What is Occupy Wallstreet?

[eppie]

[quote='kandrathe' pid='191764' dateline='1322058796'] Here, we do have a large "dependency class" that if given the opportunity to rely entirely on the government for support, will do so. [quote]


If a country has a capable government you ill not have a dependency class. (there will alwasy be the individuals but these numbers are not so high).
If as a 1st world state you don't manage to make sure all your citizens are above the poverty level and all of your citizen grow up in neighbourhoods that are not ruled by gangs noone will choose to be in the 'dependency class'......you can tell nice stories about people lying on the couch waiting for huge handouts but it just sucks.....no hopes, not a lot of money everybody looks down on you etc. etc. It is a right wing fairytale that people like being dependent on wellfare.



[quote='kandrathe' pid='191764' dateline='1322058796']
I would agree that parental leave is good, and we have that. The question is who pays, the government (taxes everyone), the employer, or the individual. ..........I tend to favor having the individual pay for their own expensive decisions (like living in a flood plain. Heh, I just equated childbirth to a natural disaster). Having sex is fun and easy, but rearing children is not. People should not be encouraged by the government to have more children. [/quote]


The employer? Say goodbye to employer employing young people and women in general.....let's only hire old men because they will not get any babies anymore!
The individual? Most western societies have low birthrates....it is becoming increasingly difficult for people who both work to manage a child as well. And both working is not just for going on nice holidays twice a year...our capitalistic societies demand us normal people to both have a job.....only the guys with very high salaries manage to have there wife at home taking care of the house and the kids.......and many of the wife actually want to work themselves (equality you know).
I know globally we have much to many people, but in western countries that is not the case.....so we need people to take care of us once we are old. It seems not only fair but also necessary that the states support people that have children.

[DeeBye]

The only data I could find showed it to be ~44.1 in 1998 (Figure 5.1.5) . Projecting the line, I would guess it continued to decline from 1999 to 2009 by a similar amount to the mid 30's.

Did you just link a PDF from someone's personal webspace with Northwest Territories data from the 1990's or am I seeing things?

[FireIceTalon]

Kandrathe will appreciate this guy right here.

http://www.cbsnews.com/video/watch/?id=7...e1.channel

Personally, I think this guy is a troll. Same old reactionary/libertarian talking points, though I have to say most of the people in the crowd certainly didn't do their movement much justice either. Shame I wasn't there, I would have torn this guy to shreds in a debate. This guy, like every other libertarian (and Democrat, for the other side who point the finger at big business) makes the same error of pointing the finger at Congress. Both big business and government are part of the problem, not one or the other. And if he likes free, unbridled Capitalism so much, he should move to Somalia and tell us in 6 months how its working out for him over there.

[kandrathe]

In a July 13, 2011 blog post, the Canadian-based Adbusters Foundation, best known for its advertisement-free anti-consumerist magazine Adbusters, proposed a peaceful occupation of Wall Street to protest corporate influence on democracy, a growing disparity in wealth, and the absence of legal repercussions behind the recent global financial crisis.

Source: Wikipedia

[Tris]

I'm not sure what I'd call Somalia. Thinking anarchy with hints of feudalism, or perhaps mini-military dictatorships would be a better call. A bit like what is now France before Charles Martel, think I've got the right guy there.

[Tris]

As another note ... The Wall Street Journal did an article partially about Williston, ND and partially about other areas with massive economic growth, such s South Texas and parts of Pennsylvania.

With well over 10,000 jobs available out here in the Williams County, Williston area alone... I guess it says somethign that the "Occupy" folks haven't packed up and moved to South TX, or Western ND, or vraious parts of PA.

Many of these jobs don't even really require much, if any, formal education. Many of these jobs pay well enough to be into the 25%, or higher, of the pay scale for most Americans (enough to make me consider jumping ship to corporate practice). Heck, there are guys out here with high school educations making 50%, or more, above what I make; I'm about $20K over the national average right now. Of course, whether these guys actually save anything is another story.

There is intense job growth in places not quite so harsh as ND, South TX and parts of PA. Can guarantee if they were to land a job, and the minimum qualifications, which at least in this area are breathing and having a pulse, they'd make far more than being on the government dole.

[kandrathe]

I'm not sure what I'd call Somalia. Thinking anarchy with hints of feudalism, or perhaps mini-military dictatorships would be a better call. A bit like what is now France before Charles Martel, think I've got the right guy there.

I think Somalia is pretty bad off, worse than Afghanistan at it's worst. It's worse than a bunch of crime lords engaging in savagery against their own people. The Taliban had a repressive theocratic structure, and from what I've heard, justice was somewhat arbitrary, but at least it was a social structure. In Somalia, if you have something, someone will kill you, take your stuff, and there are no consequences.

[eppie]

I think Somalia is pretty bad off, worse than Afghanistan at it's worst. It's worse than a bunch of crime lords engaging in savagery against their own people. The Taliban had a repressive theocratic structure, and from what I've heard, justice was somewhat arbitrary, but at least it was a social structure. In Somalia, if you have something, someone will kill you, take your stuff, and there are no consequences.

I didn't want to start a new topic for this:

http://www.transparency.org/policy_resea...10/results

Kandrathe, we often have the discussion about government power and taxes, and we end up with the question if you or I wouldn't change our minds if we were living in another country. I live in a country were the tax burden is high but where we also get back a lot.....so I am positive towards taxation.

Note that the lowest corruption is in countries that are also always topping the lists of 'best country to live in'. And apart from some city states and countries like Switzerland and Luxemburg (that can't really be compared to other countries) most of the top 10 are pretty social societies.

It also gives a good idea of why in the north of europe many people don't want to help the southern european countries live through the eurocrisis anymore. If they don't change their nepotistic and corrupt politics and social structures it will be a matter of time before a new cirsis strikes.

[Jester]

It also gives a good idea of why in the north of europe many people don't want to help the southern european countries live through the eurocrisis anymore. If they don't change their nepotistic and corrupt politics and social structures it will be a matter of time before a new cirsis strikes.

As a German professor at my university has pointed out: can we think back to a time when it was the Germans that had corrupt governments and mountains of debt that they were failing to pay? Shouldn't be too hard.

-Jester

[eppie]

As a German professor at my university has pointed out: can we think back to a time when it was the Germans that had corrupt governments and mountains of debt that they were failing to pay? Shouldn't be too hard.

-Jester

I agree with that. Lending will still be fine for me (especially because good governments can actually make money from this), but on the other hand it is pretty hard to explain people why we should come up with a big rescue package to a country where most people own their house (so they have no mortgage).
Italy (and Greece) were corrupt before joining the eurozone so mistakes were made already then.
Now again big cuts are made in Italy, but the simple folks who actually pay taxes are the ones paying for this while all the smart guys can keep evading. Italians need to demand change but usually they are to busy eating or drinking coffee. And if it wass just them, that is fine but that the rest of europe now needs to pay for it is getting annoying.

[kandrathe]

Kandrathe, we often have the discussion about government power and taxes, and we end up with the question if you or I wouldn't change our minds if we were living in another country. I live in a country were the tax burden is high but where we also get back a lot.....so I am positive towards taxation.

Note that the lowest corruption is in countries that are also always topping the lists of 'best country to live in'. And apart from some city states and countries like Switzerland and Luxemburg (that can't really be compared to other countries) most of the top 10 are pretty social societies.

It also gives a good idea of why in the north of Europe many people don't want to help the southern European countries live through the eurocrisis anymore. If they don't change their nepotistic and corrupt politics and social structures it will be a matter of time before a new crisis strikes.

Which came first? Rule of law? Economy? Prosperity? Or, social programs? I would argue that your social spending was predicated upon your success. Also, there is a point, which Greece is discovering, where government taxation can disrupt prosperity. When an economy is primarily built on social services, it is more prone to suffering in times of economic stress.

I was watching a comedian the other day make a comparison of how the US thinks about Europe, "... you take the month of August off? You have lunch break from 2 to 7? WTF?" Then, contrasted that to how China thinks about the US, "You have a lunch break? WTF?"

[eppie]

Which came first? Rule of law? Economy? Prosperity? Or, social programs? I would argue that your social spending was predicated upon your success.

Hmm, I see there is still a big misunderstanding. Social programs are not just there because they are nice and we have the money to spare. Social programs yields an on average richer society.
Social programs allow women to work, allow kids to get better education, etc. etc.

As long as you are able to get rid of fraudulent behaviour it will work (and agreed, that is not easy).

[kandrathe]

Which came first? Rule of law? Economy? Prosperity? Or, social programs? I would argue that your social spending was predicated upon your success.

Hmm, I see there is still a big misunderstanding. Social programs are not just there because they are nice and we have the money to spare. Social programs yields an on average richer society. Social programs allow women to work, allow kids to get better education, etc. etc.

As long as you are able to get rid of fraudulent behaviour it will work (and agreed, that is not easy).

I just see that as "Rule of Law", not social programs. Law helps to ensure equality of opportunity. You and I will not agree on that it is only government's investment in the lower classes that will enrich the society.

For example, I work for a private non-profit organization who's mission includes educating the underprivileged. Government loans are anathema to our mission. We'd prefer to have our students emerge from school without debt. Having government get involved makes it that much more difficult to convince wealthy people to contribute to our cause. The government also demands an extensive amount of our time to produce reports ensuring our integrity. Grants to students based on scholastic merit would be different.

[Lissa]

Law helps to ensure equality of opportunity.

I'm going to call BS on that right there. This is definitely *not* the case anywhere in the world (including the Western and First World). All one has to do is look at some of the news information out there and you can see that the Law is definitely not ensuring equality of opportunity.

[kandrathe]

Law helps to ensure equality of opportunity.

I'm going to call BS on that right there. This is definitely *not* the case anywhere in the world (including the Western and First World). All one has to do is look at some of the news information out there and you can see that the Law is definitely not ensuring equality of opportunity.

You are seeing the motes in what would be a much larger problem if law were absent. Without the rule of law, you'd have the rule of force. You'd have Somalia.

Aye, there are bad lawyers, who write bad legislation. And, unfortunately, some of these bad lawyers also become bad judges, and create bad precedence. I still believe that the rule of law is a better course for equality, than the rule of force.

[Jester]

You are seeing the motes in what would be a much larger problem if law were absent. Without the rule of law, you'd have the rule of force. You'd have Somalia.

The rule of law *is* the rule of force. The only questions are, whose force? And organized how? Mancur Olson has some interesting things to say on that question.

-Jester

[Lissa]

Law helps to ensure equality of opportunity.

I'm going to call BS on that right there. This is definitely *not* the case anywhere in the world (including the Western and First World). All one has to do is look at some of the news information out there and you can see that the Law is definitely not ensuring equality of opportunity.

You are seeing the motes in what would be a much larger problem if law were absent. Without the rule of law, you'd have the rule of force. You'd have Somalia.

Aye, there are bad lawyers, who write bad legislation. And, unfortunately, some of these bad lawyers also become bad judges, and create bad precedence. I still believe that the rule of law is a better course for equality, than the rule of force.

Again I call bull. It's more about who you know and what you have then it is about equal opportunity. The American Dream is dead, no longer is it a matter of how hard you work, but instead of who you know and who's feet you kiss. Modern society has really taken some steps back and has some very feudal undertones now.

[NuurAbSaal]

Law helps to ensure equality of opportunity.

I'm going to call BS on that right there. This is definitely *not* the case anywhere in the world (including the Western and First World). All one has to do is look at some of the news information out there and you can see that the Law is definitely not ensuring equality of opportunity.

You are seeing the motes in what would be a much larger problem if law were absent. Without the rule of law, you'd have the rule of force. You'd have Somalia.

Aye, there are bad lawyers, who write bad legislation. And, unfortunately, some of these bad lawyers also become bad judges, and create bad precedence. I still believe that the rule of law is a better course for equality, than the rule of force.

Again I call bull. It's more about who you know and what you have then it is about equal opportunity. The American Dream is dead, no longer is it a matter of how hard you work, but instead of who you know and who's feet you kiss. Modern society has really taken some steps back and has some very feudal undertones now.

I think Kandrathe's point was that the current system (however one may view it) would certainly not be improved by removing The Law™.


take care
Tarabulus

[Lissa]

Law helps to ensure equality of opportunity.

I'm going to call BS on that right there. This is definitely *not* the case anywhere in the world (including the Western and First World). All one has to do is look at some of the news information out there and you can see that the Law is definitely not ensuring equality of opportunity.

You are seeing the motes in what would be a much larger problem if law were absent. Without the rule of law, you'd have the rule of force. You'd have Somalia.

Aye, there are bad lawyers, who write bad legislation. And, unfortunately, some of these bad lawyers also become bad judges, and create bad precedence. I still believe that the rule of law is a better course for equality, than the rule of force.

Again I call bull. It's more about who you know and what you have then it is about equal opportunity. The American Dream is dead, no longer is it a matter of how hard you work, but instead of who you know and who's feet you kiss. Modern society has really taken some steps back and has some very feudal undertones now.

I think Kandrathe's point was that the current system (however one may view it) would certainly not be improved by removing The Law™.


take care
Tarabulus

My point, however, and Jester got it, is that the rule of does not bring about equality as Kandrathe asserted. The law is a version of force, the difference is the amount of anarchy involved.

[kandrathe]

Again I call bull. It's more about who you know and what you have then it is about equal opportunity.

Perhaps, in some places, but not generally, and not everywhere. The law is more than merely the rules as enforced, but it also involves the ability to bring a case to trial if you feel you have been wronged. Much of that access is predicated on having money to hire a lawyer, or in getting the attention of the right people, like the ACLU, or some pro-bono lawyer looking to get some renown.

The American Dream is dead, no longer is it a matter of how hard you work, but instead of who you know and who's feet you kiss.

I don't see how this relates specifically to equal opportunity. It seems to be a general statement applicable across the entire middle, and lower classes. I would agree (e.g. the beetle climbing the bowl metaphor) that it is increasingly difficult to "get ahead" due to a number of factors, including the growing number of McJobs, competition from globalization, outsourcing, the 300% increase (adjusted for inflation) in the price of college (over the past 30 years), and the growing limitations on entrepreneurial freedom (as I've mentioned previously as well). I would say the "American Dream" of improving your lot, and that of your children, is becoming more out of reach. But, not quite dead yet. Ok, I'm an optimist.

Modern society has really taken some steps back and has some very feudal undertones now.

I would agree and I feel that this is directly proportional to the influence that corporations (and other special interests) have over our government (diversion of power), and the size of government (total amount of power).