George W. Bush was elected after widely boasting that he didn't really care about foreign policy. It didn't seem to harm him with the electorate (admittedly, before 9/11).

Nice new campsite in Oakland. Great people. Bike powered media booth. On site kitchen. Just got a new porta potty donated.

A few hours hike from here is #OccupyBerkeley.

A full days walk to #OccupyRichmond.

Great weather this weekend.

You guys need to start a separate thread for "capitalism vs whatever" and "how wars start " and "poor people -dumb or sinners"

This thread is about OWS , OWS IS ABOUT
-REPEALING # 08-205
-ENDING CORPORATE WELFARE AND SUBSIDIES while individuals and families are expected to sink or swim on their own.

is not democrat vs republican - you had your time- you failed ALL of us.
its not anti rich, its anti allowing the rich (Co. inc.) to bribe our gov and stifle the voice of the people.

side issues are:
ENDING THE FED and restoring our national bank into the hands of the people so we have a say on how our taxes are spent and invested.
ENDING THE WAR- no one cares how we got there, our presence overseas is no longer useful and empting our blood and treasure.

got to go, have my ticket to NY for the weekend.....

"Keep pandering to the rich and powerful who've created this corrupt system"

The rich did not create it. Most rich want to keep their money. The non-rich implemented taxes, to take wealth away from the rich. If some of the rich want to share their wealth, then they can give it to charity.

Here is what is corrupt...

People who demand a job when they have no skill or knowledge that a free market wants.

People who demand housing, food, health care, transportation and expect the wealthier members of society to provide it.

We are just a part of nature. The mountain lion or bear does not demand food, shelter, or vetenarian care. They are on their own. If a squirrel or bear does not prepare for winter by storing food or fat, they die. Their "conterparts" do not provide for them.

Just get rid of all taxes, eliminate all government services except for the big 3. Any services a citizen needs, they pay for. It is the natural way to live.

It is so cute when people talk about a free market, as if it exists. Adorable Nick !

I've seen statistics on this before, but am as bad as usual at remembering sources. Americans rarely move far out of the class of their predecessors. Its contrary to the American belief that we can all do anything we want, but the research I have read says that its true. And I did say "most". I never said it applies to everyone. The correlation is apparently stronger than we like to admit.

"This thread is about OWS , OWS IS ABOUT
-REPEALING # 08-205
-ENDING CORPORATE WELFARE AND SUBSIDIES while individuals and families are expected to sink or swim on their own."

Really? As far as I can tell, OWS is an amalgamation of everyone dissatisfied with their current conditions -- both real and imagined.

"It is so cute when people talk about a free market, as if it exists."

That is the problem, it does not exist. And it is natural. Just as in nature.

"Keep pandering to the rich and powerful who've created this corrupt system"

The rich did not create it. Most rich want to keep their money.

--------

To clarify: No, not everyone who is rich is part of the problem, but many of the problems being expressed by the OWS movement were/are caused by people who are rich and that are acting directly against the middle/lower class. Poor people can't make policy, change regulations, implement legislature, etc. One could argue that the poor do in fact hold the power with their vote and how they spend their money (i.e., boycott certain products), but spending power and votes don't really make a difference anymore. Maybe at one time they did...

Too many people care too little to change their habits in order for votes and spending power to make a noticeable difference in reality. While I do lambast the ruling class for all that they are, I also recognize there is an odd correlation between said corrupt ruling class and that of the negligence of the middle/lower classes to give a damN about changing their own behavior. I'll always side with the underdog in these debates, but I do wish large portions of the public would take their ignorant heads out of their a$$es. I'm not saying that of anyone here specifically, but rather of the general population.

I often find myself disliking both sides of this coin. One side keeps taking advantage of the other because the other side has no power to fight back with anymore, which was largely lost due to complacency and ignorance. I am also ready to admit that since I am a member of the human race, I contribute somehow to this issue, for better or worse. I'm not exempt from any of the criticisms I throw out, but I would like to believe that I at least try to educate myself on issues and make informed decisions that lean toward the general betterment of society as a whole.


I also agree that a free market does not exist, but a human society where goods and services are traded isn't necessarily the same as how a wild animal survives. Animals don't have goods and services--only survival. If our hypothetical free market existed the same way as in the animal kingdom, it'd be pure anarchy because greed would drive far too many actions, and the only thing at the end of a road driven on by greed is disappointment and failure.

Edited by T.L. on 10/14/2011 15:07:44 MDT.

One of the problems with OWS is that many participants are not protesting against anything specific, they are just complaining.

If you look at the protests in the 60's, many were very specific in their scope. The public and media new exactly what the protest subject was, and usually they were accompanied by specific solutions. Then is was simply a matter of whether or not people agreed with what the protesters where trying to change.

Now if we eliminate most of the regulations, special franchises, corporate welfare, personal welfare, entitlements, and hand-me-outs; you get rid of the vehicle that some poor and rich citizens use to get free stuff from the rest of society. And in the process you make everyone pay their fair share and significantly reduce the over tax expenditures of government.

>Now if we eliminate most of the regulations, special franchises, corporate welfare, personal welfare, entitlements, and hand-me-outs; you get rid of the vehicle that some poor and rich citizens use to get free stuff from the rest of society. And in the process you make everyone pay their fair share and significantly reduce the over tax expenditures of government.
-----------

I think that statement would be agreed upon by many of the OWS, as well as myself. However, certain regulations regarding institutions such as Wall Street, the Fed, the Treasury, banks, investment firms, etc need to be there. Deregulation of the financial system allowed them to run amok!

Don't forget that many of the vehicles for fraud were created by the government. FREDDIE MAC and FANNIE MAE come to mind. It is not the job of the government to manipulate the money supply, that should be a free market function. For every government action there is a corresponding (and usually worse) reaction. Investment is a risk, and the government cannot control risk. So it should be buyer beware. Outright fraud is handled in court.

Nick: I hope they like orange shoes with flames on them in the anarchy you propose. Honestly, I do have shoe envy.

"...they're just complaining"

-yeah, that seems to be what I keep seeing

quick question... a good number of these signs say(paraphrased) "1% owns 50% of the wealth... so get they're money out of the government!"

What does this '50%' consist of? Just curious. Much like the OWS movement, just saying '50%' seems awfully vague.

>It is not the job of the government to manipulate the money supply, that should be a free market function.

Yes! and No! :)

Manipulate and regulate are two different things. Right now, the government, along with organizations tied to the money supply are doing more manipulating because they can. The stock market and the Fed's sole existence right now, to name a few, is to manipulate the money! (technically, the Fed is not a government organization though; its private) In 1988, Regan signed an executive order that gave four individuals virtually free reign over the Treasury, called the Plunge Protection Team (PPT). Their “official” role was to prevent another 1987 “Black Monday”. They have the entire U.S. Treasury at their disposal to manipulate the markets through derivatives. These are all examples of manipulation that require regulations to put a stop to it all.

So, the government should not manipulate the money supply, but they should regulate how the system functions so that a fair and balanced environment for investors can exist. There will still be risk, but it would be a natural risk created by the natural properties of a free market, which currently does not exist because the system is being manipulated.

But, the system will carry on as it has been. No amount of complaining or protesting will fix that. Why? Because until our entire government stops being bought and sold by giant corporations, conglomerates, and wealthy individuals, nothing will change. Democrats will forever spar with Republicans until they realize that for the most part, everyone wants the same thing, and its simply our rhetorical environment that we've been steeped in that causes much of the rift. I will go so far to say that most people want a fair and balanced society, both conservatives and liberals alike. But how we get there is where the differences begin. Each side will say that Exhibit A is either good or bad, and that if you support Exhibit A, then you're my ally, and vice versa. We get stuck in that "all or nothing" or "for or against" mindset. There are rarely perfect solutions, but there can be revised solutions that satisfy the majority. The problem with that is each side wants to push their own extreme agenda and is so Hell bent against the other, that the issue is flooded with vast amounts of rhetorical garbage and misinformation that people have a hard time deciding if an issue is really what they think it is.

We are just a part of nature. The mountain lion or bear does not demand food, shelter, or vetenarian care. They are on their own. If a squirrel or bear does not prepare for winter by storing food or fat, they die. Their "conterparts" do not provide for them

That is perhaps one of the most cynical views of human civilization that I have ever seen. It is also quite simplistic about the way different creatures do things. You cannot compare human society with the more solitary types of animals, because we are social animals. And nearly all social animals do their best to provide care for each other. That is the advantage of living in groups. Some of the best examples are hyenas, which have a matriarchal system of caring for the young in organized "aunt" groups; elephants, which also have a matriarchal system using aunts to care for the young; ants, bees, and termites (also matriarchal) which have a system perhaps closest to humans, with lots of rainy day preparation, "doctors", specifically evolved armies, mutual protection and grooming, farming systems, food storage systems, special food preparation systems (which also act as medicines), nurseries, sections for the aged, and jobs for every last one of the members. These are just a tiny selection of social animals that have evolved to take care of one another. Humans have evolved beyond the solitary hunter phase, but we also haven't learned how to live well in large groups yet, either. I suspect that our patriarchal way of thinking is a very strong reason why our societies have so much trouble adjusting. We could learn a thing or two from social animals.

Edit: I should add that in larger animal social groups the "rugged individual" is not a benefit to the social groups. In almost all cases where males tend to be violent and domineering, they are outcasts for most of the year, only being allowed into the groups during mating season. Even with social insects like ants and bees (termites are different) the males are insignificant in the society, only having use as fertilizing agents. I guess the tendency for male rivalry was eventually phased out of these societies as being too disruptive and non-beneficial to all the members of the societies.

Edited by butuki on 10/14/2011 17:17:36 MDT.

"Any services a citizen needs, they pay for. It is the natural way to live."

And, for most at this point in our history, to die I fear. Would you be comfortable with that outcome, Nick, if it came to pass?

"Most of the very wealthy didn't get rich by creating it. They got it because their daddy or more likely, granddaddy, great granddaddy, etc. created it. They just haven't lost it yet."

I know anecdotes don't makes for good policy and all, but when I think of super-rich people, the first 3 people that come to mind are Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, and Steve Jobs. The computer moguls have literally built their fortune by radically improving the tools everyone else uses to be productive (if using an iphone can even be called 'productive').

They increased the efficiency of ordinary workers by laying the groundwork for things like email and the internet, with its forums where we can discuss backpacking with people in Japan, Australia, and Alaska as if we all lived in the same hallway.

Warren Buffet I know less about; however, from the hearsay and facts and quotes floating around, I get the impression that he made his tens of billions starting from far less than that, and it all grew through skillful investments into companies that actually increased in value by doing something valuable.

I wish we could all do so well with our money: using it as capital to give wings to ideas the population finds valuable enough to freely spend their money on because they believe it improves their lives.

These are three guys who earned their wealth (say what you will about any of them as people).

Correct me if I'm wrong. I mean that. =)

Outright fraud is handled in court.

I personally know a few mortage brokers that sold NINAs all day long for huge commissions. heheh, they care about court about as much as the collateralized debt obligation companies cared about them when the jig was up

the subprime mortage crisis will be in the ears of everyone that will listen at occupy Orange County. this is not at you, nick (seriously)- I will be an engaged part of the republic, not sit from the comfort of my keyboard offering criticisms.

Daniel, the problem with looking at people like the three you mentioned is that they are the visible ones, having been the ones who made it. But for every successful person, there are a hundred, whom we never see because the media does not look at them, who never make it to the very top, even though they worked just as hard. You can't have winners without losers, and the problem in this "how the rich got rich" way of thinking is the assumption that the ones who didn't make it someow did something wrong or weren't up to snuff. Also, in order for a successful person to make it anywhere they need the support of all those other "unsuccessful" people in order to get anywhere. They could never have done anything on their own, indeed it is often the exploitation of other's ideas that got them where they did, at the expense of the others. That may or may not be a legitimate way to conduct a society, but then you have to admit that trodding down on others in order to get ahead will of necessity cause people to not be able to be successful, or to not have basic living standards. It's not as clearcut as the "work hard and you will succeed" people want it to be. Life is never that fair or smooth.

Edited by butuki on 10/14/2011 17:34:11 MDT.