This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.5
PTR
10.2.6
Occupy Wall Street Protests
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
MyTie
As for how dumb it is: well, I pointed out earlier that the Harvard Medical School came to the conclusion that 45000 Americans a year are dying as a result of lack of insurance coverage, in other words 3* as many are murdered each year and 15* as many died in the terrorist attacks of September 11th: but billionaires think it unfair they pay a cent more than the guy working minimum wage to ensure that his fellow citizen wont die. I for one am not going to be telling the Occupy guys that they ought to be complacent.
This is an appeal to emotion. When you sit down and logically think about how to get more people medical coverage, then you should be focused on how to lower the cost of coverage. To do that, there should be more competition, less regulation, and fix the broken lawsuit side of the judicial branch. What is being advocated by OWS is a government option. That is a bureaucratic monopoly that will only serve to drive up costs, lower quality, and eliminate competition. I feel for sick people too. I wish everyone had complete medical care and were very healthy, but that doesn't mean I want to drive a bulldozer through common sense either.
Post by
Adamsm
but billionaires think it unfair they pay a cent more than the guy working minimum wage to ensure that his fellow citizen wont die.Not just billionaires; average joes feel the exact same way.
Post by
Heckler
As for how dumb it is: well, I pointed out earlier that the Harvard Medical School came to the conclusion that 45000 Americans a year are dying as a result of lack of insurance coverage, in other words 3* as many are murdered each year and 15* as many died in the terrorist attacks of September 11th: but billionaires think it unfair they pay a cent more than the guy working minimum wage to ensure that his fellow citizen wont die. I for one am not going to be telling the Occupy guys that they ought to be complacent.
Well said gamer. While I completely understand (and at times share in) the unpopularity of some of the more disruptive Occupy tactics, I am sincerely glad that they're doing the things they're doing. Even if everything I believe is judged to be wrongheaded and improper as this discussion plays out, the mere fact that we're having the discussion at all makes me happy. I recently started a new book (
Overthrow
, by Stephen Kinzer -- highly recommended so far), and the pattern of influence of private corporations over the United States' policies since the Civil War is mind-boggling (and I stop at the Civil War only due to ignorance, I'm sure if I kept going back farther into history I would find examples throughout). The more I learn about this topic, the more I realize this isn't just an isolated issue of our times, but a fight that's been going on for decades. I'm glad that the "People's" side of the argument is trying to make its case, in some way.
This is an appeal to emotion. When you sit down and logically think about how to get more people medical coverage, then you should be focused on how to lower the cost of coverage. To do that, there should be more competition, less regulation, and fix the broken lawsuit side of the judicial branch.
I'm not sure how well this stands up when the costs in the U.S. are higher (and the quality lower) than other industrialized nations, including the 100% socialized ones. You may be on to something with the 'more competition' statement, but you're not considering that one of the forces holding back lively competition is the large Health Care companies themselves (which is why
less
regulation is not a simple black-and-white solution). I'll leave the lawsuit statement alone, because while I would probably agree with you in some way, it's an extremely complex question (especially in a 100% private market scenario).
What is being advocated by OWS is a government option. That is a bureaucratic monopoly
This is a bit contradictory -- an
option
that is a
monopoly
? Personally, I don't think a centrally planned universal health care system (which outlaws for-profit companies) is a good answer. However, I do think it is right and proper for society to set some minimum level of care that is available to everyone, and leave expenditures above and beyond this threshold to the private (and well-regulated) market. France's system is a pretty good example in my opinion -- it's cheaper than ours, higher quality, and still leaves plenty of room for private industry to operate and compete.
Post by
gamerunknown
and I stop at the Civil War only due to ignorance, I'm sure if I kept going back farther into history I would find examples throughout
I think you've pointed out as much in the thread yourself, but I think corporate irresponsibility stems from corporate personhood, which itself is a result of a court case based on the 14th amendment: obviously not what was in mind at the time of the amendment being written. I read before then corporations were largely formed for building railways and bridges, something that it would be difficult to find private funding for (hence the tradition of corporate state charters). Any abuses of power predating corporate personhood would largely be in common with any collective or be a result of misapportioning money. That said, capitalism and commerce predated corporations (I think Marx attributes Aristotle as calling it "chrestmatics" or something, but I can't find the page or the phrase when googling it). To quote a founding father:
Finally, there seem to be but three Ways for a Nation to acquire Wealth. The first is by War as the Romans did in plundering their conquered Neighbours. This is Robbery. The second by Commerce which is generally Cheating.
This is an appeal to emotion.
I don't think it is strictly an appeal to emotion. As far as I'm aware, the appeal to emotion fallacy is positing that a proposition must be true due to the negative consequences of holding the opposing view. Arguing about which policies will be better for society rather than which opinions are better to hold for the viewer necessitates looking at the effects of those policies (in my opinion, from a Utilitarian standpoint which is impossible to divorce from the effects of polciies on the individual to feel pleasure). Can one argue for the existence of prisons without considering the effect it will have on memebrs of society if prisons were abolished? If it is necessary to utilise the appeal to emotion in political discussions, that's unfortunate, but it has precedence in the necessity of the appeal to popularity in democratic proceedings. If there were a purely logical method of governance, ethics, morality and politics that'd be superior, but we've seen attempts to to implement one in every extant dictatorship. In fact, I like statistics since they allow my to think in ratio: the real issue the first world faces is the antithesis of the problem 20% of the world faces, namely overconsumption. Forty one times as many Americans die of heart disease as get murdered, but it's far easier to sensationalise murder and make one hate one's neighbour than to deny advertising money from McDonalds. I think fewer Americans would die if prison populations were halved and James Skinner, Mike Duke and David Novak were stuck in prison.
When you sit down and logically think about how to get more people medical coverage, then you should be focused on how to lower the cost of coverage. To do that, there should be more competition, less regulation, and fix the broken lawsuit side of the judicial branch.
I don't think it necessarily follows. In every other industrial country in the world, there is no need for health insurance, but there is the option for it. Is there a corresponding reduction in quality of life? No. As for regulation: the government is not permitted to set prices of medical drugs in the US and as a result, they're on average 3* as expensive than in countries where citizens have similar purchasing powers. Also, government regulation would entail that insurance companies had some standards. For individuals with mortal illnesses and not a lot of money, the only available coverage may be essentially a scam and government regulation is the only thing preventing that. Also, social security is one of the most efficient government agencies, with operating costs at 1% of expenditure, so why not utilise that model?
The utilisation of litigation may actually stem from a simple financial decision: "what is the likeihood I'll prove this accident was the responsibility of someone else versus what is the impact this accident will have on the likelihood I'll be able to pay my insurance"? Increases in sophistication of personal claims may have slipped across the Atlantic, but if I had an accident where my healthcare was free, then the only person that would stand to lose would be my employer. Even if they were marginally negligent, I probably wouldn't pursue litigation against them. If there was a dichotomy where I earned a fraction of the money I made my corporate employer (like my uncle, a photographer that also edits his work and lights his shoots: he made something like 0.5% of the several hundred thousand his photos made for his company), where I was suddenly unemployed as a result of my accident and stood to lose money due to increasing insurance costs... Then by all means I'd pursue litigation.
Post by
MyTie
I agree with you Heckler. I feel that some government regulation over the health care industry is needed to ensure quality.
Post by
pezz
To ensure quality and for quality insurance?
Better yet: We need to make sure that those who are working hard and those who are hardly working are insured insurance.
Post by
Squishalot
When the fact that the bankers are even employed at the moment is due to the fact that they've relied on the taxpayer to pay for their systemic failures, they should not be rewarding themselves for duping the public.
There are over 40 thousand employees in Australia's biggest bank. All of them would be on salaries of at least A$30k per annum (or equivalent casual $/hr amount). A significant number of them would have been on at least $65k per annum, or greater than the average salary. A huge number of IT contractors would be on $150k+, by virtue of the way the IT engineering system works here.
Are you telling me that your local bank manager, who helped Mrs Smith down the road to get a home loan, somehow duped the public and is the cause of their bank's systemic failures? Or the guy who was responsible for developing the online banking system for their bank? Or the teller, who has to put up with the thousands of people complaining about bank fees?
In fact, can you even define what systemic failures you're referring to, and who is responsible for said failures, or are you simply rehashing what the Occupy protesters are chanting?
Especially when their methods of wealth generation revolve around financial manipulations entirely independent of production, which is an advance for capitalism over exploiting the surplus-value of labour by controlling the means of production.
Again - please define what methods of wealth generation you're referring to. The vast bulk of a bank's business is the cash management of savings and loans, unless you're referring to a Lehman's type investment bank, which, funnily enough, didn't get support from the government.
Edit: The point of banks was originally to give people temporal access to currency to increase their ability to valorise their labour into produce, either by purchasing houres nearer to the means of production, paying for their education so that they could work more efficiently or by allowing them to actually purchase means of production that they could not afford otherwise.
And the banks do that. So again - are you somehow saying that the bankers, who lend Mrs Smith money to buy her house, or the local greengrocer the cash to support his business, are somehow responsible for their bank's 'systemic failures'? I know bankers on salaries of well over a million dollars who do nothing more than basic lending transactions.
Post by
gamerunknown
In fact, can you even define what systemic failures you're referring to, and who is responsible for said failures, or are you simply rehashing what the Occupy protesters are chanting?
Again - please define what methods of wealth generation you're referring to. The vast bulk of a bank's business is the cash management of savings and loans, unless you're referring to a Lehman's type investment bank, which, funnily enough, didn't get support from the government.
Basically, this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Goodwin#Expansion
. "...significant growth coming from its investment banking business". The people that were the architects of the collapse benefited the most out of the government's intervening in it. Of course, there were some distal effects, such as with AIG.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Craziness
:
Ban all private ownership of land?
Unionize all workers?
Ban private ownership of guns?
Make homeschooling illegal?
6 hour workday? 6 weeks paid vacation?
$18 minimum wage?
Post by
gnomerdon
i'll quote the ones i found ridiculous in my own world.
Raise the minimum wage immediately to $18/hr. Create a maximum wage of $90/hr to eliminate inequality.
small businesses would go out of business..
Pass stricter campaign finance reform laws. Ban all private donations. All campaigns will receive equal funding, provided by the taxpayers.
sounds okay, equal grounds for competition. but even if this is instilled, private donations means private, so you'll probably never know when someone has the money edge.
Institute a negative income tax, and tax the very rich at rates up to 90%.
that's just absurd. this basically means, kill capitalism and go back to socialism.
Ban the private ownership of land.
HELL NO!
Make homeschooling illegal. Religious fanatics use it to feed their children propaganda.
lol, feeling special aren't you?
Abolish the death penalty and life in prison. We call for the immediate release of all death row inmates from death row and transferred to regular prisons.
where do these crazy people go after their done with their term? back to our neighborhoods? no...
Ban private gun ownership.
i am now against the wall-street protest. their agenda is sickening.
End the 'War on Drugs'.
you mean, legalize marajuana, crack, cocaine, meth, and everything else?
Post by
ElhonnaDS
Craziness
:
Ban all private ownership of land?
Unionize all workers?
Ban private ownership of guns?
Make homeschooling illegal?
6 hour workday? 6 weeks paid vacation?
$18 minimum wage?
Wow- that one's pretty ridiculous. It's people who write agendas like this that make the rest of the OWS people look like idiots.
Post by
MyTie
Wow- that one's pretty ridiculous. It's people who write agendas like this that make the rest of the OWS people look like idiots.OWS doesn't stand for anything, which is why it will stand for anything. Ironic?
Post by
Squishalot
Basically, this:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fred_Goodwin#Expansion
. "...significant growth coming from its investment banking business". The people that were the architects of the collapse benefited the most out of the government's intervening in it. Of course, there were some distal effects, such as with AIG.
So, their 'investment banking business'. What business, specifically, is that? There's a lot that falls under the category of 'investment banking'. Who, specifically, falls under that? There are a lot of people who would fall under the category of 'investment banking'. You haven't answered the question specifically enough.
As an example, my old team fell under the bank's 'investment banking' division. We lent money to safe companies under stringent repayment terms. We helped property developers fund new apartment blocks. Were we a) responsible for the collapse (noting that our bank didn't collapse or need to be bailed out) or b) people who should be demonised for the collapse of the banking sector?
Quite the fallacy you've got there, Squish. Person does good thing, therefore can do no wrong things.
I didn't say that they can do no wrong. I'm trying to point out that 'Person works for company with bad business, therefore deserves to be demonised' is a fallacy. I'm asking an important question, what wrong did most of these people actually do, that makes gamer and others feel like they've got to drag them down, and take pleasure in doing so?
Another fallacy. Bulk of work =/= bulk of profit. Cash management of loans makes a loss for the banks, as has been cited earlier in this thread. It's a service they provide, funded by the investment banking sector.
Go back to the source quote from gamer:
Especially when their methods of wealth generation revolve around financial manipulations entirely independent of production, which is an advance for capitalism over exploiting the surplus-value of labour by controlling the means of production.
Profit is irrelevant in this context. The vast bulk of work a bank does is savings and loans. Again, would you demonise the vast bulk of a bank for the poor decisions of what would be a (relatively) small team elsewhere?
And in any event, this is, again, a point that I've raised before. The cost of the bank failures fall squarely back on the whole population anyway, whether it's in the form of tax bailouts for the investment banking side, or more expensive home loans because there is no investment banking side. It's not as if a) the bailouts were completely avoidable, and b) the regulations on banks should have been put into place, if the core stakeholders (i.e. the people with savings and home loans) weren't willing to pay for them.
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
MyTie
Would I demonise a CEO for employing ten saints of pure virtue if he also hired a killer who showed no remorse? Probably.
Sorry for the extreme example, but really now ... CEOs have to be accountable for
all
of the work undertaken by their employees. You can't cherry-pick the good services and claim that, because they outweigh the bad ones in bulk, that somehow excuses the bad ones.
Does this also apply to the government sector? Should Obama be impeached because of fast and furious?
Post by
gamerunknown
unless you're referring to a Lehman's type investment bank, which, funnily enough, didn't get support from the government.
I've posted a demonstration of an individual that made poor investment decisions and as far as I can tell is using taxpayer funds for a pension 10* the average annual income of males in the country while the government decries the fact that social workers can get £26k a year pensions. In a system that applied the same market principles to CEOs as it did to workers, he'd be entitled to welfare until he could use his transferable skills to land a new job, which he'd remain at for a further 12 years.
sounds okay, equal grounds for competition. but even if this is instilled, private donations means private, so you'll probably never know when someone has the money edge.
Campaign finance is already regulated, if they have a department like the IRS to control donations and if the media are doing their job, this is enforcable. Especially since the current regulations mean corporations set up hundreds of nominal PACs.
that's just absurd. this basically means, kill capitalism and go back to socialism.
Actually, when faced with a comparable deficit after another expensive war (remember, military expenditure makes up the majority of the deficit) an even higher maximal tax bracket was instituted by a Republican without petulant businessmen crying about leaving the country and in fact GDP grew during his administration. If you think Eisenhower was a socialist though, you're right, we'd be going back to Socialism.
lol, feeling special aren't you?
They're
not the only ones
that feel children have a right to a decent education.
Post by
Squishalot
Would I demonise a CEO for employing ten saints of pure virtue if he also hired a killer who showed no remorse? Probably.
Sorry for the extreme example, but really now ... CEOs have to be accountable for
all
of the work undertaken by their employees. You can't cherry-pick the good services and claim that, because they outweigh the bad ones in bulk, that somehow excuses the bad ones.
Do you think that the protesters do not have legitimate grievances? I'm hoping they're going to continue until their grievances are addressed by the legislature, because at the moment, that isn't happening. Well, there may be some prospects as
banker
bonuses are being reduced.
'Banker', not 'CEO'. That's my issue. I believe that a lot of the hatred surrounding the banking collapse is being directed at people who haven't done anything other than earn a high salary for the good work that they do. I've got no qualms for a CEO being held accountable for their failure to manage properly.
I've posted a demonstration of an individual that made poor investment decisions and as far as I can tell is using taxpayer funds for a pension 10* the average annual income of males in the country while the government decries the fact that social workers can get £26k a year pensions. In a system that applied the same market principles to CEOs as it did to workers, he'd be entitled to welfare until he could use his transferable skills to land a new job, which he'd remain at for a further 12 years.
That's one person. How about everyone else that you're labelling 'bankers', that you support OWS raging on? Again, do you think it's justifiable for 'the 99%' to rage on me for having a 6 figure salary, just because I was an 'investment banker'?(##RESPBREAK##)8##DELIM##Squishalot##DELIM##
Post by
91278
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Squishalot
I agree in spirit, but not in execution. Let me put to you the same proposition that I'm putting to gamer. In a (not so long ago) former life, I was part of an investment banking division within a bank. I had a 6 figure salary, with decent bonuses. Our bank lent to responsible, non-toxic assets and companies, survived through the financial crisis with no significant problems.
I'm not saying that all bankers should be exonerated. I'm asking why I should be hated upon and wished ill by a crowd of people who a) don't know me; b) don't know what I do; and c) seem to be machine-gunning down anybody who earns / owns more than they do.
Instead of persecuting those actually responsible for the crisis, they're persecuting people simply for working for the bad companies and earning / owning more than the poor plebs, which is basically what occurred during the Communist Revolution in China. Is that really where we want to be going?
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.