PDA

View Full Version : Occupy Wall Street protests



winner69
03-10-2011, 06:51 PM
About time the greedy ones got their comuppance ... good on these people getting out and expressing their views .... and maybe this is the trigger that creates such a ground swell that the Western world will return to fundamental values

Mark Ruffalo says in The Guardian .... Their message is get money out of the political process; strive for equality in taxation and equal rights for all regardless of race, gender, social status, sexual preference or age. We must stop poisoning our food, air and water for corporate greed. The people on Wall Street and in the banking industrial complex that destroyed our economy must be investigated and brought to justice under the law for what they have done by stealing people's homes and savings.

He is probably right when he also says ...America has been debased and degraded by greed. and that .... the 99% of us have paid a dear price so that 1% could become the wealthiest people in the world

This could be the start of something big .... and the Poms on the street are not happy as well .... nor are the Greeks .... or the Italians

All brought upon the world by the greedy financiers of the world who just face the reality of the situation they have created

Go you good guys and gals on the streeets of New York ... I'd come and protest with you if I could .... but I'll wait until the RWC is over and join the same sort of protests when they start in NZ

The world is changing but it will take many years before it gets to where decent values are the order of the day again ... but the movement has begun

BDL
03-10-2011, 07:12 PM
Well said Winner. Couldn't agree more. The world is changing and has to change.
Good on these people to make a stand and show the rest of the population that we can change things for the better. Greed and corruption is the enemy of us all.

Lizard
09-10-2011, 04:41 PM
Slow response from me, but i am wondering where Winner will be when they bring out the guillotine. Okay, maybe not literally... ;)

I'm all for integrity and morality and philanthropy. I'm all for CEO and Directors salaries being actually about 3 times average incomes, but that's enough.

I'm just not in favour of the disaffected taking control. And I still believe existing process SHOULD work and actually just needs either greater enforcement or a few tweaks around the edges.

And I don't believe the guillotine gave the French the edge over anyone. They just learned to enjoy eating frogs legs and snails. Desperate stuff...

winner69
10-10-2011, 07:48 AM
Even though greed and as as some say the financiers ripping the system off for their own benefit are the public drivers of the the current campaigns I think we are seeing the early stages of how things work in the world changing.

It is a generational thing and probably will take 5-10 years to play out

We have a generation that rebelled in the 60's, got educated for free and for many got rich as assets values (esp property) increased dramatically over the last 10 years or so ... and a lot of that generation have no or little debt. On the other hand there is a generation who have paid for their education and are now approaching their peak earning stage of life finding they have been suckered into borrowing heaps and buying property at the peak of the market and comign to the realisation (that as property prices have stopped going up fast) they are pretty stuffed. Worse still they see the generation who made heaps acting selfishly and nor wanting to pay more taxes to keep the world going while still expecting to collect their pensions when they become due.

It is happening in Ireland, Israel, Us and around the world .... and maybe bubbling away under the surface in Australia and NZ. A seachange is underway

As for the guillotine Lizard ... well that might be another story

winner69
10-10-2011, 03:55 PM
Only matter of time before proetests come to this part of the world

Maybe Martin Place soon .... then Taranaki St wharf outside the NZX building ... was that really the Fanzone last week

The movement is under way

http://www.smh.com.au/business/time-to-occupy-our-financial-hubs-20111010-1lgq9.html?comments=37#comments

Halebop
11-10-2011, 09:50 PM
Personally I think this is all about demographics. We might be seeing an American version of the middle eastern ructions. There are a lot of young, educated and under-employed people in many countries right now. Funny through, the baby boomers invented peace protests then bacame capitalists and now their children are protesting. So far I prefer the American version of protest to the British one. Might have been the steadying influence of the 'grannies'?

winner69
16-10-2011, 02:26 PM
Great stuff ... the message is going global and gaining momentum

The rich greedy ones are calling upon their mates like Bloomberg to round them up and kick them out of town .... good one eh as Micheal himself is typical of why the movement has started

Pity is that the 'rich' and 'greedy dont just get it ... why should the masses be upset because we screwed them for decades?

One sort of rich guy but not one of the 1% when trying to work out what was going on in Melbourne said 'hard to work out what they protesting about but sure looks like democracy is broken'

Hope NZers put the pressure on Key in the next few months .... after they have chundered seeing him make a fool of himself next week at the RWC finals being introduced to the teams wearing a Black No 10 jersey ... John's Mandela moment

Lizard
16-10-2011, 03:49 PM
I'm a "work within the system" type person, so I get a bit lost with what you are saying, Winner.

To me, it just sounds like a bad case of "chip on shoulder" unless we can start talking about specifics. Which "rich and greedy" are we talking about? Bill Gates? Or are some people rich but not greedy and they are okay? Maybe some people are poor and greedy? Presumably they are okay?

What are we trying to change? Their wealth or their values? Or both?

Personally, I'd rather see targeted change than the kind of destructive change that just demolishes the house and hopes that something better can be constructed - which seems to be where an excited conglomerate of the disaffected has the potential to go.

And, in fact, it seems like targetting was the original concept of the Occupy Wall Street protest - ask for just one thing and stick to it.

http://occupywallst.org/about/

http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/occupywallstreet.html


On September 17, we want to see 20,000 people flood into lower Manhattan, set up tents, kitchens, peaceful barricades and occupy Wall Street for a few months. Once there, we shall incessantly repeat one simple demand in a plurality of voices.

Tahrir succeeded in large part because the people of Egypt made a straightforward ultimatum that Mubarak must go over and over again until they won. Following this model, what is our equally uncomplicated demand?

The most exciting candidate that we've heard so far is one that gets at the core of why the American political establishment is currently unworthy of being called a democracy: we demand that Barack Obama ordain a Presidential Commission tasked with ending the influence money has over our representatives in Washington. It's time for DEMOCRACY NOT CORPORATOCRACY, we're doomed without it.

You say the message is going global... but it looks more like it is a protesting style gone global. The original concept was not about breaking democracy but restoring it - based on the belief that democracy is currently being undermined by wealthy lobby groups. Let's hope that doesn't get lost in the excitement of protest.

JBmurc
16-10-2011, 03:58 PM
I notice most of the NZ rich-list have grown in wealth some hugely which didn't seem to make sense with current deflation times
the poor get poorer the mid-higher class get taxed more..... the rich get richer..

the bankers run the world not the population voted governments ..... thats why we see bankers getting away with financial terrorism....an banks getting bailed out ..in the name of helping the population...

fungus pudding
16-10-2011, 04:31 PM
[QUOTE=Lizard;358525]Slow response from me, but i am wondering where Winner will be when they bring out the guillotine. Okay, maybe not literally... ;)

I'm all for integrity and morality and philanthropy. I'm all for CEO and Directors salaries being actually about 3 times average incomes, but that's enough.

[QUOTE]

So you'd be all in favour of passing a law to stop Mick Jagger performing, or to stop me investing?

janner
16-10-2011, 05:25 PM
Mike Jaggers income is produced from willing fans.. Your investments are willing given into productive enterprises that will return a dividend.
Dividends are not salary/wages.. If you can live off of your dividends well done.. You have earned and saved to make those investments.. You have payed tax on it.. and not dragging any one down..

CEO's on multi million dollar salarys + mega bonus ??.. That is an entirely different kettle of fish..

If there is a bonus for the CEO... Why is there not a bonus for the cleaner ??

A fair pro rata distribution, based on hours put in, of some of the wealth created by the entire staff for the shareholders..

Say... 10% of profits.. .. It maybe nickles and dimes to the CEO. but the cleaner would sure appreciate it..

He/she may even reinvest it into the company..

Lizard
16-10-2011, 05:39 PM
Slow response from me, but i am wondering where Winner will be when they bring out the guillotine. Okay, maybe not literally... ;)

I'm all for integrity and morality and philanthropy. I'm all for CEO and Directors salaries being actually about 3 times average incomes, but that's enough.



So you'd be all in favour of passing a law to stop Mick Jagger performing, or to stop me investing?

F.P, I'm unsure why you're quoting me in here - I thought it was clear I was not a fan of wholesale protest. And my post referred to a view on extremes in salaries rather than wealthy per se. As for how something should be done about that - I would have thought that was first the responsibility of shareholders like ourselves to lobby for sensible salaries.

Lizard
16-10-2011, 05:48 PM
A fair pro rata distribution, based on hours put in, of some of the wealth created by the entire staff for the shareholders..


I guess shareholders might have mixed views as to how much wealth has been created for them over the years and how much has been soaked up by unprofitable expenditure.

Pro rata distribution on hours sounds fine if everyone was prepared to work equally hard, was equally productive, had spent equal resources on their training and had invested equal amounts of capital in the company. It doesn't take much imagination to see the consequences of paying everyone the same when they differ on any one of these things.

Halebop
16-10-2011, 07:13 PM
I think the whole argument is about timing. We could tolerate paying someone millions for a 50-60 hour working week when unemployment was 4% or 5% and even semi skilled people could make a good living gibbing walls. When the chips are down this becomes problematic, particularly when the same CEOs earn millions for putting people out of work and cutting costs to maintain the bottom line. Add the demographic bubbles of educated young muslims and 1st (or less) time employed Gen Y's wondering why they loaded up with debt to earn what the cleaner gets (or less) and suddenly a few more people than the old 'normal' think to ask some questions...

Baby boomers are looking a bit weary, their capital is avoiding risk and we are entering an expensive part of the cycle - simultaneous higher education, healthcare and welfare costs. Taxing capital is almost inevitable if and when other sources of income fail to fire up.

One thing I do find interesting is that often people who argue that the rich already pay an unfair burdon of tax tend to focus on share of tax paid rather than share of income (including capital gains) earned. Methinks there is an obvious reason for this?

The only troubling bit is that like all pendulums it may well swing too far the other way.

Lizard
17-10-2011, 06:55 AM
The only troubling bit is that like all pendulums it may well swing too far the other way.

Yes, I guess that is my fear. From some of the rhetoric, it sounds as though there are those who think the Cultural Revolution/French Revolution/Democratic Kampuchea/Soviet Revolution were all great ways to achieve change and greater equality.

westerly
17-10-2011, 06:05 PM
Yes, I guess that is my fear. From some of the rhetoric, it sounds as though there are those who think the Cultural Revolution/French Revolution/Democratic Kampuchea/Soviet Revolution were all great ways to achieve change and greater equality.

The French revolution and the Soviet revolution were definitely the only way to achieve better equality. Egypt, Libya, Iran, etc. are struggling to achieve the same goal.The unfortunate fact is that in times of great upheaval some megalomaniac or psychopath is likely to take advantage of the situation and achieve control aka Napoleon, Hitler. Stalin, etc. If the excesses of Wall St. and the non productive money shifters are to be controlled it will depend on the actions of democratically elected governments.
Don't hold your breath if right wing parties have power.
Westerly

CJ
17-10-2011, 07:52 PM
A couple or random thoughts:

It is possible to go from nothing to rich -Key being the perfect example, Or Hart.

That was always the american dream - the problem is that everyone wants it to happen to them and that is just not possible.

all those stats are related. Obviously the wealthy earn the most money as that income comes from their investments.

They are in part protesting about corporates - yet I am sure a lot of them have iphones etc. Luxuries are now 'necessities'

Lizard
17-10-2011, 08:16 PM
The French revolution and the Soviet revolution were definitely the only way to achieve better equality.

Maybe I am obtuse, but I fail to see how what we have now could be a worse starting point for a better society than years of militancy, fear, oppression and bloodshed. Sure, I acknowledge all the things that are not working correctly - I think this article says it well: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1

But don't tell me that the only option for equality is a reign of terror before at least trying to use the levers that democracy provides. For my part, I've selectively voted against what I've considered excessive remuneration on a number of occasions - but from the reported results, it has been difficult to see that many shareholders actually cared enough to take even this small act of protest.

Aaron
18-10-2011, 07:43 AM
It's a bit vague what they hope to achieve. I would have thought that wealth/income disparity is the main issue and whether people who have worked hard and made sacrifices AND succeeded should contribute more to society. Also the concept of endless growth. Is mild deflation really that bad unless your heavily leveraged.

Unfortunately it requires a bit of effort to read and try to understand the policies of political parties and their effects on our communities before voting. I wouldn't mind betting a large chunk of the protesters are living of the state and their fellow citizens and that protesting is more exciting and easier than trying to form a view on the best way forward for their countries.
NZ is a good example of why voters get what they ask for. We have a National government set to win the next election yet they increased a regressive tax(GST) to lower income tax rates(including the top rate) and refuse to consider a tax on wealth. The wealth/income disparity is obviously not an issue in NZ either that or there a a lot of deluded people in NZ(they probably still believe in the trickle down effect). Or maybe it is more a reflection on the quality and policies of the opposition parties.

fungus pudding
18-10-2011, 08:20 AM
We have a National government set to win the next election yet they increased a regressive tax(GST) to lower income tax rates(including the top rate) and refuse to consider a tax on wealth. The wealth/income disparity is obviously not an issue in NZ either that or there a a lot of deluded people in NZ(they probably still believe in the trickle down effect). Or maybe it is more a reflection on the quality and policies of the opposition parties.


Like it or not, money and incomes do trickle down.

POSSUM THE CAT
18-10-2011, 08:52 AM
Fungus Pudding it is no use opening a new business unless you can find customers with money to purchase from them. So without money to flow up from the bottom there will be no trickle down from the top.

fungus pudding
18-10-2011, 09:06 AM
Fungus Pudding it is no use opening a new business unless you can find customers with money to purchase from them. So without money to flow up from the bottom there will be no trickle down from the top.

And where, pray tell, do these customers get their spending money from? Obviously we are all part of the circle, but to claim money doesn't trickle down assumes those who earn big dough lock it in a cupboard, or only ever spend it amongst the equally wealthy. The truth is those who have more money, spend more money. 'No trickle down' is just a catch-cry of cliche lovers.

Aaron
18-10-2011, 09:16 AM
Like it or not, money and incomes do trickle down.

I beg to differ. If the statistics from belgarion earlier in the thread are correct it would indicate the wealth doesn't trickle very far from the top 1% in America. In fact with the growing disparity in wealth you could conclude that society is working more like a trickle up system.

And before we move onto the politics of greed and envy arguement I don't depise people for being wealthy I even aspire to that goal one day myself (even if we had a capital gains tax i would still look to invest). I just think that rather than having ever more opulent lifestyles and mansions etc maybe society could ask them to chip in a bit more to help pay for education, health etc.

if you still believe in trickle down I think your kidding yourself. People are too selfish. Myself included.

Hoop
18-10-2011, 11:30 AM
I beg to differ. If the statistics from belgarion earlier in the thread are correct it would indicate the wealth doesn't trickle very far from the top 1% in America. In fact with the growing disparity in wealth you could conclude that society is working more like a trickle up system.

And before we move onto the politics of greed and envy arguement I don't depise people for being wealthy I even aspire to that goal one day myself (even if we had a capital gains tax i would still look to invest). I just think that rather than having ever more opulent lifestyles and mansions etc maybe society could ask them to chip in a bit more to help pay for education, health etc.

if you still believe in trickle down I think your kidding yourself. People are too selfish. Myself included.

Trickle down effect is time sensitive..(a lagging event) like a tap turned off but the water still runs down your concrete driveway.

The tap got turned down but not completely off when the world's money started to evaporate in 2008-2009....the workers on the street didn't grizzle back then because it didn't effect them at that time..many said bloody good job that many of the filthy rich companies (banks?) and individuals alike got caught up in the bear downturn and lost their large amounts of capital.....

.....well that effect of lost capital has now trickled down to the end user....The flow has been boosted by Govts and large orgainisations attempts through borrowed money to pay unemployment insurance, keep people in work, etc which puts economic pressure on the whole system.

The worse thing is the lag effect...Much of the world is in recovery mode and large profits are once again being made and the "filthy rich" are gaining back their loses + more on top..........much to the disgust of the end trickler.

The tap is back on now but that water hasn't trickled down to the bottom of the driveway yet.

How much is a trickle??? ...with the lessened flow atm.. it's still a gusher.

A small part of that "trickle is due to Philanthrophy....In the USA alone Givers in 2009 gave equivalent to $1400 for each American man women and child ...$303 billion a year 1.
1......Ref:..The National Philanthropic Trust (http://www.nptrust.org/philanthropic-resources//statistics/) Statistics

Philanthropy is alive and well but we as Joe Public don't hear about it as most of these people elect to stay out of the limelight.
65% of the US holdholds donate to charity 1........It gives you the warm fuzzies...eh...that not anyone in the world is selfish and
greedy


I think too much money resides in the top of the pyramid atm and like all cyclic events it is due to adjust downwards once again.

I agree some people get obscene amounts of money and often that is factored into the price you pay for the product...

Just think..that person in the picture bluetacked to your teenaged daughters wall is probably earning more money through grossly overpriced products than any Wall St banker.:t_down:

Halebop
18-10-2011, 12:12 PM
I think trickle down versus trickle up is a chiken and egg argument that will generally fall between political divides. What is manifestly clear is that the accumulation of capital begets more of the same. If I now make $100m a year, even spending $10m on a lavish lifestyle leaves $90m to be deployed, much of which no doubt gets invested. This ensures the wealthy get wealthier and has nothing to do with politics or philosophy - it's simple math and the utility value of money.

If we now imagine a tax system that favours capital accumulation over labour, the divide between haves and have nots can easily be contrasted... and exploited socially and politically.

I do suspect that considering a little give now could pre-empt a lot of take later. Every country has different levers and anomalies but I suspect most tax labour more heavily than capital.

ananda77
18-10-2011, 02:51 PM
Occupy Wall St – Systemic Change Please
October 7, 2011
By Michael Hudson
http://michael-hudson.com/2011/10/occupy-wall-st-systemic-change-please/

... It’s much bigger than that. There’s an awareness that the whole financial system has been dysfunctional. And the other similar demonstrations that are occurring abroad, from Iceland to Greece, are that the government is in the hands of the financial lobbyists. That’s why it’s called Occupy Wall Street, because Wall Street is what essentially has bought the electoral campaigns and bought the Obama administration.

Rolling Back the Progressive Era: How Bankers are using the Debt Crisis to welcome in the Financial Road to Serfdom
June 14, 2011
By Michael Hudson
http://michael-hudson.com/2011/06/rolling-back-the-progressive-era/

...What is to be reversed is the “modern” agenda. The aim a century ago was to mobilize the Industrial Revolution’s soaring productivity and technology to raise living standards and use progressive taxation, public regulation, central banking and financial reform to distribute wealth fairly and make societies more equal. Today’s financial aim is the opposite: to concentrate wealth at the top of the economic pyramid and lower labor’s returns. High finance loves low wages.

Kind Regards

ananda77
18-10-2011, 03:10 PM
http://i54.tinypic.com/2wohzr8.png

Kind Regards

westerly
18-10-2011, 06:20 PM
[QUOTE=Lizard;359116]Maybe I am obtuse, but I fail to see how what we have now could be a worse starting point for a better society than years of militancy, fear, oppression and bloodshed.

But don't tell me that the only option for equality is a reign of terror before at least trying to use the levers that democracy provides. QUOTE]


France, Russia, etc. did not have democracy at the time of their revolutions. But N.Z. had democracy during the great depression which did not prevent the Queen St. riots or the disturbances during the 1950 waterfront strike. If you have large numbers of unemployed or lowly paid workers who rightly or wrongly perceive injustice there will be social unrest.
The USA has 46 million below the poverty line.

Westerly

JBmurc
18-10-2011, 06:30 PM
Will only get worse in 2012 IMHO

winner69
19-10-2011, 06:13 AM
http://i54.tinypic.com/2wohzr8.png

Kind Regards

As Halebop pointed out this is a generational issue - a generation that has become rich (or at least well off) mainly from rising assets prices (mainly housing) v a generation that either borrowed heavily to buy property at the peak of the cycle or cant afford their own home .... and (rightfully) blaming the bankers and fianaciers for all this - people who have never made any tangible stuff in their life and as such perceived to be greedy and corrupt as they keep on dreaming up schemes to squeeze the last dollar out of the 'poor'

The 1% and the 99% is a dramatic sideshow - at the root of the unrest(?) is a generation approaching their peak earnings stage in life struggling heavily indebted seeing a generation ahead of them being so better off than them .... and not really being prepared to assist. That well (better) off generation wants to keep their riches and still expect the government (by default the younger generation) to continue with pensions and helthcare etc.

The young chick and her billboard is of that younger generation but she was lucky to get some of those riches - but good on her for being willing to share her riches - her desire for 'equality' is what her generation want

It's just that the older better off generation aren't prepared to do that. (maybe its too hard to guess what generation I fall into)

And of course it is the greedy corrupt super rich that are the really the cause for all the worlds problems this so lets target them - they deserve their comuppance big time

STRAT
19-10-2011, 05:24 PM
A debate on human nature?

Theres only greedy and super greedy.

Thing is. The super greedy are more motivated than the greedy.

I doubt the Chic in the Pic has any poor friends and I doubt she earned any of her comfort either.

Easy come. Easy go until life gets hard.

winner69
21-10-2011, 11:01 AM
The greedy ones putting pressure on the Council to remove the riff raff

http://www.theage.com.au/victoria/police-surround-city-square-as-protesters-defy-eviction-order-20111021-1mb07.html

winner69
22-10-2011, 08:33 AM
Melbourne always touted themselves as the sporting capital of the world .... and did a great job showplacing itself as the bllod sports capital of the world yesterday

The Lord Mayor and that idiot Ballieu don't jsut get it .... maybe they should have had a chat with Richard Branson

Bransons on the case He's urging business leaders to listen to the message taht these protestors are giving (quote) In a sense [it's] slightly like the Wall St protesters are basically saying that we are lucky bastards to have been successful in our professions. An enormous responsibility comes with wealth - they have to get out and use that position to tackle a lot of the outstanding issues."

Full story here ..... good article
http://www.nzherald.co.nz/business/news/article.cfm?c_id=3&objectid=10760853

winner69
22-10-2011, 08:41 AM
Another quote from Branson in the article linked above .... . "You take away the reason why people need to protest if companies are behaving in an ethical way,"

One of the best books I have read this year is Consumer Republic by Bruce Philp .... about using brands to get what we want / make corporations behave / and maybe even save the world

Worth a read and echos Bransons words

Ayrton
26-10-2011, 02:04 AM
One thing that really confuses me about these protesters, is there hatred of banks. Where do they think money comes from?? If you have a credit-card, loan for car, house, business etc banks help to provide the funds.. Do they not realize that most businesses start with investors (through banks) or loans? Or that they happily use "big" corporates such as apple, facebook?, Google every day. No one forces anybody to put money into a bank. And its ridiculous to think banks shouldn't charge fees for their services. A lot of the current companies that consumers love today would not be around if there where no investment banks.

On the topic of "greed": Jay-z and the likes earn up to 80 million dollars a year, and owns a 2 million dollar car. This is ok? But if you go to uni (at your own expense most likely), get an MBA etc, work your way up (long hours I'm sure) to running a multinational company and get paid a few million its evil?

Blendy
02-11-2011, 09:26 AM
http://gothamist.com/2011/11/01/stephen_colbert_infiltrates_occupy.php

Totally hilarious Stephen Colbert video - he infiltrates the Occupy protest, then interviews a couple of protesters back in his penthouse apartment, trying to understand their cause and processes...

*warning* put down your coffee, or you'll laugh it out your nose!

skid
04-11-2011, 11:15 AM
I think the real issue here, for the USA at least,is the tremendously unfair system that totally disregards blatant conflict of interest issues.
To allow a vice president to sit on the board of a multinational co.that makes weapons,when he is also making decisions on whether to go to war is criminal.
To allow major companies to influence politicians with huge campaign contributions so they can then have a say in political policies is criminal.
To outlaw conflict of interest in some areas,but to allow it in the political arena means the system is broken IMHO.
Fixing that would be a good start-but not easy..

winner69
07-11-2011, 07:56 PM
Good advice from the man himself Eliot Spitzer

http://www.slate.com/articles/business/the_best_policy/2011/11/occupy_wall_street_eight_ideas_for_making_the_prot ests_even_more_successful_.html

winner69
20-11-2011, 08:32 AM
These Occupy groups are only in their infancy ... it is the beginning of a revulution that will only grow in omentum over time

These 'greedy fianciers and bankers' are still raping the world .... it hasn't dawned on the people of Ireland, Greece, Italy and other countries that they have been taken to the cleaners by the these 'greedy bankers' .... the ones who lent to these countries knowing they couldn't afford it .... demand austerity measures to screw the populus so they can get back most of their money ... and eventually take over the prime assets of the country on the cheap

Jeez .. is that is what happening to NZ on the sly ... like an inside job .... like sell the assets before you get too indebted and we need to charge you more for lending to you (ie we'll be nice to you if you cooperate before we send in the enforcers) ... probably saying shouldn't have bankers running the country ..... like Greece has now.

we should support these Occupy groups

winner69
20-11-2011, 09:09 AM
This poor women was slightly outnumbered and 'outgunned'

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld/nation/wire/na-portland-protest-photo-20111119,0,2221367.story

winner69
10-03-2012, 06:50 AM
We better cheer for the Republicans eh Belg .... can't have the poor catching up can we

Halebop
10-03-2012, 09:48 AM
In isolation not so bad but read together ... very troubling ...

http://finance.yahoo.com/blogs/daily-ticker/super-pacs-gone-wild-tip-iceberg-citizens-united-141547649.html;_ylt=AoxWXSClLa.K4o25cRQGrHaiuYdG;_ ylu=X3oDMTNycjRkY2tyBG1pdANGUCBUb3AgU3RvcnkgTGVmdA Rwa2cDMjE5ZGRjMjQtOTRkMy0zOTVkLWIzYjktYzMyZGM1NWFk Yjg3BHBvcwMxBHNlYwN0b3Bfc3RvcnkEdmVyA2IyOTI3ZTYwLT Y5ZjMtMTFlMS05ZGZiLWM5Yzc3ODUyNGY1MQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTFvdnRqYzJoBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25zBHRlc3QD;_ ylv=3

http://finance.yahoo.com/news/rich-poor-gap-widest-republican-050015465.html;_ylt=Aho2PBoPdtnXAiGDZ7hGSlaiuYdG;_ ylu=X3oDMTQ0MHBlZ2FxBG1pdANGaW5hbmNlIEZQIFRvcCBTdG 9yeSBSaWdodARwa2cDY2YyM2Q0NTEtNTdmNC0zNjU4LWI4YTAt ZWVmM2JkNTM0MjI4BHBvcwM3BHNlYwN0b3Bfc3RvcnkEdmVyAz BiNTViYmQwLTY5ZTktMTFlMS05OTA3LWRkNDRmZWVmYzgxZQ--;_ylg=X3oDMTFvdnRqYzJoBGludGwDdXMEbGFuZwNlbi11cwRw c3RhaWQDBHBzdGNhdANob21lBHB0A3NlY3Rpb25zBHRlc3QD;_ ylv=3

Not really very troubling.

6 of 10 counties republican? So 4 of 10 not? Can we all say "Margin of Error"? I'd suggest fixation on wealth and the benefits it derives, be it; real property, a full meal, wide screen TVs or equity portfolios is a human condition, not a republican one. Let's look at the 60-70s Baby Boomer hippies, most of them later decided to get a job/house/car/pension/wide screen TV. The issue is for many of the most impacted people is that they paid for (borrowed?) an education and aren't getting a payback (All I got for my BA in [Not Very Useful Subject Here] was a part time McJob or Unemployment). The only reason we're seeing it in ways like "Occupy WallStreet" is because by a fluke of demographic timing there are a lot of them (Nobody cared when Gen X were in the same position in the early 90s because there weren't enough of them to create a loud voice).

On wealth distribution - GINI has some design flaws that are susceptible to misinterpretation. GINI is for instance impacted by demogrpahics but you don't see the impact because you are given a single "holistic" number.

An area that attracts or encourages poor immigrants (California, New York, New Zealand) will typically benefit from the immigration while also typically benefitting the immigrants but GINI will be made to look worse.

A measure of GINI wealth does not prove the utility of that wealth. Bangladesh has a better GINI score than USA or New Zealand. What proportion of Bagladeshis have access to a doctor or a computer?

GINI does not capture your progression through your lifespan. In Germany income distribution by age narrower - you earn a bit more early in your career but progress less later. This is an intentional design by the Germans, a piece of social engineering. It doesn't mean they earn more or less over their lifespan, just that their income over their lifespan is distributed differently. But in many Western countries the age differential is wider. What this tells us is the demographic bubbles (and German Social Engineering) both impact GINI scores.

Overall, GINI is a bit poop at proving an argument that is largely demographic.

boring
09-04-2012, 11:24 PM
Certainly the reason why Australians don't mind most sports stars being paid millions is because we are often inspired by their accomplishments. If they represent your country, you delight in their achievements because it increases the wellbeing of the country at large. Movie stars and entertainers take us to a different world for 1.5 to 2 hours, and we appreciate that as well.

Whereas CEOs of the Banks is a totally different story. We are not inspired by them because:
1. They don't have a track record of creating wealth for their employees. Wealth creation is concentrated to a very few at the very top.
2. We feel that when they screw up, us taxpayers will still have to bail them out. Yet they can still pay themselves huge bonuses.
3. They do not operate in the community's best interest, as demonstrated when they increased i-rates independently of the Reserve Bank. The differential between the Reserve Bank i-rate and the big bank mortgage rates has never been so wide (it's a enormous chasm at the moment).

Our toothless monopolies commission in Australia has allowed the banking industry to become a cartel. Now I'm as capitalist as they come, but when an entire industry is dominated by so few players who act in unison, well, it's time to start thinking about legislation.

Lego_Man
23-04-2012, 12:10 PM
Certainly the reason why Australians don't mind most sports stars being paid millions is because we are often inspired by their accomplishments. If they represent your country, you delight in their achievements because it increases the wellbeing of the country at large. Movie stars and entertainers take us to a different world for 1.5 to 2 hours, and we appreciate that as well.

Not really...it's just another form of supply and demand. There is a relatively short supply of high level entertainers, the fact (or assertion) that they provide an externality in the form of "wellbeing" is already priced into their asking price. Just as there is a shortish supply of people capable of stewardship of a large company. Now whether or not the shortage is as severe as that is a matter for debate.



1. They don't have a track record of creating wealth for their employees. Wealth creation is concentrated to a very few at the very top.

Not their job.



2. We feel that when they screw up, us taxpayers will still have to bail them out. Yet they can still pay themselves huge bonuses.

The former is a valid point. I shun moral hazard.



3. They do not operate in the community's best interest, as demonstrated when they increased i-rates independently of the Reserve Bank. The differential between the Reserve Bank i-rate and the big bank mortgage rates has never been so wide (it's a enormous chasm at the moment).

Reserve bank interest rates arent a dictatorial control, theyre an operational lever to try and guide the economy. The price of money is just another price that people have to live with. A favourable interest rate is not a human right.

You dont sound very capitalist at all to be honest. The above comments are redder than 95% of what i've read on here...