| Author | Thread |
|
|
10/16/2011 10:01:07 PM · #76 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
Meanwhile, all the manufacturing jobs have gone to less expensive labor markets. We won't work for less, and we won't do menial jobs, so we hire illegals to do them for us.
The laws of economics have caught up with us, and no amount of protesting will change the basic situation. People are going to have to work for less like the rest of the world. As an alternative, we could boycott products from cheap labor markets and pay the high price for goods associated with high labor costs. |
It's more complex then that..... I effectively gave up on my consulting business because I was been outbid by offshore pretty much all the time... The bottom line is that I just could NOT bid at those rates they were possibly quoting (obviously secret but I have more then an rough idea of some quotes) while having the costs of the US for labor, taxes, on and on.... Point been neither could they but they have an arbitrage ability... revenue in US and costs of India.
It's unfair to say the US cannot compete with offshore... because it's not an apples to apples compare - for the record - I am not a us citizen, so this is not patriotism speaking... and I see similar things in Australia and I assume likely a lot of developed nations.
If it were goods then they would likely be able to be charged under anti-dumping laws but it's services, so all is good :-/. |
|
|
|
10/16/2011 10:10:44 PM · #77 |
| if you stop the outsourcing then our jobs come back that ceo with a 7 figure income will have to have a normal salary since we have to be paid again so they will have less money to buy the government. |
|
|
|
10/17/2011 01:26:58 AM · #78 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
If we don't put our noses to the grindstone and start producing, we will all be poor. |
We live in the 21st century. Your ideas were true during industrial revolution long time ago. Services, IT and financial products have been a very big part of economy for the least 50 years. |
|
|
|
10/19/2011 02:21:30 PM · #79 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
Well...when I see the occupiers on smartphones, carrying video cams and eating Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream, I kind of got the feeling that they really don't know what they actually want. They rail agains the corporations and then I see them using the products of the corporations. They are also all over Facebook and Twitter...two more giant corporations that made their CEOs BILLIONS. Other than that....Meh..... |
I don't get your point. The OWS protesters are saying that the game is rigged, that corporations, the financial sector and their lobbyists have too much influence on Washington and have so thoroughly corrupted our political institutions that our democracy is crippled... and your conclusion is that they shouldn't participate in the economy anymore? I don't see the logic in that position. |
|
|
|
10/19/2011 02:22:21 PM · #80 |
Originally posted by Fiora:
They are everywhere.
Just spent my morning photographing 'Occupy Davis' for our local newspaper.
If people are interested I could post some pictures |
I looked at your portfolio but didn't see any "Occupy" photos... |
|
|
|
10/19/2011 02:37:42 PM · #81 |
Originally posted by kenskid:
I'd like to sit and chat some more on this capitalist DP website...$25/year....FINKS......but I have to leave now. I'm taking my wife and kids to a New Orleans restaurant for some nice expensive steak and seafood ! I'm glad I didn't have to birth, raise and slaughter the cow or harvest my own shrimp and crab....but I'm glad someone got paid to do it.....
.....see ya ! |
I'm glad someone got paid to do it, too. But were they paid a living wage? |
|
|
|
10/19/2011 02:45:58 PM · #82 |
Occupy Asheville
So, when the protests cost money, who pays? |
|
|
|
10/19/2011 03:11:19 PM · #83 |
"They're not bankers, they're French Revolution re-enactors."
-Andy Borowitz |
|
|
|
10/19/2011 03:13:52 PM · #84 |
Originally posted by mike_311:
Originally posted by MargaretN:
Originally posted by robs:
You think your represented.... lol... really? I have not shared that delusion for a very long time. |
So what happened to democracy? Or was it always an illusion? |
we never had a democracy, its always been a republic.
but i'll chime in on these protests, also I'll speaking on behalf of my experience in the US. Your experience may vary but i doubt its too far off base.
i don't like it. First off the people protesting most have no idea what they are protesting, nor do they have any solution. there is misguided anger at the rich in the country, its a serious divide that is growing and its scary. just because people are well off doesn't them part of the problem nor do i think wall street on the whole is to blame. yes there are bernie madoffs in this world but the blame the entire banking system is off base. the banks have to work within the rules the federal government set us and if the federal government forces bank to lend money to those who cant repay than its not their fault, they need to please their shareholders and that's coming at the expense of the rest of us. Also, they also paid back the bailout money, the same cant be said for the car companies.
the entire US economy has been based on creating debt for quite sometime now, for selling the notion that home ownership is an entitlement that everyone should have regardless of there income status, that anyone can get a credit card and buy whatever they want and that everyone can go to college all while racking up debt on debt and not worrying about how to pay it back.
Don't blame wallstreet and don't blame the banks. Blame the dopes in government for creating the false premise and the regulations to encourage it. |
I agree with you in the sense that protesting the behavior of the financial sector or corporate entities is a little like protesting the fact that the sun rises and sets. The system itself is inherently exploitative and its natural incentives encourage massive accumulation of wealth and power in the hands of a few actors. So our expectation is that our elected representatives will make rules that level the playing field so as not to favor overwhelmingly the already powerful and privileged, and our elected representatives have failed pretty miserably in that regard and are continuing to move in the wrong direction. So, yes, it would be a good thing to see the "Occupied" movement move to the halls of Congress.
However, I disagree that we shouldn't talk about, as you put it, the "serious divide" that exists today. There IS a class divide and, as the protesters keep pointing out, there is only one class that benefits from the status quo. That's an important fact to raise, and it's important to point out how any particular economic and political policy will hurt or benefit this or that class of people.
I also disagree with you about how we got to where we are today, but I don't feel like going over the same ground for the umpteenth time. Since when did the federal government force banks to lend money? If you're referring to the Community Reinvestment Act and/or Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I'll just say that if those institutions had never existed, exactly the same housing bubble and financial sector recklessness and disaster would have occurred.
Message edited by author 2011-10-19 15:25:45. |
|
|
|
10/19/2011 03:33:14 PM · #85 |
" It could probably be shown by facts and figures that there is no distinctly native American criminal class except Congress."
-Mark Twain
Originally posted by Membership of the 112th Congress: A Profile:
According to CQ Today, in the 112th Congress, law is the dominantly declared profession of Senators, followed by public service/politics, then business; for Representatives, business is first, followed by public service/politics, then law.
A closer look at the prior occupations of Members of the House and Senate at the beginning of the 112th Congress, as listed in their CQ Roll Call Member Profiles, also shows the following:
â€Â¢ 49 Senators have previous House service;
â€Â¢ 81 educators, employed as teachers, professors, instructors, fundraisers,
counselors, administrators, or coaches (68 in the House, 13 in the Senate);
â€Â¢ 2 medical doctors in the Senate, plus 1 veterinarian and 1 ophthalmologist; 15
medical doctors in the House (including one delegate), plus 2 dentists, 1
veterinarian, 1 ophthalmologist, and 1 psychiatrist; |
I think the last one really has his/her work cut out ... |
|
|
|
10/19/2011 03:38:44 PM · #86 |
| it is of course all government boondoggle, but at the behest of the one percent. this is apparently a truth that we cannot know enough, and for which the demonstrations are necessary. |
|
|
|
10/19/2011 03:50:09 PM · #87 |
Originally posted by MargaretN:
I am shocked - no Europeans on DPC?? Doesn't anyone care? |
Doesn't even make the news in the UK. |
|
|
|
10/19/2011 03:53:25 PM · #88 |
Originally posted by karmat:
Occupy Asheville
So, when the protests cost money, who pays? |
this is tricky, because the article says the figure include lost revenue from parking meters and barricade rental fees. not sure how they calculated their figures but it's more like lost revenue than it is expense. so i guess the city's budget "pays".
eta horrible speeling
Message edited by author 2011-10-19 15:53:56. |
|
|
|
10/19/2011 04:20:40 PM · #89 |
Originally posted by Spork99:
And the banks shouldn't have taken $400,000,000,000.00 of taxpayer money, claiming they were on the verge of collapse, promising that they would be then be able to lend that money to people when instead, they dropped lending levels to historic lows and paid record CEO and employee bonuses to the same people that fucked things up in the first place. |
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I think your blame is misplaced on this one - if the gov't offered you $400B to "keep your business from collapse", would you take it? Especially after you donated generously to the campaigns of those in power? The problem is that the government authorized it. |
The problem is that the government authorized it with virtually no conditions, and no accountability.
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
If both sides held their own reps accountable instead of constantly pointing the finger at the other side - which keeps them both in power - we might actually see some changes in our government. If you (not you, Spork, the collective "you") did some research and found out who in the government bailed out the banks, you'd see it is the same list of politicians (left and right) that received large campaign donations from these banks or financial institutions. Many people believe that things would have been terribly worse if they had not been bailed out, but many also believe that we would have gotten through it much quicker and been better off for it. |
Virtually every reputable economist agreed that the bailout was necessary to avoid utter worldwide economic calamity. Who is included in that group of "many" you refer to who would have preferred to let the banks fail, other than some TV talking heads and ideologically driven politicians?
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
As long as the left can co-opt this movement and keep the anger aimed solely at the opposing political party, everything will stay the same. |
I think that's an unfair characterization of the OWS movement on several levels. The protesters, as far as I can tell, are critical of both political parties and/or any individual politician working in behalf of the special interests, and that includes Obama. If it seems that their criticisms are aimed overwhelmingly at the right-wing, well, there's good reason for that, no? Isn't the right-wing working in lock-step to promote policies that more or less exclusively benefit corporate interests?
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
The worst possible outcome for the current power structure is that these protesters and the protesters on the right decide to coalesce around the one thing I believe they both agree on - that corporate and special interest wealth and power has WAY too much TOTAL influence on our system of government. The Tea Party and OWS people will never agree on most philosophical or ideological principles, but I still believe there is common ground that could be addressed and may serve to unite people in a more productive way. |
Maybe, but my perception is that the Tea Party as an organized political party has already been co-opted by corporate and special interest wealth and power (Koch brothers and etc.).
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
Full disclosure: I am a former liberal, programmed to automatically vote Democrat and hate anything anyone on the right ever offers. Evolved to a fiscal conservative, but still somewhat socially liberal. I was a "Republican" for a few years and while they represent some of my views and values more closely than Democrats, I became disenchanted with them when I couldn't see much difference between either party - the rhetoric is different, but the results are the same and I am more interested in results than ideaology. Not that I voted for him or or agreed with his plans, but Obama is more Bush-like than Bush was and I am blown away that the people that supported him don't feel betrayed - much like many on the right who supported Bush felt betrayed by many of his policies - patriot act, overreaching, overspending, etc. |
Many of Obama's supporters DO feel betrayed with respect to some of the policies he's pursued. This is just my opinion, but I don't believe the OWS protests would be happening now had Obama not settled for the status quo so often and had he fought harder for the right policies when he was fighting for them at all.
Originally posted by Art Roflmao:
I've had enough of ALL of them and enough of the partisan division amongst ourselves. I'd like to vote for a viable third party candidate, but the media (a cheerleader for the status quo) convinces me that there is no such thing as a viable third party.
While I may participate in some sarcastic political sniping, I am truly more interested in hearing people discuss some viable solutions to these problems that we are all aware of - and I try to give people who may be the polar political opposite to me, the benefit of the doubt that they believe their positions are in the best interest of everyone - I believe most people have most people's best interests at heart regardless of where they are in the political spectrum. Yet we always hear things like "they want to kill your grandmother" or "they want to turn this country into communist country" - anything to keep us polarized. I also try not to rely on only information sources that I know are aligned with me politically and have found that this is the only way I can try and discern any truth - to whatever extent that is possible. |
I agree with many of your concluding statements. So how do we become less partisan? And in which areas do you think agreements exists? |
|
|
|
10/19/2011 06:03:42 PM · #90 |
Originally posted by cloudsme:
I think the developed countries (US an Europe) have gotten too greedy—including the protesters. We want to work as little as possible, and make as much money as possible for that work. The problem is that other people, in less developed countries, will do the same work, with a better attitude, for much less money. As consumers, we expect low prices, and buy not from ourselves but from the people who work cheaper than we will. That gave us the best of both worlds, high wages and low prices. The problem is that this system is not self sustaining. In order to keep it going, we have had to borrow insane amounts of money from the very same people who are making our goods. (They feel compelled to loan us the money so we keep buying their products.)
Meanwhile, all the manufacturing jobs have gone to less expensive labor markets. We won't work for less, and we won't do menial jobs, so we hire illegals to do them for us.
The laws of economics have caught up with us, and no amount of protesting will change the basic situation. People are going to have to work for less like the rest of the world. As an alternative, we could boycott products from cheap labor markets and pay the high price for goods associated with high labor costs.
We also will have to get rid of the ridiculous regulations that add costs to manufacturing and producing raw materials. Environment is important, but the thing that helps the environment the most is a country that is wealthy. If you have been to poor countries you know how bad the air and water can get. We are now too poor to spend billions on the environment. Ironically, we have to increase our wealth through manufacturing to better care for the environment.
The protestors seem misguided to me. Wall Street is only a small part of the problem, and it may be a key to our redemption. The protestors seem to be demanding more money for even less production, just the problem that has gotten us into this mess. I think they should turn their attention to Washington. We need to start producing if we want to be wealthy. Taking the money from the rich will get us nowhere. They can't sustain the 99% for more than a very brief party.
To start producing again we must be willing to accept lower wages and longer hours. We must relax regulations and law suites that stifle business. We must relax (not cancel) environmental regulations. We must produce natural resources (natural gas could make us a lot of money in the US.) We must insist that our students actually learn in school (this doesn't take money, just enforcing a work ethic at an early age.)
These protests seek a goal that is unobtainable by the law of economics. More money for less work can no longer be sustained. If we don't put our noses to the grindstone and start producing, we will all be poor. |
Are you aware that several studies over the last 20 years have indicated that Americans are the most over-worked people on the planet (among developed countries)? We work far more hours than the workers in any other country, not because we work more hours per week, but because we work more hours per year. We receive virtually no vacation time or other leave (sick leave, maternity leave). It's also now necessary to have two incomes to buy the same standard of living that only one full-time income could buy 40 years ago. And your solution is for us to devote an even larger part of our lives to work and get less for it, all to further enrich the already filthy rich? Yeah, right, that's the ticket! NOT!
Message edited by author 2011-10-19 18:07:01. |
|
|
|
10/19/2011 06:53:03 PM · #91 |
| that is what you do with tools use them up and throw them away. since that's all we are to this country is a tool for them to use no wonder things suck so bad |
|
|
|
10/19/2011 09:04:54 PM · #92 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by kenskid:
Well...when I see the occupiers on smartphones, carrying video cams and eating Ben & Jerry's Ice Cream, I kind of got the feeling that they really don't know what they actually want. They rail agains the corporations and then I see them using the products of the corporations. They are also all over Facebook and Twitter...two more giant corporations that made their CEOs BILLIONS. Other than that....Meh..... |
I don't get your point. The OWS protesters are saying that the game is rigged, that corporations, the financial sector and their lobbyists have too much influence on Washington and have so thoroughly corrupted our political institutions that our democracy is crippled... and your conclusion is that they shouldn't participate in the economy anymore? I don't see the logic in that position. |
The point isn't to be anti-capitalist, but when big corporations make record profits and pay no taxes or even get refunds, there's something wrong. When corporations are considered equivalent to people and can (and do) make political donations in any amount, there's something wrong. |
|
|
|
10/20/2011 11:16:05 AM · #93 |
Occupy Reality... commentary, language warning.
|
|
|
|
10/20/2011 04:46:42 PM · #94 |
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Occupy Reality... commentary, language warning. |
Wow, that's one angry dude. But amen to his rant. |
|
|
|
10/20/2011 05:10:08 PM · #95 |
Originally posted by Judith Polakoff:
Originally posted by Strikeslip:
Occupy Reality... commentary, language warning. |
Wow, that's one angry dude. But amen to his rant. |
+1 |
|
|
|
10/20/2011 05:17:53 PM · #96 |
| I couldn't listen to it just because of the delivery. Maybe someone could summarize? |
|
|
|
10/20/2011 05:20:52 PM · #97 |
Originally posted by tnun:
I couldn't listen to it just because of the delivery. Maybe someone could summarize? |
My pleasure:
"To those who have opinions that differ from my own: if someone beat you to death with a wrench, the world would be a better f*****g place!" |
|
|
|
10/20/2011 05:49:01 PM · #98 |
| "If you bust your ass and only get one pepperoni off the pizza, you're a f***ing idiot." |
|
|
|
10/20/2011 06:03:25 PM · #99 |
| Very good, guys. Keep going. Or. Is. That. It. ? |
|
|
|
10/20/2011 06:25:56 PM · #100 |
Originally posted by tnun:
I couldn't listen to it just because of the delivery. Maybe someone could summarize? |
"Get up off your knees and stop begging for crumbs!" |
|
