Occupy Wall Street Baloney

[Jesus_lol]

[img]http://i.imgur.com/bD6pm.png[/img]

[Winchester]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1317948234' post='2316908']
If anything, people showing up en masse to show a general displeasure with business practices is perfectly in line with free market thinking.

they have a lot to be angry at, corporate america keeps exploding and being bailed out with tax payer money, while the people are left holding the bag.

A lot of them are not asking for a redistribution of wealth, rather that Corporations should have to play by the same rules that everyone does, without the sneaky and often outright illegal stuff they get away with.
[/quote]
Since corporate America is extensively regulated by the government and subject to a monetary system administrated by a monopoly protected by the government, it behooves them greatly to purchase politicians. In addition, the government is permitted bookkeeping practices that would land private executives in hot water. The occupiers don't seem to apprehend this. They blame Wall Street as though Wall Street acts alone.

[ardillacid]

Hippies

[Maggyie]

Corporate America is regulated by the government... extensively? Are you familiar with John Paulson, who in cahoots with Goldman Sachs, created an investment product he knew would fail (being stocked with mortgage-backed securities) and then sold it and shorted it? And made about a billion dollars over night when it did in fact fail, to the chagrin of the banks who had bought it in good faith? This is the kind of croutons that went on a regular basis in the "post-regulatory" environment on Wall Street. This is also how Bernard Madoff managed to carry on for so long in spite of a decade of complains to the S.E.C.

John Paulson is still loose in the world. He belongs in prison but fat chance of that happening.

[Winchester]

Are you saying that these events mean there are no government regulations?


Did you experience some sort of vapor lock as soon as you read that opening? Try addressing the entire statement. And explain to me exactly what I said that inspired you to tell me that--HOLY poo--fraud exists!

It's like everyone who mentions that corporations are not the only problem (and are, in fact, only the problem they are thanks to government intervention) is viewed as a defender of Bernie Madoff.


Corporatism, big problem. Cannot be solved by getting government more involved in corporations.

Edited October 7, 2011 by Winchester

[rizz_loves_jesus]

There are a lot of socialists, but there are also many [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQow0Fhua1A"]conservatives[/url] out there protesting too.

We don't have to fight with them or downplay their efforts. We are all dissatisfied with the current system and wish to see and end to corporatism. Why not protest with them and educate them while you're at it?

[Amppax]

[quote name='Basilisa Marie' timestamp='1317910280' post='2316081']

Mayyybeeee.

Psh, Jon Stewart is news whether he likes it or not. He just throws in more language and slapstick stuffs and stops doing interviews with O'Reilly when people start taking him too seriously. It's quite noticeable, actually.

I just found out that they're hosting a satellite Occupy Wallstreet in my city this weekend. Alas, I'll be in Steubenville.
[/quote]

Hey what a coincidence, I'll be in Steubenville this weekend too!

[BG45]

[quote name='Socrates' timestamp='1317940873' post='2316848']
But the original (Boston Harbor, 1773) Tea-Partiers were protesting government taxation by the British, not the free-market or "corporations."

But no doubt such subtleties will be lost on those who get their political/economic "education" from leftist comedians.
[/quote]
How fortunate I don't get my political and economic "education" exclusively from leftist comedians. I assume that snide personal attack was directed at me?

Let's have a history lesson. Back in the days of the colonies there was a corporation known as the East India Company, it had a monopoly on the importation of tea into the colonies. It's made out in recent films to essentially have co-opted the British government with its own armies, which we all know is pretty much artistic license run amok. However it did hold the same level of corrupt influence that corporations continue to do today. In 1773 they had a ship in Boston Harbor that was boarded by patriots and the cargo thrown overboard, this was called the Boston Tea Party.

In 1721, in an effort to eliminate the competition to the East India Company, Great Britain's Parliament passed a law restricting the importation of tea to the colonies to tea that was imported from Great Britain itself, and thus essentially the East India Company. At the time however, the East India Company didn't have the proper permissions to sell tea in the colonies, therefore they sold their tea wholesale to resellers who did have the licenses to sell to the colonies. The East India Company faced a problem however over the intervening decades, smuggled cheaper Dutch tea that didn't have to pay import taxes of up to 25% as the East India Company did; the lobbyists of the day eventually talked Parliament into passing the 1767 Indemnity Act that cut the tax on tea imported to Britain itself and gave a 25% refund on the tea that was resold and sent to the colonies.

However, the Townshend Act was also passed, because the government realized, unlike ours, you can't give everything away. This levied a number of new taxes on the colonies, such as a tax on tea going into the colonies. The colonial American Whigs argued that this set of new taxes was against British law, as taxes could only be levied by their colonial assemblies, as British law held there could be no taxation without representation, a representation the colonies did not have in the Parliament. Parliament disagreed, having passed the Declaratory Act in 1766 that stated it had the ability to tax the colonies without representation.

The colonies organized a number of protests, including the production and sale of domestic tea to lower the reliance on East India Company tea that was imported from Britain by the reselling companies (but were still often shipped on EIC ships). These protests resulted in the repeal of the Townshend Acts in 1770 in the colonies, except for the taxation on tea. It expired in Britain in 1772, but the tax on tea in the colonies remained in place even as Britain re-levied portions of the tax on the East India Tea Company. The Tea Act was then passed in 1773 that restored the British refund on East India tea in the homeland but eliminated the provisions of law that banned the East India Tea Company from directly importing tea to the colonies. As it was already using its own ships for many of the resellers, it wasn't difficult to retool the fleet to carry it for the actual company itself and to cut out the middlemen.

Certain colonial marketeers were given permission to sell the tea on consignment but gain a commission for sales; a system where the East India Company retained ownership of the product until it was sold and then the lion share of the profits returned to the corporation. These consignees, under the Tea Act, could still undercut the illegally smuggled competition tea by a shilling per pound of tea (bear in mind, the metric system had yet to be invented and the British Empire was still imperial) and thus threatened colonial business interests in addition to helping make royal governors less reliant on the opinions of those they governed and resulting protests lead to consignees being forced to resign or return the tea in each of the three other ports besides Boston.

When the Dartmouth came into port, the Whigs urged it to turn around before the deadline to pay import duties on the tea. It was willing, however the royal governor was not willing to allow this; most likely out of his own self interest as two of his own sons were among the consignees to sell the tea for commission and the tea profit taxes that the East India Company and colonists paid to Britain paid his salary. He refused to allow it to leave until the last day of the deadline, when the Sons of Liberty stormed the ship and threw its cargo overboard.

Taxation without representation, undercutting a number of mercantile interests already in the area through the Tea Act (passed to help save a floundering corporation in the form of the East India Tea Company), the forcing of royal governors to become more reliant on Britain than their own assemblies for authority and payment of salaries; these were all issues at hand with the Boston Tea Party. All of which coalesce together in the form of a company that was too big to fail, and influenced the Parliament to pass legislation that saved it from the massive tea stockpiles it was sitting on.

[BG45]

[quote name='Adrestia' timestamp='1317941292' post='2316851']
Take home messages:

George Soros : Occupy Wall Street :: Koch Brothers : Tea Party

According to Herman Cain, I must be lazy because I'm not wealthy.

Did I miss anything?
[/quote]

I don't think so, seems to be about right to me.

[Ice_nine]

See what we have to do here, is legalize marijuana.

It will solve this entire debacle.

[Winchester]

[quote name='rizz_loves_jesus' timestamp='1317955008' post='2317131']
There are a lot of socialists, but there are also many [url="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=rQow0Fhua1A"]conservatives[/url] out there protesting too.

We don't have to fight with them or downplay their efforts. We are all dissatisfied with the current system and wish to see and end to corporatism. Why not protest with them and educate them while you're at it?
[/quote]
That's a classical liberal, not a conservative.

[rizz_loves_jesus]

Still, not a socialist.

[Adrestia]

[quote name='rizz_loves_jesus' timestamp='1317995179' post='2317405']
Still, not a socialist.
[/quote]
Socialism is only okay for businesses that give lots of contributions to political campaigns. They don't call it socialism, they call it stimulus or bail out.

[arfink]

[quote name='Winchester' timestamp='1317925749' post='2316558']
Yes, stand up to the corporations in collusion with the State and demand more power be given to the state that used its power to empower the corporations.

Makes perfect sense.
[/quote]

No, that's what they want you to think. Demand power be stripped from both, lest there be much fire-n-pitchforking.

[Socrates]

[quote name='BG45' timestamp='1317958561' post='2317209']
How fortunate I don't get my political and economic "education" exclusively from leftist comedians. I assume that snide personal attack was directed at me?

Let's have a history lesson. Back in the days of the colonies there was a corporation known as the East India Company, it had a monopoly on the importation of tea into the colonies. It's made out in recent films to essentially have co-opted the British government with its own armies, which we all know is pretty much artistic license run amok. However it did hold the same level of corrupt influence that corporations continue to do today. In 1773 they had a ship in Boston Harbor that was boarded by patriots and the cargo thrown overboard, this was called the Boston Tea Party.

In 1721, in an effort to eliminate the competition to the East India Company, Great Britain's Parliament passed a law restricting the importation of tea to the colonies to tea that was imported from Great Britain itself, and thus essentially the East India Company. At the time however, the East India Company didn't have the proper permissions to sell tea in the colonies, therefore they sold their tea wholesale to resellers who did have the licenses to sell to the colonies. The East India Company faced a problem however over the intervening decades, smuggled cheaper Dutch tea that didn't have to pay import taxes of up to 25% as the East India Company did; the lobbyists of the day eventually talked Parliament into passing the 1767 Indemnity Act that cut the tax on tea imported to Britain itself and gave a 25% refund on the tea that was resold and sent to the colonies.

However, the Townshend Act was also passed, because the government realized, unlike ours, you can't give everything away. This levied a number of new taxes on the colonies, such as a tax on tea going into the colonies. The colonial American Whigs argued that this set of new taxes was against British law, as taxes could only be levied by their colonial assemblies, as British law held there could be no taxation without representation, a representation the colonies did not have in the Parliament. Parliament disagreed, having passed the Declaratory Act in 1766 that stated it had the ability to tax the colonies without representation.

The colonies organized a number of protests, including the production and sale of domestic tea to lower the reliance on East India Company tea that was imported from Britain by the reselling companies (but were still often shipped on EIC ships). These protests resulted in the repeal of the Townshend Acts in 1770 in the colonies, except for the taxation on tea. It expired in Britain in 1772, but the tax on tea in the colonies remained in place even as Britain re-levied portions of the tax on the East India Tea Company. The Tea Act was then passed in 1773 that restored the British refund on East India tea in the homeland but eliminated the provisions of law that banned the East India Tea Company from directly importing tea to the colonies. As it was already using its own ships for many of the resellers, it wasn't difficult to retool the fleet to carry it for the actual company itself and to cut out the middlemen.

Certain colonial marketeers were given permission to sell the tea on consignment but gain a commission for sales; a system where the East India Company retained ownership of the product until it was sold and then the lion share of the profits returned to the corporation. These consignees, under the Tea Act, could still undercut the illegally smuggled competition tea by a shilling per pound of tea (bear in mind, the metric system had yet to be invented and the British Empire was still imperial) and thus threatened colonial business interests in addition to helping make royal governors less reliant on the opinions of those they governed and resulting protests lead to consignees being forced to resign or return the tea in each of the three other ports besides Boston.

When the Dartmouth came into port, the Whigs urged it to turn around before the deadline to pay import duties on the tea. It was willing, however the royal governor was not willing to allow this; most likely out of his own self interest as two of his own sons were among the consignees to sell the tea for commission and the tea profit taxes that the East India Company and colonists paid to Britain paid his salary. He refused to allow it to leave until the last day of the deadline, when the Sons of Liberty stormed the ship and threw its cargo overboard.

Taxation without representation, undercutting a number of mercantile interests already in the area through the Tea Act (passed to help save a floundering corporation in the form of the East India Tea Company), the forcing of royal governors to become more reliant on Britain than their own assemblies for authority and payment of salaries; these were all issues at hand with the Boston Tea Party. All of which coalesce together in the form of a company that was too big to fail, and influenced the Parliament to pass legislation that saved it from the massive tea stockpiles it was sitting on.
[/quote]
That doesn't contradict what I wrote. The Sons of Liberty were protesting taxation without representation, not the free market, and they weren't crying for more government regulation of the market (which the British had done with their restrictions and taxes).

That's actually a big difference.