Occupy ____________

Linus wrote: The only way to get rid of the "1%"

agentwhale007 wrote: Linus wrote: The only way to get rid of the "1%"  As has been demonstrated, this is not the goal of the majority, nor the plurality.

Word. Even the people ("the people" here indicating a sizable group of some political significance) agitating against capitalism are not advocating a systematic overhaul of the U.S. economic institutions.

Linus wrote: No, it quite is their goal, and I don't get how you can state otherwise. They don't think 1% should have the majority of wealth. If you spread the wealth, guess what? There is no longer a 1%, is there?

So, the problem isn't that there is a class of people with more wealth than others; it's the disparity between the classes and the means by which that wealth is accumulated. An inordinate amount of wealth in the hands of a few is not conducive to democracy as we would like to practice it in this country because a concentration of wealth is almost always followed by a concentration of power. When the concentration of power is followed by the exercise of power that increases the concentration of wealth, and a cycle is born, there is a fundamental problem within that democratic state.

oldpbnoob wrote: So monopoly is the end result of capitalism?

Not necessarily, but it is certainly an acceptable result in a purely free-market capitalist economy, don't you think?


Edited by Gatyr - 11 October 2011 at 4:04pm

Gatyr wrote: Linus wrote: No, it quite is their goal, and I don't get how you can state otherwise. They don't think 1% should have the majority of wealth. If you spread the wealth, guess what? There is no longer a 1%, is there? So, the problem isn't that there is a class of people with more wealth than others; it's the disparity between the classes and the means by which that wealth is accumulated.

They're trying to get rid of the idea of the "1% owning everything", are they not?

Edited by Linus - 11 October 2011 at 4:02pm

Linus wrote: They're trying to get rid of the idea of the "1% owning everything", are they not?

Linus wrote: They're trying to get rid of the idea of the "1% owning everything", are they not?

I just edited my previous post to make things more clear about what I perceive the problem to be, so I'll refer you to that.

But diminishing the income and wealth disparity between the top 1% and the bottom 80% does not necessarily involve stopping the top 1% of all of their wealth in order to distribute amongst everyone else. Going from having 80% of the wealth to having, say, 40% of the wealth (which is an example, not an actual goal, just so we're clear) is not seizing and distributing all of their wealth so that there is no more top 1%.

The protestors seem largely inarticulate and/or ignorant. I do agree that corporations are able to throw their capital around and achieve disporportionate influence in Gov't. The problem is that you really can't label the protestors political and economic objectives because they haven't even figured it out yet. I have a problem with the removal or a fee/tax for stock trades which was and should be a few cents for ever share but would net a lot of revenue because of the sheer trading volume, and might even slow down the occasional rampant and senseless  fluctuations of the market due to everyone using the same or similar programs to buy and sell stocks, since they have a tendency to snowball. The big issues continue to be our national debt, the continuation of the Bush tax cuts, which were designed to be temporary but have proven politically impossible to get rid of, war and other spending, and the credit crisis and bubble economy that has stagnated hiring and growth. I also have a problem with the Gov't continuing to extend unemployment benefits since the job market is so abysmal, and not give people more time to start repayment on student loans when recent grads are likely underemployed or unemployed. It's politicians caring for their current voter base (boomers and the soon-to-retire) at the expense of the future (the millenial generation who's going to have to pick up the tab). I'd like to be able to get a decent job that will enable me to repay my modest student loans rather than working jobs that I could do with a GED that pay crap. Our generation was brought up being told that a college education was essential due to deindustrialization, at the same time college costs were skyrocketing and the job market was getting crappier. On an unrelated note, I can't afford groceries until Friday and spent the better part of the morning attempting to kill a pheasant that entered my yard while I was waiting for a call for work.

Gatyr wrote: But diminishing the income and wealth disparity between the top 1% and the bottom 80% does not necessarily involve stopping the top 1% of all of their wealth in order to distribute amongst everyone else. Going from having 80% of the wealth to having, say, 40% of the wealth (which is an example, not an actual goal, just so we're clear) is not seizing and distributing all of their wealth so that there is no more top 1%.

But there will always be a top 1%. If, say, they go from 80% to 40%, the argument would than be "1% of the country owns 40% of the wealth!!!"


Granted, I'm one of the first to say that just because something will always exist doesn't mean we should just quite, but still.



Let's be honest here. The median income in the US is what, $45,000? You can still live rather comfortable off of that type of income. I don't care if Warren Buffet has billions of dollars, as it has no bearing on my day to day life if he made another 10% that month or not. The only way it would have any influence on me is if goes directly in to or from, my pocket.

agentwhale007 wrote: Change =! rid.

Semantics. Changing your government is getting rid of how it currently is. Changing your clothes is getting rid of what you were wearing.

Edited by Linus - 11 October 2011 at 4:29pm

Linus wrote: Gatyr wrote: But diminishing the income and wealth disparity between the top 1% and the bottom 80% does not necessarily involve stopping the top 1% of all of their wealth in order to distribute amongst everyone else. Going from having 80% of the wealth to having, say, 40% of the wealth (which is an example, not an actual goal, just so we're clear) is not seizing and distributing all of their wealth so that there is no more top 1%. Let's be honest here. The median income in the US is what, $45,000? You can still live rather comfortable off of that type of income. I don't care if Warren Buffet has billions of dollars, as it has no bearing on my day to day life if he made another 10% that month or not. The only way it would have any influence on me is if goes directly in to or from, my pocket. This is the crux of it. However, the traders we are talking about are getting rich from gambling with things like your mortgage, student loans, and 401k and paying themselves huge bonuses(considerably higher than other industrialized capitalist countries) regardless of how good of a job they do, which is what seems to be inflaming the mob. Gov't should place limits on exactly how reckless/stupid traders can be with other people's money, and even modest regulation can go a long way towards this end. Corporations use their influence on both sides of the aisle to keep this from happening. Gov't gives incentives to allow your 401k to be played with in the market by way of hefty tax penalties for taking it out. Student loans are about the only thing that won't go away if you file for bankruptcy protection. agentwhale007 wrote: Change =! rid.  Semantics. Changing your government is getting rid of how it currently is. Changing your clothes is getting rid of what you were wearing.

Linus wrote: But there will always be a top 1%. If, say, they go from 80% to 40%, the argument would than be "1% of the country owns 40% of the wealth!!!"