficiency, punish efficiency. Constitutionally, I see no reason a community cant ban WalMart, by limiting sq ft. But this only protects the inefficient businesses. The rich can pay the inefficient more, the poor can NOT.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 Ah, but you have to think in large structural terms. Monopoly helps to create vast economic divides where the rich can pay and the poor cannot. This is one important reason (aside from their stifling of entrepreneurial growth and undue political influence) that even wealthy legislators realized something had to be done about monopolies (and, later, corrupt govt/industrial complexes). Believe us, we know it's not all Fox News. This utopian free market ideology is not new at all.
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas Natural monopolies, ( those created by free market, not legislated into existence by the Govt), become monopolies because they have pleased their customers, through prices, quality, service or other factors important to consumers. WalMart is a good example, its prices are cheap. When WM opens in a new town, if people didnt like WM, the corp couldnt take away customers from the local businesses charging MORE. It gains market share because free people WANT it. Thats LIBERTY.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 (Part 2) Since we were initially simply trying to find a point of agreement though, we're still wondering. What you saw in the video. Good thing or bad? Do you want to live in a country where all the towns look the same, dominated by 5 or 10 multinationals, or one, as we had for most of the 20th century, where the Sherman Anti-Trust Act was actually enforced, and where smaller businesses had a place on the landscape?
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas How the country develops is up to the people. It is very, very clear that the people will choose where to shop, based on low prices. I also believe that local Govts are free to respond to their constituencies. If local Govts prefer to protect a few local businesses, at the expense of the greater population, that is fine. The locals are free to move away, where there are better shopping options, or they can just drive into another locality that allows Liberty to shop.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas Part3) I shop WM, not everything, my local chain super sells fine meat on sale at lower prices than WM. I buy dresses at Macy`s for my wife, at very high prices, and high heels there too, at high prices, as I like her to have fine things, as she is very beautiful, and I enjoy seeing her look good. Your obsession with me having to decide how I want the country, shows your bias. You, and I, should do what WE want. Deciding for others is NOT MY business. People VOTE, with their MONEY!
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 1) No bias. We were only asking for your personal perference re our specific query. And we're still waiting for your answer:) 2) Wait, you think Walmart is a "natural monopoly??" We know YOU KNOW that is not true, right? You could no doubt prvide US with a long list of the ways it depends on our govt. 3) Another false choice: protecting local businesses "at the expense of the greater pop." That ignores the principal we outlined earlier re monopolies and macro-level wealth outcomes.
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
(part 2) We need to find another term for what you mean by natural monopoly, since that term already exists to describe something else, but we do want to discuss it because it speaks directly to a blindspot in free market (FM) logic: the actual role of the state. FMers cite regs and taxes, but they seldom point to the multitude of other priv/pub interactions: those nec. ones which well-read FMers like you recognize: infrastructure, contract law; but also those which corps have made necessary...
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas (part 3)...through their historically consistent "bad practices." Govts have long protected powerful monopolies against their own workers and the communities which they ostensibly serve (in the US and abroad). This is not a debated historical point. Gov. protection of private interests (which then trickle down to others in the metropole) was a pivotal impetus for colonialism and is the driving force behind post-colonial asymetric relations. There has never been a "natural monopoly."
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas I suppose you are now going to say because Govt builds roads, anyone who uses a road is govt property, and govt can dictate conditions to them? Lets not bury your BS in words. Use examples. I guess if someone at WalMart uses MediCaid, therefore WM is subsidized by Govt? So, WM is responsible for socialism in the US? WM is big all right, but there is NO way they can control Govt appetite for power. By natural monopoly, I mean a co that gets very big, by fact people buy there.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas Personally, I like WM, I like the option of being able to shop there. I also like the quaint old streets, that arent modern malls either, but those are mostly today tourist
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas But, I am sick of your wanting ME to pick what the market does. I buy where I want, and that is the power I have, balanced by wherever everyone else chooses to buy. I think Studebakers and Hudson`s were beautiful cars, but, its wasnt my call to make. Now, to the degree govt does what it does, corps sell to the public, and if they want to buy somewhere, let them.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas "Govts have long protected powerful monopolies against their own workers and the communities which they ostensibly serve (in the US and abroad)." The confusion here lies in the idea that a businessman who seeks protection from competition, by govt, somehow indicts Capitalism. It does NOT. AT&T was a monopoly, regulated into one, by govt. Thats not capitalism. ( Reagan fixed that issue). Free market folks just dont want gov breaking up companies just because they are big. So?
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 1) Thanks for your answer. "I buy where I want, and that is the power I have." We disagree. We are consumers, but we are citizens first (or, if we want to get hippie or Christian, humans first). That means we can and do have the power and responsibility to choose the kind of country we want to live in; 2) we like your vision of a natural monopoly company, one that gets very big by the fact that people buy there. But we'd have to first see proof that such a company has ever...
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 (2)...existed, anywhere, in the history of the world. OWS favors actual capitalism, where citizens rooted in their communities engage in actual free trade rather than a global economy ruled by Goldman Sachs, Walmart and Monsanto, which is really a system of central planning much like what we attribute to the actual practice of communism.
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas And so now we have it. Blindness to the benefit of comparative advantage. We finally come full circle, all the way around, the desire on you "lovers of freedom" to dictate to others how/ what they can buy, after they labor, invest, pay their lawful taxes. After all that, the "freedom" you see is that others have no right to decide for themselves who they want to do business with. There are 2 issues here. First is the principle of freedom of choice. To respect the rights of others.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 1) Great point re larger trading networks. We definitely don't want to see a return to isolated markets, but a happy trade medium could and should be reached. 2) Look one level deeper. If one does love freedom, one should be able to acknowledge that choosing between walmart, macy's and 7 to 10 other giant conglomerates isn't really freedom. The longer current business practice continue the more our freedom of choice (at least as consumers) is actually circumscribed. You see that.
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas Big retailers are RESULT of freedom of choice! If folks disliked big stores, they wouldnt have customers, would they? They exist, because people like them. I know some people think like you say you do. It ought to be obvious though that there are not enough of you to eliminate the big corps, and create the smaller businesses you prefer existed. If most people thought like you, and took your dollars to places you would like, the big stores would die, small ones appear. NOT HAPPENING
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 1) YOU think like we do. Big retailers are NOT the result of freedom of choice. They are the result, as you should know, given your politics, of government-industry collaboration. If govt stayed out of business - as you prefer it - these conglomerates would not exist. This speaks to our earlier point: there has never been is is not now any natural monopoly. And we're not just talking infrastructure or healthcare, we're talking subsidies at all levels of corp production, sweetheart...
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas Fuck you, sweetheart. Dont sweetheart me.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas The ONLY way you are going to have smaller, more expensive, small inventory retailers is by RESTRICTING freedom. They do that here in Calif often. WalMart then finds a city jurisdiction somewhere else, in a location that allows them to come in, and then WM draws customers out of the neighboring city, and the jobs and tax revenues too, to the adjoining city. The city you would like, effectively commits suicide. I really dont care, go ahead, hang yourself. Pay less, live better.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 (2)...tax deals, loans at rates small business owners could never get, refusals to police immigration, trade agreements which favor agribusiness in the global north. You're right about gov. involvement being a huge problem. That's why we don't understand your continued backing of the corp agenda. It goes against your own poltics. 2) yes, WM DOES do that, which is why solutions need to be macro structural instead of local. (Silly to address air pollution town by town, right? Same.)
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas (2) Ancient cities in Mesopotamia made the 1st great leap forward in living standards, through specialization. Small agricultural groups, living independently making clothes, shoes, farming and growing led to low living standards. Cities, medium of exchange, enabled specialization, where one raised cattle, another made shoes, another candles, etc. Each one working at his own best skill. Higher productivity, if one limits activities to his best skill. You shrink the world to a city?
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas Certainly you are aware of Rome`s roads, and how they expanded, bring the provinces into trade, and a great deal of wealth. Never thought about the "dark ages" and why they were dark? Low living standards of course. Feudalism, small little kingdoms, and little widespread trade. Where exactly did we see the Renaissance take hold? Venice? Canals? Why canals in Venice? To look "pretty", or what? The gondolas had lobbyists, for the guys who sing in the boats? Canals for TRADE. WEALTH.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas Lets change subjects. Outsourcing, decline of wages, wealth of the 99%. With Gold Standard, trade deficits leave dollars overseas, foreigners trade back dollars, for gold. Without even balance, gold flows OUT. This cant go on long!. So, govt devalues, raising Gold price. From $35 to $70, for example. Dollar is cheaper, so foreign products are more expensive, domestic ones cheaper. Balance returns, BUT 2 problems: we get poorer, and we SEE gold being better than dollar. see gold2
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas gold2) When govt devalues, it immediately sucks for the population, but the outflow of gold is stopped. When US went OFF gold standard, the dollar became reserve currency. Now we have trade deficits, dollars piling up abroad, but foreigners save them as reserves, as if they are gold. They arent coming back for now! It keeps us from devaluing. So, imports are cheaper, dollar articficially overvalued. Because we dont devalue, jobs flow out of US. see gold3
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@OccupyIdeas gold3) If gold were still the standard, govt would have to limit money printing, or lose gold, or devalue. Losing gold and devaluing are both bad options, so govt is effectively stopped from printing. But since the world was stupid enough to make dollar reserve currency, we have been exempt from devaluing, and able to print. Imports are too cheap, and outsourcing and job loss happen. INFLATION ruins our wages, savings, encouraging debt. We are getting fucked, this is the reason.
luvcheney1 3 months ago
@luvcheney1 We have gold standard people among us (and many more in the movement in general), though others of us are skeptical, including me. We're not economists, but it seems as if the standard currency argument, while it may affect those factors which you outline, is somewhat of a red herring, in that it does not address the key issue: even if we used rice, or silver, or f-ing carrots, the great wealth produced by the many is rising too quickly to the top and not trickling down sufficiently.
OccupyIdeas 3 months ago