Occupy Wallstreet vs Middle East protests

11/09/2011 08:28:54 AM · #351

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by mike_311:

don't believe me? its happening right now. look at the banks and credit cards, the government tightened up the regulations and instead of just eating the costs and accepting lower profits they passed fees onto the customers.

you are crazy if you think that business will just accept lower profits if the government pulls the subsidies or increases taxes. our prices will go up.

I'm not sure where you get your information, or your level of certainty on economic theory, but even the freshest of fresh water economist would not go as far as you do.

There is no difference between the need for profit between producers and distributors. Oil companies are both, and they have massive profits. Farmers are producers and grocery stores are distributors, they both enjoy a marginal profit one fifth of those of the energy sector. Capital seeks profit in the safest venue it can find. Rewarding one sector over another is governmental influence, and it ought to favor (if you believe it ought to favor anyone) the sector we need to grow into, not those who give the biggest contributions.

As far as the banks, tell me what part of the attempt to regulate bank behavior has passed into law? We all talked about the need to re-regulate banks after the TARP funds were released to save them from their self-destructive free wheeling behavior, yet little of it has ever passed through congress.
"By September 2011, only a small portion of the law has taken hold. Of the up to 400 regulations called for in the act, only about a quarter had even been written, much less approved." link The fees you speak of are not in reaction to regulation, the banks are still largely unregulated and showing massive profitability; and of course they want more profits.

Your notion that Companies will wither and die if they have fewer subsidies or higher taxes or more regulation is not borne out if you look at history, or other countries. At a certain point a belief that a certain approach is the only possible path, no matter the evidence, what was supposed to be an argument on a matter of fact, becomes a question of faith, where a belief is held no matter the facts. Economics ought to be an arguable theory, not an article of faith.

my argument is more government involvement is going to be a bad this. do banks need to be watched, yes, we need to make sure they aren't involved in risky business that threatens to take down the economy or deceive the people.

i get this vibe that we need an overhaul of the economic system becuase it isn't working for everyone. boofuckin hoo.

yes i am taking my thoughts to the extreme, but its required in order for you to see the fallacy in your arguments. will the companies collapse with higher taxes and little or no subsidy? no, but also dont expect that the companies are going to sit on their hands and take lower profits, they are going to find a way to maintain those profits and pass them on to the consumer.

leave the system the way it is and get the companies out of the pockets of our elected officials so that they can properly watch and regulate. then maybe i will come around to government involvement, becuase right now they dont have our best interests at heart.

that's all we need, not a new economic model.

I think you're exploring how many ways you can retread trickle down economics. It still won't work.

11/09/2011 08:40:09 AM · #352

Originally posted by Spork99:

I think you're exploring how many ways you can retread trickle down economics. It still won't work.

exactly. when you start eating into company profits with taxes and regulation those lost profits trickle down to the consumer :P

btw, i'm not against increasing taxes or taking away subsidies or increasing regulation but its not the magic elixir everyone thinks its going to be.

11/09/2011 10:09:23 AM · #353

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by Spork99:

I think you're exploring how many ways you can retread trickle down economics. It still won't work.

exactly. when you start eating into company profits with taxes and regulation those lost profits trickle down to the consumer :P

btw, i'm not against increasing taxes or taking away subsidies or increasing regulation but its not the magic elixir everyone thinks its going to be.

No, they don't, they go to record CEO and executive compensation and company profits.

If the trickle down theory worked, since the richest (people and corporations) control more wealth than ever, have record low taxes, the rest of us should be seeing record low costs and record low unemployment. Instead, prices and unemployment are going up which is exactly the opposite of what the theory predicts.

Companies operate around the world in countries with much higher taxes than the US and still manage to make a profit while conforming to regulation and paying higher taxes to operate there.

11/09/2011 10:28:53 AM · #354

This article talks about companies in the defense industry and what tax rate they really paid.

At the end, a defense industry analyst is quoted as saying the companies are just following the law and that the tax loopholes and deductions are no different than a homeowner deducting their mortgage interest. On the face of it, that would seem correct. However, the homeowner doesn't have an army of lobbyists in Washington D.C. "helping" Congress to write those loopholes and deductions into the tax code while making generous "donations" to the campaigns of those same members of Congress.

Fujifilm XF 23mm f/2 R WR

11/09/2011 10:39:03 AM · #355

Many posts in this thread have characterized the Occupy protesters as dirty, lazy and angry kids throwing a fit about not getting a free ride. That may be true in some cases, but I'd bet they're the minority.

A good many protesters seem to be veterans, you know the people who put their lives on the line so that we could freely bitch and moan without fear of getting "disappeared" when we disagree with our government. Even if the numbers are difficult to assess, it's impossible to deny that veterans are there in significant numbers and two of them are in the hospital because of it.

oldbimmercoupe

Fujifilm X-Pro3

11/09/2011 10:41:35 AM · #356

holding up a mirror to our vacuous culture. waking up the 99%. putting at least a modicum of fear into the oligarchs than run our nation. making it clear that the system is broken, the game is rigged. tell me one whit of difference between clinton cheneybush obama. same neocon foreign policy; same crony capitalism. hold up mirror. this is what the end of an empire looks like and OWS is what democracy looks like.

Originally posted by mgsmith53:

What would be considered a satisfactory outcome of "occupy Wall Street or wherever"?

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

11/09/2011 11:25:03 AM · #357

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by Spork99:

I think you're exploring how many ways you can retread trickle down economics. It still won't work.

exactly. when you start eating into company profits with taxes and regulation those lost profits trickle down to the consumer :P

btw, i'm not against increasing taxes or taking away subsidies or increasing regulation but its not the magic elixir everyone thinks its going to be.

No, they don't, they go to record CEO and executive compensation and company profits.

If the trickle down theory worked, since the richest (people and corporations) control more wealth than ever, have record low taxes, the rest of us should be seeing record low costs and record low unemployment. Instead, prices and unemployment are going up which is exactly the opposite of what the theory predicts.

Companies operate around the world in countries with much higher taxes than the US and still manage to make a profit while conforming to regulation and paying higher taxes to operate there.

you didnt get my joke. i meant that the lost profits result in price hikes to the consumers in order to maintain those profits.

i agree that trickle down economics doesn't work, since the companies are maintaining profits by cutting costs elsewhere.

you keep arguing that the solution is to fix the companies, but the companies aren't to blame, like another poster earlier, the companies are working within the rules, even if those rules were created for them, the solution is to get the government to stop helping them and back to representing the people.

if our elected officials represented us and not corporate America we'd at least have a fighting chance, but you and others seem to to think that by blaming the companies for what they should be doing is the way to go.

Start blaming the people you put in office and you wont have to blame the companies. Focus you anger on them not corporate America. tell them to work for you. that is their job.

Message edited by author 2011-11-09 11:25:55.

o2bskating

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

11/09/2011 11:30:45 AM · #358

y would the government work for us for free when they can work for corp america and get paid? until it is illegal for them to take money from corporations nothing is going to change.

11/09/2011 11:42:06 AM · #359

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by Spork99:

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by Spork99:

I think you're exploring how many ways you can retread trickle down economics. It still won't work.

exactly. when you start eating into company profits with taxes and regulation those lost profits trickle down to the consumer :P

btw, i'm not against increasing taxes or taking away subsidies or increasing regulation but its not the magic elixir everyone thinks its going to be.

No, they don't, they go to record CEO and executive compensation and company profits.

If the trickle down theory worked, since the richest (people and corporations) control more wealth than ever, have record low taxes, the rest of us should be seeing record low costs and record low unemployment. Instead, prices and unemployment are going up which is exactly the opposite of what the theory predicts.

Companies operate around the world in countries with much higher taxes than the US and still manage to make a profit while conforming to regulation and paying higher taxes to operate there.

you didnt get my joke. i meant that the lost profits result in price hikes to the consumers in order to maintain those profits.

i agree that trickle down economics doesn't work, since the companies are maintaining profits by cutting costs elsewhere.

you keep arguing that the solution is to fix the companies, but the companies aren't to blame, like another poster earlier, the companies are working within the rules, even if those rules were created for them, the solution is to get the government to stop helping them and back to representing the people.

if our elected officials represented us and not corporate America we'd at least have a fighting chance, but you and others seem to to think that by blaming the companies for what they should be doing is the way to go.

Start blaming the people you put in office and you wont have to blame the companies. Focus you anger on them not corporate America. tell them to work for you. that is their job.

No, those rules weren't created for them, they were created by them. The corporations have armies of lobbyists that write and get sponsorship for legislation that favors the industry/company they represent. The corporations paid for the rules to be the way they are, so the game is tilted in their favor.

The solution isn't to just fix the companies or the government, both of them need fixing.

I'm not just pissed at corporations, the government gets an equal measure of my anger. They have basically sold out to corporate interests...in my mind, that's borderline treason and should be dealt with as such.

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/09/2011 12:15:13 PM · #360

Originally posted by Spork99:

again dont blame the companies for playing within the rules available and buying the politicians. is it right? hell no, but if there was no law against it how can you blame them for doing it? lets stop acting like companies are going to follow to some moral standard, that will never happen nor should it.

Originally posted by o2bskating:

y would the government work for us for free when they can work for corp america and get paid? until it is illegal for them to take money from corporations nothing is going to change.

exactly.

this is where the effort needs to be focused.

the blame is squarely on the politicians who allowed themselves to be bought and ceased to represent the public. I've been saying it all along we need to seriously bring some heat on Washington to pass a bill making it illegal to accept corporate campaign contributions. my biggest problem with OWS is they need to focus the anger on where a solution can come. venting about corporate America is falling on deaf ears, not everyone is hurting and a lot of people just dont care. but everyone sees the corruption in government and that is a movement most people would get behind.

forget corporate America, we need to take our government back.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

11/09/2011 12:42:00 PM · #361

Originally posted by mike_311:

Wait, Now I'm confused. You believe further regulations on corporations are bad. You believe that it is currently within their rights to buy our political system. So I gather you feel that our problem is our politicians who are in thrall to big money that are to blame.

If we can't regulate the behavior of corporations how do you fix the problem?

We aren't talking about nationalizing assets or entering a socialist economy, we are talking about shifting the tax rates and regulatory powers back to those that existed under such radicals as Eisenhower and Nixon.

If you can only loosen corporate oversight, and only lower corporate taxes, where do you think it will take us as a nation?

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/09/2011 01:38:41 PM · #362

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by Spork99:

No, those rules weren't created for them, they were created by them. The corporations have armies of lobbyists that write and get sponsorship for legislation that favors the industry/company they represent. The corporations paid for the rules to be the way they are, so the game is tilted in their favor.

The solution isn't to just fix the companies or the government, both of them need fixing.

I'm not just pissed at corporations, the government gets an equal measure of my anger. They have basically sold out to corporate interests...in my mind, that's borderline treason and should be dealt with as such.

again dont blame the companies for playing within the rules available and buying the politicians. is it right? hell no, but if there was no law against it how can you blame them for doing it? lets stop acting like companies are going to follow to some moral standard, that will never happen nor should it.

Why shouldn't companies be expected to follow a moral standard? We expect people to follow a moral standard. And after all, corporations ARE people, right? Even if you don't consider corporations as people, they are made up of people, who can be expected to act in a moral way or does the responsibility to act as a moral person stop when you become CEO?

Message edited by author 2011-11-09 13:41:13.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

11/09/2011 02:21:31 PM · #363

Originally posted by mike_311:

you didnt get my joke. i meant that the lost profits result in price hikes to the consumers in order to maintain those profits.

Where is it written that corporations are entitled to a guaranteed level of profit?

One of the problems is that the 1% espouse a free market while adopting a socialist approach to solving their crises -- I don't get bailed out by the taxpayer when I can't pay my obligations, but a big bank can, even while continuing to pay mulit-million dollar BONUSES to the same executives who created the crisis.

Why is corporate socialism OK, while remaining anethema when an attempt is made to apply the same principles and remedies to benefit the destitute?

Originally posted by mike_311:

again dont blame the companies for playing within the rules available and buying the politicians. is it right? hell no, but if there was no law against it how can you blame them for doing it? lets stop acting like companies are going to follow to some moral standard, that will never happen nor should it.

Why -- if they are going to have the same "rights" as actual citizens, why shouldn't they be expected to behave with the same sense of moral/social responsibility as the rest of us?

You are saying that -- as a shareholder -- you'd have no problem with the company you own doing something obviously "wrong" as long as there was no specific statute against it?

Message edited by author 2011-11-09 14:26:31.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/09/2011 02:47:42 PM · #364

a company has one responsibility, to please its shareholders, if it wants to do good things its allowed to do so, if it doesn't it doesn't have to. I dont think we should be telling a company what types of products to make. what is moral to one may not be moral to another. its up to a government body to determine if a company's practice breaks any laws.

i dont think further regulations are bad, i just dont think the are going to work, yet. we aren't addressing the problem, simply make it illegal for a politician to accept a corporate donations, the politicians will be no longer be in their pocket, they can focus on addressing the interests of the local economy and the public.

i think taxing the corporations more and further regulating now is only going to make things worse, simply becuase they are disingenuous, they look good to the pubic but really what is it going to accomplish? like i said earlier the companies are just going to find ways top push those costs off to the consumers, they aren't going to stimulate jobs. We need our officials to start worrying about the American economy not whatever economy benefits the large corporations.

we have nobody looking out for us and we need to get that back, first.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

11/09/2011 02:59:34 PM · #365

Originally posted by mike_311:

a company has one responsibility, to please its shareholders.

That's actually not true, and even to the degree that it IS true, that's a terrible state of affairs. Companies have responsibilities under law such as taxes. Companies have, or ought to have, responsibilities to their employees. To the degree that all of us, as individuals, have, or ought to have responsibilities to the larger society we inhabit, so should companies.

What sort of magic wand gets waved when a legal entity is formed (the company) that makes that entity, and those who own, exempt from socially responsible behavior, and places the entity in a category where the only criterion of right or wrong is "profit"?

The fact that this is the way things ARE right now doesn't make it RIGHT; it just describes why we're in the trouble we're in economically.

R.

yanko

Carl Zeiss 50mm ZE f/1.4 Planar T for Canon

11/09/2011 03:18:58 PM · #366

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

What sort of magic wand gets waved when a legal entity is formed (the company) that makes that entity, and those who own, exempt from socially responsible behavior, and places the entity in a category where the only criterion of right or wrong is "profit"?

Apparently, Moses needs to come down the summit again with a fresh new set of tablets and take them over to the nearest corporate/tea party gathering. Oh and a copy of the Bible with the sections about greed, wealth, love, tolerance, etc circled with a bright highlighter wouldn't hurt either.

Sony 24-70mm F4 Vario-Tessar T* FE OSS

11/09/2011 03:41:32 PM · #367

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by mike_311:
a company has one responsibility, to please its shareholders.

That's actually not true, and even to the degree that it IS true, that's a terrible state of affairs. Companies have responsibilities under law such as taxes. Companies have, or ought to have, responsibilities to their employees. To the degree that all of us, as individuals, have, or ought to have responsibilities to the larger society we inhabit, so should companies.

What sort of magic wand gets waved when a legal entity is formed (the company) that makes that entity, and those who own, exempt from socially responsible behavior, and places the entity in a category where the only criterion of right or wrong is "profit"?

The fact that this is the way things ARE right now doesn't make it RIGHT; it just describes why we're in the trouble we're in economically.

R.

I disagree. companies have responsibly under law for taxes, but if they have loopholes, why not take them, we do, dont we? do you pay taxes on things you buy on the internet? you are supposed to.

companies have no responsibility to employees beyond employment, however if they are such a bad company i doubt they would have too many employees nor would the be to productive. forcing companies to provide benefits only kills their ability to compete, just look at ford and gm or the post office or all the state governments with the pensions they cant afford any longer. companies provide BENEFITS to attract employees, not fill some moral obligation.

as far as behavior, i'll go back to the argument with the pharmaceuticals, they have no responsibility to produce a drug that would save mankind, they are a profit driven company and their number one goal is to make money, so if helping old men is bed is a money maker and coming up with an aids vaccine isn't, where do they focus there efforts?

i know we all think we know where they should focus the efforts but really they have no responsibility to and nor should they. but i really dont want to start telling a corporation what goods to produce becuase now that isn't capitalism any longer. we vote with our dollars and if we want erectile medication we get it and if we want and aids vaccine we get it.

dont take this the wrong way, i would love that companies had a moral obligation to society and a lot do, many treat employees very well and many are ethical and many give back to society, i just dont think we should get involved in TELLING a company what to make or do.

if you want a free market you have to let it be free.

Message edited by author 2011-11-09 15:43:20.

Bear_Music

Samsung Galaxy S24 Ultra

11/09/2011 04:01:12 PM · #368

Let's get right down to brass tacks here, OK? All that stuff's like a smoke screen, Mike. It hides what's really going on. There's a bottom line here, and it's cataclysmically bad, and it has come about through personal and corporate greed.

The thing about the loopholes you seem to think are part of the playing field is that they are CREATED by the corporate interests themselves. You are either unaware, or choosing to ignore, that in modern Washington the laws are written by the lobbyists. Seriously. That's literally true. Those armies of lobbyists are drafting the passages of the laws themselves, and their paid-for congresspeople are reduced to the status of snake-oil peddlers, pushing their paid-for versions on their fellow legislators.

This is going on based on the "rationale", if you can call it that, of going straight to the experts in each area where laws are being passed. The "experts", of course, are picked by the industries themselves. It's one of the most glorious scams ever perpetrated on a body politic. This is not a joke, it's not a conspiracy theory, it's an actual fact, and it is killing us.

In a nutshell, this is what OWS is trying to fight. It's not about handouts or any of that kind of stuff, it's about combating unrestrained greed before it's too late, which it may already be.

R.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/09/2011 04:09:58 PM · #369

Originally posted by mike_311:

if you want a free market you have to let it be free.

So, the Domino's employees were OK to burn down the other pizza place up the road? All's fair in love and war and business ...

There obviously have to be SOME rules -- it's only a question of the degree of restraint, and it is clear that the "free market" policies of the Bush/Republican regime failed miserably. Why would you want to go back to the rules (or lack thereof) which created the current conditions?

We deregulated the Savings and Loan industry. Two or three years later it failed at taxpayer expense.

Then we deregulated banks, letting them comingle ordinary banking with investment and insurance activites within one organization. A few years later thay fail at taxpayer expense, even while those who work in the industry are rewarded for their failure with bonuses well above my lifetime earnings.

Actually, there exists only one entity operating under true "free market" conditions -- the illegal drug trade -- and you see how much social responsibility that engenders in its "corporate" participants ...

Message edited by author 2011-11-09 16:10:49.

11/09/2011 04:22:31 PM · #370

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

i completely agree with you.

11/09/2011 04:28:05 PM · #371

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by mike_311:
if you want a free market you have to let it be free.

So, the Domino's employees were OK to burn down the other pizza place up the road? All's fair in love and war and business ...

There obviously have to be SOME rules -- it's only a question of the degree of restraint, and it is clear that the "free market" policies of the Bush/Republican regime failed miserably. Why would you want to go back to the rules (or lack thereof) which created the current conditions?

We deregulated the Savings and Loan industry. Two or three years later it failed at taxpayer expense.

Then we deregulated banks, letting them comingle ordinary banking with investment and insurance activites within one organization. A few years later thay fail at taxpayer expense, even while those who work in the industry are rewarded for their failure with bonuses well above my lifetime earnings.

Actually, there exists only one entity operating under true "free market" conditions -- the illegal drug trade -- and you see how much social responsibility that engenders in its "corporate" participants ...

good god, im not saying there shouldn't be rules im saying and we need to let it run rampant. we need regulation, we need laws, we need control, but we aren't going it until we get our representation back.

you want to put the blame on the companies and all im saying they are doing what they are supposed to do, i blame the government for allowing it to happen to them and not doing their jobs, which is overseeing the corporations so that they dont destroy the world.

Canon EF 24-105mm f/4.0L IS

11/09/2011 04:28:45 PM · #372

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by Bear_Music:

Originally posted by mike_311:
a company has one responsibility, to please its shareholders.

That's actually not true, and even to the degree that it IS true, that's a terrible state of affairs. Companies have responsibilities under law such as taxes. Companies have, or ought to have, responsibilities to their employees. To the degree that all of us, as individuals, have, or ought to have responsibilities to the larger society we inhabit, so should companies.

What sort of magic wand gets waved when a legal entity is formed (the company) that makes that entity, and those who own, exempt from socially responsible behavior, and places the entity in a category where the only criterion of right or wrong is "profit"?

The fact that this is the way things ARE right now doesn't make it RIGHT; it just describes why we're in the trouble we're in economically.

R.

I disagree. companies have responsibly under law for taxes, but if they have loopholes, why not take them, we do, dont we? do you pay taxes on things you buy on the internet? you are supposed to.

companies have no responsibility to employees beyond employment, however if they are such a bad company i doubt they would have too many employees nor would the be to productive. forcing companies to provide benefits only kills their ability to compete, just look at ford and gm or the post office or all the state governments with the pensions they cant afford any longer. companies provide BENEFITS to attract employees, not fill some moral obligation.

as far as behavior, i'll go back to the argument with the pharmaceuticals, they have no responsibility to produce a drug that would save mankind, they are a profit driven company and their number one goal is to make money, so if helping old men is bed is a money maker and coming up with an aids vaccine isn't, where do they focus there efforts?

i know we all think we know where they should focus the efforts but really they have no responsibility to and nor should they. but i really dont want to start telling a corporation what goods to produce becuase now that isn't capitalism any longer. we vote with our dollars and if we want erectile medication we get it and if we want and aids vaccine we get it.

dont take this the wrong way, i would love that companies had a moral obligation to society and a lot do, many treat employees very well and many are ethical and many give back to society, i just dont think we should get involved in TELLING a company what to make or do.

if you want a free market you have to let it be free.

I don't get to write my own loopholes into the tax code, corporations do.

People don't want a "free market". I'll bet you don't either, if you knew what it really meant.

Art Roflmao

Canon EOS-6D Mark II

11/09/2011 04:30:39 PM · #373

Originally posted by Spork99:

I don't get to write my own loopholes into the tax code, corporations do.

People don't want a "free market". I'll bet you don't either, if you knew what it really meant.

That's not a "Free market" - that's government corruption.

11/09/2011 04:31:05 PM · #374

Originally posted by mike_311:

Originally posted by GeneralE:

Originally posted by mike_311:
if you want a free market you have to let it be free.

So, the Domino's employees were OK to burn down the other pizza place up the road? All's fair in love and war and business ...

There obviously have to be SOME rules -- it's only a question of the degree of restraint, and it is clear that the "free market" policies of the Bush/Republican regime failed miserably. Why would you want to go back to the rules (or lack thereof) which created the current conditions?

We deregulated the Savings and Loan industry. Two or three years later it failed at taxpayer expense.

Then we deregulated banks, letting them comingle ordinary banking with investment and insurance activites within one organization. A few years later thay fail at taxpayer expense, even while those who work in the industry are rewarded for their failure with bonuses well above my lifetime earnings.

Actually, there exists only one entity operating under true "free market" conditions -- the illegal drug trade -- and you see how much social responsibility that engenders in its "corporate" participants ...

good god, im not saying there shouldn't be rules im saying and we need to let it run rampant. we need regulation, we need laws, we need control, but we aren't going it until we get our representation back.

you want to put the blame on the companies and all im saying they are doing what they are supposed to do, i blame the government for allowing it to happen to them and not doing their jobs, which is overseeing the corporations so that they dont destroy the world.

You said you want a "free market". Nighmare that it would be.

As, we've been saying all along, the blame lies with both the government AND the companies. Both are complicit in fucking the middle class and the poor.