NYC Protest

[Revson]

And why would you want protesters to attack Hollywood?

​

Because Hollywood treats its underlings like slaves, they're corrupt, and they won't take shows like "2 and a half men" or "Big Bang Theory" off the air. Fuck those guys.

 

[Derpsicle]

I still think this thread is funny
ANARCHY DERP DERP FUCK THE POLICE DERR THE MAN IS WATCHING US >: (

 

[Genius Gone Insane]

I'm going to keep saying this (apologies for the redundancy):

The further the USA leans to the right, the richer the rich will get, the poorer the poor will get, and the larger and more violent these protests will get.

And yes it will end up in a violent revolution if we keep voting Republican.

 

[El_Gato]

Well, not everything here is black or white.

There are many differnet people with many different ideas in my own country, let's not speak about the rest of the countries actively involved, but they (we) are basically/mostly mid to high-level education, middle to upper class individuals who are more aware of the risks we are taking to save those who drove us into this situation.

Peaceful people who are trying to organise themselves to spread ideas. Sure the news keep focusing on the most radical ones, I know it happened in Spain and it's obviously happening in the US too.

There are many ideas but we usually agree on the basics.

In Spain there are 4 (beware of the commies):

-Reform of the elections system to be more fair.

-Fight against corruption by total politics transparency.

-Separation of Public Authorities

-Creation of mechanism to demand political responsabilities.

If you want to know more, I just got this on FB. You can find links with info for us to meet this OCT 15th worldwide.

 

[TesticleMilkshake]

Woah, so much TL;DR. Wish I had come to this thread sooner Anyway, headed down to Wall Street today to see what all the commotion is about. (I work on the Lower East Side.) Cops, news crews EVERYWHERE. But the crazy thing is the majority of the protesters aren't old hippies, trust fund hipsters or crust punks. There are a lot of college students, blue collars, union workers, even tourists, business people who are participating in the protest.

Now, I am your dirty, liberal hippy douche, but I'm also personally worried about the safety of some of the police officers and security personnel down there. People do not normally respond with physical force unless THEY feel threatened... shit is getting real.

Any whoooo, if you honestly want to know what's going on, the best thing to do is search #ows or #occupywallst on Twitter (trending is censored) Crazy how all this started on the Internet.

 

[TesticleMilkshake]

Also, these are the things I'm cool with on the PROPOSED OWS list of demands:

- Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages.

- Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

- Demand six and seven, kind of agree (the amount of money allotted is crazy though)

- Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

- Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

 

[TesticleMilkshake]

I'm going to keep saying this (apologies for the redundancy):

The further the USA leans to the right, the richer the rich will get, the poorer the poor will get, and the larger and more violent these protests will get.

And yes it will end up in a violent revolution if we keep voting Republican.

Agreed, but I don't even consider the Republican candidates "Republican" anymore. It's disturbingly neocon, and so far from Republican ideology in the 20th century.

 

[TesticleMilkshake]

+ 1,000,000,000

 

[MindMunch]

Overproduction fallacy.

Yes.

In less than a century the overproduction caused, among other things, the:
-World War I
-World War II
-The great depression
-German nazism

All these events were response to the overproduction cycle. It was not because "someone screwed things up". This cycle is at the very core of how capitalism works. This is what happens on a system that produces only for the maximum profit and never for what is needed. It will happen again, and yet, there are people who refuse to see it.

idk...Sorry in advance if I sound like an asshat but why do we have to care about the losers in economics?

And what do you think about the use of public money to bailout the rich and reckless CEO that fraud the company for personnal gain at the expense of the low wage worker (that I assume you call "losers")? Because that´s what the government is doing. Who do you think will protest: the ones who are getting richer or the ones that are getting fucked?

However, if you think that the unemployment rate is determined by lazyness more than the government actions, you can always follow the GENIOUS advice of our Disney friend: "Worry about yourself, your own job, and your own money. You'll be a much happier person, I promise."

ANARCHY DERP DERP FUCK THE POLICE DERR THE MAN IS WATCHING US >: (

http://www.infinitelooper.com/?v=y0O7_3o3BrI&p=n#/104;114

C'mon, don't buy into the media crap.. OF COURSE they know why they're protesting. Corporate media will obviously go to any lengths to disregard.

I believe in you, it´s just that I´m not following what is happening in New York so I'm not in position to argue what exactly do they want. However, I will always defend the right for the people to protest.

no, just as Hong Kong investment doesn't automatically make it rich. We're talking trends. There is a strong inverse correlation between corruption and GDP.

For that purpose, you would look at % GDP increase per year

For that purpose, look at GDP per capita.

Of course FDI will be higher on rich countries as most of the powerful multinationals are in the rich countries. If you´re an economist you should know that FDI is basically a measure of overseas acquisitions. It has no relation at all with the growth of a country and even less with the working conditions. Investments are made looking for profit, that´s why everyone use GPD to analyze where the investments are being made. Money and capital are completely different things, this is basic Marx.

Now, two very simple questions for you:

Suppose your company made more than $65 billion in profit last year. This was possible because your workforce is made of disposable people, including child labor, on a corrupt country that doesn´t protect them. The suicide rate on your factories is insane but you don´t need to see the corpses because there´s an ocean between you and this misery. Now, would you take all the profit for yourself or would you share the success and raise the living standards of all your employees?

The second question:
Would you do the same as the CEO of Cort Guitars?

 

[kass]

On the topic of Ron Paul, I liked him a lot (especially in the 2008 election) until I found out he was a 9/11 truther. After that I could not be a part of what he stood for, but that's an entirely different subject for an entirely different time and I won't discuss that in this thread any longer.

Hes not really a 911 truther

 

[kass]

Yes.

In less than a century the overproduction caused, among other things, the:
-World War I
-World War II
-The great depression
-German nazism

All these events were response to the overproduction cycle. It was not because "someone screwed things up". This cycle is at the very core of how capitalism works. This is what happens on a system that produces only for the maximum profit and never for what is needed. It will happen again, and yet, there are people who refuse to see it.

Disagree. Can you show me any economists support of those claims? Modern economists don't support this view.

And what do you think about the use of public money to bailout the rich and reckless CEO that fraud the company for personnal gain at the expense of the low wage worker

I obviously disagree with it. It isn't capitalism. It is a failure of government.

(that I assume you call "losers")?

Horseshit

You know...you sat there and said you're no socialist, although that's what rightwingers call you any time you criticize capitalism. Now, look at you, doing the same to me simply for defending capitalism.

Because that´s what the government is doing.

Obviously.

Who do you think will protest: the ones who are getting richer or the ones that are getting fucked?

What do I care who protests?

However, if you think that the unemployment rate is determined by lazyness more than the government actions, you can always follow the GENIOUS advice of our Disney friend: "Worry about yourself, your own job, and your own money. You'll be a much happier person, I promise."

Low employment is oft caused by government. The FED caused it during the depression. Minimum wage causes it now. Corporate protectionism causes it now.

I believe in you, it´s just that I´m not following what is happening in New York so I'm not in position to argue what exactly do they want. However, I will always defend the right for the people to protest.

So do I?

Of course FDI will be higher on rich countries as most of the powerful multinationals are in the rich countries. If you´re an economist you should know that FDI is basically a measure of overseas acquisitions. It has no relation at all with the growth of a country and even less with the working conditions. Investments are made looking for profit, that´s why everyone use GPD to analyze where the investments are being made. Money and capital are completely different things, this is basic Marx.

Of course FDI will be higher in countries with lots of capital and high productivity (ie wealth). This is what I said. The bulk of foreign investment is done in wealthy countries. Some reasons I gave earlier. As developing countries start to join the rest of the wealthy countries in having solid property rights, price based allocation of goods/resources, less impeding building/business restrictions, stable political system, and less corruption, they will see a higher inflow of investment. This is what we see in Hong Kong, who's economy exploded in growth when they turned laissez faire style.

Yes there is a difference in money and capital. But capital measurement is done in monetary terms.

Again, I never said that developing nations do not grow. They have a hard time not growing. The developing states here in the US sure grew a hell of a lot faster than the wealthy states over the 20th century. Interestingly, the inequality between the 50 states has lessened greatly, although all of them grew substantially in that time.

Basically the fact is this: There is only a certain amount of foreign investment every year. The top 10 wealthiest nations receive the bulk of it. I'm not talking about growth. I'm talking about actual investment. It happens to be the wealthy countries that get the investments because they are thought more likely to return on the investment.

Now, two very simple questions for you:

Suppose your company made more than $65 billion in profit last year. This was possible because your workforce is made of disposable people, including child labor, on a corrupt country that doesn´t protect them. The suicide rate on your factories is insane but you don´t need to see the corpses because there´s an ocean between you and this misery. Now, would you take all the profit for yourself or would you share the success and raise the living standards of all your employees?

What would I do? I don't know. When you or I own a multinational corporation, I suppose we could keep it under our mattress or give it all to the chinese workers. If we chose. Bill Gates has done more for the world when he keeps his profits rather than giving them away.

You know, around 100 years ago, working conditions in the USA would have been comparable to present China.

Working conditions WILL rise. They ARE ALREADY getting an increase in their living standards. The very fact that they voluntarily take the job is indicative of that. They are also getting opportunity to acquire human capital that will make them more employable (more productive) to other multinational corps.

The second question:
Would you do the same as the CEO of Cort Guitars?
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9LpB1E4EE7k

Cant view videos.

 

[MindMunch]

Disagree. Can you show me any economists support of those claims? Modern economists don't support this view.

Are you kidding me? Is a Nobel prize economist enough for you?
If you don´t know this, it´s very hard for me to believe that you have read even the most basic literature on the subject. Instead of me teaching you the abc of capitalism, why don´t you tell me what caused the 1929 crisis in the US. Was it general lazyness?

Some names you asked: Paul Davidson and Joseph Stiglitz.

I obviously disagree with it. It isn't capitalism. It is a failure of government.
(...)
Horseshit
(...)
You know...you sat there and said you're no socialist, although that's what rightwingers call you any time you criticize capitalism. Now, look at you, doing the same to me simply for defending capitalism.
(...)
Obviously.
(...)
What do I care who protests?
(...)
Low employment is oft caused by government. The FED caused it during the depression. Minimum wage causes it now. Corporate protectionism causes it now.
(...)
So do I?

I thought you failed to read books, but now I realize you fail to read even boards, as all those messages were replies to other users and not directed to you.

As developing countries start to join the rest of the wealthy countries in having solid property rights, price based allocation of goods/resources, less impeding building/business restrictions, stable political system, and less corruption, they will see a higher inflow of investment. This is what we see in Hong Kong, who's economy exploded in growth when they turned laissez faire style.

Hong Kong economy relies exclusively on the production of the rest of the corrupt China, it does not represent the country situation. Oh, and you realize how the laissez faire style ended, right? Is this your ideal model?

Of course FDI will be higher in countries with lots of capital and high productivity (ie wealth). This is what I said. The bulk of foreign investment is done in wealthy countries. Some reasons I gave earlier.

Yes there is a difference in money and capital. But capital measurement is done in monetary terms.

Basically the fact is this: There is only a certain amount of foreign investment every year. The top 10 wealthiest nations receive the bulk of it. I'm not talking about growth. I'm talking about actual investment. It happens to be the wealthy countries that get the investments because they are thought more likely to return on the investment.

But not all money is capital. I don´t think you understand what FDI really is. Just because it has the word "investment" on it, it doesn´t translate in growth/profit/return, which is what the capital wants. FDI includes even short-term transactions. When you buy a company overseas, you´re not building a new one, you´re just buying it. Who on earth would use FDI rank as a measure of where to maximize profit? It doesn´t even belongs to the subject being discussed here. If you think so, care to explain how does a high FDI translates into better working condition, and how is it a better indicator of were investments are being made than through GPD%?

What would I do? I don't know.

If you don´t know it´s clear to me that you care more about money than people, because that was a damn easy question.

You know, around 100 years ago, working conditions in the USA would have been comparable to present China.
Working conditions WILL rise. They ARE ALREADY getting an increase in their living standards.
The very fact that they voluntarily take the job is indicative of that. They are also getting opportunity to acquire human capital that will make them more employable (more productive) to other multinational corps.

Yeah, right, just like it did on Cort, right?

Cant view videos.

http://cortaction.wordpress.com/about/

 

[midget donkeys]

Somebody needs a hug....and possibly a hot mug of coca.

Now on to more interesting matters, Mr. testemilkshake have you went down and checked out the Wall street protests in person yet? I am looking for some firsthand news here. What is going on? Zombie paint?

And more importantly how many chicks are at this thing? How many of them are hot?

If I was nearby the protests I would totally go to see what kind of trouble I could stir up.

 

[kass]

Are you kidding me? Is a Nobel prize economist enough for you?
If you don´t know this, it´s very hard for me to believe that you have read even the most basic literature on the subject. Instead of me teaching you the abc of capitalism, why don´t you tell me what caused the 1929 crisis in the US. Was it general lazyness?

Some names you asked: Paul Davidson and Joseph Stiglitz.

Dude, you're saying that capitalism will lead to some situation where none of use have jobs, yet we produced all these goods. That doesnt happen. If the market can adjust, it will.

1929 crisis - tariffs, high FED interest rates. The stock market crash was so similar to the one in the 80s. reagan didnt fuck it up all to hell though.

I thought you failed to read books, but now I realize you fail to read even boards, as all those messages were replies to other users and not directed to you.

Sorry. Mistake came from quoting the entire post. The quotes you made dont transfer over.

Hong Kong economy relies exclusively on the production of the rest of the corrupt China, it does not represent the country situation. Oh, and you realize how the laissez faire style ended, right? Is this your ideal model?

Yes Hong Kong economy relies on principles of free trade.
Yes I know hong kongs policies changed. When they were very laissez faire, we saw a growth that was a simply amazing.

But not all money is capital. I don´t think you understand what FDI really is. Just because it has the word "investment" on it, it doesn´t translate in growth/profit/return, which is what the capital wants. FDI includes even short-term transactions. When you buy a company overseas, you´re not building a new one, you´re just buying it. Who on earth would use FDI rank as a measure of where to maximize profit? It doesn´t even belongs to the subject being discussed here. If you think so, care to explain how does a high FDI translates into better working condition, and how is it a better indicator of were investments are being made than through GPD%?

Im not saying FDI is a measure of anything except for FDI. What does it have to do with working conditions? Well I never said it had anything to do with it. Go back and look how that particular aspect came into the discussion.

If you don´t know it´s clear to me that you care more about money than people, because that was a damn easy question.

Its not about money. It is about overall results to the economy and to the poor people. You are free to give all your money away if you wish.

Yeah, right, just like it did on Cort, right?

http://cortaction.wordpress.com/about/[/QUOTE]

It appears that it did. Why did these people take the job and continue to work there? This is an important question. They obviously felt it beneficial to them. Now Cort left and they are all unemployed for their efforts, and are free to go back to work under whatever shithole they worked at before Cort, or maybe not even get another job. They should have been given VOLUNTARY overtime, and should have been required by law to inform employees of the risks, but I am largely for letting adults make voluntary decisions that they see fit.

Employees should be free to organize and demand better conditions, pay etc.
Employers should be free to fire them, pack up and leave as well.

 

[MindMunch]

Dude, you're saying that capitalism will lead to some situation where none of use have jobs, yet we produced all these goods. That doesnt happen. If the market can adjust, it will.

It´s not there won´t be jobs forever, but there will be hell to pay. It´s a cycle that has been happening for decades. Capitalism is doomed to the overproduction crisis. It cannot deal with the huge ammount of products it creates. It´s just too much for the demand. The solution for these crisis have been:
a) Violent destruction of huge ammounts of productive force (war)
b) Conquest of new markets or further exploration of the old ones (globalization).

They both lead to longer, more destructive and harder to avoid crisis each time the cycle repeats. USA is now living the longest economical crisis of its history and Marx and Engels knew that this would happen more than a hundred years ago.

Why do this happen?
Ok, let´s say that the entire world production is X, the number of workers needed to produce it is Y and the workday hours is Z.

Now, a new technology is developed so that you can produce X with Y but with only half of Z.
What happens? Capitalism is dictated by profit instead of need, so instead of Y produce X in half Z, the capitalist will:
-Fire half of Y (the workforce)
-Keep the X (the production)
-Keep Z (the workday hours)
-Instead of double the wage of Y, it will cut 50% its wage.

Now that there´s a huge army of unemployed, the remaining Y will accept to produce more and receive less.
The fired Y won´t have money to consume X, so the capitalist will have a shitload of X but no one to buy it. This is the overproduction crisis. No one screwed things up, it´s intrinsic to this model of production.

The last century we had the two greatest wars of mankind because of this. Now we have the globalization. Since Y can´t buy X, just sell it to Y to another country. Capitalism is very efficient at producing a lot using minimal cost. All this cheap products are the artillery used to destroy other countries barriers and submit them to this system they call "civilization". Make them become the same. What is going to happen when there´s no one else to explore/submit? It is going to explode with more violence than ever before.

 

[kass]

Capitalism is dictated by profit instead of need

What is the point of this sentence?

If there is no need, there is no profit. If there is need, there will be profit.

 

[MindMunch]

What is the point of this sentence?

If there is no need, there is no profit. If there is need, there will be profit.

No. The production on a capitalist society is after the profit, not the need. For example, there´s hunger in our world. Poor people that need food and medication to diseases such as Malaria.

But poor people don´t have money. The industry won´t spend loads of money in medical research to make a product they can´t sell. So they make faster iPhones instead. A product they can profit, not that people need.

 

[Revson]

No. The production on a capitalist society is after the profit, not the need. For example, there´s hunger in our world. Poor people that need food and medication to diseases such as Malaria.

But poor people don´t have money. The industry won´t spend loads of money in medical research to make a product they can´t sell. So they make faster iPhones instead. A product they can profit, not that people need.

And in 2000, Merck pharmaceuticals didn't donate $100 million in vaccines to be distributed throughout Africa. And if you Google "pharmaceutical charity" that is totally not one of the top hits. And Bill Gates foundation didn't donate $750 million to do the same. Nope, not at all. In fact, why do they even make vaccines anymore? Those aren't profitable, especially compared to boner pills.

 

[MindMunch]

And in 2000, Merck pharmaceuticals didn't donate $100 million in vaccines to be distributed throughout Africa. And if you Google "pharmaceutical charity" that is totally not one of the top hits. And Bill Gates foundation didn't donate $750 million to do the same. Nope, not at all. In fact, why do they even make vaccines anymore? Those aren't profitable, especially compared to boner pills.

This is the most absolute bullshit. 100 milion in vaccines is worthless. Only fools will fall for that. Are you one of those guys who thinks Bono Vox is saving the world through charity?
20% of all the drugs in the world are for sale on poor countries. These poor countries represent 80% of all the sick people in the world.
42% of these drugs are used in USA, while only 1% in Africa.
In the last 25 years, 1.233 drugs were put on the market. Only 13 of them related to diseases from tropical countries.

Check how much was spent to erradicate malaria and tuberculosis, and how much was spent on obesity and erection disfunction drugs.

These matters won´t be solved by private companies fooling idiots to think they´re saints using their pocket change. The only way to solve this problem is through politics. Use of public money to the public benefit. That should be the role of the government on our current world, to serve as a buffer between the savage quest for profit and what the people really need.

How did South Korea did so well in so little time? Was it by charity and ONGs or by putting quality education as a primary objective on their agenda?

 

[Kazrog]

For a minute, ignore the structures - governments, corporations, political systems, religions, allegiances, and other distractions, and you are left with humans and money. Entrust a large amount of money to a small group of humans, even with the best of intentions that the money will be utilized to foster some greater good, and you will create a black box where corruption can (and likely will) occur. What we need is more transparency and tougher punishment for corruption, not different political systems or other intermediary layers. Democracy, capitalism, socialism, etc. are all abstraction layers between humans, money, and actions. None of these systems work when there are people actively subverting them behind closed doors. Any system can be subverted or hacked, no matter how well designed. This is as true in computer science as it is in human interactions.

One thing is for certain - swapping out one old, misguided, tried-and-flawed system for another will not solve anything.