This site makes extensive use of JavaScript.
Please enable JavaScript in your browser.
Live
PTR
10.2.7
PTR
10.2.6
Beta
Occupy Wall Street Protests
Post Reply
Return to board index
Post by
Heckler
Heckler, capitalism isn't perfect. It is a bumpy road. If someone can suggest something better, I'll be right there next to them. Unfortunately, all our alternatives are a million times worse, so I'm going to stand up FOR capitalism, because it is the only relatively good system available.
Capitalism does not have a singular rigid definition. Regulated capitalism is still capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is too. You keep acting like I'm speaking against capitalism, or that OWS is, when they aren't.
As for the current economic system, our government is directly at fault for its overspending.
In religion threads, you get pissed off at people for spouting their opinion as if it is fact. That's what you're doing now. There are economists who know a lot more than you saying that you're absolutely wrong. You should at least acknowledge the possibility that that's true. History doesn't support the Right Wing economic theory very well.
And, no, you don't always blame the system for the problem that happens. If someone runs a red light and smashes into me, I don't blame the transportation system, I blame that individual. In this case, there were specific companies that ran some red lights. Blame them for that, but don't blame them for everything, and certainly don't blame the system.
Let's say you're the 75th person to be hit at that red light in the last 3 months because of poor design (either in planning or actual construction), but because they're all MyTie's who refuse to "blame the system" there will be 75 more in the next three months. Sometimes, the system
is
to blame --
refusing
to even ask the question (or condemning those that will) is
dangerous
. That's not flame throwing, your example is perfect. 75 people will die in the next three months because no one is willing to ask if the stoplight was poorly planned. The same goes for the thousands of people dying from starvation or lack of proper medical care for similar refusals to "blame the system."
Post by
Orranis
In this case, there were specific companies that ran some red lights. Blame them for that, but don't blame them for everything, and certainly don't blame the system.
Running red lights is illegal, not a suggested practice for safety. Capitalism is the concept that the government can't make red lights that impose on economic freedoms.
Is it the drivers fault?
Yes.
Is it the responsibility of the government to prevent it from happening again?
Also yes.
Post by
gamerunknown
Heckler brought up anarchocapitalists: they can actually discern the
real cause of unemployment
(unemployment caused by a recession? Ridiculous!).
Post by
629826
This post was from a user who has deleted their account.
Post by
Orranis
I'm willing to bet money most of the people that are out in Wall street protesting voted Mr. Yeswecan into office. To name some of the hypocrites Michael Moore & Susan Sarandon
Sure we did, because he offered supposed 'change' to the system.
Now we're protesting because, we've gotten past
this
point.
Post by
pezz
Heckler brought up anarchocapitalists: they can actually discern the
real cause of unemployment
(unemployment caused by a recession? Ridiculous!).
To be fair, nothing in that video said that minimum wage is the only cause of unemployment. in fact, he mentioned another possible cause. Okay, that cause was also the government, but it's proof of concept that he's willing to posit multiple sources of unemployment.
Post by
MyTie
Heckler, capitalism isn't perfect. It is a bumpy road. If someone can suggest something better, I'll be right there next to them. Unfortunately, all our alternatives are a million times worse, so I'm going to stand up FOR capitalism, because it is the only relatively good system available.
Capitalism does not have a singular rigid definition. Regulated capitalism is still capitalism. Anarcho-capitalism is too. You keep acting like I'm speaking against capitalism, or that OWS is, when they aren't.
As for the current economic system, our government is directly at fault for its overspending.
In religion threads, you get pissed off at people for spouting their opinion as if it is fact. That's what you're doing now. There are economists who know a lot more than you saying that you're absolutely wrong. You should at least acknowledge the possibility that that's true. History doesn't support the Right Wing economic theory very well.
And, no, you don't always blame the system for the problem that happens. If someone runs a red light and smashes into me, I don't blame the transportation system, I blame that individual. In this case, there were specific companies that ran some red lights. Blame them for that, but don't blame them for everything, and certainly don't blame the system.
Let's say you're the 75th person to be hit at that red light in the last 3 months because of poor design (either in planning or actual construction), but because they're all MyTie's who refuse to "blame the system" there will be 75 more in the next three months. Sometimes, the system
is
to blame --
refusing
to even ask the question (or condemning those that will) is
dangerous
. That's not flame throwing, your example is perfect. 75 people will die in the next three months because no one is willing to ask if the stoplight was poorly planned. The same goes for the thousands of people dying from starvation or lack of proper medical care for similar refusals to "blame the system."
So, if I understand you correctly, you believe that I don't understand what capitalism is, I don't have facts to back up my opinions, history is against me, and I dangerously refuse to blame the system. Allow me to retort to these claims individually:
1) I don't understand capitalism.
Capitalism (the singular rigid definition used, defined by Merriam-Webster) : an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market
Socialism (defined by Merriam-Webster) : any of various economic and political theories advocating collective or governmental ownership and administration of the means of production and distribution of goods
I believe in regulated capitalism. Never said I don't believe in a level of regulation. I think that we in the US have too much regulation. Further, many OWS protesters HAVE spoken out against capitalism itself. When I have addressed this in the past, I am speaking out against those individuals, or large faction of the OWS protesters.
2) I don't have facts to back up my opinion
: The claim has been made that I am not an "economist", as if that somehow means I shouldn't have an opinion because I obviously don't have an advanced degree. Somehow, this tricky economy thing is just beyond my feeble mind's understanding, without an advanced degree. Sure, the government spending is out of control, and it has to borrow money it doesn't have to spend, but that is just too complicated to understand.
Somehow, I was able to find an obscure economist that explained how spending will not get you out of debt.
It was really complicated to understand how spending money causes you to have less money. I'm sure he is the only economist that thinks that, but I'll be siting him as my source from now on, because he has an advanced degree, as well as political experience.
3) History is against me
: If this argument were a person, and real life were a person, real life would push down your argument, and salsa dance all over its face. I'd also like to interject here that you simply said history is against right wing ideals, immediately after you complained I don't list facts to back up my opinions. It was as if you pointed out that just I drove into a big pile of crap, and then stepped out of the car and fell face first into it. I assume you did this for humorous purposes. Anyway, here is a list of
idiotic
(that's right, let the sarcasm sink in) articles that think massive government spending didn't ever help any economy. You can give them a read if you like, but they are full of big words like: The Keynesian thinking that dominates our governments, central banks and universities flies in the face of common sense.Anyway, here is the list, in Spanish numbers, in the spirit of the salsa dance:
Uno
Dos
Tres
Cuatro
Cinco
This is a whole friggin BOOK!
Seis
Siete
Ocho
Nueve
Diez
Here's a summary: “We have tried spending money. We are spending more than we have ever spent before and it does not work. And I have just one interest, and if I am wrong … somebody else can have my job. I want to see this country prosperous. I want to see people get a job. I want to see people get enough to eat. We have never made good on our promises… I say after eight years of this Administration we have just as much unemployment as when we started… And an enormous debt to boot!” - Henry Morganthau, FDR’s Treasury Secretary, May 1939
4) I dangerously refuse to blame the system : I do blame the participants in the system, not the system itself. It is unfortunate that investors, lenders, regulation agencies, and borrowers acted so irresponsibly. You can argue that the system allows people to make mistakes. I would agree with you. I would like to offer you another example, since you built a fantasy around my traffic light example: It is unfortunate that people murder each other, but that doesn't mean that government should regulate who interacts with other people and when. It doesn't mean that someone should stop people from being free, because freedom leads to pain. While I agree that it is unfortunate that people have that opportunity to hurt others, it is illogical to over regulate people. Arrest the people who did wrong? Absolutely. Make laws against murder? Definitely! Abandon freedom? I don't think so. I'm not saying that the traffic light doesn't need to be looked at and perhaps adjusted. I'm saying that some of these protesters want to take everyone's car away to prevent accidents, and that I
do not want
.
I think the problem is you are reading too far into logic. Either that or you are blinded by your own ideals. But to call a desire to preserve capitalism, "
dangerous
", isn't exactly grounded in reason. Surely you can find room to compromise with that statement? If not I doubt we will reach a common understanding concerning economic principle.
Post by
Heckler
Your answer for (1) is a pretty good reason why it's ridiculous to use "I stand up FOR capitalism" as a rebuttal to anything
I've
said -- so I'm glad you agree.
For (2) and (3), you can find just as many sources for the opposite side (although many of your articles weren't actually arguing against Keynesian-ism, but socialism -- presumably you think if I object to supply-side theory, it must be because I want to live in Soviet Russia), with just as many historical references, political experience, and advanced degrees (and if I'm going to bet, more -- here's
one example
that doesn't presume itself to be factual in any way). I'm not going to 'prove' it because it would be akin to trying to prove the sky is blue -- I'm sure you acknowledge it already (in addition,
it would do nothing to support my own point
: that economics is at best an unsure science, where any argument that presents itself as factual should almost be immediately dismissed on those grounds alone). I'm simply saying that no one can act as though their side has been
proven
correct. To completely remove all consideration of the other side of the argument because you found "Diez" links on the internet is just blind faith. I'm not arguing that Keynesian economics is 100% right (or that Supply-Side is 100% wrong), I'm arguing that it's folly (both by the primary researcher, and especially by the secondary reader) to
completely ignore
any economic theory that has been thoroughly researched, debated, and accepted by a large fraction of economists.
And in (4), again, I never called
Capitalism
(or a desire to preserve it) dangerous. What's dangerous is your condemnation of the OWS for trying "to lay blame for something when there is no blame to lay." You're against OWS simply because they're looking for answers, because they're asking the question. That doesn't necessarily have
anything
to do with capitalism. One specific example that's easy to lay out factually is the Glass-Steagall repeal (and other banking regulations and practices in general). There's at least a little "blame" to be placed there, and if a crowd of people is willing to sit in a Park in 30 degree weather in order to spread that message around (among others), then that is a good thing. Is the Glass-Steagall separation of investment and commercial banking an attack on Capitalism itself? No. Should they be protesting Congress, since they repealed it? Possibly. Is it therefore wrong to protest the banks who actually carried out the bad behavior? Absolutely not; it's one of the most capitalist things you can do, and here's why:
Deregulation places a lot of responsibility on the shoulders of corporations -- the idea being that they will act properly because
it is in their own best interest to do so
; if they don't, the people will simply find another way to get their product (or reinstate the regulation) and they will be penalized by the "free market forces." Allowing them to regulate themselves is not only cheaper, but often times more effective than trying to regulate them from the outside. That is precisely why the people
must
call out their bad behavior (and act against it) when they see it, they
must
spread the message around so everyone knows that it's time to perform their half of the capitalism dance. If they don't, then the whole concept falls apart, and you don't have Capitalism; you have Feudalism.
But the financial industry is a pretty good example of one that has made itself "too big to fail," and is therefore insulated from a lot of the public power to shun them for bad behavior. The reason for this is (at least) two-fold. First, the monopolistic nature of big banking doesn't leave a very open market for the consumer to move around (but there are still a lot of small town banks and credit unions -- of course, these little banks probably function through financing from the big ones). Secondly (and more importantly), people have a tendency to take on a "well what else can you do?" attitude when a huge Bank screws them over (or someone hits them at a stoplight, or their health insurance is rescinded when they get cancer). They
voluntarily remove themselves
from the "free market forces" pool by being apathetic and uninformed (or perhaps just prideful), which makes the whole Deregulation concept fall apart. That's what
you're
advocating by saying that OWS is wrong to look for a place to lay blame. By standing in that park and spreading their message, they're doing more to
preserve
a
properly functioning capitalistic system
than you are!
But you're willing to make these blanket generalizations about their "goals" and "intentions," not based on the General Assembly minutes showing what things have majority support consistently (something the Tea Party never had), but instead on a cherry-picked selection of signs from one of the minority in the crowd. Back to your Stoplight scenario: for every 1 person in OWS who would "take everyone's car away," there's 9 more who just want a functioning stoplight and less car accidents (who you would ostensibly agree with) -- but you're only arguing against the one, and condemning all 10 for it.
Of course
you "
do not want
" everyone's car to be taken away -- no one (realistic) does. And to set that up as your enemy just so you can argue against it is pointless (I don't take debate classes, but I believe that's a pretty good definition of a strawman). The fact that you have to build up this non-existent definition of OWS to argue against tells me that your ideas wouldn't hold much sway without the strawman there to throw them against -- you're avoiding discussion or acknowledgment of any and all good things about OWS, so you can rant about the fake things (which formed your overall opinion in the first place, apparently).
Also, since you seem to like Henry Morganthau, let's expand his quote a little. I'm sure you realize he was arguing for higher taxes on the rich (and not spending cuts) when he made the statement you quoted. Inside your ellipsis, he states:
We have never begun to tax the people in this country the way they should be..... I don't pay what I should. People in my class don't. People who have it should pay.
And in the following paragraph:
If they take our suggestion, to take our money or leave it to them after we die, it hits Hanes and me relatively more than anybody in this Administration. Nobody can be more unselfish than we are. If I wanted to, I could follow what
Mr. Mellon
did and as long as he was here taxes over $700,000 never went up, but the plan we have here hits Hanes and me relatively more than anybody else who works for Mr. Roosevelt because we happen to fall into that class, so if anybody says we are interested in Wall Street, he's lying.
It's worth reading in full. I assume you already have though, since you offered it up as a
summary
of your economic views. I would have to say I might agree with you, a tax structure that actually addresses the dire state of our debt could actually balance our budget and fix the economy too! (
source, page 3
)
Post by
gamerunknown
lol and you don't think those Latinos have it worst? most of them live in squalor and they have something most Americans lack, integrity and the will to work no matter what the job may be.
Oh great, racism is your motivator here. Good to know.
By the way, I believe you meant "
protesting
their student loans", which would make more sense. I'm not sure how relevant it is to Wall Street, especially as some companies offer to fund education. I do know that if there was no military expenditure last year, the government could skim off 14k of everyone's student loan for a year, or 24k off of full time students. All Scottish residents in Scottish universities can attend university for free.
the system itself.
I like Zimbardo's analogy here: sometimes it's not a few bad apples, but a rotten barrel Sometimes the good apples cannot do much to influence the decay around them and instead have to appeal to the person making the barrels (or policy, in this case).
To be fair, nothing in that video said that minimum wage is the only cause of unemployment. in fact, he mentioned another possible cause.
If he honestly didn't believe that unemployment was caused by minimum wage laws, then to even bring up a correlation would be a red herring. Here is one argument against the
minimum wage = unemployment
idea.
There were two videos shown to me on mises, the latter was this one:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ca8Z__o52sk
.
Here was my original response.
I watched the first video on the minimum wage issue and while I did enjoy the particular slant (governments harming businesses by doing nasty things like providing labour laws), his argument seems to be based on spurious claims: the first is that a rise in unemployment can be attributed to the implementation of the minimum wage without even discussing extraneous variables or providing the rate of change, though the graphs origins were 0 and sources were cited. A substrata of this claim is that minorities are disproportionately affected, but again, the rate of change in umemployment for the African American population was not given. Finally, he introduces a red herring or a slippery slope by claiming that any minimum wage laws are analogous to disproportionate minimum wage laws. One obvious variable he neglects to mention is the recession (unless you believe that it was caused by minimum wage laws), another is the fact that minimum wages will need to be increased infrequently to track inflation and the poverty line. As far as I'm aware if you're made redundant then you can claim welfare in the United States, but if you quit or you're fired, you can't. So a worker that is unlikely to find a higher paying job that is working below the poverty line is better off claiming welfare, assuming it can raise them out of the poverty line.
Milton Friedman's objection is covered under the same banner, though it has a suspect undercurrent: equivocating between minimum wage laws and racism. He says that the value of some people's skills is worth below that of the minimum wage and that a disproportionate amount of these people would be African Americans. Essentially he's advocating that African Americans work under a form of wage slavery, working disproportionately more hours than anyone else just to subsist. Funnily enough he was worried that the unemployment rate crept up to 20% or something in the 1950s, which was the purported catastrophic rate after the 2008 increase in minimum wage. If you want the reverse analogy:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oztdRo9GLLk
Post by
Heckler
An open letter and warning from a former tea party movement adherent to the Occupy Wall Street movement.
I just found this, it's a pretty interesting read. Who knows though, maybe this warning against infiltration and obfuscation is itself meant to infiltrate and obfuscate. Either way, it's worth looking over, a small excerpt:
I don't expect you to believe me. I want you to read this, take it with a grain of salt, and do the research yourself. You may not believe me, but I want your movement to succeed. From a former tea partier to you, young new rebels, there's some advice to prevent what happened to our now broken movement from happening to you. I don't agree with everything your movement does, but I sympathize with your cause and agree on our common enemy. You guys are very intelligent and I trust that you will take this in the spirit it is intended.
I wish I could believe this Occupy Wall Street was still about (r)Evolution, but so far, all I am seeing is a painful rehash of how the corporate-funded government turned the pre-Presidential election tea party movement into the joke it is now. We were anarchists and ultra-libertarians, but above all we were peaceful. So, the media tried painting us as racists. But when that didn't work they tried to goad us into violence. When that failed, they killed our movement with money and false kindness from the theocratic arm of the Republican party. That killed our popular support.
Post by
gamerunknown
^
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Agent_provocateur
Not necessarily the writer of the letter, but probably what they're referring to.
Post by
MyTie
I can see it now
: Anyone making less than 40K quits to get a gov job for 5 years, 40K a year, forcing private industry to pay minimum 40K to each employee, raising the prices of their goods. This would be like tieing capitalism to the value of the dollar, setting the dollar on fire, and pushing it out of an airplane.
Who votes for these guys?
Post by
Heckler
lol, what does that have to do with OWS? xD
Post by
MyTie
lol, what does that have to do with OWS? xD
I hesitated before I posted it, because they are not entirely the same topic, but this is one person's answer to the economic problems that OWS are protesting about, so I figured it was related enough.
I know, the federal government will just employ everyone, a' comrade!
Post by
Heckler
lol, I think it's a stretch, but alright. Somehow I don't think that bill has a chance of going anywhere, with Dems or Repubs, or even OWS.
Post by
MyTie
lol, I think it's a stretch, but alright. Somehow I don't think that bill has a chance of going anywhere, with Dems or Repubs, or even OWS.
I should hope not. They should have a lottery system in that guy's district, instead of an election. I would think any random person off the street would be less idiotic than that guy... but then again... those people elected him so maybe not.
Somehow I think he got elected because of his name. That's scares me.
Post by
gamerunknown
God, I don't know what to say. The issue comes up in "Economics in One Lesson" with minimum wage, work hours and welfare, as well as the poverty line. Each time one increases welfare, the "real wage" of a worker decreases as they make the choice between commuting and spending hours away from family and friends and just staying at home on welfare. But he stresses welfare is necessary as industries naturally collapse without government intervention (though he says that government interference can cause an otherwise sound industry to collapse) and there will be unemployed workers that don't have the transferable skills to be immediately absorbed in the new industries that spring up. Then there's the issue of the poverty line, so minimum wages and welfare will need to increase every now and then to track inflation so that everyone can afford to buy goods.
Perhaps the government could take a middle path and allow companies to hire workers at less than minimum wage, then make up the minimum wage themselves? Well, as long as that amounted to more than what welfare offers... Because Hazlitt decries "public work" like the alphabet agencies or bridge building since he says that if there's a motivator to something then the private sector will find a way to do it. Certainly when the need is great enough - they'll profit off of it as well. Bertrand Russell claimed that reduced hours would lead people to research and do other good stuff in their spare time, but perhaps that only bears out when they've got a decent living wage to begin with. Hmm... maybe the government could subsidise charity work. It does seem like a waste that there are so many able bodied people willing to work and looking for jobs that could be doing something productive. Even something like a pyramid or largest synchronised dance would be interesting.
Post by
Patty
In other news, something like 82 countries are demonstrating in an #occupy protest today
.
Post by
Transducer
So, Heckler and MyTie....
I beg of your pardon, but thats many, many tall, tall walls of text.
I dare you both to respond in one paragraph a summary of your stances about capitalism and this 'occupy wallstreet' protest.
Pretend I'm a simpleton who could be swayed either way.
Post by
Heckler
It looks like the movements in Rome and Madrid are huge -- maybe the numbers are inflated but I saw "ten thousand" used in a couple articles, that's a ton. Hong Kong too apparently (which is really interesting, Hong Kong is usually held up as a
shining example
of "economic freedom" by the Heritage foundation -- though having been there personally, I can't say I'm surprised that they would have an angry populace about economic inequity).
Today is the "
International Day of Action
," 951 cities in 82 countries. I'm following a few live feeds about it, but it should be interesting to see the headlines tomorrow (if there are any). The peak of the OWS events planned for today is a convergence on Times Square at 5pm EST, I can't help but wonder how many people will show up (as if that really matters) -- but if OWS continues to refuse to take political action, staying in the headlines is their only hope of not fading into obscurity.
I dare you both to respond in one paragraph a summary of your stances about capitalism and this 'occupy wallstreet' protest.
Pretend I'm a simpleton who could be swayed either way.
I didn't write walls of text because I like using more words than is necessary. I also don't like encouraging the "boiling down" of information into bite size chunks, which tends to blur / erase the meaning. Instead, if you're interested, I challenge
you
to fully read all of my walls of text and write a paragraph for yourself.
I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything -- if my words do that, I'd prefer they do it on their own power, and not mine to summarize or spin or fluff them. If you actually were "a simpleton," my advice to you would be to remove yourself from the debate completely, and research until you were no longer a simpleton.
Post Reply
You are not logged in. Please
log in
to post a reply or
register
if you don't already have an account.