|
No, sorry, it doesn't really work like that. Finance also employs loads of people too, not just in the City but across the country. Yes, a few people earn millions. But lots of people earn decent money even if they aren't star traders, as actually there's an awful lot of support staffFinance employs a very small amount of people for the money it makes.
In the US it employs
8,145,500 people out of 150,931,700 workers or 5.4% of the working population. http://www.bls.gov/emp/ep_table_201.htm
(2008 figures but i doubt the % has changed much)
It makes 31% of the GDP. On the one hand thats efficiency. On the other hand its a lot of people out of work.
And just wait till Watson takes over trading from the humans completely.
And you might be right about hand crafts. You might not about more commoditised stuff. It could be easier and cheaper to sack a load of workers and buy a machine.It usually is. Lumberjacks always complain about hippies costing them their jobs, when it was really giant robots of arboreal destruction doing the job faster cheaper and safer.
Manufacturing was about 8.9 % of the workforce and about 33% of the GDP. But manufacturing employs a lot more extra sectors than finance does: namely natural resources.
Well, there's a degree of lump of labour in that (ducks). And the figures have probably changed a bit, but not enough to invalidate your numbers. I quoted some stats at you before. In 2008 manufacturing was about 15% of UK economic output, suggesting that services are about 85%. But 85% of the population isn't out of work. And I'm not really buying this argument that manufacturing reaches part of the economy financial services cannot reach - it probably just stimulates different bits, mainly other services. And there are some very significant synergies between finance and other sectors, not least the provision of financial services such as loans and insurance, which provide investment and manage risks for all sectors.
And technology giveth as well as taketh away - whole areas of economic activity have opened up because of technology. Although yeah - those damned robot hippies.
|
|
I strongly disagree (both with you and with english policy) mostly on the importance given to the financial industry. It should shrink back to a tool answering to the needs of the "real" economy, and not be an end in itself. A lot of financial practices could disapeear without any real damage. Alas, our governments don't seem inclined to do the pruning/regulation needed.
Actually, I don't particularly disagree about that either. Higher capital requirements should be the way to curb most of such activity. There are some definitional issues, perhaps - Buffett's talk about derivatives as WMD has been taken out of context a bit, for example, especially as Berkshire-Hathaway are a big user of them. They are very useful for risk transference and hedging, which is a good thing (generally). They also allow you to take big bets very easily too, which isn't, always. But even then, "speculation" can be done in a well-controlled manner, especially if it is backed by sufficient capital.
There is a strong law philosophy point here. Common Law is more contract-driven than continental legislations: everything not prohibited is permitted, which let the financial industry exercise its considerable imagination to create ever more complex and lucrative products and practices. Maybe it would be best to consider enacting regulation the other way around, by prohibiting everything not allowed (that is, by freezing a list of allowed products and practices). Who needs high frequency trading and negotiable CDS?
High-frequency trading, not so much, but it's a poorly understood area at the moment. CDS - well, see my point about derivatives above. And what you suggesting there is basically regulatory control over financial innovation. It has been suggested in the UK that the regulators should vet all new products. We've just had a crisis but there is a risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Innovation isn't bad as such - derivatives aren't bad, as such, for example. It's more how they are used. Inasmuch as a product lets you hedge your risks, it’s a good thing. If you want to do business with a certain counterparty, but are worried about their creditworthiness, you can hedge it (to some extent) with a CDS. That probably good for you, good for your counterpart, and earns a fee for the bank. But CDS are fairly new products, becoming big in the last decade or so (although to some extent they represent glorified insurance).
The issue is always being able to understand the risk and, more importantly, measure the risk (so you can work out how much capital you will need). To some extent, the crash hinged on some false assumption about mathematical correlations between price movements in different housing markets across the US. This led to incorrect capital assumptions. And even then, it was useful to find that out. Unfortunately, because of other factors, investors had filled their boots by that stage.
Also, the front office often runs ahead of the middle and back office, so you had CDS being transacted but a big snarl-up in trying to confirm and settle them, which introduces additional risk.
However, a lot of “Don’t do this!” regulation seems to be more about politics that actual evidence. Bans on some aspects short-selling financial stocks in the EU are probably futile and quite possibly even damaging to financial markets (as short-sellers are often the only guys who will buy stocks as they fall, to cover their positions, they provide liquidity to the market, and banning them may actually increase volatility and cause shares to fall further). There’s a lot of stuff about speculation in commodities markets pushing up food and oil prices (a favorite theme of Sarkozy, I believe) but there is virtually not actual evidence for it (and no mechanism: since commodities futures can be settled in cash, you don’t need to buy the actual commodity for delivery to close the contract).
I guess what I’m saying is that there is a good argument for much tighter control over financial innovation. But it seems to me to be more of a political decision in a democracy as to what you want your financial sector to do.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I still find it pretty disingenuous to overly blame the homeowners, who have very little power over the underlying financial mechanisms, when it was the brokers and bankers who caused the crisis. Are they somewhat to blame? Sure. Absolutely. They should have read the fine print, they should have been smarter, they should have known the subprime mortgages were too good to be true. In making these sorts of claims you're essentially saying "well, they shouldn't have been such suckers!", and making those claims admits that they were taken advantage of.
Look, you can keep beating your drum about how the people who had these bad mortgages are at fault, but it's about (random number out of my ass) 12% of the fault spread out over (oh look another number) 90% of the actual parties involved (mortgage holders) as opposed to the rest of the blame that lies in a few hundred high level bankers, securities brokers, and rating agency workers.
+1
As Aubrey justly pointed out (obsssequiousss, I can alsso be obssequiousss, my pretty), banks' historical role is to transform short terme deposits into long term loans, collecting some interests in payment for the risks they took doing so.
There is currently a trend among bankers to just stop doing that. Their wet dream is to act only as intermediaries between people having money and willing to lend it, and other people looking for loans (for instance, the insurance company I work for continuously get such propositions from our bankers). This way, they wouldn't be burdened by the credit risk, and just get to collect fees. Stuffing fresh loans into derivatives is one of the many ways to achieve this.
But this is a very bad idea, because bankers are the only ones in contact with the borrowers, and so the only ones able to correctly gauge the default risk they represent.
They shouldn't be allowed to transfer those risks, period. If they can, they will, and not shouldering the credit risks can only drive them toward more and more reckless loans as we plainly saw. Why should they care that Mr X is broke, if they aren't the ones who will get burnt when he defaults?
Blaming the borrowers for the subprime fiasco is quite harsh. It seems than banks specifically targeted low-income families, supposedly less familiar with the subtleties of the finance world, with rosy and patently false promises. I doubt that the contracts plainly stated that the rates and payments would or even could skyrocket like they did; an obscure reference to some exotic index is more likely.
There is a strong law philosophy point here. Common Law is more contract-driven than continental legislations: everything not prohibited is permitted, which let the financial industry exercise its considerable imagination to create ever more complex and lucrative products and practices. Maybe it would be best to consider enacting regulation the other way around, by prohibiting everything not allowed (that is, by freezing a list of allowed products and practices). Who needs high frequency trading and negotiable CDS?High-frequency trading, not so much, but it's a poorly understood area at the moment. CDS - well, see my point about derivatives above. And what you suggesting there is basically regulatory control over financial innovation. It has been suggested in the UK that the regulators should vet all new products. We've just had a crisis but there is a risk of throwing out the baby with the bathwater. Innovation isn't bad as such - derivatives aren't bad, as such, for example. It's more how they are used. Inasmuch as a product lets you hedge your risks, it’s a good thing. If you want to do business with a certain counterparty, but are worried about their creditworthiness, you can hedge it (to some extent) with a CDS. That probably good for you, good for your counterpart, and earns a fee for the bank. But CDS are fairly new products, becoming big in the last decade or so (although to some extent they represent glorified insurance).
For the record, I'm not stating that innovation in financial matters should be banned forever. But yes, if new financial products had to be cleared before use, it could give a chance to the regulators to keep up instead of running behind. I'm trying to make your job easier, here.
This kind of regulation already exist, in continental Europe (in fact, almost everywhere except Common Law countries). It's one of the reasons that our financial sectors are less competitive than yours. There is always a lapse of time between the invention of some new toy by some UK/US bank and the green light given to our banks to play with it. On the other hand, it's why there were no subprimes here: they were still a project in 2007, a tiny but now infamous part of our beloved president's program...
Please note that I'm against negociable CDS. Insuring oneself against default is okay; using them to speculate and gain from said default when you aren't the loaner isn't useful in the grand scheme of things (I'm talking about societal usefulness here. The guy who won his bet wouldn't agree).
However, a lot of “Don’t do this!” regulation seems to be more about politics that actual evidence. Bans on some aspects short-selling financial stocks in the EU are probably futile and quite possibly even damaging to financial markets (as short-sellers are often the only guys who will buy stocks as they fall, to cover their positions, they provide liquidity to the market, and banning them may actually increase volatility and cause shares to fall further). There’s a lot of stuff about speculation in commodities markets pushing up food and oil prices (a favorite theme of Sarkozy, I believe) but there is virtually not actual evidence for it (and no mechanism: since commodities futures can be settled in cash, you don’t need to buy the actual commodity for delivery to close the contract).
I guess what I’m saying is that there is a good argument for much tighter control over financial innovation. But it seems to me to be more of a political decision in a democracy as to what you want your financial sector to do.
Red tape is always a risk. But pushing a new product through it for a couple of years could enable all market operators to better understand them before using them massively, without any idea of possible consequences.
And allowing financial products on basis of their usefulness to the financial system, instead of their profit potential, would be a great improvement and a complete change of philosophy.
Here is some irony for those who appriciate the original idea of the movement.
Well, there's a degree of lump of labour in that (ducks)
Tosses breadcrumbs on you, and releases a swarm of swans.
Lump of labor is only a fallacy when you assume the labor pool is absolute. Assuming complete elasticity of the labor market is just as fallacious.
As I see it its like a balloon. If your balloon is a vacuum, air will rush into it on its own. The more air you try to put into it though, the harder you have to push and the more the pressure builds.
When the manufacturing balloon shrinks, SOME of the air goes into other balloons. That doesn't mean all of it will.
In 2008 manufacturing was about 15% of UK economic output, suggesting that services are about 85%. But 85% of the population isn't out of work.
Where's my Trepanning tool...
I'm not saying that manufacturing has to be the only thing there. I'm saying that manufacturing does a better job of spreading the money around. Manufacturing requires a large amount of raw materials. Finance does not.
And I'm not really buying this argument that manufacturing reaches part of the economy financial services cannot reach - it probably just stimulates different bits, mainly other services
Would you need an iron mine to run a finance company for instance? International paper maintains its own private forests to keep its mills fed.
And there are some very significant synergies between finance and other sectors, not least the provision of financial services such as loans and insurance, which provide investment and manage risks for all sectors.
It looks more and more like the finance is fininancing the finance. Without the manufacturing sector to invest IN what are they going to do?
And technology giveth as well as taketh away - whole areas of economic activity have opened up because of technology. Although yeah - those damned robot hippies.
Robot scabs would be more appropriate.
|
|
Well, there's a degree of lump of labour in that (ducks)Tosses breadcrumbs on you, and releases a swarm of swans.
Lump of labor is only a fallacy when you assume the labor pool is absolute. Assuming complete elasticity of the labor market is just as fallacious.
As I see it its like a balloon. If your balloon is a vacuum, air will rush into it on its own. The more air you try to put into it though, the harder you have to push and the more the pressure builds.
When the manufacturing balloon shrinks, SOME of the air goes into other balloons. That doesn't mean all of it will.
In 2008 manufacturing was about 15% of UK economic output, suggesting that services are about 85%. But 85% of the population isn't out of work.Where's my Trepanning tool...
I'm not saying that manufacturing has to be the only thing there. I'm saying that manufacturing does a better job of spreading the money around. Manufacturing requires a large amount of raw materials. Finance does not.
And I'm not really buying this argument that manufacturing reaches part of the economy financial services cannot reach - it probably just stimulates different bits, mainly other servicesWould you need an iron mine to run a finance company for instance? International paper maintains its own private forests to keep its mills fed.
And there are some very significant synergies between finance and other sectors, not least the provision of financial services such as loans and insurance, which provide investment and manage risks for all sectors.It looks more and more like the finance is fininancing the finance. Without the manufacturing sector to invest IN what are they going to do?
Robot scabs would be more appropriate.
And technology giveth as well as taketh away - whole areas of economic activity have opened up because of technology. Although yeah - those damned robot hippies.
I think it's fair to say there is "friction" in the process. I don't think anyone will walk away from a job making cars in Detroit, jump on the bus/plane/train to New York, and begin trading on Wall Street the next day. Some of this friction you can't do much about in the short term - you need to develop skills, at the very least. So, a lot of the time, if you are made redundant by the remorseless tread of progress, it is likely you are going to move from something maybe skilled but obsolete to something low skilled. Assuming you can get a job at all, if you happen to work in a "company town" and the company has gone bust or shut the factory.
I'd say two things. First off, there are things you can do to reduce this friction. And when I say "you", I actually mean the state. These could include retraining; better education generally that is relevant to current market conditions; making it easier to move to new jobs, be it help in moving house or better transport links; friendly taxation and business policies (including regulation) which makes people willing to create new firms to promote employment, both generally and maybe targeted to particularly depressed areas. And so on. Will everyone respond equally well? No, probably not, but then not everyone responds equally well to work generally. Will it totally eradicate the problems in the short and medium term? Again, probably not entirely - the devil would be in the detail, for a start - but it would help a bit.
But there's also a broader perspective in this. We are concentrating on the here and now, and looking at people who are being left behind. Frankly, history is probably being a lot kinder to them than in a lot of other similar situations. In the old days, before social security nets and so on (admittedly, less generous in the US), people used to starve or wind up in the workhouse. I don't know what happened to the cotton weavers in 18th Century Britain when the Industrial Revolution kicked off but I bet it wasn't good. But we are currently reaping the benefits of their "ahem" sacrifice, living in industrial, indeed post-industrial societies, with all the incremental benefits to our life styles which have accrued as technologies are invented, implemented and then made obsolete. To some extent, surviving such change is down to the individual. I'm sure it isn't great when history "happens" to you. I mean, if you can't get a job where you live, you still have the option of "getting on your bike" and looking for one somewhere else. The state should assist with that, in my view.
Here's the chart:
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/File:Chart_of_US_Top_1%25_Income_Share_%281913 -2008%29.svg
I get an error trying the link, but I found this article on income disparity in the US that has some nice graphs.
http://www.ktvu.com/video/29587140/index.html
They seem to have live video / commentary
I am finding confusing reports on this. Some are saying that the crowd was firing paintballs and throwing rocks at the police officers before the tear gas began, but the reporter you link to on the ground makes no mention of it, nor can it really be seen from the arial view.
I haven't been following the Bay Area Occupy stuff closely, but even before Occupy started, tensions were high due to the high number of young black males being shot by BART police officers and the on-again, off-again hunger strikers at Pelican Bay. I've been waiting for nasty shiznit to go down there for a while now.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
It looks more and more like the finance is fininancing the finance. Without the manufacturing sector to invest IN what are they going to do?
Sometimes, the growth of the financial sector (I mean, outside the bounds of what is needed to finance the "real" economy) reminds me of all those so called "perpetual motion" constructs. None ever worked.
I wonder how a finance-heavy economy can sustain itself in the long term. I mean, you need wealth (in form of money) to invest, and wealth just doesn't pop up spontaneously. Correct me if I am wrong, but the derivatives market weight is said to outweigh many times over the entire world GNP. The fruit has grown bigger than the tree.
In other terms, in the current system, money seems to breed money without any connection with reality (that is, goods, raw materials, lands, buildings, whatever). Doesn't it sounds like the finance industry has inflated beyond all measure, to become the mother of all bubbles?
I am finding confusing reports on this. Some are saying that the crowd was firing paintballs and throwing rocks at the police officers before the tear gas began, but the reporter you link to on the ground makes no mention of it, nor can it really be seen from the arial view.http://www.ktvu.com/video/29587140/index.html
They seem to have live video / commentary
The mayor's statement:
Sanitation.The live feed from ABC 7 went down just before the teargas, 2 or 3 times last night. There are all kinds of vids on Youtube showing teargas, rubber bullets and flashbombs. One guy got shot in the head.
There are always undercover police and provocateurs at these things, too, so it's hard to say who did what, but the only thing I saw a protester throw was a can of teargas back at the cops.
I am finding confusing reports on this. Some are saying that the crowd was firing paintballs and throwing rocks at the police officers before the tear gas began, but the reporter you link to on the ground makes no mention of it, nor can it really be seen from the arial view.http://www.ktvu.com/video/29587140/index.html
They seem to have live video / commentary
The mayor's statement:
Sanitation.The live feed from ABC 7 went down just before the teargas, 2 or 3 times last night. There are all kinds of vids on Youtube showing teargas, rubber bullets and flashbombs. One guy got shot in the head.
There are always undercover police and provocateurs at these things, too, so it's hard to say who did what, but the only thing I saw a protester throw was a can of teargas back at the cops.
Were you there?
Apparently there were multiple confrontations last night (I have heard reports of at least 4). I cannot tell if some of them were provoked, especially with some of the video I have seen from the croud being obviously editted.
Were you there?
Apparently there were multiple confrontations last night (I have heard reports of at least 4). I cannot tell if some of them were provoked, especially with some of the video I have seen from the croud being obviously editted.
No. I didn't mean to imply I was. Between the live feeds and the stuff that's made it to youtube, that's all I saw. It's hard to say who did what. I only have second or third-hand reports. 4 confrontations sounds right.
This may have already been posted: Amy Goodman and Christopher Hedges discuss OWS with Charlie Rose
Very interesting, however you look at it.
I think it's fair to say there is "friction" in the process. I don't think anyone will walk away from a job making cars in Detroit, jump on the bus/plane/train to New York, and begin trading on Wall Street the next day.
Or any day for that matter. There's only a need for so many traders.
Some of this friction you can't do much about in the short term - you need to develop skills, at the very least. So, a lot of the time, if you are made redundant by the remorseless tread of progress, it is likely you are going to move from something maybe skilled but obsolete to something low skilled. Assuming you can get a job at all, if you happen to work in a "company town" and the company has gone bust or shut the factory.
And what happens when you work in a company country ?
These could include retraining; better education generally that is relevant to current market conditions
Retraining to do what?
I don't know what happened to the cotton weavers in 18th Century Britain when the Industrial Revolution kicked off but I bet it wasn't good.
They were primarily young, female, secondary wage earners so their loss of jobs hurt but wasn't catastrophic. This has been called a manscession for a reason, men (the primary earners) are being laid off heavily and depriving family's of their main, not secondary income.
I mean, if you can't get a job where you live, you still have the option of "getting on your bike" and looking for one somewhere else. The state should assist with that, in my view.
American roads are not very bike friendly.
The state should, but it really isn't. That would be socialism, which is a dirty word that republicans will gladly use to convince the people who need it to vote against it.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
The state should, but it really isn't. That would be socialism, which is a dirty word that republicans will gladly use to convince the people who need it to vote against it.
I continue to find it amazing how many of the poor have been convinced to turn on each other along cultural, racial, or party lines.
Working full time, but can't afford health insurance for your family? It's those illegal immigrants!*
Not making ends meet? Well, that's the fault of the unemployed!*
Can't get a job in construction? It's those damn freedom-hating socialists!*
* Hint: The vast majority of these people are in the same boat that you are. Hmmm...
But WHATEVER you do, pay no attention to the millionaire behind the curtain. :(
This may have already been posted: Amy Goodman and Christopher Hedges discuss OWS with Charlie Rose
Very interesting, however you look at it.
Long, but very good. Thanks.
No. I didn't mean to imply I was. Between the live feeds and the stuff that's made it to youtube, that's all I saw. It's hard to say who did what. I only have second or third-hand reports. 4 confrontations sounds right.Were you there?
Apparently there were multiple confrontations last night (I have heard reports of at least 4). I cannot tell if some of them were provoked, especially with some of the video I have seen from the croud being obviously editted.
From what I can tell, the Oakland movement has been more disruptive than others I have seen. There is a significant ammount of graffiti and there are many pictures of blatant drug use (moreso than I have seen from other areas, and not just pot). While I do not think the police acted properly, and I think they are lieing about some of the results (no reported injuries my ass, there is video of them launching a tear gas grenade on people trying to help someone who fell down and looks seriously injured, and others of bleeding people being carried away)
Like the Boston protest, the police had the right to kick people out of the park. The constitution only prevents congress from making laws, not local governments instituting curfews. The cops did not do it nearly as well as the Boston group though, and were not nearly as friendly. I hope this doesn't get out of hand, but I have the gut feeling it will.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Not to excuse graffitti and drug use, but ALL protests will attract people who are either loony (some anti-semites have gotten a lot of attention) or have other problems.
Add in provocateurs, and it's hard to say who did what or why. Was all the graffitti put there by protesters, or someone with a different agenda?
From what I can tell, the Oakland movement has been more disruptive than others I have seen.
They named their park Oscar Grant Plaza!!!
Protesting-types have been mightily riled in the Bay Area for much longer than these Occupies have been going down.
This may have already been posted: Amy Goodman and Christopher Hedges discuss OWS with Charlie Rose
Very interesting, however you look at it.
I love Charlie Rose and Tavis Smiley. They're on PBS so no one but us hippy liberal wackadoos watch them. Nonetheless I wish the more mainstream media had shows and interviewers as intelligent and humble as them.
Not to excuse graffitti and drug use, but ALL protests will attract people who are either loony (some anti-semites have gotten a lot of attention) or have other problems.
Add in provocateurs, and it's hard to say who did what or why. Was all the graffitti put there by protesters, or someone with a different agenda?
Well, as he said "no one is refusing them" - but no one refuses tiny bibles either.
|
From what I can tell, the Oakland movement has been more disruptive than others I have seen.They named their park Oscar Grant Plaza!!!
Protesting-types have been mightily riled in the Bay Area for much longer than these Occupies have been going down.
It might not just be difference in the movement.
The Oakland police have a history of being sued for excessive force against protesters.
as well as being investigated by the FBI for corruption & incompetence.
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
You guys have a right to peaceful assembly and peaceful protest, right?
On paper, yes. But I wonder whether the protesters who got gassed would agree.
Also, it's quite easy to eject protestors on some pretense, which is what seems to be happening a lot lately. The protestors are a health hazard, or are causing noise pollution, or are littering. You get the idea.
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
I get the idea.
As I said.
I hate corrupt police.
Ours can be pretty bad, but not quite as bad as yours (that I've heard of). I remember in highschool, the biggest drug dealer in town (and everyone knew it) was the police chief's son.
There was an incident a few years back where a polish guy was immigrating here, there was a mixup with his flight and his ride didnt know he got here a day early, and the airport security locked him in an office for like 8 hours. When he started freaking out and yelling about how he needed to be let out (in polish, he couldnt speak english) cops showed up. Beat the crap out of him, and tazered him. They did it for longer, and a larger number of times than they were supposed to, with the tazers calibrated higher than regulation specs. It was filmed by people on-scene, and hte polish got translated after.
The guy died.
And when I was in highschool some jackass started a rumour about a school shooting beiong planned, and hinted that it would be me and some people I knew who would be responsible. For 8 months we were harassed and pulled out of class and interrogated by the police and the administration, and my guidance counselor told me I had better confess that I was responsible-or name the person who was, or the consequences would be even worse for me. The whole thing was just someone who started a rumor with the intent to make our lives miserable, but no realistic investigation was even attempted. Eventually they found out who it was and expelled him, but none of us got so much as an apology.
I have more examples. One where the police threaten a guy in his home, and threaten to shoot his family.
Very rarely are there any consequences for these things.
I'm not a criminal, but I'm not naive enough to believe that will keep me or anyone else safe if a corrupt cop decides to target me.
I'll go as far as to say I'm not sure there's a substantial difference between being "protected" by the police, or being "protected" by the mob, like the IRA, in Ireland in the 30s-80s.
As you pointed out, far too often freedoms and safeties only apply on paper.
--From the article above
"someone who did two tours of Iraq and came home safely is now lying in a US hospital because of the domestic police force."
This. Something is seriously wrong with the fact that this situation is possible.
You think this is how things looked when the conflict in Egypt started?
Just saying. This sort of police brutality and assaulting civilians is unacceptable.
|
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Naysayers of the Occupy Wall Street created a Twitter hashtag called #Iamthe53 in order to mock 47% of the country as being whiners who don't pay Federal income tax.
Is 53% or 1% greater than 99%?
Here are some recommended slogans and bumper-stickers for the "I am the 53% movement" (even though it's not really a movement):
Doctor_How:
I tell people to look for a job without realizing that they already have three. #iamthe53
Just because a small group has so much of the wealth that the majority can't keep the economy going is no concern of mine. I am the 53%
#PaulRyan - Talking about the things that divide us is dividing us! Also, don't talk about child abuse or dad's drinking. I am the 53%.
dedwinm:
Admitting Occupy may have a point may mean I have to face the fact that my employment is tenuous, despite working hard. I am the 53%.
The 1% got megarich by denying wage increases to workers & sending jobs overseas, hurting the American economy. It's all good. I am the 53%.
3.1% of political donations come from labor unions. 77.7% comes from businesses. I think workers are fairly represented. I am the 53%. http://bit.ly/7BqX0N
I pay federal income taxes yet 95% of political power is owned by big business lobbyists. I'm cool with that. I am the 53%.
To me, personal responsibility means bending over and taking it from the plutocrats who run the country. I am the 53%.
Planned Parenthood uses govt funds to give women prenatal care and cancer screenings. HMOs deny coverage to cancer patients. I am the 53%.
I pay more taxes than the rich 1% who make their money in investments and who pay less taxes than janitors & police. I am the 53%.
Hydeaway:
90% of my coworkers have been let go because our jobs moved overseas in order to increase the bottom line. I am lucky. #Iamthe53
I don't care that if our wages got a fair increase compared to Corp profits & CEO salaries that our economy would be improving. I am the 53%.
Rolled the dice on education, hard work, and clean living. Guess what? Sometimes it doesn't work. I am the 53%.
Because I'm lucky to have a good job for the meantime, I look down on the 47% with jobs that may not support their families. I am the 53%.
We gave house loans to people who couldn't afford them and gambled with investments we knew would fail. Tough. I am the 53%.
Why should I care that America is failing? I still make enough to pay Federal income tax. I am the 53%.
I want you 99ers to stop wanting handouts and look for jobs we sent overseas. I am the 53%.
I don't care that corporate greed has sucked the wealth and prosperity from America. I am the 53%.
Dr. Nuncheon:
I am the 53% & I want to know why the $ I earn by working my ass off is taxed more than the $ you get from investments. #iamthe53 #iamthe99
The 53% aren't part of the 99% because we're bad at math. I am the 53%.
Regarding the media's coverage of the Occupy X protests, it's fun to contrast what was being said about the round the clock occupation of Tahir Square in Egypt and the round the clock occupation of parks in various cities across North America and in other non-authoritarian countries around the world.
It's interesting that US journalists flew to Egypt to cover what was happening, but when it was just down the street, they did nothing until it was too big to ignore.
Are the protestors on the right track? Are they mad at the right people? Is the media ignoring the event?
Right, wrong, or indifferent, this makes for a great potential RPG item.
The Halflings in Zhalindor generally follow Ayn Rand's philosophy; I have a ball with that.
Hmmm ... what could a devious GM do with the occupy Wall Street movement?
Oh the fun that we'll have and the things that we'll see!
In service,
As a contrast to the horrors of Oakland, Orange County handled it beautifully.
Director of Narrative
|
This seems to be from the protest yesterday afternoon, not the initial clearing of the Occupy camp.
Here's a video of Scott Olsen laying on the ground after his skull was fractured by a tear gas canister. Notice around 00:38 when a cop throws a flashbang at the group of people trying to drag him away for medical attention. Stay classy OPD.
You guys have a right to peaceful assembly and peaceful protest, right?On paper, yes. But I wonder whether the protesters who got gassed would agree.
Also, it's quite easy to eject protestors on some pretense, which is what seems to be happening a lot lately. The protestors are a health hazard, or are causing noise pollution, or are littering. You get the idea.
Technically, the protestors never have a right to camp out there overnight in the first place. Almost all of the parks have curfews that are being violated. That alone is enough to technically arrest them for trespassing. Those laws have historically held up against free speech arguments to my knowledge.
Technically, all they have to do is say your not welcome to protest at times when the park is closed, and then arrest them. They should not have allowed the protests to camp out in the first place though if that were the case (and it is what happened in Boston, the first night the protest moved to a part of the park they were told not to camp out in)
|
Director of Narrative
|
| 2 people marked this as a favorite. |
Technically, the protestors never have a right to camp out there overnight in the first place. Almost all of the parks have curfews that are being violated. That alone is enough to technically arrest them for trespassing. Those laws have historically held up against free speech arguments to my knowledge.
Technically, all they have to do is say you're not welcome to protest at times when the park is closed, and then arrest them. They should not have allowed the protests to camp out in the first place though if that were the case (and it is what happened in Boston, the first night the protest moved to a part of the park they were told not to camp out in)
Isn't it cute how a municipal curfew can be stronger than the First Amendment? ;)
Technically, all they have to do is say your not welcome to protest at times when the park is closed, and then arrest them. They should not have allowed the protests to camp out in the first place though if that were the case (and it is what happened in Boston, the first night the protest moved to a part of the park they were told not to camp out in)
Yup.
Protesting? Sorry, Lou says the park is closed. Now move along before we tear gas you. :(
|
|
Regarding the media's coverage of the Occupy X protests, it's fun to contrast what was being said about the round the clock occupation of Tahir Square in Egypt and the round the clock occupation of parks in various cities across North America and in other non-authoritarian countries around the world.
Yeah. I hadnt mentioned it, but as I see these newsvideos I keep thinking.
Jesus. It looks like theyre on their way to the same situation that was in egypt a few months ago.
--"You know what concerns me?" "What's that:, I asked.
Expecting him to cite a civil code. "Do you have enough blankets, or
should I get you some?" He asked.--
Orange County.
Apparently the only civilized city in america.
I hope others start following their lead.
| 3 people marked this as a favorite. |
Which is, of course, the point of the Tehrir Square comparisons. Technically those were illegal as well. Should we have cheered Egyptian security clearing the square? Especially when they cited sanitary or public safety concerns?
Don't be ridiculous. those people were protesting a corrupt and ineffective government. This is america, we don't have that here
A little something to consider: It doesn't look like things have gotten terribly better in Egypt since the military took over (big surprise, huh?). Lots of trade unionists have been "disappeared" (and the unions were a much bigger part of Tahrir Square than they've been of Occupy America) and the last thing I saw, they were all kinds of attacks (military, I thought, but I'd have to go double check) on Egypt's Coptic Christian community.
It's an old Leninist saw, but spontaneous, "leaderless" revolts can only get you so far.
For a revolutionary proletarian, goblin and hot-hippie-chick vanguard party!
Link about Copts and Egyptian security forces
The article itself has plenty of links.
|
|
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
Which is, of course, the point of the Tehrir Square comparisons. Technically those were illegal as well. Should we have cheered Egyptian security clearing the square? Especially when they cited sanitary or public safety concerns?Don't be ridiculous. those people were protesting a corrupt and ineffective government. This is america, we don't have that here
Thats the funniest thing I've heard in a long time.
You dont mind if I get it printed on a t-shirt do you?
The Socialist Worker disapproves of my attempts to meet hot socialist chicks.
:(
You dont mind if I get it printed on a t-shirt do you?
- Have fun.