Community doesn't have to mean centralised power exercised from the top down. It can mean decentralised power exercised from the bottom up as well.
I'm not for centralising power either. I think power should reside with the people.
Letter From One Percent
- Thread starter Chessie
- Start date
Community doesn't have to mean centralised power exercised from the top down. It can mean decentralised power exercised from the bottom up as well.
I'm not for centralising power either. I think power should reside with the people.
I don't mean in an anarcho capitalist way, i mean people put their contribution into a community store and draw from it what they need.
So everyone is taken care of...so its not 'to the fairest'
What i am against however is what we have at the moment which is everyone working all hours to make corporate profits reach record levels whilst wages are being cut.
People are not getting a good deal at the moment. That's gonna come into sharper and sharper focus for people as things get tougher
What of when there is not enough to go around? What of those who defraud the store? What of the less productive members of society? What of the incentive to contribute?
It is naive in its simplicity. You believe in a world without a need to apologize, and that I cannot believe in.
There's that 'naive' word again!
We are staring into the face of a capitalist system that is failing yet you are spending more of your energy criticising my offer of a solution then looking at the current failing system!
I used to get called 'crazy' a lot on this forum until the things i was talking about started coming true. Everyones perceptions are evolving at a different pace.
It's 11.50 at night here in the UK and i have work tomorrow so i can't tackle the questions you've posted above. If you are interested and want answers to the questions you have posted above then look into anarcho-communism.
I've made my case for the wall street protest; i think what they are doing is going to make a lot more sense to people as the depression deepens.
I am optomistic that this can be an opportunity for the people of the world to get a better deal from the 1% but they must negotiate hard....that's what these protests are: a negotiation.
In the mean time i hope that we can see reforms that will ease the burden for people, but it won't come without a struggle.
I am so fucking confused. I think that there is a legit and a non-legit side to all this protest business. I think that a lot of people are just bitching because they're mad at wealthy people for being wealthy, and don't stop to consider that perhaps those people are a lot more talented and work hard and took risks to make their paper. I think that a lot of people don't know what the fuck they're talking about and mindlessly demonize "big business" and "the wealthy". On the other hand, I believe that politicians and business people certainly do do unethical things, which of course is not cool.
I'm still totally confused though. Exactly what unethical stuff is happening? I don't even understand exactly what economic problems the world is currently facing. I don't know this shit (and I won't pretend that I do).
I'm still totally confused though. Exactly what unethical stuff is happening? I don't even understand exactly what economic problems the world is currently facing. I don't know this shit (and I won't pretend that I do).
The issue is not with wealthy people in general.
The issue is with the fact that within the banking system fraud has become the norm and that what is happening in the financial sector is now affecting the average person on the street.
The banking sector also pays money to politicians who need the money for their political campaigns so the bankers are able to bribe politicians and get legislation passed in their favour. It is not talent or hard work that the 1% is using it is crime.
The average person on the street who has lead an honest life, working hard, paying taxes and trying to save money to pay for their childs college education is now finding that their savings are being eaten up because the bankers are keeping interest rates low which is creating inflationary effects (it is actually a deflationary spiral), they are being paid less wages whilst the costs of food and fuel is going up, whilst unemployment is soaring, homes are being repossessed and public services are being cut; public assets are sold off and privatised which means the average person then has to pay more for services.
There is a lot of debate over what causes these things to happen. Some people believe that it is the central bankers themselves who create these situations because they always become more wealthy during these crises and because it enables them to apply leverage to governments in order to have more legislation passed in their favour.
However the bankers who own the press will brand such people 'conspiracy theorists' in an attempt to discredit them. They will call people all sorts of other names as well.
Because economies around the world have become so integrated what effects one countries economy will affect other countries as well. In fact the central banks around the world such as the federal reserve are privately owned. What that means is that a group of very wealthy individuals actually own those banks. Those individuals may have stakes in more than one central bank. Also they have had new global financial institutions set up such as the World Bank and the IMF which has enabled them to exert even more influence over the economies and governments of the world.
The bankers have been applying pressure on governments to make them sell off all the resources of their country so that they can buy them up cheaply. The economic downturns which occur because of the actions of the bankers means that governments have to apply austerity measures which basically means that they will squeeze the public financially.
The public of the world aren't very happy about the games that bankers play and that is why there is protests going on all around the world. There are people protesting in the UK and the US, in lsrael, in South America, in Africa, across Europe, in Asia, the middle east etc
All these people are now aware of the behaviour of the bankers who have basically brought these hard times on the people of the world whilst becoming fabulously wealthy themselves. They are protesting on behalf of the majority of humanity against the 1% who are messing around with the economy. The real economy is the economy of production and consumption. The bankers do not produce anything they simply extract interest off the real economy. They are like a parasite that has been sucking so much of the life blood out of the real economy that the real economy is now weak and suffering.
The bankers have been bribing politicians to change legislation that was put there to protect average people for example removing barriers preventing the merging of depositary banks and investment banks.
This is not a protest against the wealthy in general and it is not a protest against jews. The public in Israel are also protesting against the rising costs happening because of the greed of the 1%.
The 1% are made up of many different people from around the world. Some of them are asian, some are european, some are african, some american (north and south), some are white anglo saxon protestant, some are jewish etc
What unites the 1% is their wealth and their fear of the 99%.
The 99% is demanding in increasing numbers that the 1% give them a better deal.
Bare in mind that the back lash against the protests will come in various forms. Sometimes it will come in the shape of rubber bullets and pepper spray and sometimes it will come in the shape of propaganda. For example the bankers own a lot of the press and TV news stations so they will try to discredit the movement any way they can. They will try to portray them as 'hippies' or as 'lazy wasters' or as not really knowing what they're talking about or as lacking unity or a central message or they will even criticise them for not having a charismatic leader.
Why the 1% like movements to have a charismatic leader is because then if they murder that leader it will take the wind out of the sails of the movement. Just as a mental exercise think about various movements and then think about what happened to their leader. How many charismatic leaders campaigning for the rights of people can you think of that have been murdered?
Some propaganda will create its own 'conspiracy theories' about the protests to try and portray them as something unsavoury. The reality is that people are angry and that anger is only going to increase as times get tougher. The US has a proud history of people fighting for their rights and for a better world. The occupy movement is working in that tradition hoping to get a better deal for the 99%.
If you want to know specific 'unethical stuff' that is happening then i think i already recommended the keiser report to you. That show basically catalogues the missdemeanors of the bankers. The presenter is an ex wall street trader who knows the financial game inside out.
Just be aware that the show is the product of RT which is owned by the russian government. I think it pays to always question your source of information and that includes me. I do however try to be as honest as possible with people concerning my political position (unfortunately i seem to get misunderstood a lot).
Concerning the post you've made with the soldier. The army has always been a big recruiter especially in times of economic hardship because more people are willing to join up. However some people might have ethical issues with fighting in certain wars. For example wars that are not fought in self defence but rather to grab foreign resources which will ultimately enrich the 1%. So the army is not an option for everyone.
Last edited:
How is it that public assets being sold off to private firms makes services more expensive? Seems a bit broad. Here in Washington state, liquor sales have been through the state for almost 80 years. We just voted on a bill that will privatize the sale of liquor, which will make it cheaper. Is that what you meant?
Nobody owns the federal reserve. It's independent from the hill. It works to control interest rates and inflation by putting money into the economy as well as taking it out. And anybody can hold stakes in it, they're called federal reserve bonds. But that doesn't make them privately owned by any stretch.
Not sure why banks would be buying up resource unless they're trying to increase physical capital. True, banks were bailed out with our tax dollars, which squeezes us. But I'm not sure how buying resources and bailouts are connected when talking about banks. And what's wrong with cheap resources?
If you think that the United States will ever manufacture the same amount of goods that we used to then checkmate. We cannot compete with China in that type of manufacturing. We still are the most productive economy in the world when you put it into dollars, which is what is important. It's about how much you produce as well as what you produce.
Seems like it is a protest against the wealthy in general. Your lumping the 1% all into one basket. And that's fine but have the balls to own up to it and don't say you're not protesting against them in general when you use the 1% and 99% sayings. If you want to say you're only protesting wall street, then say that.
Finally, this is the agenda. Nobody's jut going to hand it to you. Government can tax and regulate but that's the closest you're going to get. If you want their money, you got to sell it to them that it's in their self interest that you walk away with some of their money.
There are literally like four companies that own the majority of media outlets in the United States. None of those companies are owned by banks. And you bet that the fact they don't have a leader is disconcerting. The only unity they have is a feeling of unity. They will start to break up and the movement will eventually consume itself.
Factions of the 99% are already starting to feel underrepresented. Where I go to school, the Queer People of Color Club is trying to organize a rally that represents People of Color and illegal workers (of which there are a lot of in Washington) better because they feel they are not represented enough in the 99% rallies.
There was a South Park episode about this last week. We are the 83%!
If it were true that murdering the leader would end the movement, it probably is not a worth movement.
A deal with who? The government? The 1%?
There was a bubble and people did dangerous shit. My parents are both real estate agents, I know what happened. People will always do risky things to make money. The problem was the default in the loan market when growth started slowing in the real estate market. People with high leverage loans all the sudden couldn't flip their houses and were stuck with high interest loans that they couldn't pay even if the interest was 0%. These loans were also split up and sold to investors in the stock market (I'm a little fuzzy on what happened in the investments because I'm not sure how you would invest in loans) and when the loans went sour, the investors lost big as well. But the banks could just repossess their properties and the only losses they record are the ones due do decreasing property values.
The point was that he's not whinging and is trying to make it work. He's down with the 99% but he's not complaining, he's working on getting to a better place.
Yeah liquer got cheaper here as well despite the fact that bulk deals have been banned in supermarkets.
The drinks lobby is a very powerful group. In my country Scotland we have a drink problem due to the rapid destruction of our manufacturing base. A nationalist party has got into power....it doesn't have full power it just has devolved power from the UK government in London.
The SNP wanted to tackle the drink problem in Scotland to improve the health of the nation so it created a bill to create a minimum price for alcohol to stop people pickling themselves with cheap moonshine. However the 3 mainstream parties all blocked this move.
So what is liquer? Liquer is a depressant.
Alcohol is a drug right? What does liquer do? Liquer makes people forget.
When people are stressed they often reach for the bottle as a copig strategy. It soaks up their negative feelings and can when used socially be used to soak up energy as people drink and then go out and dance, fight, shag (sometimes all in the same evening) and collapse in a stupor having spent more money into the economy.
Here's a quote from Queen Victoria: "Give my people plenty of beer, good beer and cheap beer, and you will have no revolution"
Here's a quote from that famous American philospher Homer Simpson: 'All right, brain, I don't like you and you don't like me - so let's just do this and I'll get back to killing you with beer'
Gin was made very available and very cheap in the UK following the 'glorious revolution' when William of Orange took over the thrown. No doubt it helped to calm the people and keep the peace during the transition to new royalty. It lead to the 'gin craze' and william hogarths famous 'gin lane' engraving showing the havoc wreaked on people by cheap alcohol.
So yeah i think that alcohol might be one example where privatisation might bring prices down. I think it is a political move to provide the people with a consolation for the tough times ahead....you know like 'soma' in a 'Brave New World' (Aldous Huxley)
The government is very selective about what drugs it will let you put into your body. Tobacco and alcohol are ok as they calm the nerves and won't open up your mind. Psychadelics and marijuana they are a big no no. They are known to give people new perspectives on things which is why they have been taken as libations for spiritual purposes for millenia...Rastafarians believe ganja to be the tree of life.
The government does not want you taking any drugs that may make you see things in a different way....you might start getting funny ideas and you might start seeing through the perseption they have worked so hard to create through the various media that they control.
The 1% are the 'power elite'. They own shares in companies and they overlap each other in various ways. In the same way that the 99% organise themselves into groups such as unions or activist groups the 1% has groups aimed at protecting their interests...they often call these 'think tanks'...but there are more secretive groups as well that are all well documented and no doubt some that aren't so well documented.
To get back to your original question though privatisation doesn't drive prices down as textbooks claim (through competition) because we're talking about monopolies aren't we?
That's why there is so much insider trading and price fixing because the interests of the 1% all overlap each other.
Please research this more deeply and you will find that the Federal Reserve is privately owned. Heck even wikipedia will admit as much...go check it out.
Forget the banks....banks or corporations are just vehicles. They are devices which the 1% use to maintain their positions of power. Yes corporations do provide services such as food, clothes, electrical goods etc but they do so in ways that are often harmful to the environment, the workers involved in the process and sometimes even on the consumer.
The public of the west has bought off with a degree of comfort. But the 1% have an agenda. they have been centralising their power over hundreds of years....i'm taking about particular groups and families.
I mean look at your political leaders....you have a population of over 300 million people. You have exceptionally talented, generous, well meaning and intelligent people within that 300 million. You could pick anyone you want to be your leader. They claim its an open field and that anyone can be president....yet you've had numerous political dynasties. For example: the bushes, the Roosevelts, the Clintons (hilary had a pop at the presidency!), the kennedies (who knows what Bobby might have achieved if he wasn't murdered), the Adamses here have a look at all these political families on wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_United_States_political_families
Time and time again people are picked from the same circles. These people form the respectable face of the 1% and are funded by the same groups and corporations. Various corporations are associated openly with the families behind them for example Rockefeller Standard Oil.
What i'm saying is that it is not banks buying up resources it is the people behind the banks.
You ask what is wrong with cheap resources? There is nothing wrong with cheap resources if you are the buyer. If you are the seller however you wan to get the best price possible....you don't want to sell your resources cheaply!
Our governments, who are part of the 1%, are currently sellling off the resources of our nations really cheaply and justifying it by saying we are in an economic crisis. But the people who they are selling the resources to are the people who have orchestrated the econimc crisis! The government is complicit and knows what it is doing...it knows it is not getting a good deal for the public, it is getting a good deal for the 1% who are buying up the resources and will now control access to them.
That's what privatisation is...it is about controlling access to things. For example lets say i am friendly with some politicians. I went to cool and college with them and i have funded their political career. I get them to sell me the rights to the water supply. I can then charge people what i want for the water. If someone tries to take the water my political friends will use state apparatus eg police and law courts to enforce my rights against that person.
This has actually happened; US corporation Bechtel bought the rights to water supply in Cochabamba by getting the Bolivian government to privatise the water supply first. This is easy to do you just bribe the right people. If they don't comply then you send 'jackals' to threaten or kill leaders who don't comply with your demands. US corporate interest are often backed up by the US government eg when Arbenz was overthrown by the CIA because he was bringing in land reforms which would benefit the Guatamalan people but would affect the United Fruit Company of the USA profits as they had ownership of various resources within Guatamala.
Once Bechtel had bought the privatised water supply rights from the corrupt Bolivian government the price of water went up 50% and the law banned people from collecting rain water! The people protested and managed to get Bechtel out.
When a company has a monopoly it will charge what the market will bear to maximise profits. The 1% are not interested in competition they are all interlinked....their interests and their grip on power are all interdependant....like the patrician families of Rome; they knew to give 'the mob' circus and bread to keep them from rebelling and to distract them from politics.
In the UK our Chancellor of the Exchequer who later became Prime Minister, Gordon Brown oversaw the selling off of a large part of Britains Gold Reserves at a time when gold prices were at their lowest in 20 years. Why did he do that? He aid he wanted to diversify our reserve currencies but in reality i think he was told from above to do it because it would make the UK more dependant on the global economy. The move is estimated to have cost the UK taxpayer billions of pounds and the price of gold is soaring at the moment because it will hold value through a depression. I've heard that the IMF is now one of the largest holders of Gold. I think he was instructed by global bankers to do it as part of a wider plan. But he sold our resources cheaply. he has since sold more resources cheaply in 'firesales'.
Once owned privately companies will be able to charge people what they want for their services. Our National Health Service which most people believe is a fantastic thing is under attack from the current conservative government (approx 13 of the govts 20 cabinet all went to the same elitist school 'Eton' which educates members of the global elite. Most of them probably went to Oxford or Cambridge universities which also educates members of the global elite....these institutions provide some of the glue that bind the 1% together). What they want to do is privatise certain parts of the NHS. All the quick and simple operations will be carried out by private health corporations whilst the slow, complicated operations will be carried out by the rump of the NHS, with the public taxpayers footing the bill.
Also privatised services creates a two tier system where the 1% can get the best of everything because they are the only people who can afford it; which is why there are student protests in the UK at the moment against rising tuition fees for university which will threaten to price many people out of education.
The US has frightening levels of debt. The only reason the US gets away with this is because the dollar is the worlds main reserve currency. That means the US is in a privaleged position. But other countries are looking to challenge that. many people have suggested that the aggressive foreign policy of the US has been driven by fact that certain countries have been trying to trade commodities such as oil in other currencies such as the euro. Iraq tried that and the US invaded. Iran is doing it and is now being threatened by the US. The US press had a story recently about a supposed plot by the Iranians to assassinate a Saudi diplomat within the US. The plot has basically been dreamt up as a justification for sabre rattling by the US. Iran has nothing to gain by such a plot except a world of trouble!The US client state Israel which is funded by the US to the tune of $6 billion dollars a year is now threatening military strikes against the Iranians.
The US has tried to block moves by the palestinians to be recognised as a nation by the UN...it has removed its funding because the other countries of the world voted to recognise Palestine. Which kind of exposes US govenment claims to be seeking a peceful resolution in the middle east as a pack of lies.....the US is not a peacekeeper it is stoking the fires! If there is a threat from 'radical islam' it is because the US keeps attacking islamic countries and housing troops on the arabian peninsula. The US pretty much flipped out when the Russians tried to station troops in Cuba...it brought the world to the brink of nuclear destruction in the 'cuban missile crisis' but apparently it is ok for the US to put its troops wherever it likes!
That might sound like a diggression but it is all relevant. The 1% profit from war and from accessing the resources of other countries. This can be done violently or it can be done peacefully by getting countries indebted to the IMF and then squeezing them for payments either in money or resources (see John Pilgers film 'War by other Means' about how they did this with Indonesia)
The real problem of the US is your trade deficit. During the great depression you had surpluses! Now you have deficits. This is what Warren Buffet said in 2006: "The U.S trade deficit is a bigger threat to the domestic economy than either the federal budget deficit or consumer debt and could lead to political turmoil... Right now, the rest of the world owns $3 trillion more of us than we own of them."
I'm not just protesting wall street, most the personel on wall street are probably just bank workers, traders etc who are trying to make quick money. I'm not fussed about them....millionaires are small fry...i'm talking about the people who use wall street as a way of increasing their global influence.
I mean the big players! The people that actually affect the economy though their actions. I mean the 'power elite': http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Power_elite
Sure some of the protestors might not be as bothered as i am about the power elite because they might not want system change. many people probably just want reform....they probably just want the 1% to cut them some economic slack.
Personally i think the 1% have another agenda....i don't think they want to compromise anymore. I hope i'm wrong.
Now i've said a lot of stuff on this forum at the risk of ridicule and insult (both of which i've had) so how about giving me some credit and not suggesting i'm a eunuch?
No they are not interested in handing it to us they are interested in taking. In doing so they must be expecting social unrest from the populace...which they are now getting. What will be their reaction....what have they got in store for us?
Concerning me personally i'm very proactive in sorting my shit out.
No they are not owned by banks they are owned by people....members of the power elite, who are also financially tied up in the banks. Doesn't that centralisation of mainstream sources of information worry you? The power elite basically have a monopolistic grasp on the flow of information to the public. The internet offers an alternative for those that look....but you've got to be switched on enought to look in the first place....if someones perceptions are shaped by those 4 media outlet they are probably not switched on enough to know that they should be looking outside the mainstream to get other perceptions. They will probably just accept everything they are told without ever questioning it.
I think that these movements have evolved past the need for a leader. They have learnt lessons form previous movements and they know that people power is their real strength. It will annoy the 1% because they want to know who they should attack. The spirit of the movement globally is one of unity among people so it makes sense that peoples assemblies are used to decide things within the movements. These ideas are spreading for example through these guys: http://www.peoplesassemblies.org/
The movement is part of a larger awakening of consciousness....a growing awareness. Even if the movement were violently crushed it will have created certain links that will flower in other ways. They can kill people, but they can't kill an idea. Once an idea is born that the people of the world should have more say in the running of their world, that idea isn't just going to go away. The protest movements around the world are all communicating with each and everything is becoming more coordinated. Change of some sort has to come. The 1% have their vision of what that change will be, the 99% is saying they have their own vision which is that they are not children and can make decisions for themselves without a shadowy elite controlling things from behind institutions.
The 1% will use every propaganda technique to try and drive a wedge between people and to ridicule or discredit the movement. Remember that occupy wall street is part of a global movement which is growing organically. Its a pretty amazing thing to see and exciting as well. As the economic climate gets tougher more and more people will be radicalised.
Some will seek solace in the bottle and some will want to fight back.
Violence is part of the art of control. When manipulation, intimidation and character assassination fail then they fall back on violence. There is a saying attributed to Gandhi: 'First they ignore you, then they laugh at you, then they fight you, then you win.'
It was also used in a 1918 US trade union address by Nicholas Klein: 'And, my friends, in this story you have a history of this entire movement. First they ignore you. Then they ridicule you. And then they attack you and want to burn you. And then they build monuments to you. And that, is what is going to happen to the Amalgamated Clothing Workers of America.'
The government is part of the 1% and is in constant discussions with wall Street and big business. Have a scroll down of this membership list of the think tank the 'Council On Foreign Relations' ( http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Members_of_the_Council_on_Foreign_Relations ) and have a look at all the political individuals involved and all the corporations involved....there are many such groups.
The bankers engineered the crisis and they hoovered up the properties. Any loses made by the banks were passed onto the taxpayers in the 'bailouts'
The 1% made off like bandits and left us carrying the can
If the debts were profitable as the 1% claim then they would have been bought up privately but they weren't....they were toxic...so they were dumped on the taxpayer
The protesters are working on getting us all to a better place.
That soldier is, as Kissinger would say, just 'a pawn'. The soldiers used to grab resources abroad are the 'collateral damage' in the schemes of the 1%. They make the profits, the taxpayers pay in money and blood
Last edited:
That's good for you. I suppose the citizens of Washington State wrote the initiative, petitioned to put it on the ballot and voted it into law because the governement made us do it. The state legislator had no part in writing this bill unless they had to pass off the wording somehow but I don't think they even touch it.
A psychologist would say you're paranoid.
Aren't think tanks academic groups?
Competition is supposed to get rid of monopolies. Back to my state's liquor example, it had a monopoly but now we're ending that monopoly to open up the market with cometition. Monopolies are so because of lack of competition.
Doesn't everyone have overlapping interests?
It's private in the sense that it is not controlled by government, which is what I said when I said potus and the hill have no power over it. The Federal Reserve is not owned by something like Bank of America. Bank of America is a member of the federal reserve because it's the law for national banks to be members.
But these banks do not own the Federal Reserve in any sense of the word.
Well no duh. Everyone has an agenda.
Yeah, there's corruption in government but the examples of the circles aren't good ones for corruption or for showing that this pattern is bad. Chicago politics (particularly the mayorial position) is much better for that.
You mean owners or stockholders? A bit fuzzy on why this would be considered bad.
You usually don't sell your resources unless you're going out of business. You sell what you produce. Even if it is crude oil, you're selling a product that is a resource to someone else.
Yeah, you sell off your assets when you start losing a bunch of money.
I know about monopolies. I said that in an earlier post and you agreed with me. This isn't about monopolies or oligopolies. I'm advocating an efficient free market with competition, which make monopolies less of a reality. Monopolies become so because of lack of competition( which I stated above). Where the policy and lobbying come into play is here. I think you used a company earlier that has a monopoly over the seed market and was featured in Food Inc. They lobbied to have laws passed that eliminate potential competition, leaving them as the only choice for farmers to buy from.
In economic terms, gold isn't a resource, it's more of a currency. Currency facilitates trade. Resources are what you use to produce things. Land, labor and capital.
Healthcare is a system that needs to be public because of imperfect information which leads to adverse selection (at least in this example). University is another example that I'm not entirely sure about. It's an inelastic good, so you can raise the prices and attendance isn't affected very much.
For most markets where the good is elastic, competition is a good thing that keeps prices low. Prices get high because of lack of competition. Competition encourages efficiency and fair pricing to the consumer.
Well, starting wars over oil is not right but I think many of these wars have been started by presidents and have not officially been approved by our Congress.
I think that depends on what we're trading. If it's manufacturing, then yes. But we're still the most productive dollar-wise.
But the power elite aren't the entire 1%. I think the 1% starts at around 400k per year. 99 vs 1 isn't about the power elite. If you were to say America vs 40,000 people, then sure.
Making $$$ is their agenda. No secrets held here.
Laughing on the inside of their heated apartments. Going on vacations and getting massages. Making more money. Skiing in Aspen. Gee, they got a whole lot of things to do.
I didn't say it doesn't worry me. Just that they aren't owned by the banks. Banks have the singular agenda of making money. I don't see bank propaganda being peddled by Rachel Maddow.
Nobody's forcing anybody to do anything. Everybody has and always will make decisions for themselves. But this movement, like all movements, will eventually crumble. Whether it be tomorrow or in 300 years, the time will come. But they simply do not have enough political power to win this fight. It's over. You don't win this fight from the outside with organic protesting. You do it with a tie, a desk, a law degree and a secretary that you're currently boning all inside the beltway. Unless you overthrow the regime, these demands have to become law. You can't just be angry, you have to have specific solutions that you know will fix our problems. Idealism will falter.
Doesn't mean that they're A) right or B) know what they're talking about.
Yeah, we're all very aware of this.
They did make off with our bailout tax dollars. But they didn't try to crash the economy on purpose. And anyways, the types of loans that went toxic were mostly handed out by Mortgage Companies because they didn't have limits on leveraging loans.
There are different way to do that. Look, on an ideal level, I agree with some, if not many of their points. But either I don't like their solutions on a policy level, or they have shit to show for their opinion on a policy level.
Glenn Beck would say you're a pawn of the socialist radicals trying to overthrow capitalism and democracy. All it takes is perspective to see someone as a pawn of a greater scheme.
Wow, watching that video reminded me of the cheap Netflix friendly knock-offs of major motion pictures... like "Transmorfers". Didn't realize people were stooping to those same levels with little animations now. It almost looked like the good ones, only... not good.
I think that alcohol sales is going to be a very profitable business in the tough times ahead.
I think that would depend on which one you speak to.
No but sometimes academics will be involved. It seems that over various issues opposing sides can each get their own experts to provide research to back up their claims.
So other than looking at the research itself in order to establish its validity perhaps a more insightful approach would be to look at the motives of the people who are funding the research.
Yeah i understand this man. What i am trying to put across is a sense of a group of people whose wealth is such that they are able to not only dominate markets but manipulate them as well.
Within the current system i would agree to reforms that would break up monopolies as competition might drive down prices for the consumer (not that cheap alcohol is necessarily a good thing especially during tough times...it can destroy communities) but if we are talking hypothetically about what i would ideally like to see then i do not like the mentality that competiton creates.
When people compete they are more likely to endulge in cynical behaviour....so if we are talking ideal situations i would prefer to see people working together.....i hold out hope for such an ideal situation but i am not delusional in my expectations of its iminant arrival!
Below is a link to a community in Spain that is operating under anarcho-communist principles ie they cooperate rather than compete so these ideas are out there and people may open up to them in increasing numbers due to a number of factors. One is the harsh economic climate that capitalism is about to visit on people in the west and the other is the internet which brings like minded people together around the world: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Marinaleda,_Spain / http://www.marinaleda.com/inicio.htm
Yes its a shame that some people don't understand this and just want to compete all the time instead of recognising that all our interests are bound up together and that we would all be better working together. Humanities inability to get past surface differences such as nationality is i think the greatest barrier to peace and the biggest challenge our species has to face....but what do i know?
The bank was set up by private bankers who all paid for a stake. The bank was called the 'federal reserve' to make people think it was part of the government.
You don't know who is controlling your economy do you? But don't worry, not many people do...its all very secretive. The 'end the fed' campaign, which you might be interested in as a advocate of competition, is demanding an audit of the fed.
Yeah so we each need to decide which agendas are going to have a negative effect on people and which aren't.
Its not my country man, i'm just trying to make a point that despite grand claims of democracy the reality is that power resides with a very small part of your 300 million population. The result of that is that most people are being financially squeezed whilst the power elite are getting richer.
If you want to increase competition you have to think about how you are going to take power off that group. They won't give it up easily.
We are in the same situation in my country and in many other countries. Its a problem we all face.
Owners and stockholders. It is bad because it increases the monopoly. They will be able to dictate to the rest of us what we will have to pay or do to use the goods and services that they will own.
people are going out of business and countries are, we are told, teetering on 'bankruptcy'
The 99% is losing a bunch of money
We do agree on some things.....so how are you going to break up the monopoly? The protestors want to break up the monopoly as well.
You're not really addressing any of the issues here
You are still getting bound up in textbook economics. The textbooks will not tell you what is being arranged behind closed doors by the 1%. In fact the 1% are behind many of the textbooks.
Right and who is it that tells the president what to do? You don't think the president is the boss do you?
You're in trouble any way you cut it.
No i'm saying the global 1% which includes the US power elite who are conspiring with elites from other countries to follow through on various policies such as neoliberalism
$ today something else tomorrow. Money is just a tool they use it is not the end in itself....there are many secrets
No you are talking about the wealthy in general again....i'm not talking about them
There will be coherent strategies formed to tackle the protestors. For example have you noticed in footage of police violence against the protesters that the police carrying out the violent acts are officers (wearing white shirts) which is because they have been given orders from above to use aggressive heavy handed methods.
The mainstream media is also trying to discredit the movement.
In the past there have been shootings by the national guard and the 'hard hat' riots where inevitably orders and initiatives have come down from above.
There will be think tanks who right now are discussing how they are going to deal with the threat of civil unrest.
I thought i'd already covered this. It is not the 'banks' the banks are just vehicles, it is the people behind the banks. They are also controlling the mainstream media, the military industrial complex and the oil companies etc
No you will not beat the monopoly with a law degree, a tie and a secretary who you are boning. If you became enough of a threat to the monopoly they would shut you down...permanantly. Also the law courts exist to protect the system.
Anger is the catalyst for change it has driven successful movements before....if enough people get involved then the 1% must listen. If the workers aren't working the 1%'s profits will be harmed which is why the unions would be good to have on board.
This is only the beginning. As times get tougher the numbers will swell.
How do you know what they are talking about...have you talked to the people at the centre?
They are right to protest.
Listen man if you give some people an inch, they will take a mile. The 1% is taking, taking, taking. At some point you have to say no. An individual saying no has very little power....a mass of people saying no has power. If enough people say no...you have total power.
I don't think you have fully grasped the implications of this. Its one thing to know something its another thing to truly understand it.
The system is unsustainable. Its a giant ponzi scheme. The people behind it know this.
Be patient man....its all happening pretty quickly when you think about it. I don't ever remember such a rush of events at any point in my life....something monumental seems to happen every week at the moment...there are massive shifts happening in the world right now.
Glenn Beck huh?
I'm fully aware of what i am doing. By that i mean i don't just know what i'm doing i understand what i'm doing.
Soldiers often don't really understand what they are doing. Many of them are young and haven't really evolved their perceptions yet. That is why so many of them are traumatised by war because the reality of it does not match their expectation.
There is a thread in the news section started by Flavus Aquila about a group of US soldiers who have been murdering Afghanis. These kind of atrocities happen a lot. Look at the torture and humiliation of prisoners in Abhu Graib. War does something to people psychologically and young minds are the most plastic. Things become hazy: 'the fog of war'.
Soldiers are being used by the 1% and then discarded out of service with no real psychological support. They are simply used and tossed away. The socialist are not using me.
Its very possible that we are not going to reconcile our views on some things.
But you seem to want to break up the monopoly and so do I. I believe that wherever there is centralised power there is corruption and exploitation. I think we are seeing that happening. It would make sense therefore to push power back down to the people.
The occupy wall street movement is about challenging that monopoly
Last edited: