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

Forums - General Discussion - Occupy Wall Street Protests not working? What do you think?

 

How much of an impact is OWS having?

Can't hear them over the sound of my Ferrari 60 24.10%
 
Just a news story, no visible results 82 32.93%
 
Helping change minds, it's a start 68 27.31%
 
Change is on the horizon, just you wait 27 10.84%
 
I feel the impact already 6 2.41%
 
Can't hear them over the... 6 2.41%
 
Total:249

And a different likely more varied poll.

13% Supporting
31% Dissaprove
56% Don't know enough about what the heck OWS is about



Around the Network
Mr Khan said:
Marks said:
These protesters are protesting all the wrong things which is why I'm sick of this occupy wall street thing. It should be occupy the whitehouse/federal reserve/congress...not wall street aka the people that create jobs, wealth, etc.

But they don't create jobs and wealth. They just sit around trading each other funny money and don't do a damn thing to increase actual value. That belongs with entrepreneurs and people who are actually on the ground and, you know, making things or providing services.

These people are like a new aristocracy. Like the gentlemen farmers of old who just sat around and did whatever they pleased off the backs of the peons that served them, these people do nothing but leech off society.

The Middle Class and some of the more productive regions of the upper class are right to desire revolt against Wall Street, to speak nothing of this nation's much-abused underclass. The people who work need to strike at the Finance sector and rapidly curb its excesses


A) Just about everyone in the middle class has a very vested interest in the stock market.  It's often where there retirement fund money is at least to some degree... be it through Mutual Funds or Retirement plans or whatever.

54% of americans own stock... and this is the lowest number it's been since 1999.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147206/stock-market-investments-lowest-1999.aspx

 

B) The stock market isn't "Funny money" being traded.  It's ownership in a company being traded.  The fluctiations in the stock market represent the chaning values of the companies they are trading.  There isn't anything fake about it.

C) Something like 90% of a comapnies job growth comes after issueing stock... because entrepenuers need money... and the stock market is how they can get it.  Even most "angel investments" and venture capitalist money that comes in BEFORE an IPO comes in because they want the rights to a certain amount of shares when it comes to the stock market.

http://www.nysemagazine.com/jobcreation

When you comapre the number of IPO's lately versus how they were when jobs were growing in great supply.... a pattern develops.  In general lots of companies no longer see the advantage to go public, and instead stay private and small.



Man the conservative is strong in this thread. I dont follow the news that much anymore but the way I have seen OWS(both locally and on TV) is a bunch of people(no its not a bunch of hippies or spoiled kids or people that dont want to work) from all ages 18-old as fuck(from my visual inspection) that are tired of big businesses and the government working hand and hand to control the majority of wealth while the American empire crumbles away.

OWS doesnt seem to have answers(I do think that completly changing the economic and government scape of this country seems difficult) and "Wall Street", "Big Business" and the "%1" dont give a shit cause they will still continue to make money off of a system that is firmly stuck in place and protected by a government and legal system that is paid for.



Getting an XBOX One for me is like being in a bad relationship but staying together because we have kids. XBone we have 20000+ achievement points, 2+ years of XBL Gold and 20000+ MS points. I think its best we stay together if only for the MS points.

Nintendo Treehouse is what happens when a publisher is confident and proud of its games and doesn't need to show CGI lies for five minutes.

-Jim Sterling

Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd hope that many politicians would prefer to see less lobbying money in politics ... they just don't want to be the one to get less of it than the other guy.  Therefore they wouldn't have a problem with trying to evenhandedly close the floodgates.  Of course, that's a lot easier said than done, and real reform in this area might earn the authors a certain amount of backlash from those groups.  But that's how the bribed could stop themselves from being bribed ... because the bribery is part of a competition with other bribed people.  If they cooperated, I'd think they could fix the problem without disadvantaging theselves. 

As for less lobbying money in politics, i'd suggest your wrong for three reasons.

1) A few senators have been trying this since, Clinton, and there seems to have been massive problems/loopholes added to every legislation that tried to tackle this.

2) Incumbents almost always have a funding advantage because incumbents always win.

3) In general the studies done by the freakanomics crew actually tend to show that money doesn't effect your electability that much, and really, you get more money when your more electable.  I mean, if Bill Gates came in and decided to spend his whole fortune to get Hulk Hogan elected as President... it isn't going to work.

1.  Well, they certainly aren't cooperating enough then.    Hard to say whether it's greed, sabotage, or what, from my vantage point. 

2.  OK

3.  That's like saying advertising doesn't work because no amount of advertising would have made Superman 64 a bestseller.  Although it's true that people's preexisting attitudes about the issues/parties puts a limit on the effectiveness of campaigning. 



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

But at the very least I think you have to agree that if they are fighting the reform so hard, THEY, at least, think the money makes a big difference.



Tag (courtesy of fkusumot): "Please feel free -- nay, I encourage you -- to offer rebuttal."
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
My advice to fanboys: Brag about stuff that's true, not about stuff that's false. Predict stuff that's likely, not stuff that's unlikely. You will be happier, and we will be happier.

"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." - Sen. Pat Moynihan
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
The old smileys: ; - ) : - ) : - ( : - P : - D : - # ( c ) ( k ) ( y ) If anyone knows the shortcut for , let me know!
- - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - - -
I have the most epic death scene ever in VGChartz Mafia.  Thanks WordsofWisdom! 

Around the Network
Kasz216 said:
Mr Khan said:
Marks said:
These protesters are protesting all the wrong things which is why I'm sick of this occupy wall street thing. It should be occupy the whitehouse/federal reserve/congress...not wall street aka the people that create jobs, wealth, etc.

But they don't create jobs and wealth. They just sit around trading each other funny money and don't do a damn thing to increase actual value. That belongs with entrepreneurs and people who are actually on the ground and, you know, making things or providing services.

These people are like a new aristocracy. Like the gentlemen farmers of old who just sat around and did whatever they pleased off the backs of the peons that served them, these people do nothing but leech off society.

The Middle Class and some of the more productive regions of the upper class are right to desire revolt against Wall Street, to speak nothing of this nation's much-abused underclass. The people who work need to strike at the Finance sector and rapidly curb its excesses


A) Just about everyone in the middle class has a very vested interest in the stock market.  It's often where there retirement fund money is at least to some degree... be it through Mutual Funds or Retirement plans or whatever.

54% of americans own stock... and this is the lowest number it's been since 1999.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/147206/stock-market-investments-lowest-1999.aspx

 

B) The stock market isn't "Funny money" being traded.  It's ownership in a company being traded.  The fluctiations in the stock market represent the chaning values of the companies they are trading.  There isn't anything fake about it.

C) Something like 90% of a comapnies job growth comes after issueing stock... because entrepenuers need money... and the stock market is how they can get it.  Even most "angel investments" and venture capitalist money that comes in BEFORE an IPO comes in because they want the rights to a certain amount of shares when it comes to the stock market.

http://www.nysemagazine.com/jobcreation

When you comapre the number of IPO's lately versus how they were when jobs were growing in great supply.... a pattern develops.  In general lots of companies no longer see the advantage to go public, and instead stay private and small.

I suppose my post let on an implication that i was opposed to all finance, which is absolutely untrue, since i am a modernizationist at heart and the ability for individuals to invest and for corporations to gather funding from stock ownership is a critical part of our modern world, however we have gotten well beyond simple investment in a corporation, and i would argue that this has occurred to an unhealthy degree.

It creates the aforementioned nonproductive money handling class. What of commodities paper-trading, derivatives, short-selling, credit-default swaps, points upon which the gain of money is tied to nothing but shifting around digital points, creating money from nothing, hence "funny money"



Monster Hunter: pissing me off since 2010.

well you cannot blame Conservatism, for Europe should be a shining beacon then ^^^

Its corrupt politician from both sides.


Also, most middle class people have some sort of investments indirectly and directly. So to assume anyone who has an interest in the stock market is a the 1% is silly.
I do not want the financial system to come crashing down for that would ruin my investments and my family's investments, now does that make me an elitist?

About funny money, well young people with OWS are the people that least understand the finance system. What you refer to funny money is I assume people and buying and selling stocks and derivatives on margin rather then their own money or perhaps short selling? CDO's and MBS and swaps and such?

Also, declaring war on business is silly. Business investment is one of the main aspects of economic growth and frankly due to all the instability due to a weak American/European govt, many businesses do not want to invest even if they are making a profit. However to many on the left this is seen as hoarding money.



Final-Fan said:
Kasz216 said:
Final-Fan said:

Maybe I'm wrong, but I'd hope that many politicians would prefer to see less lobbying money in politics ... they just don't want to be the one to get less of it than the other guy.  Therefore they wouldn't have a problem with trying to evenhandedly close the floodgates.  Of course, that's a lot easier said than done, and real reform in this area might earn the authors a certain amount of backlash from those groups.  But that's how the bribed could stop themselves from being bribed ... because the bribery is part of a competition with other bribed people.  If they cooperated, I'd think they could fix the problem without disadvantaging theselves. 

As for less lobbying money in politics, i'd suggest your wrong for three reasons.

1) A few senators have been trying this since, Clinton, and there seems to have been massive problems/loopholes added to every legislation that tried to tackle this.

2) Incumbents almost always have a funding advantage because incumbents always win.

3) In general the studies done by the freakanomics crew actually tend to show that money doesn't effect your electability that much, and really, you get more money when your more electable.  I mean, if Bill Gates came in and decided to spend his whole fortune to get Hulk Hogan elected as President... it isn't going to work.

1.  Well, they certainly aren't cooperating enough then.    Hard to say whether it's greed, sabotage, or what, from my vantage point. 

2.  OK

3.  That's like saying advertising doesn't work because no amount of advertising would have made Superman 64 a bestseller.  Although it's true that people's preexisting attitudes about the issues/parties puts a limit on the effectiveness of campaigning. 


Oh it's just an extreme example.  I suppose a better one is the Republican primaries though.  Herman Cain didn't start getting serious fundraiser money until after his boom.  The same with Newt Gingrich.

I can't find the chapter online, but i'd suggest reading freakanomics and seeing the actual statistics and reasoning behind it though.



Final-Fan said:
But at the very least I think you have to agree that if they are fighting the reform so hard, THEY, at least, think the money makes a big difference.

Oh I think they think it does.

My general point isn't that crony capitalism goes on.  It totally does...

My point is that the corporations are more playing off each other in senators minds.  For example, our corporate tax rate that's at 32%, Effectivly is like ~26% and is still higher then the rest of the world, but some corporations pay between 0-10%.

To most senators without the subsdies the corporate tax rate would be 26%.  What's the old saying... robbing peter to feed paul or something?

This negativly effects people indirectly because it creates an uneven playing field among the 1%.  Which is something that is generally missed by OWS and there railing against the "1%" in a general "all rich people suck and should be punished" type sentiment that seems to come from them... and something generally missed by regular people and senators.  Though actually in general the public is genreally starting to see some of this stuff as bad.  Actually thanks to the Tea Party more then anything.  I mean hell, when Republicans are talking about farming subsidy cuts you know something is going on.

I can't help but look at New Zealand a country considered far more left wing then us... and there 0% corproate tax rates.



See this is where I think many people are not thinking clearly.

American corporate tax rates are actually high compared to the rest of the world. Its higher than Canada (as of now) and even North European Countries.

You know what the issue is, those countries collect taxes from corporations and a decent portion of total revenues is from corporate taxes.

Its just that the US has so many loopholes and lax rules that allow corporations to not pay little to no tax.