I am the 1%

An open area for free-thinkers and believers to slug it out.

I am the 1%

Unread postby Intercourseman72 » Tue Nov 01, 2011 4:15 pm

I don't expect some corporation to guarantee an income and lifestyle based on some worthless degree I got based on lies my schools and parents told me were so indispensably valuable.
I am the 1%

I don't think parroting political talking points at protests during election season will do jack shit to change anything.
I am the 1%

I can see how ill thought the idea of ending the Fed while also increasing entitlement programs that require debt to be imposed onto future generations really is.
I am the 1%

I can see what a farce it is for people to complain about the rich keeping too much of their own money when they say we need to eliminate the Bush tax cuts. Why the Bush tax cuts? Why arbitrarily stop with those tax cuts? Why not change the tax bracket and tax levels based on such a fashion that you see fit? Do you really think the tax levels were ideal prior to those tax cuts? I can see that they hold arguments that are convenient for political opponents of Bush or who wish to use Bush as a cutting board for their own propaganda.
I am the 1%

I don't think there is anything unique or original or revolutionary about these protests. Politicians will pander to them around election time and appeal to their emotions and serenade them with things they want to be told. I realize that convincing someone to vote for you as a mainstream candidate is like convincing someone to have sex with you after giving them ten shots of tequila.
I am the 1%.

I realize that these people's protests will be usurped during the election and appeased by hot air and worthless rhetoric. I also realize that you can take a politician's campaign promises to the bank about as much as well you jerk off from Mt. McKinley and get you jizz to shoot over to Wallstreet.
I am the 1%

I realize that trying to get the government to reduce the government or fix the problems that they caused is as easy as holding politicians accountable to their own campaign promises and that solving problems without creating more through political action is a useless endeavor.
I am the 1%

I realize that it is impossible to hold politicians accountable to the voters. How many politicians have every been removed from office for saying one thing during their campaigns and then doing what benefits them during their terms? You are voting for a master to rule over you, not a representative of your beliefs and preferences who is there to impose them onto those who disagree with you.
I am the 1%

I come from families where the men endured poverty far greater than these yuppie Occupy Wallstreet protesting college graduates could ever imagine. Not only did they make their lives much better for themselves through their industry, thrift and abilities, but they did so without the pretension that it was someone else's duty to give them something they did not earn and also without the audacity to wish the government to force someone else to provide for them.
I am the 1%

I realize that if I demonstrate my abilities in the market that I will become a valuable asset to anyone wishes to hire me or do business with me and I think I can do so better than by getting a college degree and being lumped in with all the other graduates with the same degree and being a faceless, generic drone. I realize that I can by myself determine how my talents will manifest and know it will be more effective than relying on an institution to show people I have value on my behalf.
I am the 1%

I think that it is the 1% that provides the most valuable services to people and that interfering with the 1%'s economic endeavors is pissing in the well.
I am the 1%

I find it hilarious how the 99% wants the same institution that provided Wallstreet with all their unfair advantages in the first place to do things that they like instead of what the politically connected like.
I am the 1%

I realize that the people in the government are in office to do what's best for them based on the political environment. I am aware that the voters are a non-concern when politicians are in office and thus conclude that voters have no pull on the decisions politicians make in office and thus conclude that these protests are retarded and worthless.
I am the 1%

I don't care about people disagreeing with me, calling me names, trying to intimidate me with the thought police, throwing emotional tantrums at me and acting like savages towards me.
I am the 1%
Last edited by Intercourseman72 on Tue Nov 01, 2011 4:57 pm, edited 1 time in total.
read the words of a wise intercourseman
User avatar
Intercourseman72
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:57 am
Location: Austin, Texas
Reputation point: 541

Re: I am the 1%

Unread postby Azmodan Kijur » Tue Nov 01, 2011 6:07 pm

I will address these points, but not in the manner one might expect. Let's go!

Intercourseman72 wrote:I don't expect some corporation to guarantee an income and lifestyle based on some worthless degree I got based on lies my schools and parents told me were so indispensably valuable.
I am the 1%


No, you are the 99% in that case. I don't get the idea that they want or believe that corporations have to give them a good wage. Nor is the idea of a degree a worthless one in its own right (my Commerce degree landed me my current position and I make a good wage). However, with that said, there are bullshit degrees, ones that merely have the student spend thousands to obtain a piece of paper to "prove" that they can think. For those degrees, one is better working sooner and learning the ropes.

Intercourseman72 wrote:I don't think parroting political talking points at protests during election season will do jack shit to change anything.
I am the 1%


Make that one the 100%. If anyone believes that these peaceful protests will do anything more than get hot air moving, they are likely mistaken. I really want to be proven wrong on this one, but I doubt it.

Intercourseman72 wrote:I can see how ill thought the idea of ending the Fed while also increasing entitlement programs that require debt to be imposed onto future generations really is.
I am the 1%


More like the 48%. There seems to be an unusual number of people that want the Fed dead, but whom also want program spending to increase. The mind boggles as to where the money is supposed to come from. Most stats put those that think that way over the 50% mark.

Intercourseman72 wrote:I can see what a farce it is for people to complain about the rich keeping too much of their own money when they say we need to eliminate the Bush tax cuts. Why the Bush tax cuts? Why arbitrarily stop with those tax cuts? Why not change the tax bracket and tax levels based on such a fashion that you see fit? Do you really think the tax levels were ideal prior to those tax cuts? I can see that they hold arguments that are convenient for political opponents of Bush or who wish to use Bush as a cutting board for their own propaganda.
I am the 1%


Not sure as to the % in this case, but it is higher than 1 and lower than 50. There are people that realize that it is not the Bush tax cuts that doomed your nation, just as they realize that it was not the REPUBLICANS or the DEMOCRATS that did it. It was more a matter of a poisoned and adversarial political system. I can see that; you can see it. They are many that can. But they are not the entirety of the electorate. For the rest, it is a matter of DEMS versus REPUBS and fuck anyone that makes a good logical point on the other side. Face it - your political system is a shambling monstrosity of gross stupidity. Remove tax cuts? Maybe. Countries don't operate like businesses so that might help, but it could just as easily backfire. Maybe a better place to start would be to review where the money is actually spent and try to redirect it out of dead end money pits.

Intercourseman72 wrote:I don't think there is anything unique or original or revolutionary about these protests. Politicians will pander to them around election time and appeal to their emotions and serenade them with things they want to be told. I realize that convincing someone to vote for you as a mainstream candidate is like convincing someone to have sex with you after giving them ten shots of tequila.
I am the 1%.


Many agree with you. Again, no percentages, but it is likely past the 20 - 30 area. I agree with it. This is the Democrat tea party. The Dems will exploit it just as the Republicans exploited the actual tea party. In the end, more idiots in Congress and no actual changes.

Intercourseman72 wrote:I realize that these people's protests will be usurped during the election and appeased by hot air and worthless rhetoric. I also realize that you can take a politician's campaign promises to the bank about as much and you jerk off from Mt. McKinley and get you jizz to shoot over to Wallstreet.
I am the 1%


Agreed. I think that there are at least 30% that realize that. Never trust a campaign promise - it's like a horny teen promising the universe to his girlfriend so he can get a piece of pussy. Don't believe a word of it.

Intercourseman72 wrote:I realize that trying to get the government to reduce the government or fix the problems that they caused is as easy as holding politicians accountable to their own campaign promises and that solving problems without creating more through political action is a useless endeavor.
I am the 1%


Government is notoriously difficult to shrink. Ridiculously so. The main man here for 8 years, Danny Williams, wanted to reduce the size of the Public Service here by so many percent through attrition. Result? In 2011, the service is larger than it has ever been. Most people are perplexed as to why that would be, but the answer to that is as complicated and as simple as it can get. A politician can promise the moon and the stars and all manners of fun. But they are forever locked to a simple, inescapable truth. They are not the Government.

Obvious to some, amazing to others, but politicians are not the Government. They are the figureheads of the Government, but they are not the Government. Trust me - I work for the Government. Politicians set policy, made broad stroke decisions and so forth. But they are not the people that administer the programs. The staff does that work. In the Parliamentary system, the most powerful person in a Department is the Deputy Minister. Politicians can come and go, but it is the Deputy that continues. A politician might get grand ideas "Let's chop this area up and save some $$$ for more bombs!!", but saying it and actually chopping that area could be worlds apart. Especially if the Deputy knows that the Department cannot operate without that component. Plans will be made and the Executive will quietly derail them. Just the nature of things.

Intercourseman72 wrote:I realize that it is impossible to hold politicians accountable to the voters. How many politicians have every been removed from office for saying one thing during their campaigns and then doing what benefits them during their terms? You are voting for a master to rule over you, not a representative of your beliefs and preferences who is there to impose them onto those who disagree with you.
I am the 1%


Sadly, I have to agree with this and that is a problem for most of us. Politicians are supposed to represent us. Do they? Hardly or at least it never seems that way.

Intercourseman72 wrote:I come from families where the men endured poverty far greater than these yuppie Occupy Wallstreet protesting college graduates could ever imagine. Not only did they make their lives much better for themselves through their industry, thrift and abilities, but they did so without the pretension that it was someone else's duty to give them something they did not earn and also without the audacity to wish the government to force someone else to provide for them.
I am the 1%


Bit of a misnomer there. The protesters are not looking for a handout nor are they looking to have companies be forced to give them money for free. Rather, they are looking to have a fair wage reinstated. It is something of a difference to that. If I would 40 hours a week and get paid for the 40 in line with what that work is worth, then there is little problem. If I get paid for 40 and I work sixty, then something is amiss. Based on the stats over the last 2 decades, given the rise in inflation and the like, the real wage paid to people has decreased. At the same time, the amount of work expected has increased. Basically, they are getting paid less for more work. They are protesting that and rightly so.

I get something of a kick out of the "I am the 1%" pictures. One had a former military guy that worked 60 - 80 hours a week at two and three jobs just to barely make ends meet. 60 to 80 hours. 2 - 3 jobs. He's one of the 1%? No, he is most certainly not. You aren't either. I make a good wage and I am not in the 1%. The 1% are those that make in one year what I will make if I work the next forty. Jealous? Nope - don't give a fuck. As long as I am treated fairly, they can have Lear Jets and sip sparkling wines and fuck lady-boys in Thailand all they want. That military man, with that effort, should be fucking rich. I'm not willing to work that much. So he should be wealthy. That he is barely scraping by is what they are protesting, as I gather it. It does not match - effort to reward. A CEO does not do a hell of a lot for a company and has almost no person risk, but makes millions. These are the inequities that they are trying to protest. Are they doing it well? That remains to be seen.

By the way, poverty is something I know well of. My Grandmother lived in Newfoundland her whole life. These people had hard times that make other look like vacations. Am I lying? Let me put it this way. You know the Great Depression? That long assed poverty making hell? Newfoundland never noticed. Never fucking noticed. Depression? Meh, looked like another Monday to the people here. Nan now lives on the Old Age pension and the Survivor Canada Pensions she gets. Government should give money to the needy. Else she'd (and a lot of others) would be dead.

Intercourseman72 wrote:I realize that if I demonstrate my abilities in the market that I will become a valuable asset to anyone wishes to hire me or do business with me and I think I can do so better than by getting a college degree and being lumped in with all the other graduates with the same degree and being a faceless, generic drone. I realize that I can by myself determine how my talents will manifest and know it will be more effective than relying on an institution to show people I have value on my behalf.
I am the 1%


Never notice that. My degree got my resume to be considered here. But it was my personal ability that got me in the door and hired. This idea that a degree creates a drone is, frankly, misanthropic nonsense. My IT skills, my analytic skills, and my other abilities landed the job. The degree broke the ice and established a bare minimum for them to assess from. But you can become valuable without it. Both ways work. As I stated above, some degrees are toilet paper. Others are gold dust. In the same manner, some "practical experience" situations are where true growth potential shines. Other "practical experience" situations are bus boys at restaurants and mail boys in offices. They are absolutely worthless, even more so when you realize that the wage they demand are not worth the hours they require.

Intercourseman72 wrote:I think that it is the 1% that provides the most valuable services to people and that interfering with the 1%'s economic endeavors is pissing in the well.
I am the 1%


That is a half-truth. Some valuable services are started by the 1%. Some are not. A blanket statement like that is almost always patently false.

Intercourseman72 wrote:I find it hilarious how the 99% wants the same institution that provided Wallstreet with all their unfair advantages in the first place to do things that they like instead of what the politically connected like.
I am the 1%


Meh. Not sure that's what they actual want. Fair wage does not sound like "GIMME STUFF FOR FREE", but whatever.

Intercourseman72 wrote:I realize that the people in the government are in office to do what's best for them based on the political environment. I am aware that the voters are a non-concern when politicians are in office and thus conclude that voters have no pull on the decisions politicians make in office and thus conclude that these protests are retarded and worthless.
I am the 1%


Have to agree with that. Much as stated earlier - it's unlikely to make any difference.

Intercourseman72 wrote:I don't care about people disagreeing with me, calling me names, trying to intimidate me with the thought police, throwing emotional tantrums at me and acting like savages towards me.
I am the 1%


Opposite. You're describing the 99% again. When the police comes and breaks out the batons and tear gas on peaceful protesters, one has to wonder which side are the actual thought police.

DONE!! HA! And they said it couldn't be done! Thought provoking post, ICM.
Last edited by Azmodan Kijur on Tue Nov 01, 2011 6:10 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Azmodan Kijur
Chat Moderator
Chat Moderator
 
Posts: 290
Joined: Sat Jun 06, 2009 11:29 pm
Reputation point: 2055

Re: I am the 1%

Unread postby willow » Tue Nov 01, 2011 7:58 pm

i just dont get it, they want equality and ethics in buisness nothing more. Its an acknowledgement that buisness practices are unbalanced and unethical in their activities. As for why the rich should have to pony up more, they use more government infrastructure and services then the lesser classes and it is largely due to the infrastructure that was built and paid for by public funds that they are able to aquire that wealth. UPS an FedEx would not exist without the roads, rails and air infrastructure built on the public dime for instance.

The irresponsibility of private interests in managing the financial market led to an economic collapse (all in the pursuit of profit. Milton Friedman would be so very proud) that the working stiff had no part in but is now being expected to pay the bill for. As the protest sign goes "wall street got bailed out we got sold out" will the movement accomplish anything? I don't know, that depends on if it turns violent or not I guess. Even still, that is only the north american component, these protests are happening in 80 countries and between 800-1000 cities, if you can shrug off the millions of people this movement represents and their outrage over the betterment of others at their expense then you deserve to be first against the wall :P

One wonders ICM would you personally give up your pension, retire after 65 and work for minimum wage? because that is the system you advocate. All they want is for the 1% to pay their fair share and clean up the mess they made instead of leaving the clean up to the 'hired help'

*note on the bush tax cuts, the 1T in tax cuts that Bush enacted would have funded the cost of the roughly 1T a year wars the US is engaged in.... the only two wars in US history that the government did not institute a war tax to fund. Secondly while I am unsure about other tax cut policies specifically, they tend to favour the upper middle class and wealthy rather then those who actually need the reduction in taxes. The rich save even more, while the poor get nothing because they are too poor to take advantage of the tax incentives like Canadas 100$ a month rebate for enrolling your kids in sports.... only helps if you can afford to spend an extra 100$ a month on sports during the year while waiting for your tax return. the poor cant do this. Fuck them though right? if they didnt want to be poor they would get a good paying job (which was exported to china) at a factory (moved to indonesia) producing high quiality goods.... perhaps they should like myself go 40-50k in debt in an attempt to gain better employment through education (20% failure rate) at a university with spiraling tuition costs due to reduction in public funding compliments of tax cuts.
dirty work... the right google key words...
-willow 07/22/09
User avatar
willow
Chat Moderator
Chat Moderator
 
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:59 am
Location: Vancouver Canada
Reputation point: 932

Re: I am the 1%

Unread postby Intercourseman72 » Wed Nov 02, 2011 5:09 am

K, not going to go point by point, I will just make some general responses.

First off, I consider the 1% vs the 99% to be a matter of mentality than of income. The 1% of top earners fluctuates quite a bit as to who is in it. I forget the stat, but I think it was well over half the people who were in the 1% in 1996 were no longer apart of it in 2005. I see it as the 1% having the ability and confidence in their abilities to make themselves valuable to others and seek to satisfy the value of others independently. I see the 99% as those who seek for others to provide for them via forceful obligation. It's about mentality and not income. When people make signs saying "I'm in $50k of college debt, my parents will only pay for a crappy apartment, I don't have an HD TV, and I meat in my veggie burger, we are the 99%" that doesn't mean 99% of people are in that situation. It means they all have something to bitch about and are pissed off at wallstreet for getting preferential treatment from the government.

Ok, so what is a fair wage? Say a massage therapist works really hard, received several official credentials, has a bunch of debt to pay off, has kids, has to massage disgusting fat people, use oil that's bad for his hands, has a crappy air conditioner in his building and the disgusting fat people get all sweaty and they have lots of pubic hair and get boners during massages, etc and gets paid $20 per session. Would you be like "that's not fair, I know people who make way more money than that and don't have to work nearly as hard. He should be paid a fair wage. We'll say $35 dollars a session. That would cover their mortgage, their dependents' (kids') expenses, etc and be much fairer." So you just arbitrarily decide when a wage is or isn't fair and just pick a number based off of a few possibly relevant facts and say "there, we now have a decent wage for them.

And that photo you were talking about where the veteran had like 2-3 jobs, he was saying he was the 53% (I think I know what you are talking about at least). That's the taxpaying population of the US. The 1% is something I use to directly contradict OWS rhetoric and complaints. It's a different thing.

Also, suppose if that guy's 2-3 jobs were preaching the Gospel to 8-year-olds, coming up with prolife slogans for anti-abortion protesters, and working at a think tank that made arguments saying that homosexuality was evil. Obviously, no one would make a living doing that and rightfully so unless he was extremely good at marketing himself for such things (in which case he would go on to be a professional marketer and be a richfag) and got a ton of business. Would you be like "he works all those jobs and all of those hours but still doesn't get paid as much as an elite heart surgeon who only works 20 hours a week"? Some work is more valuable than others.

About the college degree thing, I am against it in general because I think it predetermines people's careers and economic endeavors before they figure out what they are really good at or what they really like. You may like and be good at accounting and auditing, etc but that doesn't mean there isn't something else you have been better at if left to your own devices. I see college degrees as a set path for people that devalues their individuality and more or less prescribes what they will do for a living. I also see many people rely on colleges to prove their self-worth via exam results based on professor arbitration, ability to obey etc. It goes against my values in general, I think that my values are very uncommon for the most part, so I don't think it's silly to say I'm in the 1% in that category. Most people take college for granted, I think it's way overrated.

Onto Willow's post. Yeah FedEx and UPS use government roads and air travel systems to do stuff. They have no other choice. The government has a monopoly on that and greatly hinders anyone else from providing an alternative. If I were to lock you in a cage and provided you with some crappy but sufficient for survival food, a cot and blanket, toilet, lighting, etc more than other people I captured, would you be like "gee, I sure ought to contribute to this guy for all of the services he's providing me"? Those companies didn't voluntarily decide on what the best infrastructure would be for their business and had no choice in deciding who would provide the best infrastructure. They used the hand they were dealt with and provided people with a service people wanted to such a degree of quality that they could stay in business for it.
Btw, they also pay more taxes for it already even if there is no income tax. They pay more excise tax, gas tax, etc by being huge businesses that they are. Are you going to be like "well, they just aren't paying the amount of taxes I fell that they should pay"? This is what I can woman logic. It' where you think with your feelings.

About the banks. Yeah, what do you expect will happen when CEOs of banks can make profits off of essentially gambling strategies and then suffer hardly consequences what they lose? Oh yes, it's all about the greed of those bankers. They dealt with a regulatory environment that incentivized them to make such wreckless decisions and ended up doing things that were bad for people. This was an environment set up by the same people OWS wants to fix their problems. Yeah, blame gravity when a plane crashes. Blame greed when a screwed up economic system goes down.

Ok, go ahead and just call me a Liber-kick-grandma-in-the-stomach-itarian. It amounts to the same thing. You address my points and ideas in as intellectually honest a fashion. You are soooo right. You are exactly right. Because I don't advocate the violent obligation of others to take care of grandma when she retires, that I want her to eat cat food and live in a loft while working a shitty minimum wage job. That's exactly what my position is. Thanks so much for telling me what I believe. I no longer have to think on what I believe because I can just ask you. You, the great beholder of such profound insight can tell me what I advocate. Fuck you, you manipulative cocksucking bitch. I can play this bullshit game of guilt tripping too. And I can do so with much better reasoning as well. Because you want the rich to pay more taxes and go though more loopholes to hire and pay workers, you are disincentivizing the people most apt to create wealth and provide people with a means of sustenance, provide people with services that will make their lives easier, and in general improve society. You basically advocate a society with no progress and no potential of progress. See? I can tell you what you believe as well with a bit of woman-like guilt. You provide no reasoning as to why my views are as such, you just throw this bullshit at me and expect me to feel bad about myself. Hook you asshole up to a vacuum cleaner and eat my asshole while the vacuum cleaners is on at high. I don't put up with this kind of shit.

Apparently taking care of grandma is a big issue to lots of people. So let people who actually have an incentive to meet consumer demand provide grandma with stuff people think she should have in her last decades of life rather than having an institution that only needs to sway enough voters to stay in office take care of grandma. Allow people with economic incentives, that is to produce things people value and do so at costs people are willing to pay, and see what happens. There, I am now officially an out-of-the-closet liber-kick-grandma-in-the-nuts-itarian. I feel so liberated. Oh wait. I'm a right wing guy. I'm supposed to hate fags right? Is that my position now? I don't know, I need someone smarter than me to tell me what I think.

So how is it calculated that the US would have received $1T more in taxes had the taxes been the same? Tax recipts (I think) remained pretty steady throughout the Bush years. Perhaps people took less advantage of tax loopholes or reported more income during those years. You can't assume that you lost so much money because you could have taxed people's income at a higher rate. Suppose the tax payers make $10T. Do you think you could get as much revenue taxing them at 90% as opposed to 30%? Do you think that you'll get 9T as opposed to 3T? This is a Lauffer curve thing. But these things aside, why is it that so many of these protesters are hell bent on the Bush tax cuts? My point was that if these people could think for themselves, they would likely want to reform the tax code entirely based on their own values.

Aside from Azmodan's misunderstanding of my "I am the 1%" motif, I thought he brought up some points worth talking about and entertaining some controversy and exploring diversity of opinion. Willow's post was complete shit but has, fortunately, inspired me to re-iterate a very important point I made in my original post.

You can't bully me, instill enough fear into me or, especially, guilt me into doubting my own convictions. Fuck you, you manipulative puss bag piece of shit. Challenge my reasoning and we have a conversation. Name call me or slander me as something, I'll tell you to fuck off and hopefully kick you ass while doing so. Call the thought police, I still won't change my mind based on bullying tactics. Present reasoning and facts and I will engage in intellectual discourse. Give me bullshit and I'll make you pay for it (as best I can over the internet, lol).
Put simply, you can't bully/manipulate me into changing my opinion

I am the 1%
read the words of a wise intercourseman
User avatar
Intercourseman72
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:57 am
Location: Austin, Texas
Reputation point: 541

Re: I am the 1%

Unread postby willow » Wed Nov 02, 2011 7:49 am

... wow on reading that many hours later, what was tongue in cheek in my head came of as horridly self rightous... damned internet and your lack of ability to emote. didnt mean to sound so preachy >.< and i wasnt trying to manipulate anything just frustrated with the system, the 99% have a point, they are not just looking for a handout, the system is broken and they are tired of being told its working perfectly, they/we are also carrying the unfair weight of a burden we did not create.
the college degree thing

are you asuming that the individual is always going to college directly after highschool before taking the time to experience life and choose a direction or path for themselves? degrees have value and I would assume you see some in seeking one yourself.

They have no other choice. The government has a monopoly on that and greatly hinders anyone else from providing an alternative.

We have private roads in Canada and I would assume in the US as well, however the cost of building that kind of infrastructure is prohibitive. Private industry generally does not use its own capital to build infrastructre either in Canada, the US or abroad. Instead they minimize costs by seeking out locations with the desired traits and existing infrastructure, or in the absense of, usually try like as is the local case here with the privatization of the water supply in Abbotsford, work with the local community and government to build it. Such P3 enterprises. This entails a much larger burden of funding for the local citizen and taxpayers then the corperation in most cases I have encountered, however the corperation serves to make the largest financial gain, while depending on the infrastructure, the only benifit for locals is a limited number of jobs.

A more general example. Stream International is an American based transnational that opened a branch in Chilliwack BC. They sought out Chilliwack because it had preexisting infrastructure, namely a large available warehousebuilding already mostly constructed as well as a number of tax incentives (depriving revenue from the city). This company did bring in a large number of jobs 1200. They also had a huge turnover rate, threatened to leave if the staff attempted to unionize, and developed a generally disliked reputation in town by former ex workers.
In the years since stream was built, to accomodate the massive increase in traffic that the commuteing staff were introducing to the area, the city was required to reroute a city bus, and build a hugely expensive new highway overpass and exit as many employees commute from nearby towns.
It was the private use of public infrastructure that required the city to expand that infrastructure futher at huge cost to the city tax payers both locally and federally since it got some govt cash. Stream didnt pay a dime, however continues to enjoy the benifits.

On a national scale, free trade zones built on IMF and world bank loans in developing nations combined with neo-liberal economic policies those nations are forced to enact to receive aid, destroy the fragile national economies of developing states in the interests of foriegn transnationals. (this part is important!) I don't see how this is any less an act of coercion then taxation, perhaps because instead of physical violence they are just threatening mass starvation or the creation of a humanitarian crisis unless they adopt certain economic principles. This process is at the core of what anti-globalization and the OWS movement are about. Especially in light of the fact that no major western nation would dare impose the same neo-liberal economic policy at home. Much of the protests and anger in the the defaulting EU nations is due to the enforcement of these kinds of policies and austerity measures.

About the banks. Yeah, what do you expect will happen when CEOs of banks can make profits off of essentially gambling strategies and then suffer hardly consequences what they lose? Oh yes, it's all about the greed of those bankers. They dealt with a regulatory environment that incentivized them to make such wreckless decisions and ended up doing things that were bad for people.

yes.... and didnt you normally advocate the reduction or complete removal of regulation as inhibitory to the market? I seem to remember that was your view, please correct me if I'm mistaken.

This was an environment set up by the same people OWS wants to fix their problems. Yeah, blame gravity when a plane crashes. Blame greed when a screwed up economic system goes down.

This is an environment crafted largely by a few global powers in the 80s who sought to remove the regulatory systems designed to prevent just this kind of economic collapse. There is a reason life went to shit after the 80's Reagan and Thatcher fucked shit up when they tried to deregulate the globe in the name of neo-liberal economic theory.

Because I don't advocate the violent obligation of others to take care of grandma when she retires, that I want her to eat cat food and live in a loft while working a shitty minimum wage job.

of course progressive taxation for the social good and maintaining of society is violent obligation of others and thus extortion of their hard earned wealth. I'm curious how you think it should work? where should hospitals schools and infrastructure come from?

Because you want the rich to pay more taxes and go though more loopholes to hire and pay workers, you are disincentivizing the people most apt to create wealth and provide people with a means of sustenance, provide people with services that will make their lives easier, and in general improve society

yup because expecting society to take care of its members like oh i dont know there was some kind of social contract or something would be just plain silly. The notion that it is disincentivizing for a company to make 3 billion instead of 4 this year, or that the multibillionaire pay a few hundred thousand more is rediculous. They wont stop trying to get richer just because they cant keep every last penny of it. As it is current estimates are that there is something in the order of 1/3 of global wealth is hidden in offshore accounts tax free. Of course thats illegal, but the rich can hire good accountants, and choose banks in countries that serve as tax shelters under dummy corperations.

Experts believe that as much as half the world's capital flows through offshore centers. Tax havens have 1.2% of the world's population and hold 26% of the world's wealth, including 31% of the net profits of United States multinationals. According to Merrill Lynch and Gemini Consulting's “World Wealth Report” for 2000, one third of the wealth of the world's “high net-worth individuals”—nearly $6 trillion out of $17.5 trillion—may now be held offshore. Some $3 trillion is in deposits in tax haven banks and the rest is in securities held by international business companies (IBCs) and trusts.


because they are totally paying their fair share already -.-"

and I'm sorry but I dont follow how a society whereby there is a minimum standard of living above that of allyway is to basically advocate a society with no progress and no potential of progress. Nor do I see the rejection of corporate social responsibility as 'incentivizing' where is the incentive for the worker in the race to the bottom literally other then starvation in some nations?

The documentary life and debt focused on Jamaica provides an interesting example of this, Jamaica was forced to use foreign aid money to construct free trade zones for foreign multinationals in order to try and solve the unemployment problem. the workers of a multinational inside a freetrade zone went on strike for better wages and conditions making just 30$USD a week in a garment factory. The multinational shipped in asian migrant workers willing to work for less then the Jamaicans.

people are focused on the bush tax cuts because they are topical at the moment with obama renewing them in the last year or so IIRC a move Alan Greenspan, not a guy I normally agree with, disagreed with.
my appologies i just remembers 1T being the number tossed around when bush enacted them, upon checking it... John McCain said in 03:
"Even without assuming the costs of these various contingencies, particularly the war in Iraq and the responsibilities we will have in that country following the cessation of hostilities,the increase in the Federal budget deficit envisioned over the next 10 years ought to concern greatly every member of Congress. In the first 5 months of fiscal year 2003, the United States Government has already run up a $195 billion deficit. The Congressional Budget Office estimates that even without the President's tax cuts and without further increases in spending for the remainder of the fiscal year, the total budget deficit for 2003 will reach $246 billion. If we add the projected costs this year of the President's tax cuts the deficit would reach $287 billion. Most alarming, are the deficit projections for the next 10 years, incorporating the President's proposed tax cuts, released by CBO last week: $1.8 trillion. That's a pretty staggering sum, and it does not include any of the costs of our imminent actions in Iraq."


so yeah i retract much of the bush tax cut/war budget statement and hang my head in poorly sourced shame.

as for not addressing your original post point by point as azmo did, i figured he already did that. You made a number of claims infering beliefs on the OWS movement, which I disagree with as per my first paragraph. These people have a point, and you nor I can really offer a better way for them to be heard since you admit they can do nothing to influence politics or the system itself other than perhaps "starting their own transnational corperation" which is far more impracticle and improbable then influencing the system or politics in a more direct fashion.

I realize your post was directed largely at Americans, but the OWS movement is global and although we dont get coverage of its wider presentation.
http://www.reuters.com/news/pictures/sl ... USRTR2SR0B
http://vigilantcitizen.com/latestnews/o ... ary-video/ - decent enough interview but I think you will disagree with the guy
http://www.ipolitics.ca/2011/10/21/occu ... hats-next/
as the last article points out
Except that kind of misses the point, says Greenwald. If you listen to some of the more cogent points coming from the Occupy demonstrations around the world, it becomes clear very quickly that the goal of the exercise – partially – is to highlight exactly how decrepit and defunct the current political system really is, and how meaningless it might be to try to change it from the inside. What Applebaum is really telling everyone, says Greenwald, is that it’s undemocratic to “protest oligarchic rule; if these protesters truly believed in democracy, they would raise a few million dollars, hire lobbying firms filled with ex-political officials, purchase access to and influence over political leaders, and then use their financial clout to extract the outcomes they want.”


im pretty sure that the whole financial meltdown and ensuing mess has essentially killed neoliberal economics and friedmans free-market trickle down economic theory. However the powerful will try to retain their riches and power and the poor will vent their impotent rage.

I think the reason we are so opposed is because you see this as an issue of personal freedom while I view it as an issue of global social justice. again, correct me if im wrong.
I just cannot accept the subjugation of entire nations and large portions of the population in the name of corporate greed and the personal pursuit of wealth.

on a side note, one wonders what work your forfathers did and if it was in a sector that has now been outsourced internationally.

I never meant to try and put text in your mouth, it was a semi serious question. Many of the people protesting have worked their entire lives, hard for what they have and paid in some cases tens of thousands for decades into pension funds with the agreement that they receive payments when they retire. Several countries are imposing strict austerity measures on pensions and many people are watching their retirements dissapear while the majority of highly paid manufacturing jobs are being outsourced with the threat of outsourcing being used to undermine unions and trade organizations which have traditionally protected the interests of the working class leading to a depression in wages. Did you see the American lady advocating for the complete removal of all wage legislation in her state? she hit fark with her "teenagers arnt worth the minimum wage" statement. either way, the outsourcing is causing the shift in our employment from manufacturing and resource based to a service sector economy consisting of largely low paid low benifits jobs that are often trivialized as "temporary jobs" to be used while you seek a 'real job'

As Canadians Azmo and myself may not actually receive anything from the pension fund we have paid thousands of dollars into over several years because the huge expense of the retiring babyboomers who are expected to live considerably longer then was intended when the pension was designed are going to suck it dry. why shouldnt we be angry about that?

(edit: this wall of txt is what i was trying to avoid with my brevity earlier I can do a point by point of your original post if you want :P)
Last edited by willow on Wed Nov 02, 2011 7:53 am, edited 1 time in total.
dirty work... the right google key words...
-willow 07/22/09
User avatar
willow
Chat Moderator
Chat Moderator
 
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:59 am
Location: Vancouver Canada
Reputation point: 932

Re: I am the 1%

Unread postby willow » Wed Nov 09, 2011 6:38 pm

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree ... destroyers

Article about studies done on the financial elite showing that they are not 'wealth creators' like ICM implies, rather they are just lucky and far far to confident in the illusion of their own inherent superiority.

suck it Ayn Rand.
dirty work... the right google key words...
-willow 07/22/09
User avatar
willow
Chat Moderator
Chat Moderator
 
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:59 am
Location: Vancouver Canada
Reputation point: 932

Re: I am the 1%

Unread postby Intercourseman72 » Fri Nov 11, 2011 4:36 pm

This is not to suggest that all executives are psychopaths. It is to suggest that the economy has been rewarding the wrong skills. As the bosses have shaken off the trade unions and captured both regulators and tax authorities, the distinction between the productive and rentier upper classes has broken down. Chief executives now behave like dukes, extracting from their financial estates sums out of all proportion to the work they do or the value they generate, sums that sometimes exhaust the businesses they parasitise. They are no more deserving of the share of wealth they've captured than oil sheikhs.

Even though this is an obvious piece of leftist propaganda, this section hardly at all contradicts Rand's views on what capitalism ought to be.

You prove that you don't know a goddamn thing about Ayn Rand's philosophy and are willing to accept the most anemic arguments from propagandists as convincing evidence to re-affirm your trite, mundane worldview. I find it likely that I read through that article more thoroughly than you did and got more value from it as well.
read the words of a wise intercourseman
User avatar
Intercourseman72
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:57 am
Location: Austin, Texas
Reputation point: 541

Re: I am the 1%

Unread postby willow » Mon Nov 14, 2011 11:03 am

leftist it may be, but the fact that buisness leaders tend to demostrate the profile of a funtioning psychopath has been documented in several studies. Its at worst an over extension. That asside, its almost entirely directed at those who swap money around for 'profit' without actually creating anything. Your also dismissing the study which it premises its conclusions on as leftist propaganda?

As for rand.
viewtopic.php?f=26&t=919&p=14252&hilit=ayn+rand#p14252 an old post.

To put it simply I reject neoclassical liberal economics. If rand supposes that is the proper system then I disagree with her. As it stands one can argue that the system is demonstratably a failure.
Last edited by willow on Mon Nov 14, 2011 11:05 am, edited 1 time in total.
dirty work... the right google key words...
-willow 07/22/09
User avatar
willow
Chat Moderator
Chat Moderator
 
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:59 am
Location: Vancouver Canada
Reputation point: 932

Re: I am the 1%

Unread postby Intercourseman72 » Mon Nov 14, 2011 1:25 pm

The study showed that the businessmen scored a little higher on the narcissistic and histrionic parts of the test, statistically the same on compulsive (they are all described as hardworking businessmen in the study unlike the article says how rich people are), and lower on everything else, especially anti-social. I doubt you even read that far into the study. You just say, "studies show that business dudes are psycho", without understanding what is said in those studies. This makes you a blind ideologue who crusades based on things that have been emotionally inculcated into you. You could probably categorize people of many different professions as psychopaths. I don't know... like politicians, soldiers, divorced mothers trying to narcissitically and histrionically gain child support and compulsively control their kids? Do you ever bitch about politicians advocating murdering millions of people and aim your political vendettas towards (unless they are conservatives, then they are evil. If it's leftists, well, it's still the right wing's fault somehow) them saying that they are psychopaths? No. You just focus on the people who are trying to make money by dealing with a fucked up market place that guess who sets up for them. It's not Starbucks that writes the laws, t's not ExxonMobile that comes up with regulations, it's not General Motors that creates tax loopholes, it's not Sony that subsidizes corporations to move over seas, it's all something else. Something much more... idk, psychotic?

If you are pointing me to Azmodan's retarded analysis of Ayn Rand, then you prove yourself to know even less about Ayn Rand than I could expect. I am not a reader of Ayn Rand, but I've seen in an interview that she said the worst political economic system possible would be to have the government interfere with the market and then having businesses use the state for their own interests. I.e. the system we have now. With this sort of system, you have businessmen acting like oil sheiks and dukes. I don't know if Rand has said this or not but it's my conclusion that when you get business in politics, then you get people with economic incentives to have political incentives. Rather than trying to meet consumer demand and do so by consuming fewer resources than goods produced, they simply aim the guns of the state in their favor. There, suck it stencil socialist.

Read the study the dude cited and then read the rest of the article. The study contradicts the article to a great degree even with its flaws. But even if, as I've said in the chat, businessmen have psychopathic tendencies, does that make Henry Ford's automobile any less useful? the Wright Brother's airplane more dangerous, video games less fun, the whales less endangered because of Rockefeller making petroleum cheaper, Arthur Jones's Lumbar Extension MedX machine any less of a miracle piece of medical equipment? I think I'd rather allow these "psychopaths" to catapult civilization rather than pursue a career in politics where they can starve or slaughter people by the millions even if it means they are nasty to some of their employees.

But I doubt any of this really matters to you. I could probably post a clip of American Psycho and say it proves that businessmen are evil and dangerous and should be punished in some way and you would be like "ah, interesting point, ICM. One has to wonder how many little children Steve Jobs had being tortured in his dungeon(s) in his mansions and yachts and private jets." This issue isn't about reality or reasoning for you, it's about your feelings and class envy. Same with the Occupussies. It's similar for the teabaggers, except they sort of want to put the old American traditions and institutions on life support without knowing what they really were. Stencil leftists and stencil right wingers. They are very interesting archetypes, but still no less dumb. These protesters appeared close to the collapse of Rome as well as many times before. It's nothing new or novel, it's the same base and mindless bitching about things they don't understand.
read the words of a wise intercourseman
User avatar
Intercourseman72
 
Posts: 424
Joined: Mon Jun 01, 2009 4:57 am
Location: Austin, Texas
Reputation point: 541

Re: I am the 1%

Unread postby willow » Tue Nov 15, 2011 12:11 am

the notion that they are psycopathic isnt based only on that study but another one recently reported in the UK based on research from Canadian and American universities. It showed an increased tendency towards psychopathy at about 4x the normal rate. basically 4/100 instead of 1/100 in the natural population. I was just stating that there is a growing body of evidence supporting the notion. Psychopathy can be found in any profession, the curiosity is why its found at statistically higher rates in buisness management. The psychopathic tendencies increase the higher up the management chain you go. I never said that the study in the article implied psychopathy but was curious if you were rejecting it out of hand as well. Generally Im willing to accept the work of a nobel prize winning economist who says that in finance its about as accurate as a coin toss. This is consistant with anecdotal evidence about monkies who pick stock trades and do very well for their owners. If anything being a trained trader makes one slightly better then average in performance on returns. I was thinking of Daniel Khaneman's work showing 0 consistancy in perfomance across 8 years.

As for who writes the laws, most in washington would argue that it is corporate lobbyists that write the nations buisness and trade laws. Internationally developing nations have their trade rules forced on them by the World Bank, and IMF.
I would say watch 'Life and Debt' to get an understanding of what I mean when I say that your economic beliefs destroy developing nations and impoverish millions. But I'm sure you would say its the governments fault and that those western capitalists are just doing what we should expect them to do given the system they exist in.

as for being pissed about politicians and murder of civilians, did you see my israel/georgia/afghan posts? Im also against state use of torture, political prisoners and a number of other things governments do that I dont like.

The fundimental attribution error is what the article is driving at, the human tendancy to presume that any negative or positive outcome in another is due to personal factors while negative outcomes in ourselves are situational and positive outcomes are directly attributed to our selves. I passed because I'm smart, I failed because the proff didnt like me. Im rich because I worked hard, Your poor because your lazy. The author was claiming that they take far too much credit for results that are largely outside of their control. You find the same thing in teachers, lawyers, judges, police and interrogators. They all believe they can tell to a large degree of certainty when someone is lying to them despite the fact that trained "lie detectors" have an accuracy rate of about 50%

ford's auto is no less useful, but then his anti jewish propaganda was fairly harmful and helped to shape nazi thought. The fact that he got rich doesnt impress me much :P

As for Rand, I am not bothered to read her works, like I said previously I reject her premise of neoclassical liberal economics, the same way I reject neoclassical liberal economics when Milton Friedmen supported it. Neoclassical liberal economics based on free market principles does not work on the large scale. It destroyies economies and subjugates nations while impoverishing millions globally. This is why the US will never impliment the same neoclassical policies that it forces onto its trade partners at home. It will sink the US economy. It instead uses trade subsidies, tarrifs and taxation to protect American industry while removing those protections from other nations.

and now we sit with you putting words in my mouth like you oh so nicely protested my doing earlier... classy.

oh and as for steve jobs using torture, apple doesnt, but its chinese manufacturing facilities do. There have been numerous reports of suicides, torture and death at apple plants overseas. Jobs isnt I'm sure responsible for the actions and work conditions of the employees he contracts out to. Much the same way Nike isnt responsible for its production issues since it doesnt own any of the plants it just subcontracts out to child labour. Of course that doesnt matter becuase those nasty politicians designed the poor labour laws in those countries not the evil corperations that take advantage of the poor right? and making an extra 10$ per shoe is totally good buisness.

its entirely about reason. Like I said previously I reject these notions based on conceptions of fundimental human justice. You seem to view them as a personal freedom issue. "If I am able to, than why cant I?" never stopping to ask "if I should"
I dislike the system, its broken and the rules need adjustment. You keep arguing that the system is broke so we need to remove all the rules and some how this will make buisness ethical.
dirty work... the right google key words...
-willow 07/22/09
User avatar
willow
Chat Moderator
Chat Moderator
 
Posts: 516
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 10:59 am
Location: Vancouver Canada
Reputation point: 932

Next

Return to Rational Thought vs Irrational Beliefs



Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron
[Valid Atom 1.0]