"I am part of the 1%! I refuse to be a slave to Wall Street based corporate greed!" ~ Sent from my iPhone.

To some, protesters, its certainly at banks and government. To many, many others, its at all major corporations. Also, the regulations have been there for a hell of a lot longer than a couple of years. Insider trading for example, has long been illegal. They were certainly updated after the market crash became evident, but they were there.



I certainly favour a progressive tax system among wages, and regressive tax among business, which should be somewhere around 30-35%. Payouts, such as performance bonuses and dividends depend on the context. Dividends should be taxed as a corporate tax, while performance bonuses should be charged as a one off payment in the amount appropriate tax bracket. For example, if you earn $80,000 in wages that year, and then made another $40,000 in performance bonuses, you should pay tax on that $80,000 in that tax bracket, and pay tax on that $40,000 in that bracket, not as a total amount of $120,000.

Maze of torment, I'll reply to your post when I get home.

Pointing at faceless unspecified protesters doesn't prove shit...

And guys, its a ponzi scheme.

Share trading is a ponzi scheme now?



Before I start, if you're gonna pick individual lines, and twist what I've said around once more, or try and put words in my mouth once more, I'm not going to bother with replying to you again. If you want a discussion, I'l talk to you, but do it properly, and not like a fucking kid.

Firstly, your point on wages is out of context completely. Don't put words in my mouth. I seriously don't even know why I'm making the effort to reply to that load of crap. But no, they don't deserve performance bonuses.

How would you define "real capitalism"? Its a term you're throwing around, so lets hear your definition on it. It seems you support this rather than the current system.

Also, you have definitely implied your problem is with capitalism. I'll even quote a line to jog your memory. "Face the facts, the top 1% in this country controls an astounding 40% of the wealth. forty percent. Can you really sit there and say that's fair with a straight face?" Your words, not mine. Sounds to me like someone has a beef with the wealthy.

You have your own opinion on the protests, nothing wrong with that. But others, especially other activists have their own view on them. There are people protesting what I was talking about. Just because you decide to turn a blind eye to that, or choose to ignore it doesn't mean there aren't parties protesting what I'm talking about.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmEHcOc0Sys&noredirect=1

Dont know how to post links so you'll have to copy-paste that but its a pretty cool vid of a marine shouting down 30 cops on the street

Oh,it does it by itself.woops

ad hominem arguments are useless

I had really hoped that by the time I got home someone would do me a favor and dispatch of your ridiculous logic but in any case, I'll respond. Firstly, whats wrong with me addressing each of your individual points? It's a matter of clarity, not of distorting your words. Along those same lines, I didn't put any words in your mouth either. If you were speaking of wages in a general context then you're missing the entire point of this discussion, which mainly concerns itself with the context of the last 3-5 years roughly so when you go talking about executive wages nobody here is looking at that through the lens of general business practice. This topic is concerned primarily with what is recent, so, no, in my humble opinion, Executive wages should not rise and they should not be given bonuses when when they owe the American people big time for bailing their asses out after they wrecked the economy(and thus the lives of said American people). It's not a matter of can they or are they allowed to raise their wages, it's a matter of prudence and accountability in a given context and its these actions along with the continued drive in Congress to assault the American worker that prove that these guys have anything but contrition for what they did to this country. Zero remorse, period. The status quo was retained and they're wiping their hands clean of the whole mess and proceeding with "business" as usual.

Which brings me to your confusion over what I mean by "real capitalism" and the impression that you get from me that I'm against Capitalism entirely, something I shouldn't even reply to considering I addressed it before but maybe if I type the same thing twice you'll get it this time. For someone standing up for these pricks(which is quite funny considering it's a safe bet to say you're probably not one of them), you seem to lack an understanding of how the free market works. Even supposing all the business practices were ship shape and they weren't manipulating the system, selling bad mortgages on purpose, giving out loans to people that they shouldn't, etc(which is granting them A LOT that isn't true and they don't deserve, but just for the sake of this one point), what do you think should have happened when it all came crashing down? Well, I'll tell you this much, in a real Capitalist system, they would not have gotten a goddamn bailout, I know that much. True, it would have sent the economy into a great depression but in any case, its the legitimate threat of going under that keeps people from playing games with their money and the money of the American public too, for that matter, but because they know the nanny state will rescue them, that the entire country going under is too drastic a dive to allow, they're essentially free to do whatever they want without facing the repercussions of their dangerous, irresponsible actions. In a real free market Capitalist system they wouldn't be so brazen because their asses actually would be on the line. Like I said before, it's Socialism for the rich.

Lastly, since you're dead set on thinking that I have some kind of hatred for Capitalism, I'll briefly lay out what I would like to see and what some of my problems with it are. Basically, nowhere in the world do you find a pure Capitalist system or a pure Socialist system, and so on. Everywhere you look it's a mix and any place that tries doing the extreme of one or other other falls flat on its face. A balance has to be struck and clearly, we're doing a very bad job of striking a balance when 1% of the country controls 40% of the wealth. If this sounds fair to you(and I still refuse to believe that it does, I think you're just defending an ideology more than anything) then sure, I have a huge problem with Capitalism. No country can coexist with this kind of inequality, much less one the size of the United States. The Capitalism being practiced is largely corrupt and Socially, we're behind virtually all other modern nations and that combination has us behind the 8 ball right now and it will not change unless the system changes, starting with getting the money out of politics so that our Representatives actually represent the American people and not the special interests, the 1%, etc. I don't hate Capitalism, I think it has its place, but that it's not as simple as you're portraying it to be.

Your comment does require more than Terri23's ad hominem attack, so here is what I think.

First, the governments have a great deal of control over the "occupied" areas, at least in the US. This is particularly glaring given the several instances of excessive force used to exert that control (also all of the protests in the US are subject to Federal, state, and likely municipal laws). Second, calling these areas sovereign nations is a gigantic stretch of the meaning of sovereignty, which would nearly reduce the concept behind the word to a cypher. Governments have to use force to control their territory so frequently that using this as your sole determinant of sovereignty would mean there would essentially be no sovereignty. For example, is there sovereignty in a criminal every time a law is broken which only returns to the state once they exert force?

Granted, much about modern sovereignty is an international construct dating back to the Treaty of Westphalia, so there is room for a bit of debate. However, I completely disagree with your assessment because the ultimate authority over these occupied areas still resides with the heads of state for the respective countries in which the protests are occurring. No nation recognizes their sovereignty and they exert no powers of the sovereign. It is certainly an interesting and bizarre idea, and while I would like to hear more about why you think they are sovereign nations I think it is ultimately an academic discussion as there is probably a 0% chance any protest camp will become a sovereign nation anytime soon. Also this is a semantic argument in that I disagree because I feel you are using the word in a situation to which it does not and was never intended to apply.



I imagine that many people are more concerned with the political consequences of the inequality rather than inequality in of itself. Is it wrong that 1% controls 40% of the wealth or wrong for that same 1% to use this wealth to manipulate politics to ensure their continued supremacy? I have heard people argue each argument and also both simultaneously.
Perhaps the problem is not inequality, but the corruptive influence wealth can have on politics. I also imagine that absolute wealth is more important to people than relative wealth. During this awful recession it is striking to see so many people suffering while others live lavishly. But suppose that the economy was booming, would the issue still be as salient? I think few would argue that equality where everyone was poor would be a good thing. In short, I am suggesting that the bigger issue here is recession induced poverty highlighting unfairness rather than equality in of itself.

This article briefly touches on these questions, but does so in a manner you would expect from this particular publication: http://www.economist.com/blogs/dailycha ... -happiness

I can't comment on the American protests as well since I haven't been there. I've been to the Toronto one though, and the cops there seem to be giving them a wide berth. Toronto municipal law states that no one is permitted to be in a park past 10 pm, but the police have "allowed" the protest to continue throughout the night. People are smoking weed in broad daylight, tents have been set up and there are people living there full-time, albeit temporarily. In short, many laws are be3ing broken, and the police, although on hand, are not enforcing these laws.

As for the word sovereign nation, I admit that it is a buit of a loaded phrase. I don't imagine that the occupied areas will break away from whatever nations the territory originated. In some ways, it underlines the fact that the concept of nation is not as all-encompassing as we might think. It's not a constant, like gravity or magnetism. It's an artificial construct that only exists because we all believe it does. If you consider the term "sovereign nation" to be a state formally recognized by the UN or something similar, then of course it doesn't meet that definition, but there are states that act as de facto sovereign nations despite not receiving any recognition from the other nations of the world.

My intention was never to try convincing anybody that my argument was true, since it wasn't an argument in the first place. Just something to consider, not something to get butthurt over and hurl meaningless insults about

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qC9Vyt1ZBpQ

Watch this right now,these people are fucking terrorists

You guys remember that video of the woman getting punched in the protest? And how I was all omg, I'd wanna go off, blah blah? Well, it's still fucked up but I couldn't help but laugh when I saw this tonight and realized the woman in question, was in fact, A MAN.

http://current.com/shows/countdown/vide ... -policeman

It's just funny because I saw that video posted a few places and it seemed pretty certain that it was a woman but apparently that was not the case.

No, they aren't.

I dunno,it sounded like sedition and propaganda to me.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WmEHcOc0Sys&noredirect=1

watch this,its great

I actually watched that just last night. Almost posted it but I know once you post link after link they begin to blur together and most people won't wanna check any of them, haha. But it's definitely a very powerful video. The cops look pretty speechless, as well they should, in front of such a large marine scolding them for their handling of the protests. I find it compelling that a lot of the armed forces seem to be behind these protests. It definitely provides a strong voice within the movement.

I'll ignore your petty insults here and get along with it. I'll point out though you're clearly playing dumb on what I was referring to, and you know it. Anyway, I digress. I actually said earlier I agree with you here on companies paying performance bonuses after being bailed out. So I'll leave it at that here.



I'm well aware on how markets work. You're also right that they wouldn't have gotten the bail out. However, in a real free market system, there wouldn't be any government regulating the system to begin with. This means that the companies would be free to within their field anything they would like. Bernie Madoff would probably still be running his massive multi billion dollar Ponzi scheme. Insider trading would be rife, the rich would be richer, the poor poorer, and the government, and its citizens would be absolutely powerless to do anything about it. Your argument on the companies being so brazen is also silly. You're implying the companies knew they could fall back on the government in the event they needed a cash injection. The bail outs were unprecedented, atleast in most western nations. There is no way the companies could have known bailouts would have been prepared for them. Assuming they actually did, which is impossible, why were Lehman Brothers eventually rejected, while AIG were accepted for a bailout?

On your last point, if it were up to you, how would you split the wealth, and what means would you use to do it? How would you bridge what you refer to as inequality?

Like you haven't done the same? Hypocrite...

It wasn't me that said this....

Well do me one more and point out what exactly I am playing dumb on because, actually, I don't know.


True, I might have been overzealous to some degree in what I expressed but I still stand by it. But to clarify, no, I wouldn't say it was quite so explicit, that they were consciously thinking to themselves as they did the things they did "Thank God we'll get that bailout when this shit hits the fan". I just mean to say that the environment was such that they weren't worried about what they were doing. Otherwise, they wouldn't have taken it to its extreme end. When you essentially are locking hands with members of Congress and know that you directly influence politics, I don't think its far fetched to think that a feeling of invisibility comes over individuals that already have everything. Everything has its price and the system is by no means an exception. The brazenness is, in fact, exhibited unconsciously as a result of the degree to which they influence the system. At least that's my take anyway. I hardly think it's a stretch when they were gambling with the fortunes of innocent people. If that's not brazen, please tell me what is.


Well, for one, I do think taxes need to be raised across the board and that if you make more, you should pay more. Simple as that. And if companies don't want to pay more, hey, reinvest some of your money back into your company tax free. If you don't want to just give your money to the government because you think its a waste, invest in your own company. It's a means to spark growth, employment, and in the end, can spark greater profits for the company that maybe wouldn't have been had the company just sat on their money.

And as far as the increased revenue the government would be getting, I'd like to see it going towards projects that benefit the whole country. Investment in infrastructure, clean energies, and programs that help get out of work people back on their feet as soon as they can but support them while they're down and out. These are all things the GOP refuses to consider when there's empirical evidence that these things work and benefit everyone. I think its absurd, quite frankly, but a certain percentage of the population doesn't go along with any of these things because well, they want things to stay the same. Some stand to lose big from moving toward clean energy, for instance, so naturally, they're going to do everything they can to disrupt its implementation. And of course, across the board, it goes without saying that the rich don't want to pay taxes, much less a high percentage of taxes that benefits the whole. I believe in a Capitalist system that has very precise parameters and lines that can't be crossed. There needs to be good regulation. But as you can see, I'm in very of something of a Socialist framework as well. Ask Sweden how that worked out for them. Inequality wasn't a problem and I hear the people were pretty happy with it.

But it's important to say as well that you have to be proactive over time. You can't sit on one particular way of doing things for too long because no system is perfect, and it inevitably will hit periods of stagnation after a period of boom. There has to be a degree of foresight in government so that the necessary adjustments can be made. This is probably not practical because of how difficult the political process in this country is but that's what I believe. I think it could work better if we had a Parliamentary system but that's another story for another day.

Also, pretty good video here discussing the ways in which wall st has eaten away at the the livelihood of Americans over the last 30 years.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/26315908/ns ... /#44968952

Propaganda is a very loaded word, what do you mean by it? Propaganda isn't inherently negative.

Seems to me like they're just trying to inspire people to take action on somethiing that they believe strongly. There are many people who are disillusioned by "the system" (another loaded phrase) and wish things would change, but they feel powerless to do anything about it. That video seems to just be an awakening call to those people. Nothing in that video is reminiscent of "terrorism" (yet another loaded word) in the slightest.

Allright,so to specify I would say that that video was very anti-establishment propaganda and it seems to me that that the way they chose to deliver their message was quite hostile.And I think that there are people out there who would find that video displays terrrorist leanings,myself included.

Telling people to smile at the police = hostile terrorist propaganda.

Well that was the reaction I got from everybody else I know who saw it,they were threatening Wall Street,therefore threatening a heart of american business=terrorist propaganda.

1) Anonymous are generally pretty harmless.
2) How the hell is peaceful protest terrorism?

If the actions of the NYPD are anything to go by, a peaceful protest is pretty close.

I've been kinda wondering this for some time, but why would a Canadian group (AdBusters) incite something in the United States?

Canada is preparing the invasion, as a response to the Fenian Brotherhood.

You wouldn't happen to watch Fox News (or another conservative news source), would you, Nautikal?

LOL politics

the 91 victims of the Norway massacre died because of politics and religions. At least, show respect if you're truly Norwegian.

I'm from america. I just said I was from norway.

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."
- Thomas Jefferson

Could you clarify what you mean by this? It seems, on first glance, like you are saying because the NYPD have been arresting and beating protesters (From what I hear, and I'm not sure what else you could be talking about), then that means the protesters are terrorists.

What the hell? Stop embarrassing yourself and

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/44973689

Cool article/interview with some 1%'ers who stand with the 99%. I think the more wealthy people that come out and vent their sympathies with this movement, the more of a chance it has of initiating actual change. At any rate, it definitely gives the movement more credibility.

Yep, because the lower class needs the blessing of the ruling class for their wants and needs to be credible.

Now you see Sunlight, you big dolt.

I completely agree with MazeofTorment that wealthy people supporting the movement lends credibility. If a group of employers came out and said some new OSHA regulation about office safety were good ideas, then it would have the same effect. The suggestion is that the policy is better for society rather than various factions fighting in a zero-sum game over finite resources when even the regulated lend their support.

A policy's credibility is not dependent on who advocates it, but rather what it is. By saying that one class is solely capable of lending a form or level of credibility to ideas presented by another class is bare faced classism.