Occupy this

[Lord Jim]

I've viewed with some amusement as Obama has been campaigning around the country, the way he has tried to incorporate and co-opt the OWS crowd into his own message....

The man who has raised more money from "Wall Street" sources than any other political figure in American history trying to morph himself into the hero of anti "Wall Street" populism....

Now that's funny....

[rubato]

In this election cycle Romney is #1 with 4 times as much money from the financial sector:

http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/object/ar ... 413064.jpg


Romney ..... $813,300.
Obama ..... $198,974


yrs,
rubato

[Liberty1]

If you're OK with what has happened on Wall St. since 2007. The economic calamity bought about by money manipulation on Wall St. Millions of Americans losing their jobs all for more Wall St. profits for the few. People being thrown out of their homes due to the fact that they can no longer pay their mortgages because they lost their jobs for Wall St. profits when their jobs were shipped overseas

YOU just don't seem to get it. Nobody on wall st did anything illegal, or if they did I'd like to know what it was. If you want what they did to be illegal then OWS should move to DC like I said before.

Wall St doesn't ship jobs overseas, they control no jobs that could be. Again, if you don't want jobs to move overseas, make the US business climate more attractive, like elliminating coporate income tax.

The financial and mortgage meltdown was directly caused by policies put in place in DC over the last 20 years. I posted articles just a couple of weeks ago that outline the whole fiasco.

Aside from that , your statement about "profits for the few" is just non-sensical, if you want to make more profits, go do something to make more profits. Profits are not a limited resource, just because one person makes money doesn't mean they took it from someone else.

[Liberty1]

Because your statement was obvious strawman garbage. You say that these people are against capitalism (they're not) and thus are against improvements in quality of life. That's such a ridiculous statement that you should feel ashamed of typing it out.

But you do have plenty of time to find stupid cartoons that fit your narrow worldview and to dredge up dozens of pictures of protestors. Actually discussing things is apparently beyond you.

I've posted dozens of actual pictures of the protesters, actual evidence. You provide nothing but your narrow world view opinion and your view of what you think they are protesting, and you think you are discussing.

[Sue U]

YOU just don't seem to get it. Nobody on wall st did anything illegal, or if they did I'd like to know what it was.

I previously (on page 6 of this thread) mentioned several of the specific frauds perpetrated by the finance industry and linked to several reources for you to find out more about the broader scope of its illegal activities. The fact that you failed to actually either read or comprehend the material does not mean that you can keep demanding to "know what it was" as if there was nothing to see.

Wall St doesn't ship jobs overseas, they control no jobs that could be.

Companies send jobs overseas to low-wage no-regulation locales specifically to meet the demands of investors (i.e., colloquially, "Wall Street") to maximize profits. See, this where the "economics" part comes in.

The financial and mortgage meltdown was directly caused by policies put in place in DC over the last 20 years. I posted articles just a couple of weeks ago that outline the whole fiasco.

The immediate precipitating cause of the financial meltdown was the collapse of the unregulated CDO/CDS market with inadequate capital to back up the inevitable losses; it was a game of hot potato with Lehman Brothers and AIG getting caught out early, and the banks (and markets) going into panic mode after that.

I've posted dozens of actual pictures of the protesters, actual evidence.

What is it "evidence" of, exactly? That out of tens of thousdands of protestors and hundreds of millios of sympathizers there are literally dozens (!) who express "extreme" (!!!) views? (Oh and BTW, socialism is not exactly an "extreme" organizational system, as it has been the operating principle of most Western democracies for most of the 20th and all (so far) of the 21st Centuries. Your pavlovian reaction to view anything "socialist" as somehow evil would be ridiculous if it weren't so pathetic.)

Being a capitalist and making profits is a good thing. It puts people first.

This statement represents such a fundamental misunderstanding of capitalism that it's nearly hilarious. The entire point of CAPITAL-ism is to exploit capital and labor to generate profits for the CAPITAL-ist and his investors. The history of capitalism is the history of maximizing profits without regard for actual "people" -- either workers, who are an operating expense, or consumers, who are a revenue source. A classic example is the Ford Pinto, where auto company executives calculated the costs of injury and wrongful death claims resulting from its poor design as merely a cost of doing business, because they figured it was cheaper to pay those claims that than to incur the additional expense (i.e., cut into profits) of actually making the product safer. That's capitalism, putting people first!

[BoSoxGal]

YOU just don't seem to get it. Nobody on wall st did anything illegal, or if they did I'd like to know what it was.

Could I have some of what you're smoking?

Seriously, though - don't engage in this conversation if you can't even do us the courtesy of educating yourself on basic facts. The above is an outrageously ignorant statement. I guess you don't read the papers, huh?

Someone from Wall Street just got the longest federal sentence ever for a financial crime. Go look it up.

[Liberty1]

Someone from Wall Street just got the longest federal sentence ever for a financial crime. Go look it up

Duh, yes I know people do illegal things and go to jail all the time, those are specifics, I'm talking the generics of what Dales is talking about, sending jobs overseas, making, "obsene profits".


Come on Sue, without profits people would not have jobs in the first place.

Profits are never obsene.

From Michael Medved a couple of years ago.

We’ve all heard the protestations by various poseurs and politicians, who want to investigate or restrain or regulate or apply punishing taxes to the “obscene profits” of big oil.

The best response to these demagogues and lunatics would be a flat-out declaration: profits are never obscene.

Losses, on the other hand, can be obscene – disastrous, damaging, deadly to employees, stockholders and, ultimately, the public.

Auto companies have suffered major losses --- obscene losses, if you will – so does that make them more virtuous than oil companies?

Profit isn’t a shameful accident for corporations --- it’s their very reason for being. Big profits help them do more of what they did to make the profit in the first place. In the case of oil companies, that means more exploration, development, drilling, pumping, refining, transporting and marketing of the oil that fuels every aspect of our economy. Their profitability indicates that they’ve done an excellent job of doing what the public needs and wants, just as the losses by American auto makers suggest that they’ve done a terrible job at giving the public cars we want to buy.

Why should commentators and politicos abuse companies that do an outstanding job, and call for more support for those corporate citizens that do a lousy job? If we punish success and reward incompetence, that constitutes a sure-fire formula for more incompetence and less success.

Of course, some leftist might say that the profitability of oil companies is no more praiseworthy than the success of drug dealers, tobacco companies, the makers of fattening junk food, and other enterprises that feed damaging addictions.

But sane citizens ought to laugh at the ridiculous idea that the organizations that produce fossil fuel to feed our cars and our industrial base deserve derision as “oil pushers.” Energy companies provide an essential service for the entire society, and for all its members who happen to enjoy the highest standard of living, with the greatest freedom of choice, in the whole history of humanity.

Of course, at the moment it’s frustrating to pay more at the pump, but oil profits aren’t the culprit, nor would punishment of the energy companies help to bring down the cost of fuel. When businesses pay a heavier burden in taxes, it doesn’t make prices go down; it generally forces prices to go up, whenever companies can pass on the cost to the consumer. The idea that “windfall profit taxes” would cause oil companies to charge less flies against every rule of economic reality. If you add to the cost of production with new levels of governmental taxation or regulation it means that either prices go up or else profits go down – meaning less incentive for production, less production and, inevitably, higher prices.

Moreover, any attempt to “cap” the price of gas at the pump in the US would prove massively counterproductive. If oil companies receive less money for their products from American consumers than they do from consumers in Europe, Asia and elsewhere, isn’t it obvious that they’ll divert most of their production to those economies where they receive the best prices? In other words, if energy companies couldn’t sell their products in the US for market prices, they’d send them to hungry, surging markets in the rest of the world for top dollar, creating a US gas shortage that would prove far more damaging than even $3.50 a gallon.

Despite the disruption of war and hurricanes and capricious government regulation, big oil companies have managed to insure the steady, uninterrupted supply of energy that fuels every aspect of our personal and business lives. The profits they’ve generated while answering these needs hardly count as “obscene.” The only real obscenity involves the inane liberal conviction that companies or individuals engaged in legal, constructive endeavors should ever feel ashamed or apologetic about their success.

And Sue, get your head into reality. As I said capitalism has done more to raise up people out of poverty and increase the standard of living than anything else in history.

Sure a few people do bad things in all areas of life. You exploit them.

[dales]

lib stated:

Duh, yes I know people do illegal things and go to jail all the time, those are specifics, I'm talking the generics of what Dales is talking about, sending jobs overseas, making, "obsene profits".

I didn't use the term "obscene profits" (though I believe it is "obscene" to increase profits by shipping jobs overseas).

If you're too dense to see the connection between stock price on the NYSE and the massive shedding of the American workforce during the past several years, better that you remain asleep.

[Sue U]

***
From Michael Medved a couple of years ago.

*** Profit isn’t a shameful accident for corporations --- it’s their very reason for being. ***

So, now capitalism isn't about putting people first, but rather about making profits? Make up your mind.

And Sue, get your head into reality. As I said capitalism has done more to raise up people out of poverty and increase the standard of living than anything else in history.

I can think of 1.3 billion people off the top of my head who would most likely disagree wth that.

Sure a few people do bad things in all areas of life.

This is the modus operandi of capitalism. It is the exact reason we have to have laws governing work hours, wages, workplace safety, worker compensation, child labor, product safety, pollution cotrol, shipping and transport, corporate structure, corporate debt/equity/finance, accounting, etc. etc. etc. Unrestrained capitalism invariably chews up everything in its path because its fundamental concern is profit.

[Liberty1]

If you're too dense to see the connection between stock price on the NYSE and the massive shedding of the American workforce during the past several years, better that you remain asleep

You think that why jobs are shipped overseas, no shit.

Yes, it's obviously more profitable to ship jobs overseas. Ever wonder why? Try the 2nd highest coporate income tax n the world, draconian environmental regs and hoops to jump through, etc. As I said, your anger is missplaced.

[dales]

Go back to sleep, lib.

[Crackpot]

Sue I believe you'e confusing the Pinto for a GM model (that I can't recall right now) in anderson VS> GM wheere the memo in question didn't measure the cost of insurance and or wrongful death but cost VS. benefit of movind it to another location which was poorly worded in such a way that it could be misconstrued to be about Safty when taken out of the context in which it was written.

THe Pinto was just a Piss poor design where the braketry of the bumper was such that it would likely pierce the gas tank in event of a rear end collision makeing them likly to catch fire (not blow up)

[Liberty1]

So, now capitalism isn't about putting people first, but rather about making profits? Make up your mind

As I've said, the purpose of capitalism is to make profits and making more profits puts people first. More jobs, higher wages, better benefits, attract higher quality employees, more productivity, higher stock prices ------------->more capital.

I can think of 1.3 billion people off the top of my head who would most likely disagree wth that.

And would those 1.3 B people you are thinking about happen to live under capitalistic systems?

It is the exact reason we have to have laws governing work hours, wages, workplace safety, worker compensation, child labor, product safety, pollution cotrol, shipping and transport, corporate structure, corporate debt/equity/finance, accounting, etc. etc. etc. Unrestrained capitalism invariably chews up everything in its path because its fundamental concern is profit

I agree, but it is a balancing act. Where more attractive environments for business exist, capital will move there.

[Liberty1]

Sue I believe you'e confusing the Pinto for a GM model (that I can't recall right now) in anderson VS> GM wheere the memo in question didn't measure the cost of insurance and or wrongful death but cost VS. benefit of movind it to another location which was poorly worded in such a way that it could be misconstrued to be about Safty when taken out of the context in which it was written

I was thinking something similar, but figure it was irrelevant to the point she was making.


And then you have the fake exploding gas tanks, like (60 minutes, can't remeber) the staged saddle tank fires in Chevy pickups.

[dales]

The GM model was the Silverado pick up (which was later proved to be a complete hatchet job by NBC).

Anyway, more on the FORD Pinto...

From Wiki:

Fuel tank controversy

Controversy followed the Pinto after 1977 allegations that the Pinto's structural design allowed its fuel tank filler neck to break off[9] and the fuel tank, in all too common occasions, to be punctured in a rear-end collision,[9] resulting in deadly fires from spilled fuel.

Allegations and lawsuits

Critics alleged that the vehicle's lack of reinforcing structure between the rear panel and the tank meant the tank would be pushed forward and punctured by the protruding bolts of the differential[18] — making the car less safe than its contemporaries.

According to a 1977 Mother Jones article, Ford allegedly was aware of the design flaw, refused to pay for a redesign, and decided it would be cheaper to pay off possible lawsuits for resulting deaths. The magazine obtained a cost-benefit analysis that it said Ford had used to compare the cost of an $11 repair against the monetary value of a human life—what became known as the Ford Pinto Memo.[16][19][20]

An example of a Pinto rear-end accident that led to a lawsuit was the 1972 accident that killed Lilly Gray and severely burned 13-year old Richard Grimshaw. The accident resulted in the court case Grimshaw v. Ford Motor Co.,[21] in which the California Court of Appeal for the Fourth Appellate District upheld compensatory damages of $2.5 million and punitive damages of $3.5 million against Ford, partially because Ford had been aware of the design defects before production but had decided against changing the design.


The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) pressured Ford to recall the Pinto, motivated by public outcry and pressure from groups such as Ralph Nader's Center for Auto Safety. Initially, the NHTSA did not feel there was sufficient evidence to demand a recall due to incidents of fire. The 27 deaths attributed to Pinto fires is the same number of deaths attributed to a transmission problem in the Pinto, which resulted in 180 total deaths in all Ford vehicles, and in 1974 the NHTSA ruled that the Pinto had no "recallable" problem.[22]

In 1978, Ford initiated a recall providing a plastic protective shield to be dealer-installed between the fuel tank and the differential bolts, another to deflect contact with the right-rear shock absorber, and a new fuel-tank filler neck that extended deeper into the tank and was more resistant to breaking off in a rear-end collision.[9][23]

Let 'em burn to death if it saves a few bux, all bow to their god "The Golden Calf"!

The following bad publicity about the Pinto pretty much d@mned FORD in the eyes of many Americans and I don't believe I'd be remiss if I postulated had a negative effect on FOMOCO's earnings.

OOOPS!

[Crackpot]

It was the Malibu

http://www.psandb.com/case-anderson-gm.html

[Liberty1]

The following bad publicity about the Pinto pretty much d@mned FORD in the eyes of many Americans and I don't believe I'd be remiss if I postulated had a negative effect on FOMOCO's earnings.

Which is exactly what should happen.

[Sue U]

Ford and GM are hardly the only examples of corporations doing a "cost-benefit" analysis to determine how many deaths and injuries they'd be willing to cause in the pursuit of greater profits. However, that is not supposed to be point of doing such internal analyses; the point is to determine whether the cost of such a fix would make a highly useful product for which there is no substitute or reasonable alternative design prohibitvely expensive to produce; it's an assessment for tolerance of risk v. utility, not profitability. As a society, we have decided that human life is always supposed to count more than the dollars on the bottom line. But that is not inherently a consideration for a capitalist enterprise.

[Crackpot]

The Cost benefit analysis vs. human life by the auto industry is largely a myth most of it is misunderstanding or pure hyperbole. In all my years I only heard of one case of a flaw where death or injury was a factor that wasn't remedied as soon as it was able and that was because the Government agreed to it being fixed only if the customer complains of malfunction. The part in question was a clip that could break "only under heavy load" causing total failure. This was in a rear seat belt in a family sedan.

In other words the customer would only likey know of the problem in an occasion when it was needed most. IMO it was a total failure of the entire system.

[dgs49]

Sue, I'm rather surprised at the points you are making.

You want to talk about a cost-benefit analysis? Each of us chooses what to speed to drive on the highway, If we drove at 50mph, our chances of death or serious injury would be drastically reduced, as compared to the 75 that most of us use. Yet, we choose to accept a greater risk in exchange to reaching our destinations sooner. We also may choose to go for a ride in the country on a nice Fall day, knowing that we are greatly increasing the risk that we will die, when compared to sitting at home. We may choose to drive a small, economical car, rather than an SUV or a truck, knowing that in the event of an accident, we are much more likely to be killed in a Fiat 500 than in a base Ford F150, which doesn't cost all that much more, considering today's available discounts.

I ride a motorcycle, knowing that my chances of getting killed in an accident are 4 or 5 times greater than driving my MB. And the only justification is because I like to ride.

GM could easily make cars that are super-safe. They would be 5000 pounds and have a maximum speed of 40mph. But nobody would buy them. "Progressives" like the President want to force the car manufacturers to make cars that will average 35 mpg, knowing that the road will ALWAYS be populated with commercial trucks and vans, and that MORE LIVES WILL INEVITABLY BE LOST in these high-mileage cars than if everyone were driving an SUV. Does that make them killers?

Capitalism is neither moral nor immoral. Anyone can choose to be a capitalist (investor or business owner) and anyone can choose not to be. Regardless, whatever it is you are selling (goods, services, intelligence) is sold in a marketplace that determines its value based on demand and availability. I might be a PhD nuclear engineer who can't find a job, or a disgusting self-promoting slut (Lady Gaga) who can earn millions doing whatever the hell it is that she does. There is nothing moral about it.

Socialism, on the other hand, requires confiscation of wealth from some individuals so that it can be given to others, and that is immoral on its face. And confiscating wealth is also an abridgement of freedom, because the victim's choices are limited by the lost wealth. Today's American Libs have the silly idea that mountains of wealth can be taken from those who have earned it and given to others, and that those whose wealth is confiscated will simply continue to generate that wealth and give it up. The history of the Income Tax in the U.S. is proof of the folly of this belief. The top marginal tax rate has been as high as 90%, and yet the contribution of the top earners to the total income tax pool was less than it is now.

There is no doubt that people on "Wall Street" and bankers have made "obscene" amounts of money without producing anything. More poignantly, many of them have made choices that have brought misery on millions of Americans - and been bailed out and rewarded for it. Surely, it is enough to piss a body off!

But this is nothing new and nothing unique. We have many pockets of our economy and culture where people produce nothing and manage to make bazillions of dollars. Show business, sports, tort law, real estate development. Generally, however, our economy is not a zero-sum game. Just because one person makes a lot of money does not necessarily mean that someone else has to suffer unjustly. Who has been victimized by Bill Gates? Steve Jobs? Tiger Woods?

OWS is about envy; nothing more. That's their only connection to the Obama Administration.