Ok, I've had it with OWS

[dust1n]

<sigh> What can I say?:nightcraw:
If I haven't offended someone, my day is just over. OVER I tell ya.:sad4:

You haven't offended me, not even when you stuffed words in my mouth and made nonsensical comments on the topic in the first place.

Again, why would it benefit the overall agenda, or make more people agree with them, if they all stood outside and with their job qualifications on a sign?

The original rebuttal, to never be addressed...

 

[dust1n]

I'm just having fun.
I likes all youz guyz.
(The "using words to say things" is a Homer Simpson quote I wanted to trot out. The bit about "breathing" is for Songbird.)

I get sick if I have too much stress & too little sleep.
Get some......sleep, that is.

I will! After the godforsaken holidays are over.

And sorry, it's just frustrating when you spend a couple of hours on a topic, trying to give everything it's fair time and what now, just so I could be misunderstood as a racist... the "your type" I meant to shorthand a non-existent construct of people who felt the same exact same about the situation as she did was taken as a "your type" used in some radically derogatory and racist/classicist/sexist manner... and I can see my mistake in wording looking bad, but really? Is there that much loaded in "type" up North? How often do I tirade about rich Zionist Jews taking over the world as an argument on a completely irrelevant topic?

 

[Revoltingest]

Your posts didn't seem at all mean spirited to me.

 

[Reverend Rick]

Can we all lighten up just a little? There are no demons among us, just good members with different opinions.

 

[dust1n]

Your posts didn't seem at all mean spirited to me.

Thanks.

 

[YmirGF]

Can we all lighten up just a little? There are no demons among us, just good members with different opinions.

Thank you, for this, Rick. I don't need a lecture from someone who knows how to use Google. I am looking for MEANINGFUL alternatives to our current system. So far, all I have heard is crickets. As usual, people are long on the whining list of how unfair things are, but they don't offer reasonable alternatives that the MAJORITY of people would willingly embrace. Why is that?

 

[work in progress]

Look, I get the impression that you are not an utter dimwit, however, where have I denied that that is not the case? Show me. What you don't seem inclined to enter into is how we get past that. Do you have a better solution? If so, what's the plan. I'm all ears. Sway me.

No! What you want, along with making sufficiently vague insults to avoid being banned -- is to incite division from a large mass of people who have only become vaguely aware that the economic compact that made capitalism possible (that wealth and benefits actually trickle down) is not happening.

The way forward is divided mostly between liberals, who want to reform the system, and radicals (like me) who recognize that modern capitalism itself was allowed to lead us down a rabbit hole, where constraints applied to human activity by our natural environment, and basic facts such as the steep decline in available natural resources, make an economic system dependent on continuous growth fueled by debt completely unsustainable. For anyone else reading this, my apologies for loading this sentence, but I don't have the time right now to edit and fix grammar.

So, until the majority of liberals, holding out for reforming debt-driven capitalism start paying attention to other models, many of which are actually growing right now in the U.S. economy from the bottom up -- such as the cooperative movement and employee-ownership models, there will be very little actual progress towards the solutions that will be needed to allow kids coming of age now, to live good lives in a world where nature has decided to apply the brakes to increased energy and resource consumption.

 

[Kilgore Trout]

Thank you, for this, Rick. I don't need a lecture from someone who knows how to use Google. I am looking for MEANINGFUL alternatives to our current system. So far, all I have heard is crickets. As usual, people are long on the whining list of how unfair things are, but they don't offer reasonable alternatives that the MAJORITY of people would willingly embrace. Why is that?

People are not perfect. Groups of people are even less perfect. There are no perfect systems that are comprised of people. What it comes down to is what one finds more important: guaranteed sustenance-level living for all, or the possibility of risk and reward for the individual (but no guarantees). Some people prefer one model, some people prefer the other. Most of the time, this depends on which model one would benefit more from.

 

[Reverend Rick]

No! What you want, -- is to incite division from a large mass of people who have only become vaguely aware that the economic compact that made capitalism possible (that wealth and benefits actually trickle down) is not happening.

It used to trickel down, but not all the way to the bottom. Now it does not even trickel at all for the moment. People with means are sitting on their cash right now, investing is not paying off.

By investing, I'm not talking about the fast and loose trading game going on which is defacto gambling. I'm talking about the good old days solid investing where a person with a million dollars could live off the interest.

Banks are giving well qualified borrowers a hard time because the risk return is too small.

Low interest used to be a good thing, I don't think so any more.

Things suck all over right at the moment. I don't think keeping taxes low on the rich will change much of anything RIGHT NOW.

The old school is not working any more. The economy is one big international turd that is just laying there.

 

[YmirGF]

No! What you want, along with making sufficiently vague insults to avoid being banned -- is to incite division from a large mass of people who have only become vaguely aware that the economic compact that made capitalism possible (that wealth and benefits actually trickle down) is not happening.

I want to incite what? Good freakin' grief.

The way forward is divided mostly between liberals, who want to reform the system,

And I am all for them...

and radicals (like me) who recognize that modern capitalism itself was allowed to lead us down a rabbit hole, where constraints applied to human activity by our natural environment, and basic facts such as the steep decline in available natural resources, make an economic system dependent on continuous growth fueled by debt completely unsustainable.

And I'm not so inclined to trust this kind of thinking due to somewhat obvious social outcomes. So, in effect, you want to empower a new elite that has a much better idea. So, where's the plan?

So, until the majority of liberals, holding out for reforming debt-driven capitalism start paying attention to other models, many of which are actually growing right now in the U.S. economy from the bottom up -- such as the cooperative movement and employee-ownership models, there will be very little actual progress towards the solutions that will be needed to allow kids coming of age now, to live good lives in a world where nature has decided to apply the brakes to increased energy and resource consumption.

Great. Was that so hard? That's what I am asking for. So, Co-op's, employee ownership... not a lot to work with, but I suppose it's a start. Anything else with a bit more meat on its bones?

 

[YmirGF]

People are not perfect. Groups of people are even less perfect. There are no perfect systems that are comprised of people. What it comes down to is what one finds more important: (Door #1) guaranteed sustenance-level living for all, or (Door #2) the possibility of risk and reward for the individual (but no guarantees). Some people prefer one model, some people prefer the other. Most of the time, this depends on which model one would benefit more from.

I'll take Door #2, Kilgore. I'm not really interested in guaranteed sustenance, I want a bit more out of life, thanks. Nobody promised me a rose garden, nor would I expect them to.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Anything else with a bit more meat on its bones?

How about the Fractional Reserve Banking system? When the Central Bank asks for 10 billion from the Federal Reserve Bank, it creates 80 billion. out of thin air, in loans on top of the original 10 billion=90 billion. Then, ehem, it adds interest. Like a game of musical chairs, when the music stops, someone is left out of the game and the banker has the only permanent chair.

 

[Kathryn]

Yeah, right. Landing a good job is a series of foot-in-door scenarios, schemes of tax-ride offs, preceding wealth of natural and/or inherent ability, luck, desperation, etc.... not to say that the things you mentioned aren't involved. "Nearly always" is hyperbole.

Speak for yourself.

By the way - LANDING a job is only the first step. Then you have to excel, and learn, and grow, and sacrifice, and work your *** off to BUILD a successful career.

As someone who has worked for over 20 years full -time, managed to build two successful careers in industries which usually require a college degree (I don't have one), and who has hired (and fired) probably well over 200 people in my lifetime - and who has managed up to 80 at a time - oh, and who also spent 10 years as a trainer for a staffing company (which also included training managers to implement hiring and retention policies), I feel pretty damn confident saying that most of the people I've met, with over 10 years of a successful career under their belt, got there by hard work, good decision making skills, and commitment to excellence.

 

[YmirGF]

How about the Fractional Reserve Banking system? When the Central Bank asks for 10 billion from the Federal Reserve Bank, it creates 80 billion. out of thin air, in loans on top of the original 10 billion=90 billion. Then, ehem, it adds interest. Like a game of musical chairs, when the music stops, someone is left out of the game and the banker has the only permanent chair.

I'm not a big fan of the numerical hijinks currently employed by the Federal Reserve in the US. Got anything else?

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Got anything else?

We should not allow companies to be considered as separate persons/ entities. Thanks Supreme Court.

 

[Revoltingest]

We should not allow companies to be considered as separate persons/ entities. Thanks Supreme Court.

Why not? Were they not separate entities, then there would be horrendous contractual & liability issues.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Why not? Were they not separate entities, then there would be horrendous contractual & liability issues.

Because, ethics or the lack thereof (IMPOV), are at the root of business corruption. If no one (real people) are actually liable for the decision making and its consequences to the business shareholders and it's patrons, then business/corporations are more likely to embellish and distort the well-being of that business. Here the crux, the board members, for the most part, except for some lower level fall-guy, are never charge with the fraud and make a profit. Does this remind you of anything? If all the parties that control the decisions of a corporation are held liable, they might think twice about cooking the books.

 

[Revoltingest]

Because, ethics or the lack thereof (IMPOV), are at the root of business corruption. If no one (real people) are actually liable for the decision making and its consequences to the business shareholders and it's patrons, then business/corporations are more likely to embellish and distort the well-being of that business.

Individuals can be held liable for their actions. An advantage to the separate corporate entity is that the corporation can also be held liable.

Here the crux, the board members, for the most part, except for some lower level fall-guy, are never charge with the fraud and make a profit.

This all sounds rather hypothetical. But it is in the nature of a corporation to shield individuals from some types of liability.
This is necessary in order to secure labor & financing for endeavors too large for sole proprietors.

Does this remind you of anything?

Government?

If all the parties that control the decisions of a corporation are held liable, they might think twice about cooking the books.

Individuals who cook the books can already by held liable.

 

[Jeremy Mason]

Individuals can be held liable for their actions. An advantage to the separate corporate entity is that the corporation can also be held liable.

That a good thing, however, to the best of my knowledge, this allows for more money in the form of political contributions, to go to a particular candidate that will cater to that corporation's needs. Creating an unfair playing field for the voters.

This all sounds rather hypothetical. But it is in the nature of a corporation to shield individuals from some types of liability.
This is necessary in order to secure labor & financing for endeavors too large for sole proprietors.

While I feel it is necessary to improve labor and stockholder endeavors, the people who create fraud and not just some of those people, need to be held accountable.

Government?

Yes, the government and the corporations that continually support/re-elect these puppets for their own good. It one big happy family in Washington and Wall Street and we ain't in it.

Individuals who cook the books can already by held liable.

Yes, but selective enforcement is live and well.

 

[Revoltingest]

That a good thing, however, to the best of my knowledge, this allows for more money in the form of political contributions, to go to a particular candidate that will cater to that corporation's needs. Creating an unfair playing field for the voters.



While I feel it is necessary to improve labor and stockholder endeavors, the people who create fraud and not just some of those people, need to be held accountable.

No argument here.
But I'd say our problem is that law enforcement is a haphazard, blunt & corrupt instrument.
It will never be otherwise.

Yes, the government and the corporations that continually support/re-elect these puppets for their own good. It one big happy family in Washington and Wall Street and we ain't in it.

Corporations don't elect anyone. Their legal personhood doesn't extend to voting rights.
What you see is the result of democracy....a terrible system....I blame "the people".
Who voted in our last 2 war mongering presidents, eh?

Yes, but selective enforcement is live and well.

Tis a problem in any system.