Occupy Wall Street Baloney

[Papist]

[quote name='Aloysius' timestamp='1320765120' post='2333178']
I think J_lol has a point, actually. The premise of ridiculing OWS for using technology and benefiting from "capitalism" is that, without unfettered non-"compassionate" capitalism (the majority of the wall street occupiers are in favor of capitalism, other than the few extremists calling for full-out socialism/communism, one could label most of the occupiers as militant Keynesians, people who believe in Capitalism with a certain degree of government involvement, higher than I would like it to be but still, not all-out socialists. watch the end of the Peter Schiff video I posted, watch how many peoples' hands go up when he asks "How many people here are in favor of Capitalism"--a lot of hands are raised) they wouldn't have that tech... but that's simply not true, in fact that tech has been developed with many such policies in place like social security and medicare et cetera, and as long as there's an economic system that does allow people to benefit from success you're going to continue to have that.

The OWSers are not against innovation and success, they are against certain aspects of the current financial system that have indeed caused some social inequality. Many are ill-informed as to exactly how and why this system causes inequality, and therefore spout a lot of BS about how they want there to just be higher taxes on the rich and more aid for the poor and all that, but their sentiment against the inequality is in the right place and it's not "hatred of successful people". but the system is indeed set up to widen the gap, and it's because of financial policies that amount to nothing more than USURY, pure unadulterated usury. The Federal Reserve and the fractional banking system are the peak and pinnacle of every reason the Church ever condemned usury, IMHO.

anyway, I think it's unfair to harp on about how OWSers are using tech that was developed under the current system as if that absolutely proves that there should be no other system, or that there shouldn't be any more government policies aimed at shrinking the gap between the richest 1% and the 99%; I disagree wit the types of policies they suggest, but there definitely is a huge degree of economic injustice in our world that needs to be dealt with somehow, and it is my belief that good Christians need to wake up to the fact that usurious banking practices are concentrating wealth and property ownership in the hands of few. Think about how many people really own their own home, I mean really OWN it themselves, not the bank. how much property is really in the hands of how few people; how much wealth is continually funneled up to the top because that's what happens when people deposit their money into a fractional banking system. sure, there's some trickle-down, but the concentration of that property ownership through unjust practices that have been condemned again and again by the Church throughout history is an upwards waterfall such that the trickle-down pales in comparison.
[/quote]
You missed the point too. The irony of the the protesters are protesting a system that benefits them...that their spending is giving money to the people they are ranting and raving at...the faceless rich.

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1320769050' post='2333216']
[img]http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v300/flamecondor/n129753_I_dont_want_to_live_on_this_planet_anymore.jpg[/img]
[/quote]
Oregon has a fix for that. j/k

[Aloysius]

I didn't miss the point, I specifically said that the point is ridiculous. I think it's stupid to ridicule them for benefiting from capitalism while also seeking changes to the system. again, as the video of Peter Schiff shows, a large amount (probably the majority) are NOT against capitalism, but rather believe in Keynesian Capitalism (something that I don't personally like, but again, the ridicule from that article is unfair).

is it really ironic that they are benefiting from technology that was developed during a period where Keynesian economics has been pretty well entrenched in our capitalism, and the majority of them are calling for widening that type of Keynesian role of government in our capitalism? sorry, I can't see the irony.

but even if they were all railing against all capitalism, I would still take issue with ridiculing them for benefiting from technology developed under the current system. because that premise assumes that such technology could not or would not have been developed under any other system; an unprovable assertion that is largely ridiculous.

anyway, no I didn't miss the point, I disagreed with the point.

[Jesus_lol]

Yeah, somehow the Ipods and all that are a triumph of capitalism... shipped straight from communist china.

the fact that that technology happened to emerge under this particular system doesnt in any way mean it couldnt have done the same elsewhere. check for instance the arms race between Russia and the USA.


and i really fail to see how protesting against unfair and illegal banking practices and government kickbacks is in any way related to the music player i happen to have in my pocket. im pretty sure technology is not dependant on the current banking system.

[Winchester]

The current banking system isn't capitalist.

[arfink]

OK, lets just stop for a second. Stop. Good. Now read this.
[url="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2011/11/catholicism-the-last-immunization-against-stupidity.html"]http://www.patheos.c...-stupidity.html[/url]

I'm sure this won't apply to Mr. JLoL here, but for the rest of you all, it's time to move on. Otherwise I'll have to start drawing more silly pitchfork-people.

Edited November 9, 2011 by arfink

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1320859528' post='2333788']
OK, lets just stop for a second. Stop. Good. Now read this.
[url="http://www.patheos.com/blogs/badcatholic/2011/11/catholicism-the-last-immunization-against-stupidity.html"]http://www.patheos.c...-stupidity.html[/url]

I'm sure this won't apply to Mr. JLoL here, but for the rest of you all, it's time to move on. Otherwise I'll have to start drawing more silly pitchfork-people.
[/quote]

what? how is the one random dudes, single paragraph where he says "i dunno what they are complaining about?" relevant one way or the other?

despite it not applying to anything in particular, i wonder why you think i am somehow exempt from its obvious "wisdom"

[Jesus_lol]

[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1320754957' post='2333112']
You most certainly did.
[/quote]

No, i didnt. i know, i went back and reread the article, where it did not state that Roseanne Bar was calling out steve jobs by name, rather than just ranting against the rich in general.

but if you think i missed something else, feel free to respond with more than one sentence.


[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1320858093' post='2333777']
The current banking system isn't capitalist.
[/quote]

that much is fairly obvious. so protesting against it is not inherently praising communism.

Edited November 10, 2011 by Jesus_lol

[arfink]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1320890299' post='2334066']

what? how is the one random dudes, single paragraph where he says "i dunno what they are complaining about?" relevant one way or the other?

despite it not applying to anything in particular, i wonder why you think i am somehow exempt from its obvious "wisdom"
[/quote]

I did say, however, that this wouldn't apply to you, since I knew you'd disagree with every single thing in the article.

[Jesus_lol]

actually the vast majority of the article was talking about things i either had no opinion of, or were slightly in favour of.

[Papist]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1320890494' post='2334069']

No, i didnt. i know, i went back and reread the article, where it did not state that Roseanne Bar was calling out steve jobs by name, rather than just ranting against the rich in general.

but if you think i missed something else, feel free to respond with more than one sentence.


that much is fairly obvious. so protesting against it is not inherently praising communism.
[/quote]

Dr. Kengor commenting of Rosane Barr and Steve Jobs are unrelated. He did not state nor imply that Barr was aking for Jobs to be beheaded. ANd that is part of his point, that OWS are protesting the rich, a faceless group. The irony of the the protesters are protesting a system that benefits them...that their spending is giving money to the people they are ranting and raving at...the faceless rich.

Who are the rich? People who work on Wall St? Majority of people working on Wall St are not rich. But then again, who defines rich.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1320723663' post='2333061']

This has to be one of the stupidest articles i have ever read. its hard to know where to begin, although the taking roseanne bar(a comedian) both seriously and as a representative for a gigantic group of people(that she most certainly does not represent) is a fairly good start.

but what the hell was he talking about Steve Jobs for? a popular rich guy died recently, big surprise it happens to everyone eventually. but why was this guy taking Roseanne Bar's statements(which were idiotic btw) as a personal insult and disrespect for Steve Jobs? unless i missed something, she was speaking about the rich in general and never mentioned Jobs(who happened to be one of many in that group).

so if i were to publically say i think turtlenecks look silly, would this guy say that i am spitting on Steve Job's grave? just because he happened to wear them?

But aside from all the emotional appeals and jumping on the praising Steve Job's RIP bandwagon (in fairness, while the dude was no doubt influential he was not nearly as big, nor as saintlike as the author seems to believe) and the harping on some random comedian, what was the point of the article?[/quote]
I heartily agree with you about Roseanne Barr's statements being idiotic, that's about the extent of it.

Dr. Kengor makes a simple, yet salient, point, which apparently shot straight over your head.

Nobody is proposing canonization for Mr. Jobs, nor was anyone claiming Barr's rant was an expression of personal hatred for Steve Jobs, but the fact is that he was responsible for products which are voluntarily used and enjoyed by many (including many of those protesting "capitalism"), and have helped make people's lives and work easier and more enjoyable.

And it's a fact that he would be included among the rich folks making over $100 million a year that Roseanne and other leftists are expressing such outrage about, and want collectively punished through government confiscation of wealth and such.

Whether you are personally a fan of Steve Jobs or any other particular rich person is beside the point. You can't collectively punish "the rich" based on their income or the size of their bank account without including people such as Steve Jobs. If you want the government to confiscate the wealth of everyone making over a certain amount, you can't decide to selectively apply this only to those rich people you don't like, or those that we personally deem unworthy of of their wealth.

If you want to end corporate bailouts by the federal government, and other such forms of corporate welfare, that's one thing - but calls to collectively blame "the rich" for all our problems, and seek to collectively punish them or forcibly redistribute their wealth are another.

The vast majority of the top 1% wage earners in the US are not Wall Street bankers, and most did not receive government bailouts.

Dr. Kengor's point remains valid and truthful:
[quote]By and large, however, "the rich" earn their riches through the consent of millions of citizens who voluntarily purchase products and services through their own free will.[/quote]

Punishing them collectively will benefit no one, and hurt many, as "rich" provide plenty in the way of goods, services, and employment, that most of us take for granted, as well as charitable donations that have benefited many. (My alma mater, which refuses any government grants, depends entirely on private donations to continue its operations.)

All these leftist neo-socialist calls for more government intervention in private business and forced redistribution of wealth are based on the absurd conceit that politicians and/or government bureaucrats know better than everyone else what to do with their own money.

[quote]this guy is so far off base. the first sentence is completely wrong, and misleading. He remains intentionally ignorant.[/quote]
Speak for yourself.

[quote]the second sentence is just ironic, as the author is wrapping up a ranting article where he has unsuccessfully tried painting an entire international movement by one random celebrity's incoherent babble, linking them to hating a "beloved, recently deceased celebrity".[/quote]
No, he's using the specific example of Mr. Jobs as one whose widely-used and loved products would not be available to the public if we actually took the advice of those calling for forced confiscation and redistribution of wealth from the rich.

When class warfare is waged, nobody wins (other than those in government power - witness the Soviet Union's "classless society" where all wealth and power was concentrated in the government).


[quote name='Papist' timestamp='1320936530' post='2334290']

Dr. Kengor commenting of Rosane Barr and Steve Jobs are unrelated. He did not state nor imply that Barr was aking for Jobs to be beheaded. ANd that is part of his point, that OWS are protesting the rich, a faceless group. The irony of the the protesters are protesting a system that benefits them...that their spending is giving money to the people they are ranting and raving at...the faceless rich.[/quote]
Exactly. And it's silly to cry foul when a particular face is put on that faceless group.

[quote]Who are the rich? People who work on Wall St? Majority of people working on Wall St are not rich.[/quote]
Nor do the majority of the rich work on Wall Street.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Socrates

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1320807330' post='2333528']
Yeah, somehow the Ipods and all that are a triumph of capitalism... shipped straight from communist china.[/quote]
Economically, modern China is Communist in name only, though still heavily regulated by a tyrannical state.

But it's no coincidence that said iPods and such were developed in "capitalist" America, rather than in China.

But if you really think you'd prefer a system like China's . . . .

[quote]the fact that that technology happened to emerge under this particular system doesnt in any way mean it couldnt have done the same elsewhere. check for instance the arms race between Russia and the USA.[/quote]
Very few technological innovations occurred Russia or other Communist countries that were not directly related to arms development as commissioned by the government. Nor could "the masses" afford the benefits of such technological innovation as they can in free market countries. And the immense spending by the Soviet government on the arms race without a sound economy to support it was one of the key reasons for the Soviet Union's collapse.

How many technologically-innovative products do you use that were first developed and marketed in Russia, China, or North Korea?

[quote]and i really fail to see how protesting against unfair and illegal banking practices and government kickbacks is in any way related to the music player i happen to have in my pocket. im pretty sure technology is not dependant on the current banking system.[/quote]
If all rich persons and corporations were punished as the class warfare crowd proposes, it's highly probable the mp3 player in your pocket would never have been developed, much less be in your pocket.

Edited November 14, 2011 by Socrates

[Jesus_lol]

Maybe i am just an idiot, but i fail to see putting an end to allowing multi millionaires to exploit loopholes to avoid paying taxes, and outsourcing to avoid human rights laws is "punishing" them. If an ipod cant be made without exploiting 3rd world countries and child labour, then maybe it shouldnt be made.


There is quite a large number of the Rich that you refer to, the insanely wealthy and influential, that actually agree with me on that point.

The Rich that you so desperately pander towards, do not need to be coddled to stick around. we dont need to allow them to use their wealth to influence elections, and their power to avoid taking responsibility in criminal lawsuits just so they dont cry and take their toys to another playground.

If a poor black dude can be sent to jail for decades for stealing 100$, then i think a suit and tie wearing CEO/executive should be subject to the same thing when they steal much larger amounts, or when their policies result in the deaths, mutations, or sickness of countless people. It isnt like we are going to run out of ambitious people. they are not a limited resource. there will always be other smart and cunning people to fill the ranks, but maybe if we started enforcing the law on them (no need to make new ones) then our world could be improved just that much.

why not?

It is not like the choice is either innovation from USA or hellhole from communists, there are plenty of capitalist systems in other countries that produce amazing things, science, technology, etc that have more oversight into industry.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1321324463' post='2336400']
Maybe i am just an idiot, but i fail to see putting an end to allowing multi millionaires to exploit loopholes to avoid paying taxes, and outsourcing to avoid human rights laws is "punishing" them. If an ipod cant be made without exploiting 3rd world countries and child labour, then maybe it shouldnt be made.


There is quite a large number of the Rich that you refer to, the insanely wealthy and influential, that actually agree with me on that point.

The Rich that you so desperately pander towards, do not need to be coddled to stick around. we dont need to allow them to use their wealth to influence elections, and their power to avoid taking responsibility in criminal lawsuits just so they dont cry and take their toys to another playground.

If a poor black dude can be sent to jail for decades for stealing 100$, then i think a suit and tie wearing CEO/executive should be subject to the same thing when they steal much larger amounts, or when their policies result in the deaths, mutations, or sickness of countless people. It isnt like we are going to run out of ambitious people. they are not a limited resource. there will always be other smart and cunning people to fill the ranks, but maybe if we started enforcing the law on them (no need to make new ones) then our world could be improved just that much.

why not?

It is not like the choice is either innovation from USA or hellhole from communists, there are plenty of capitalist systems in other countries that produce amazing things, science, technology, etc that have more oversight into industry.
[/quote]


than not only CEO's but the president, senators, all of congress and in fact all politicians should be thrown in jail... most, if not all, are exempt from insider trading rules, and can amass over 400,000 dollars in investments per day!!!!

wow, big surprise that the most powerful people in this world are a bunch of greedy bastards.... I dont' see how squatting in parks will put an end to what has been happening for centuries....

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1321324463' post='2336400']

Maybe i am just an idiot, but i fail to see putting an end to allowing multi millionaires to exploit loopholes to avoid paying taxes, and outsourcing to avoid human rights laws is "punishing" them. If an ipod cant be made without exploiting 3rd world countries and child labour, then maybe it shouldnt be made.


There is quite a large number of the Rich that you refer to, the insanely wealthy and influential, that actually agree with me on that point.

The Rich that you so desperately pander towards, do not need to be coddled to stick around. we dont need to allow them to use their wealth to influence elections, and their power to avoid taking responsibility in criminal lawsuits just so they dont cry and take their toys to another playground.

If a poor black dude can be sent to jail for decades for stealing 100$, then i think a suit and tie wearing CEO/executive should be subject to the same thing when they steal much larger amounts, or when their policies result in the deaths, mutations, or sickness of countless people. It isnt like we are going to run out of ambitious people. they are not a limited resource. there will always be other smart and cunning people to fill the ranks, but maybe if we started enforcing the law on them (no need to make new ones) then our world could be improved just that much.

why not?[/quote]
Yeah, why not? If particular rich persons (as opposed to faceless collectives like "the Rich" or "the 1%") are acting unlawfully, then prosecute the bastages!
We have a court system in place. No need for sweeping new federal government measures against classes of people based solely on their income.

Defecating in public parks and other such nonsense is not going put anybody behind bars except yourself.


And I'm not "desperately pandering" to anybody. Nobody pays me to post on here defending the free market.

Personally, I think more good would come out of working to eliminate (or at least drastically reduce) the federal income tax for people of[i] all[/i] income levels, rather than trying to make "the Rich" "pay their share," but that's just me. America has among the highest corporate tax rates in the free world.


(As an aside, if you feel so strongly about exploitation of 3rd-world labor and the iPod, then maybe you shouldn't have bought one.
What exactly constitutes "exploitation" is somewhat subjective, as the work provided by people in those countries for Western corporations, while often appalling by developed first-world standards, actually offers both better pay and better working conditions than the average jobs available in those countries. Not that that excuses truly exploitative practices, and much progress certainly remains to be made. But the only way to get rid of using cheap overseas labor would be to adopt strict protectionist measures, with heavy tariffs and import restrictions of cheaply made foreign goods that would undersell expensive items made using more costly American labor. American manufacturing workers would benefit, but workers in third-world countries would not, and consumer rices would rise sharply on products.)



[quote]It is not like the choice is either innovation from USA or hellhole from communists, there are plenty of capitalist systems in other countries that produce amazing things, science, technology, etc that have more oversight into industry.[/quote]

There is a strong correlation between economic freedom and innovation. Entrepreneurs will produce innovative products and services only if they see economic reward for such innovation in the market.