PDA

View Full Version : What would you say to an Occupy Walstreet'er




Sam I am
01-05-2012, 05:57 PM
Now I'm not an occupier. I've never been to any of the protests or rallies, but I can say that I sympathize with them to a degree. Now Let's say I'm a shareholder in Bank A, or maybe I have a savings account with Bank A. Bank A gets grossly miss-managed and goes bankrupt. Either my shares are worthless now, or there's no money in my account. Meanwhile, the people who were supposed to be managing the bank's money still have 7figure paychecks, or get paid large severance settlements to leave.

Now this is what makes most of the Occupiers angry. What would you say to them.

If you bring up bailouts, don't just stop there.
First off, realize that Occupy Wallstreet is largely an anti-bailout movement.
Secondly, if the bailouts didn't happen, how would things be different now?
Thirdly, I somehow don't think you have a time machine, so shoulda coulda woulda isn't going to solve any problems.

farreri
01-05-2012, 06:07 PM
I would tell them they are mostly right, but slightly misguided on the solution and ask them to read this:


Libertarians to Occupiers: Crony capitalism is the problem

For Immediate Release
Friday, October 14, 2011

WASHINGTON - Libertarian Party Chair Mark Hinkle released the following statement today:

"I have been following the Occupy protesters, who call themselves the '99%', with interest.

"It's true that 99% of Americans do not enjoy the special benefits of crony capitalism. Crony capitalism is very different from real capitalism. In crony capitalism, government hands out special favors and protections to politically well-connected businesses.

"The TARP bailouts, Solyndra, and the military-industrial complex are all facets of crony capitalism.

"Libertarians love free markets and hate crony capitalism.

http://www.lp.org/news/press-releases/libertarians-to-occupiers-crony-capitalism-is-the-problem

JuicyG
01-05-2012, 06:13 PM
I`d kindly explain to them why bank bailouts are wrong and also why social security(maybe leave this alone as they`re hooked on it like junkies) and gov sponsored programs are exactly the same thing.
Occupy is VERY much against big corporations. Here we can make the case that big corporations are the biggest recipients of government aid. General Electric for example was top Obama campaign contributor and managed to pay zero taxes due to being in bed with government. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638
Big banks like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan were also among top Obama contributors as you can see above. That`s why they got bailed out. Their campaign investment payed off. They need to understand that by giving power to the government, you feed corruption. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". Current system is called fascism no matter if they label it democrat or republican. That`s why we need Ron Paul.

Obama is not the way to go in next elections for them. Some of them know it, some of them don`t. Those who don`t need to be shown this evidence. Obama=Bush=Romney=Santorum. All of these are bought and sold and payed by same lobby groups. Simple as that.

jkr
01-05-2012, 06:19 PM
hello brother, whuts on YOUR mind

?

"the question mark was emphasied..."

Sam I am
01-05-2012, 06:36 PM
Occupiers don't like crony capitalism either many see politicians as bought, but, let's move away from the world of "What if there was no crony capitalism", and think about the solution.

As far as crony capitalism is concerned, some occupiers advocate for public campaign finance, but the best thing that you can do right now is to vote, and encourage others to vote, and if you really wanted to do something about it, you can go look a public records of laws, and highlight the important parts for other people. Information is cheap.a

But in the meantime, about the banks, I believe that maybe there ought to be a law that makes the top decision-makers somehow accountable to the people who hold funds in their bank. That there should be some recourse for giving yourself and your fellow executives a raise as your company loses money. I also think that those executives who have broken specific laws should be made an example of to the furthest extent of the law.

I personally wouldn't mind it the Big Bad Government takes advantage of technology, forces corporations to enroll their shareholders in some sort of communication network, so that they might makes decisions about executive's further employment.

Sam I am
01-05-2012, 06:51 PM
I`d kindly explain to them why bank bailouts are wrong and also why social security(maybe leave this alone as they`re hooked on it like junkies) and gov sponsored programs are exactly the same thing.
Occupy is VERY much against big corporations. Here we can make the case that big corporations are the biggest recipients of government aid. General Electric for example was top Obama campaign contributor and managed to pay zero taxes due to being in bed with government. http://www.opensecrets.org/pres08/contrib.php?cid=N00009638


You seem to be right in Line with the occupier's sentiment there. Occupiers don't like the bailouts, and they want companies like GM to pay their taxes. That's like half their MO



Big banks like Goldman Sachs and JP Morgan were also among top Obama contributors as you can see above. That`s why they got bailed out. Their campaign investment payed off. They need to understand that by giving power to the government, you feed corruption. "Absolute power corrupts absolutely". Current system is called fascism no matter if they label it democrat or republican. That`s why we need Ron Paul.

Obama is not the way to go in next elections for them. Some of them know it, some of them don`t. Those who don`t need to be shown this evidence. Obama=Bush=Romney=Santorum. All of these are bought and sold and payed by same lobby groups. Simple as that.

For one, you shouldn't equate occupiers with Obama. You seldom hear occupiers rant about how great Obama is. Not to be confused wit occupiers making the case that Obama is only human, and not the demon you make him out to be. In fact, many occupiers are disappointed with Obama. They think he too often backs down when criticized.

Also, I hate to come back down to earth here, but no, we don't have Fascism. Fascism is an extreme form of Nationalism, where opposition to the dominant viewpoint is severely suppressed. In Fascism your leader doesn't have a hard time getting what he wants from congress. In fascism, outsider forums like this one get shut down

JuicyG
01-05-2012, 07:10 PM
Occupiers don't like crony capitalism either many see politicians as bought, but, let's move away from the world of "What if there was no crony capitalism", and think about the solution.

As far as crony capitalism is concerned, some occupiers advocate for public campaign finance, but the best thing that you can do right now is to vote, and encourage others to vote, and if you really wanted to do something about it, you can go look a public records of laws, and highlight the important parts for other people. Information is cheap.a

But in the meantime, about the banks, I believe that maybe there ought to be a law that makes the top decision-makers somehow accountable to the people who hold funds in their bank. That there should be some recourse for giving yourself and your fellow executives a raise as your company loses money. I also think that those executives who have broken specific laws should be made an example of to the furthest extent of the law.

I personally wouldn't mind it the Big Bad Government takes advantage of technology, forces corporations to enroll their shareholders in some sort of communication network, so that they might makes decisions about executive's further employment.

Their solution regarding campaign contributions is short-sighted for a couple of reasons. Big corporations in bed with government have very close ties to mainstream media. So say for eg, all contributions would be somehow limited, the mainstream media will decide who gets into debates, who gets the best coverage, who`s painted as winner and who`s painted as loser.

Regarding "the big bad government" as you`ve put it. The more power you give to the government, they more they`ll abuse it. You give them 1 finger, they`ll take whole hand. There`s a good reason why communism turned into dictatorship of 1 man or bunch of men like in China today.
Everything government does is crap when you compare it to the private sector. Last time I`ve checked best universities were in private sector for example. Also, Soviet Russia, China or name your favorite communist country wasn`t able to achieve a decent level of creativity. They`ve just copied and stolen technology. Reason for that is basic and very simple. Putting chains on liberty by gov interference destroys creativity and makes all people like a bunch of uniform zombie drooling lookalikes who think and act the same.
Nothing good ever came out of government. Private sector is best equipped to handle things.
A communication network controlled by government you say? Gov always screws up. Corporations do come together in joint ventures. Government doesn`t need to be there.

Let`s take an example where corporations came together without government involvement. Might not be best example but it`s a recent one.
Google had this idea of mixing TV with internet and called it Google tv. Problem was they didn`t have all the tools needed, so they`ve partnered with Logitech to provide TV decoders, keyboards and with Sony to provide the screens. It was a successful partnership where a few companies came together to create something better, a product where all contributed. Google TV didn`t hit it off yet because they forgot to also partner with cable companies and it`s still dead in the water. It basically lost the companies some money, but idea is still being polished. Had that been government effort and would have failed, taxpayers would have been left to foot the bill like it happened with Solyndra.

JuicyG
01-05-2012, 07:16 PM
Also, I hate to come back down to earth here, but no, we don't have Fascism. Fascism is an extreme form of Nationalism, where opposition to the dominant viewpoint is severely suppressed. In Fascism your leader doesn't have a hard time getting what he wants from congress. In fascism, outsider forums like this one get shut down

"Fascism should more appropriately be called Corporatism because it is a merger of state and corporate power."

Benito Mussolini(the father of fascism)

Corporate media in bed with government controls the dominant view and protects the status quo.

Obama bypasses congress and the constitution to go to war and to vote unconstitutional laws that restrict individual freedoms.

Forums like these are allowed because fascism we have is the soft-power (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soft_power) version of fascism. It works by giving people the illusion of freedom and control.