GasBandit
Staff member
Counterpoint: We are the 53%
So there's this Occupy Wall Street protest in Manhattan today
- Thread starter Charlie Don't Surf
- Start date
I think the problem here is that people hear different things when someone mentions "the 1%." I think people on the far left immediately conjure up an image of a ridiculously-wealthy billionaire who simply inherited an empire and never worked a day. I think people on the right think of an entrepreneur who busted his ass, got an independent business up and running after some tough years, and now brings home a nice $350k. You've got stupid hippies who want a guaranteed $20/hr minimum wage and endless benefits with no concept of how economics actually works, and they're unfortunately right next to some reasonable people who feel that the growing income gap will lead to further social strife and economic collapse in the long run if left unchecked. Both sides of this debate are using strawmen to smear the other side, and neither is considering the possibility that they may have good ideas/reasons/perspectives on how to solve the problems in this country.
I'm not the 1%, but I'm hating how this section of the 99% are behaving. I hate how the media is portraying this. I hate how people on the right are just blowing them off as dirty hippies when this protest has actually tried to draw attention to a growing problem. I hate how the left are treating people with a good income as boogeymen who bathe in the blood of children because they're heartless monsters. I hate how, once again, any real discussion is being hijacked by assholes on the far left and right.
I'm not the 1%, but I'm hating how this section of the 99% are behaving. I hate how the media is portraying this. I hate how people on the right are just blowing them off as dirty hippies when this protest has actually tried to draw attention to a growing problem. I hate how the left are treating people with a good income as boogeymen who bathe in the blood of children because they're heartless monsters. I hate how, once again, any real discussion is being hijacked by assholes on the far left and right.
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I don't think you are allowed to say that.
What is the problem? Their message hasn't been coherent enough for me to understand. But it sounds like you believe there's a problem, and not only that - it's growing.
So what is your assessment of what these protests are - or should be - about, and why this problem, if left unchecked, is going to be bad?
Added at: 15:10
No, no, it's perfectly fine to say that the government or the rich made bad choices. But the middles class and poor are exempt from financial darwinism...
GasBandit
Staff member
As far as I can tell, the "problem" is some people have more money than others.
There are three problems which add up into a greater issue. One, there is a problem with the growing income gap. I'm not a socialist by any means, but having so much wealth concentrated into the hands of such a small percentage causes problems. The industrial revolution in America is the best example. The wealthy don't need to be stripped of their money; there just need to be more opportunities for average people to make a decent wage. The wealthy having wealth is not the problem, merely the ratio and concentration. It creates stratification and social problems.
Two, the country is far too lax in restricting reckless behavior in the financial sector. Risk is great, and over regulation is bad. However, there need to be some rules to keep people from blowing up the economy. The entire meltdown in 2008 could have been prevented without hobbling Wall Street.
Three, the government (especially Congress) focuses on certain segments of the population while ignoring everyone else. This is a direct result of lobbyists and greed. There needs to be lobbying reform (ideally lobbyists would be barred from the capital) and campaign finance reform. The aforementioned problem of not enough regulation a symptom of this issue. Wall Street is able to make enormous contributions to candidates directly, thereby essentially buying off the watchdogs that are supposed to keep them from causing a financial meltdown.
And you know why you can't figure out what the protester's message is? Because they don't have one. They have over a hundred. I don't often agree with Fox news, but they got one thing right: the protest looks like every cause of the left was put into a blender. When people gather for photos, you can count anywhere from 6 to 20 different signs for unrelated causes. Some people want financial reform. Some people want policy in the Middle East changed. Some people want to abolish free trade. Some people want increased education spending. It's a bunch of people all shouting different things at the same time. How could people take any of that seriously, or possibly find a coherent message in the midst of the noise?
GasBandit
Staff member
Uh, those were supposed to be my thoughts I was expressing, not a paraphrase of yours.
Oh, sorry. I've got a hair-trigger today due to some personal issue. Sorry about that.
This is a problem symptomatic of the Democratic party and Liberal groups in general: They can NOT solidify behind an issue because of how diverse the groups are. It's long been their greatest weakness and the Democrat controlled Congress being unable to do shit was a perfect example of it in practice. It's honestly amazing they can ever get anything done.
Thankfully, this is also happening to the Right thanks to the Tea Party. Without it's unified positions, it's in an even worse position than the Left.
You jest, but that can actually be a problem. There is probably a tipping point where money consolidated into too small of a space will actually break the economy. I'm not saying we're at that tipping point, but I would argue that there is a genuine limit to what is a reasonable amount of wealth to hold.
Please do, I've seen a few people say that some people are too rich, but they can't back it up with anything. If there's some basis for the idea, it's worth discussing.
It's difficult to put a true number on because we as a society don't understand fully the complexities of economics and social stability (as in lack of unrest). Part of the problem is simply having quality data available. I can offer an extreme example, though, to demonstrate the point, even though I cannot identify with certainty what the limit would be (although I think the problem is at least estimable). If the economy has 1 million units in cash and assets total with a population of 100 people, then if one person controls 999,901 units of those assets, then the other 99 people in the population will have only 1 unit apiece (on average). The richest person essentially is monopolizing the assets, which in turn will drastically slow down the liquidity of the remaining assets in the economy. People will be reluctant to let their assets go.
Wealth is a matter of collection. If people are investing successfully, they are collecting more wealth. If they are selling something everyone needs, they are collecting more wealth. And they are trying to do this at a rate faster than inflation (which just raises the ceiling on the number of assets available). If they collect enough wealth, they will reach a threshold where it is very difficult to collect any more, and the people who have what little is left will hold onto what they have. The economy slows to a crawl (among other things.) Again, I am not saying how much is too much, just that there CAN BE a "too much" such that it will harm society and, as a result, the people with so much wealth. It is in their best interests to stop collecting wealth at some point, which will then allow them to use that wealth for their personal benefit in a vibrant and productive society that caters to them. "The rich getting richer" tends to lead to a tipping point that results in a system collapse (of the network), according to some researchers that examine network dynamics (as in social, computer, neural, etc.) Buchanan's Nexus discusses this, not in terms of economics but in terms of how networks function.
In your extreme examples, at a certain point (probably related to the tipping point you propose) people start to live outside the normal economic system - usually through bartering. If I can't pay for food, I will trade for food, I will work for food, etc.
But I'm not sure your extreme model would even apply. Can we even get to that tipping point where such a model would well represent the economy? It's illustrative of your point, though.
But I'm not sure your extreme model would even apply. Can we even get to that tipping point where such a model would well represent the economy? It's illustrative of your point, though.
Necronic
Staff member
If you want to give them a simple couple of points to stick to here are some that I, as a member of the 10% or whatever totally agree are problems:
-Healthcare is inordinately expensive, and for being a "first world" country there are far too many people without it.
-Corporations should not have the same rights as individuals.
-Maintain federal funding for education
That's about it. The people that got a worthless college education and now complain that its paying exactly what its worth really bother me the most. The logical followthrough of their argument is either:
A) They were thoroughly mislead to such an extent that they couldn't figure out on their own that these degrees would not get them jobs, which implies that their education wasn't good enough to even figure this out.
B) They ignored all reason/advice and got a worthless education, and now feel entitled to a paycheck that they are unable to earn.
I think there really is a little of both in here. I don't know how there are SO many people from my generation that didn't realize that their education was a dead-end. I blame it on the way that the millenials were raised, around the whole "you are special" mentality.
Turns out you aren't special. Turns out you need a real/practical set of skills just like everyone else.
-Healthcare is inordinately expensive, and for being a "first world" country there are far too many people without it.
-Corporations should not have the same rights as individuals.
-Maintain federal funding for education
That's about it. The people that got a worthless college education and now complain that its paying exactly what its worth really bother me the most. The logical followthrough of their argument is either:
A) They were thoroughly mislead to such an extent that they couldn't figure out on their own that these degrees would not get them jobs, which implies that their education wasn't good enough to even figure this out.
B) They ignored all reason/advice and got a worthless education, and now feel entitled to a paycheck that they are unable to earn.
I think there really is a little of both in here. I don't know how there are SO many people from my generation that didn't realize that their education was a dead-end. I blame it on the way that the millenials were raised, around the whole "you are special" mentality.
Turns out you aren't special. Turns out you need a real/practical set of skills just like everyone else.
I can get behind these 100%.
That's why I said "assets", since that could include barter-able items. Even if it didn't, though, the economy would certainly slow down. Bartering is a less efficient means of exchange for goods and services than using cash.
As for our ability to get to the tipping point, you would probably have to demonstrate mechanisms that actively and effectively counter extreme (even if done gradually) amassing of wealth. Is their a natural ceiling to the amount of wealth one can attain (aside from all of the wealth!)?
GasBandit
Staff member
- Tyler Durden's long estranged cousin, Milton. Same starting point, but didn't spiral down into nihilism.
Or revolt.
GasBandit
Staff member
Necronic
Staff member
Who couldn't?
Taking a simple, clear stance on a few specific, generally agreed upon issues would have gone a long way for them. In business this idea is along the lines of "low hanging fruit". In marketing its simple clarity of product/branding.
The fact that they couldn't even organize a simple set of messages says something....something kind of embarrassing....
Like maybe there's a reason you're in the 99% (or whatever it is).
Did I miss something in college? No one guaranteed me shit when I graduated. I got a history degree because I wanted to teach history because that's what I love doing. I never once thought that I would walk straight out of college and into the most perfect dream job ever. No one told me that it would lead to riches and security. And I say this as an unemployed teacher desperately seeking work. I'm upset about the economy and the government slashing education spending, but I don't feel that anyone *owes* me a job.
Seriously, did anyone here get a guarantee for work when they went to college?
Seriously, did anyone here get a guarantee for work when they went to college?
Fuck. Back then a friend of mine (lit major) joined a facebook group called "I studied what I love in college, so now I live in a cardboard box." We knew it wasn't going to be easy. We didn't expect anything, and the school certainly never lied to us about it.
I just don't understand that complaint.
I just don't understand that complaint.
Business school and accounting in particular let me to believe they were handing out jobs like candy once you step off the graduation stage thanks to Sarbanes-Oxley. Then I spent two years in poverty barely able to pay bills in a shitty duplex doing temp and/or seasonal work.
I might have had to move back home if not for my illegal online poker cushion.
I might have had to move back home if not for my illegal online poker cushion.
Probably because it's a new problem for their party--they don't know how to handle it. The Democrats/liberals expect not to be able to get along or accomplish anything.
Necronic
Staff member
Are you CPA? Because I have a REALLY hard time believing you wouldn't be able to find a job pretty easily as an accountant.
Edit: But yeah if you got a BA in BizAdmin.....well that's not a ton different from Women's Studies.
yup, sounds about right
If you attended college recruitment seminars, you were likely told that you'd have a job, and they'd throw statistics at you about their graduation --> job rate.
Not too long ago there were a flurry of lawsuits about this and colleges/universities started pulling back on the language they used.
Exactly. Democrats have a history of making out deals with each other to move forward. Republicans just expect them to side with them as a matter of course.
The Jobs Bill was defeated, I guess the protesters will pack up and go home... or get really pissed.
Added at: 15:10
The problem that they have been stating is and has always been that money is having too much influence on the government. That this is leading to tax cuts for the wealthy and decreased regulation that will end up hurting America even more down the line.
And when Dodd Frank is getting the teeth torn out of it without having a chance to reform any of the rampant financial problems it was supposed to address and the banks that were deemed to big to fail have only grown bigger and no safer I'd have to say they are right.
Read "The Devils are all here" These banks lied outright to countless Americans so they could suck them dry. They ran up the price of houses so that people couldn't afford homes without huge bank loans and they made it impossible for some people to get prime mortgages forcing them instead to loans that would explode X months down the line with the lie that they can just refinance when that happens at which point they will gouge them a second time.