All the occupy guys left the site yesterday, The cops move in and took away every thing,if you don't hold your ground the city will take it.
They took the flag also,I didn't see the flag back today.

 

All the occupy guys left the site yesterday, The cops move in and took away every thing,if you don't hold your ground the city will take it.
They took the flag also,I didn't see the flag back today.

No. But good riddance to them.

 

You are very conservative in your approch to things.You must be in the 1%.

 

You are very conservative in your approch to things.You must be in the 1%.

Must be...

 

And the occupiers do nothing wrong. I'm glad they are not really the 99% or we'd be in deep doo doo!

 

I visited the Occupy Boston site a couple of months ago. They had it well-organized there, and it was very peaceful. I must say, I agree with a lot of their points, but I think the 1% and 99% might be a bit of an exaggeration. Maybe like 30-70 or, at the most extreme, 20-80. The point is that the big businesses need to work harder at making sure the money loops back to the people somehow. That's how capitalism is supposed to work, and if it doesn't, the economy is going to crash. The big businesses will have all the money and the people won't have much at all, and won't be able to buy from the businesses. It's really a catch-22, if things continue the way they are now.

EDIT: Sorry, I'm not trying to turn this into a political thread. I hope we can stay on topic

 

No, I'd say more than 1/2 consider OWS a public nuisance:

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/pub...upy_wall_street_protesters_as_public_nuisance

 

The point is that the big businesses need to work harder at making sure the money loops back to the people somehow. That's how capitalism is supposed to work...

Actually, that's not how capitalism works at all. Capitalism is every man for himself. In capitalism, you do whatever makes you the most capital and give out charity if you feel like it. The money loops back to the people if it's in the interest of the company. Fortunately, in every industry except banking, it is in the best interest of the company to get the money back to the people. Banks on the other hand like to see money tied up (in their pockets) so that the people have to come to them for loans, which get paid out to the other industries. That's why I have a problem with the OWS crowd; they are going after anybody who is rich, and rich people aren't the problem. banks are.
1% & 99% -on that point, they are right, the 1% are the ones in charge of the banks. the 99% is everybody else. when you start throwing aroun 30%/70% and 20%/80%, now you're talking about rich people.

 

Then the solution should be cut the banks out of the loop. Rich people could help out others. I don't mean charity, but instead of going to a bank to get a loan for your start up business, have a nice philanthropic billionaire give you whatever you need for a low return or even potentially no return, depends on how successful you are. That way banks will be out of a job. The 1% could help the 99%. Not to pay off the ridiculous mortgages or to support lifestyles beyond their means (it is great how credit was sold to people, and how they bought it), but for real projects. I am looking at this because government will never do anything - 4 year term, first they bicker then they prepare for a re-election campaign, there is simply not time except to fulfill the promises to their financiers.

I think people are upset now because the rich do not feel the hit of this recession since they have money while everyone else has been feeling the sting of increasing food and oil prices, etc. It is always easier to turn on your fellow man than to examine the problem carefully.

 

Obviously, the reason why the '99%' are so poor is that the '1%' are so rich.

Why don't you guys all get together, line the '1%' up against a wall, and shoot them.

Then watch the cash pour in.

It's happened before...It'll happen again...why delay the inevitable?

Meet the new boss....same as the old boss....

 

Actually, that's not how capitalism works at all. Capitalism is every man for himself. In capitalism, you do whatever makes you the most capital and give out charity if you feel like it. The money loops back to the people if it's in the interest of the company. Fortunately, in every industry except banking, it is in the best interest of the company to get the money back to the people. Banks on the other hand like to see money tied up (in their pockets) so that the people have to come to them for loans, which get paid out to the other industries. That's why I have a problem with the OWS crowd; they are going after anybody who is rich, and rich people aren't the problem. banks are.
1% & 99% -on that point, they are right, the 1% are the ones in charge of the banks. the 99% is everybody else. when you start throwing aroun 30%/70% and 20%/80%, now you're talking about rich people.

But the idea behind capitalism is that the money should loop back around. It's like an "invisible hand"--a description that was presented by Adam Smith, when talking about capitalism. He described how if Capitalism worked properly, the "invisible hand would distribute money properly among the masses". Unfortunately, this does not seem to be the case nowadays.

And you're right about the 1%/99%. Thanks for clearing that up. I was thinking the 1% was not only banks, but other businesses too. If it's just banks, it makes more sense.

 

It's like an "invisible hand"--a description that was presented by Adam Smith, when talking about capitalism. He described how if Capitalism worked properly, the "invisible hand would distribute money properly among the masses".

Absolutely incorrect.

The 'invisible hand' has nothing to do with the distribution of money to the masses.

It has to do with the movement of resources to where they can be utilized most efficiently and most productively.

It's about millions of decisions made everyday by millions of people, none of which have even a small amount of the totality of information, except that which is beneficial to themselves.

Capitalism works every time it's tried. But the system we have today looks very little like capitalism, and very much like central control by bureaucrats in DC. The results are predictable, and easy to see by anyone with eyes and a brain.

 

Absolutely incorrect.

The 'invisible hand' has nothing to do with the distribution of money to the masses.

It has to do with the movement of resources to where they can be utilized most efficiently and most productively.

It's about millions of decisions made everyday by millions of people, none of which have even a small amount of the totality of information, except that which is beneficial to themselves.

Capitalism works every time it's tried. But the system we have today looks very little like capitalism, and very much like central control by bureaucrats in DC. The results are predictable, and easy to see by anyone with eyes and a brain.

I think you only have part of it. I suppose I should have said it distributes "wealth", rather than saying it distributes "money". Wealth not only includes money, but also possessions and the means and ability to earn more. The "Inivisible hand" is thought to distribute it properly among the businesses and consumers.
From wikipedia (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Invisible_hand):

The theory of the Invisible Hand states that if each consumer is allowed to choose freely what to buy and each producer is allowed to choose freely what to sell and how to produce it, the market will settle on a product distribution and prices that are beneficial to all the individual members of a community, and hence to the community as a whole.

It also works as a balancing mechanism. For example, the inhabitants of a poor country will be willing to work very cheaply, so entrepreneurs can make great profits by building factories in poor countries. Because they increase the demand for labor, they will increase its price; further, because the new producers also become consumers, local businesses must hire more people to provide the things they want to consume. As this process continues, the labor prices eventually rise to the point where there is no advantage for the foreign countries doing business in the formerly poor country. Overall, this mechanism causes the local economy to function on its own.

The balancing mechanism is supposed to work to keep both sides of the equation (business and consumers) at an equal advantage, meaning (in a sense) that the wealth is distributed evenly among the masses.

 

I think you only have part of it...

You are simply reading into it what you want it to mean. Not what it is.

The fact that it results in a society that is richer (on the whole) than it otherwise would be is a beneficial side effect. Not its purpose.

 

Obviously, the reason why the '99%' are so poor is that the '1%' are so rich.

Why don't you guys all get together, line the '1%' up against a wall, and shoot them.

Then watch the cash pour in.

It's happened before...It'll happen again...why delay the inevitable?

Meet the new boss....same as the old boss....

there doesn't need to be a boss at all IMO. I get your sarcasm, but you made a factual first statement; In a system with a finite amount of money, the poor are poor because the rich are rich. Now, the rich may or may not have earned the right of being rich; if they did earn it then it's not an evil thing and they shouldn't be criticized for it. If they are rich because they unfairly created their own money (a privilege not afforded to the rest of society) and enslaved the population, then yes, I say we line em up and gun em down. but don't wait around for the cash to pour in. like mrChips quoted "‎We can't solve problems by using the same kind of thinking we used when we created them." - Albert Einstein. get rid of the cash. start over fresh. Screw banks. we don't need them. Like I said elsewhere, dollars are units of measure that represent the value of goods and services. They are essentially just like yards or meters. Do you need a bank to keep track of your meters for you? I don't. You put your tape measure in the bank and they shrink it, so you need ever more and more meters to measure the same stick. Money need not be finite, ponder that. a system with a net money of zero, some in the positive, some in the negative, but never a cent of interest paid. creating loans with interest unbalances the system and leaves someone at the top bleeding the rest dry.

 

Capitalism works every time it's tried. But the system we have today looks very little like capitalism, and very much like central control by bureaucrats in DC. The results are predictable, and easy to see by anyone with eyes and a brain.

Does it?
I would say that laissez-faire capitalism does not work. The industrial revolution through the great depression showed us that some degree of intervention and regulation in the market is necessary. Child labor and the reprehensible practices of the great "robber barrons" of the late 18th and early 19th century are just two examples.

This most recent housing crisis is another example - practically the entire world economy was taken down by predatory lending practices and a loosening of leveraging guidelines for banks and investment firms. Deregulation allowed a relatively small number of people in this world to destroy the life savings of countless hard working, honest people - all in pursuit of profit. This works? I don't doubt that capitalism creates a self-regulating system, but as Keynes showed government intervention is necessary to damp the wild oscillations of the free market. Otherwise the rest of us become grist to the mill.
Of course when the government is just as crooked and incompetent as private enterprise, it's a no-win for us.

I'm all for a system where by people who work-hard in life get to taste the fruits of their labor and the lazy get nothing. But there has to be something better than our current system.

 

I've seen this arguement of "free market" vs. "regulation". It never goes anywhere. Neither side can conclusively prove their point because there are no pure examples of either. It's really a pointless discussion as regulation nor free market are the problem; corruption is. I think any system, in the absence of corruption, could work. What needs to happen is a serious overhaul of the government & laws. We need a bulletproof straightjacket on the government. A fool proof way of keeping them in check. Over the years they have accepted bribes (legally mind you, because they legalized it for themselves) for passing laws that benefit a specific group. In exchange for all manner of favors and padded pockets, they handed over the nation's money supply to private banks, who they (and we) are now unrecoverably in debt to. This cannot be allowed to happen again. We need to press a big RESET button and erase all the laws passed in that two hundered years and go back to what the founding fathers conceived. This system is no way to run a country.

 

Actually history shows lots of examples, and proves the point nicely. The previous post listed quite a few, you need to reread it. The fact is, when a monopoly is formed over something that is a basic necessity it abuses the privilege. Many abuses were fixed last century, but because people tend to be short sided the lessons are forgotten and repeated. Those who do not study history will repeat its mistakes.

Corruption is part of this issue, but it is simplistic to say it is the only issue. People will do what they allowed to get by with, and no consideration is given to those they hurt.

 

Ok I worded that badly. I shouldn't have said there are no examples. I should have said that for every example there is a "oh yeah, well, but..." and the arguemnt becomes more about the finer details than the big picture. I was referring more to arguements I have seen take place, than to history I have actually studied. I'm not a history buff, and could stand to read more on that.

 

when a monopoly is formed over something that is a basic necessity it abuses the privilege.

Banks & the FED have a monopoly on the money supply.
"money supply"
That's a term we throw around all the time, but does it really make sense? It's accurate, but should it be accurate? Should anyone have a money "supply"? I hope I don't sound like I'm beating a dead horse between this post and other posts, but money is not (or should not be) a commodity, necessitating a "supply". It is a measurement unit. there is no inches supply. Money should be like matter and energy; it cannot be created or destroyed, only change form - from numbers to goods to numbers to services, back to numbers. There should be nobody in charge of creating these numbers, as they have no business being created. This is not how we operate. We keep a finite supply of dollars, and the banks use this to their advantage. They generate a false shortage of these dollars which drives the economic machine. Everybody is in a perpetual state of panic, working as hard as possible trying to accumulate as much of this limited supply of dollars as possible. The finite supply, and debt, are the banks+government (we can effectively consider them the same entity since the government is a pawn of the banks) whips, and our chains.