OCCUPY WALL STREET, OCCUPY WORLD IDEA 1 - GET THE COPS ON OUR SIDE

OCCUPY WALL STREET, OCCUPY WORLD IDEA 1 - GET THE COPS ON OUR SIDE. The police, the protesters, and the occupy wall street movement worldwide.

Category:

Nonprofits & Activism

Tags:

• occupy wall street
• occupy world
• protest
• nina simone
• tyt
• rachel maddow

[Counterreactionary]

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.

[DionAFields]

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.

[luvcheney1]

@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

[BlotterPapers]

@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. 

[luvcheney1]

@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?

[sirmailbox]

@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.

[luvcheney1]

@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]

@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]

@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