Anti-Corporation Protests on Wall Street (friendly graphic)

[Techercizer]

[HibiscusKazeneko]

Ah, the hypocrisy.

[Failhorse]

That's equating the same bs. versus the teabaggers saying "keep the gov't hands of my medicare"

No one is trying to abolish corporations. They're trying to block the corporate greed. I've posted about that several times. Nothing wrong with makng a profit. Something wrong with the board making 440 times what the average worker does.

[Techercizer]

That's equating the same bs. versus the teabaggers saying "keep the gov't hands of my medicare"

No one is trying to abolish corporations. They're trying to block the corporate greed. I've posted about that several times. Nothing wrong with makng a profit. Something wrong with the board making 440 times what the average worker does.

The point here is that trying to block corporate greed, the desire to consume and dominate the market in a never-ending struggle to prevail against competition and further expand their own operations, is trying to make corporations into things that just aren't corporations. The people in that photo have had countless aspects of their lives shaped from the positive aspects of free-market capitalism, but are protesting in the streets now that they've seen some of its downsides.

Trying to create a utopian economy or government that doesn't account for natural human greed or corruption is like trying to create a nuclear reactor without account for entropy; it will fail, and bad things will happen. If the protesters were shunning free market capitalism as a social principle due to its downsides (which I find odd, but not ridiculous or lacking in intelligence), I wouldn't feel like laughing at them. As it is, they're embracing the fruits of it while simultaneously admonishing the waste it creates; analogous to wearing a fur coat and then making snide comments whenever you see someone eating non-vegetarian meals. It's like they don't understand that there is no 100% perfect world system where nobody is ever harmed or restricted in their freedom.

[Failhorse]

Was it a utopian economy before Reagan? You're not getting it. 30 years ago it was illegal for CEOs to have stock options. CEO's didn't have golden parachutes, and the bulk of what currently flows to the top 1% was reinvested. Today huge bonuses, and tons of cash in the bank. The only people that get any decent raise are through bonuses. And everyone else gets screwed.

It has nothing to do with the iPhone in their pockets. It's about the hedge fund manager that manipulated the market to make a billion dollars on oil futures. (Speaking of which the top 15 companies trading oil have no investment in oil. number 16 for instance is American Airlines.) Anyway. Or the CEO shipping 20k jobs to Korea. In turn jolting stock prices up 4% giving himself a 400% increase in their bonus.

Why would you even think of defending someone that makes what you make in a year in 3 hours? Do you think they work honestly for that? Hell for 100k I'd screw as many people as possible. Can't even imagine what I'd do for 100 million.

And then. So much money at the top. A little thing our great activist Supreme Court did. A little icing on the cake. Citizen United. Allowing corporations to still be people (technically they've been people since the 1900s.) This ruling also stated money = free speech. Allowing no cap on what they could use to bribe our congress with. So I was say say the Koch brothers. And I spewed a shit ton of Mercury into the air in Texas. I'd go out and give a couple million dollars in contributions. Ergo no follow through on EPA regulations. (true story.)

[Techercizer]

The reason all those things have come into existence is that it is one of the basic realities of free market economics that the rich will try to increase their wealth and protect their interests. Like I've said, If you want to completely reject the laissez-faire approach on principle, then I've nothing against you for it, but the technologies and comforts of our modern society are paved on the principles of that economic approach, even though it has been followed less stringently at some times than at others.

Making a salary above a certain threshold doesn't automatically make you evil; there's no set value for net wealth that automatically makes people kick puppies and spit on orphans. Disagree with the unequal distribution of wealth in this country if you wish, I might even share many feelings on the subject, but once you start demonizing the people and industries that have been responsible for shaping our society as it exists to day, you're taking all of the benefits and our conveniences of our current economic model and rallying against their shortcomings as though you've received nothing in compensation.

If you want to advocate a government-controlled economy; if you're of the opinion that it is necessary to limit the freedoms of a people for economic and macrosocial reasons, I have no conflict with you; many people hold those views, and many people do not, but there is no point arguing about opposing views. If, however, you want freedom to be praised as king, and desire the entrepreneur-friendly environment of a free market system, you must either learn to accept the negatives of giving people free choice or find yourself trapped arguing against the very thing that you love.

Edit: And I'd like to point to the absurdity and impracticality of the protester's released "demands" as evidence that their demonstrations are far more for emotional satisfaction than any logical attempt at specific and intelligent reform of our society at large

[Failhorse]

I don't think you can judge what will come out of these protests. The Tea Party started against the bail outs of wall street, and turned into something very different.

As for the rich protecting their interests. Their interest is all the money. I'd vote to go back to a top marginal tax rate of 97% in a heartbeat. Worked til the 70s. Will work again.

[HibiscusKazeneko]

Relevant:

[Techercizer]

I don't think you can judge what will come out of these protests. The Tea Party started against the bail outs of wall street, and turned into something very different.

As for the rich protecting their interests. Their interest is all the money. I'd vote to go back to a top marginal tax rate of 97% in a heartbeat. Worked til the 70s. Will work again.

I can't judge what will happen from these protests, that's for sure. As with any action in this world, great and small, they have the potential to cause great improvement and great suffering. What I can observe and form opinions on, though, are the demands the protesters are making, and the reasons they say they are demonstrating, and those seem naive to me. Naive opinions often drive me to parody out of boredom, which brings us back to the original post once more.

[Mike808]

i am the 53%

[Failhorse]

I can't judge what will happen from these protests, that's for sure. As with any action in this world, great and small, they have the potential to cause great improvement and great suffering. What I can observe and form opinions on, though, are the demands the protesters are making, and the reasons they say they are demonstrating, and those seem naive to me. Naive opinions often drive me to parody out of boredom, which brings us back to the original post once more.

When you get any group of democrats/liberals together they never know what to do. That's the problem. Everyone has a frikken opinion on one thing or another. Now if they could be more like the republicans and lockstep on 1-2 key issues. That'd be something. But it will never happen. the left is a big tent. So many people wanting so many things, when we finally get something. The response is crumbs to everyone. Not a solution to one. So no one is happy.

Remember the core of republican values. Abortion. Such a hot topic. Yet 30 years of republican "rule" and they never actually banned it. Why? If they did, what hot button issue would be used to raise millions of dollars every year. We even needed two separate bills saying no gov't money for abortion. The first one wasn't good enough. Or they just played it as a wild card and needed to appease their base. After convincing them that Romney care would fund it.

[Techercizer]

I can't judge what will happen from these protests, that's for sure. As with any action in this world, great and small, they have the potential to cause great improvement and great suffering. What I can observe and form opinions on, though, are the demands the protesters are making, and the reasons they say they are demonstrating, and those seem naive to me. Naive opinions often drive me to parody out of boredom, which brings us back to the original post once more.

When you get any group of democrats/liberals together they never know what to do. That's the problem. Everyone has a frikken opinion on one thing or another. Now if they could be more like the republicans and lockstep on 1-2 key issues. That'd be something. But it will never happen. the left is a big tent. So many people wanting so many things, when we finally get something. The response is crumbs to everyone. Not a solution to one. So no one is happy.

Remember the core of republican values. Abortion. Such a hot topic. Yet 30 years of republican "rule" and they never actually banned it. Why? If they did, what hot button issue would be used to raise millions of dollars every year. We even needed two separate bills saying no gov't money for abortion. The first one wasn't good enough. Or they just played it as a wild card and needed to appease their base. After convincing them that Romney care would fund it.

Yes, it's all the democrats' fault. If those wishy-washy scrumfuddlers hadn't stolen the ballot after the last presidency, our country wouldn't be in any of this mess it is right now. We should have just hung the consitution and ran 12 years of bush; that's what this country really needs.

>.>

The only think I know of that's as hopelessly corrupt as the Democratic party is the Republican one. They're just two straw-man sides of a broken system that hasn't been cleaned out in ages.

[Maringue]

One of the main problems is the quarterly earnings reports that are required for publically held companies. You'd think transparency is a good thing, but what it does is make the coperation solely focused on that single value. Most coompanies have lost sight of long term or even medium term goals. So much of their energy is focused on what's happening for the next 3 months that they don't care about anything else.

Good employees used to be seen as an asset to a company, something that would help them grow and produce better products. Now they are seen as a liability. Many of the companies that layed off thousands of people were still making solid profits off of their business, but the profit wasn't high enough for their stockholders, so they layed off a third of their work force so they could squeeze out another couple percent profit. Short term you get some extra cash, but it's a horribe business practice.

That's the problem with our whole country right now. Too many idiots are concerned with what will happen tomorrow as opposed to 1 year from now or more.

Also, if we want politics to be responsive to the citizens of this country instead of beholden to a tiny group of people with mountains of money we need to have publically funded elections, or at the very least some fucking political finance reform.

[BrowleeCrack]

I like trains

[Techercizer]

One of the main problems is the quarterly earnings reports that are required for publically held companies. You'd think transparency is a good thing, but what it does is make the coperation solely focused on that single value. Most coompanies have lost sight of long term or even medium term goals. So much of their energy is focused on what's happening for the next 3 months that they don't care about anything else.

Good employees used to be seen as an asset to a company, something that would help them grow and produce better products. Now they are seen as a liability. Many of the companies that layed off thousands of people were still making solid profits off of their business, but the profit wasn't high enough for their stockholders, so they layed off a third of their work force so they could squeeze out another couple percent profit. Short term you get some extra cash, but it's a horribe business practice.

That's the problem with our whole country right now. Too many idiots are concerned with what will happen tomorrow as opposed to 1 year from now or more.

Also, if we want politics to be responsive to the citizens of this country instead of beholden to a tiny group of people with mountains of money we need to have publically funded elections, or at the very least some fucking political finance reform.

I'd definitely support some political finance reform. I think that elections are a fairly well established area of government oversight in the States, and have always been uncomfortable with the degree that money, airtime, and good writers can sway public votes.

I would go so far as to say that significant government limits need to be placed on the ability of certified (AKA, on-ballot) candidates to campaign and represent themselves to the American people as much as their cash flow desires. Regulation could probably be best served by limiting campaign expenditures, but that would also open up tons of loopholes for the politically savvy to channel large amounts of money into front activities; we'd need some sort of enforcement agency as well.