By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics - I am the 1%. Let's talk!

richardhutnik on 24 October 2011
HappySqurriel said:
mrstickball said:
dany612 said:
I'm pro capitalism, I'm anti corporate greed and corruption.

So how do you enforce this 'anti corporate greed and corruption'?


A few thoughts ...

Government involvement in the economy is bound to happen and is not (necessarily) a bad thing, but the role of the government should be more like that of a referee than a participant. Essentially, their focus should be on fairness (think in the context of sports, ie. equality of opportunity) and preventing dangerous activity that creates excessive risk of injury (fraud, corruption, etc.)

Restrictions  should be put on campaign finance ... Individuals, corporations, unions and charities should all be able to make political donations, but there should be a uniform cap on their total donations in a year; and donations to a party or a third party cause should count against the same cap. The cap should be high enough that people can freely support the candidates and causes they want, but low enough that organizations can't buy influence by funding every candidate in every election.

The Citizens United case enables a big end-around from this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

What can happen is that you end up being where you don't even need campaign financing.  Just form a PAC and run advertising on TV in support of an issue or a candidate, as much as you want.  Or, you run advertising against a candidate.  End result is that the money goes elsewhere and still attempts to do what it wants to do.



Around the Network
Kasz216 on 24 October 2011
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
mrstickball said:

Take the most unreguated industry in the world - PCs, and compare them with a heavily-regulated, capital-intensive industry such as energy production or cars.

"If the automobile had followed the same development cycle as the computer, a Rolls-Royce would today cost $100, get a million miles per gallon, and explode once a year, killing everyone inside."  

- Robert X. Cringely

 

It's a funny quote... but not really an accurate one.

Afterall, a PC doesn't kill anyone when it dies.

Sure your data is wiped, which a PC is for...

but a car is for transporting people.

So the computer wouldn't blow up the people.  Just no longer be able to transport them.

Also, if you take care of your PC... it will actually last a LOT longer then a year.  You just need a good PC mechanic, or PC mechanic tools.

Car = contains passengers and transports them.  A car crashes, it ends up eliminating what it carries, which is passengers.

PC = contains data and does stuff with it.  A computer crashes, it ends up eliminating that which it carries, which is data.

Except you know... a PC does more then simply contain data.

Data can literally not exist without the PC.  It's more like a life support situation in such a manner... or hell, an entire world/ecosystem.



richardhutnik on 24 October 2011
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
mrstickball said:

Take the most unreguated industry in the world - PCs, and compare them with a heavily-regulated, capital-intensive industry such as energy production or cars.

"If the automobile had followed the same development cycle as the computer, a Rolls-Royce would today cost $100, get a million miles per gallon, and explode once a year, killing everyone inside."  

- Robert X. Cringely

 

It's a funny quote... but not really an accurate one.

Afterall, a PC doesn't kill anyone when it dies.

Sure your data is wiped, which a PC is for...

but a car is for transporting people.

So the computer wouldn't blow up the people.  Just no longer be able to transport them.

Also, if you take care of your PC... it will actually last a LOT longer then a year.  You just need a good PC mechanic, or PC mechanic tools.

Car = contains passengers and transports them.  A car crashes, it ends up eliminating what it carries, which is passengers.

PC = contains data and does stuff with it.  A computer crashes, it ends up eliminating that which it carries, which is data.

Except you know... a PC does more then simply contain data.

Data can literally not exist without the PC.  It's more like a life support situation in such a manner.

The term connected with computing is "data processing".  In this, my use of data is fairly broad by definition and includes applications and so on.  Computers process information, and make sense of things.  Yes, there are games, but people use them to communicate and store data. 



superchunk on 24 October 2011

WE are all the 99%. Those of you who argue this and don't understand what's really happening are the fools.

Its not communism vs capitalism. Its the super-rich vs everyone else. Its the push for modern slavery hidden by mirrors and a few carrots.



Kasz216 on 24 October 2011
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
Kasz216 said:
richardhutnik said:
mrstickball said:

Take the most unreguated industry in the world - PCs, and compare them with a heavily-regulated, capital-intensive industry such as energy production or cars.

"If the automobile had followed the same development cycle as the computer, a Rolls-Royce would today cost $100, get a million miles per gallon, and explode once a year, killing everyone inside."  

- Robert X. Cringely

 

It's a funny quote... but not really an accurate one.

Afterall, a PC doesn't kill anyone when it dies.

Sure your data is wiped, which a PC is for...

but a car is for transporting people.

So the computer wouldn't blow up the people.  Just no longer be able to transport them.

Also, if you take care of your PC... it will actually last a LOT longer then a year.  You just need a good PC mechanic, or PC mechanic tools.

Car = contains passengers and transports them.  A car crashes, it ends up eliminating what it carries, which is passengers.

PC = contains data and does stuff with it.  A computer crashes, it ends up eliminating that which it carries, which is data.

Except you know... a PC does more then simply contain data.

Data can literally not exist without the PC.  It's more like a life support situation in such a manner.

The term connected with computing is "data processing".  In this, my use of data is fairly broad by definition and includes applications and so on.  Computers process information, and make sense of things.  Yes, there are games, but people use them to communicate and store data. 

You seemed to have skipped completley around the point that your arguement is invalid because data can't exist without the computer.

Either way, the analogy is just straight out flawed.



Around the Network
SamuelRSmith on 24 October 2011
superchunk said:
WE are all the 99%. Those of you who argue this and don't understand what's really happening are the fools.

Its not communism vs capitalism. Its the super-rich vs everyone else. Its the push for modern slavery hidden by mirrors and a few carrots.


You are right, it's not capitalism vs communism. The OWS movement seems to be mainly socialism in the terms of European socialism - greater Government intervention, socialized programs, greater regulation of the markets -  with a few anti-capitalists thrown in. Nor is the otherside of this battle (that is, the status quo) capitalism. The status quo is a mixture of light European socialism with huge lumps of corporatism (bail-outs, subsidies, tax loop holes, etc).

I think the main problem for people like me, and those who are "part of 99%", but not agreeing with these protestors, is that we feel the protestors have it wrong, or are just confused. I mean, if you watch the video in the OP, the first protestor is claiming that the Government is bailing out and propping up corporations - which is true -  however, he calls this capitalism, which is false... his solution also seems to be "more Government". Well, the fact of the matter is, the more Government you have, the more corporatism you have. Basically - the more things Government controls, the more things the lobbyists control.

The fact of the matter is, we have too many people in power who don't understand economics, and we have too many people on the streets that don't understand economics. Friedman/Smith/Hayek should be on the reading lists for all high-schools (of course, in corporate America, with a Federal education system, this will never happen). Ron Paul said it right when he said [paraphrased] "the only problem with Austrian economics, is that most people don't understand them".



Kasz216 on 24 October 2011
SamuelRSmith said:
superchunk said:
WE are all the 99%. Those of you who argue this and don't understand what's really happening are the fools.

Its not communism vs capitalism. Its the super-rich vs everyone else. Its the push for modern slavery hidden by mirrors and a few carrots.


You are right, it's not capitalism vs communism. The OWS movement seems to be mainly socialism in the terms of European socialism - greater Government intervention, socialized programs, greater regulation of the markets -  with a few anti-capitalists thrown in. Nor is the otherside of this battle (that is, the status quo) capitalism. The status quo is a mixture of light European socialism with huge lumps of corporatism (bail-outs, subsidies, tax loop holes, etc).

I think the main problem for people like me, and those who are "part of 99%", but not agreeing with these protestors, is that we feel the protestors have it wrong, or are just confused. I mean, if you watch the video in the OP, the first protestor is claiming that the Government is bailing out and propping up corporations - which is true -  however, he calls this capitalism, which is false... his solution also seems to be "more Government". Well, the fact of the matter is, the more Government you have, the more corporatism you have. Basically - the more things Government controls, the more things the lobbyists control.

The fact of the matter is, we have too many people in power who don't understand economics, and we have too many people on the streets that don't understand economics. Friedman/Smith/Hayek should be on the reading lists for all high-schools (of course, in corporate America, with a Federal education system, this will never happen). Ron Paul said it right when he said [paraphrased] "the only problem with Austrian economics, is that most people don't understand them".

Yeah... the real problem with the  Occupy Wallstreet movement is they are essenitally saying....

"End the wars we have now and start no more wars, therefore we must invade IRAN!"

I would actually say there are some flaws with Austrian economics though.

Austrian economics while smart to move away from falsely created economic models they seem to do little actual qualitative research.

Really economic theory should not be one global one size fits all theory but should be broken up basically by the cultures of diffeernt geographical "economic zones".

As consumers in different areas will act differently to the same events.



SamuelRSmith on 24 October 2011
Kasz216 said:
SamuelRSmith said:
superchunk said:
WE are all the 99%. Those of you who argue this and don't understand what's really happening are the fools.

Its not communism vs capitalism. Its the super-rich vs everyone else. Its the push for modern slavery hidden by mirrors and a few carrots.


You are right, it's not capitalism vs communism. The OWS movement seems to be mainly socialism in the terms of European socialism - greater Government intervention, socialized programs, greater regulation of the markets -  with a few anti-capitalists thrown in. Nor is the otherside of this battle (that is, the status quo) capitalism. The status quo is a mixture of light European socialism with huge lumps of corporatism (bail-outs, subsidies, tax loop holes, etc).

I think the main problem for people like me, and those who are "part of 99%", but not agreeing with these protestors, is that we feel the protestors have it wrong, or are just confused. I mean, if you watch the video in the OP, the first protestor is claiming that the Government is bailing out and propping up corporations - which is true -  however, he calls this capitalism, which is false... his solution also seems to be "more Government". Well, the fact of the matter is, the more Government you have, the more corporatism you have. Basically - the more things Government controls, the more things the lobbyists control.

The fact of the matter is, we have too many people in power who don't understand economics, and we have too many people on the streets that don't understand economics. Friedman/Smith/Hayek should be on the reading lists for all high-schools (of course, in corporate America, with a Federal education system, this will never happen). Ron Paul said it right when he said [paraphrased] "the only problem with Austrian economics, is that most people don't understand them".

Yeah... the real problem with the  Occupy Wallstreet movement is they are essenitally saying....

"End the wars we have now and start no more wars, therefore we must invade IRAN!"

I would actually say there are some flaws with Austrian economics though.

Austrian economics while smart to move away from falsely created economic models they seem to do little actual qualitative research.

Really economic theory should not be one global one size fits all theory but should be broken up basically by the cultures of diffeernt geographical "economic zones".

As consumers in different areas will act differently to the same events.


Not agreeing or disagreeing, here, but could you give some examples?



HappySqurriel on 24 October 2011
richardhutnik said:
HappySqurriel said:
mrstickball said:
dany612 said:
I'm pro capitalism, I'm anti corporate greed and corruption.

So how do you enforce this 'anti corporate greed and corruption'?


A few thoughts ...

Government involvement in the economy is bound to happen and is not (necessarily) a bad thing, but the role of the government should be more like that of a referee than a participant. Essentially, their focus should be on fairness (think in the context of sports, ie. equality of opportunity) and preventing dangerous activity that creates excessive risk of injury (fraud, corruption, etc.)

Restrictions  should be put on campaign finance ... Individuals, corporations, unions and charities should all be able to make political donations, but there should be a uniform cap on their total donations in a year; and donations to a party or a third party cause should count against the same cap. The cap should be high enough that people can freely support the candidates and causes they want, but low enough that organizations can't buy influence by funding every candidate in every election.

The Citizens United case enables a big end-around from this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

What can happen is that you end up being where you don't even need campaign financing.  Just form a PAC and run advertising on TV in support of an issue or a candidate, as much as you want.  Or, you run advertising against a candidate.  End result is that the money goes elsewhere and still attempts to do what it wants to do.

Part of my plan was to bound PACs to the contribution cap ...



richardhutnik on 24 October 2011
HappySqurriel said:
richardhutnik said:
HappySqurriel said:
mrstickball said:
dany612 said:
I'm pro capitalism, I'm anti corporate greed and corruption.

So how do you enforce this 'anti corporate greed and corruption'?


A few thoughts ...

Government involvement in the economy is bound to happen and is not (necessarily) a bad thing, but the role of the government should be more like that of a referee than a participant. Essentially, their focus should be on fairness (think in the context of sports, ie. equality of opportunity) and preventing dangerous activity that creates excessive risk of injury (fraud, corruption, etc.)

Restrictions  should be put on campaign finance ... Individuals, corporations, unions and charities should all be able to make political donations, but there should be a uniform cap on their total donations in a year; and donations to a party or a third party cause should count against the same cap. The cap should be high enough that people can freely support the candidates and causes they want, but low enough that organizations can't buy influence by funding every candidate in every election.

The Citizens United case enables a big end-around from this:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission

What can happen is that you end up being where you don't even need campaign financing.  Just form a PAC and run advertising on TV in support of an issue or a candidate, as much as you want.  Or, you run advertising against a candidate.  End result is that the money goes elsewhere and still attempts to do what it wants to do.

Part of my plan was to bound PACs to the contribution cap ...

The case said that anyone can buy air time at any time and air it, because it is their constitutional right.  If you do that, isn't it possible for yet another end around?  I see it is possible.   Ok, maybe I misunderstand, but were you proposing people were limited to how much they could donate to a PAC?