Occupy Wall Street: Support or Oppose? (OWS vs. Nativity)

[Phatscotty]

tea party protesters were frequently portrayed as violent and racist without any substantial evidence... and now the OWS protesters are innocent? the amount of delusion a person has to have to hold those two thoughts in their mind simultaneously is staggering.

Actually, the term for that delusional mental state is "liberalism".

many conservatives are deluded too; not quite as high of a percentage though

But hey, as long as keep shining their boots, they gotta let you in their club someday? I mean stopping to think for one second and realise you've been shafted and played like a fool your entire life, that would take some serious effort, Scotty/

this is exactly what i'm talking about. iliad genuinely thinks that scotty only
"supports the club" due to some long-term goal of joining the ruling elite banksters.

THIS is delusion. iliad has demonstrated it.

Yes. Iliad I don't have anything personal against ideological adversaries here. If peeps could just relax a little bit and drop all the assumptions and hatemongering and look n listen objectively, we would find we have a lot in common, I guarantee it. So we go about it different ways, not a big deal to me.

[Phatscotty]

Okay, so.....what has OWS achieved? What do you supporters hope to achieve? What is the plan?

I asked this on page 1, and with so many supporters you would think someone could give an answer.

[Baron Von PWN]

Okay, so.....what has OWS achieved? What do you supporters hope to achieve? What is the plan?

I asked this on page 1, and with so many supporters you would think someone could give an answer.

A more just economic system, a cleaner earth, world peace, end of poverty, sunshine everyday, lolly-pops , end of racism, legalization of marijuana, ect.
Its pretty incoherent. Much like Tea party rallies, outside of a few slogans and broad ideas, it's the babble of thousands of conflicting ideas,dreams and aspirations.

This is why I chose the "They havea point" I feel amid the general cries of indignation outrage and general noise. There are some points there that deserve consideration. why should a CEO receive a bonus worth more than a lifetime of work for nearly bankrupting a country?

I think what OWS types are most upset about is what I think of as the "Parasite" class. They do not work. They simply have allot of money which then does the work for them. The people who have sufficient money they were able to make enough investments that they can simply live of their dividends. I have a hard time seeing the difference between them and the Russian aristocrats of the late 18th century who lived off the labors of their vast serf worked estates. The only difference is that now we are tied to their jobs instead of being tied to their lands.

In the past the power of the parasite class was much more overt. Now it is far more subtle but also far more pervasive.

[Symmetry]

Okay, so.....what has OWS achieved? What do you supporters hope to achieve? What is the plan?

I asked this on page 1, and with so many supporters you would think someone could give an answer.

A more just economic system, a cleaner earth, world peace, end of poverty, sunshine everyday, lolly-pops , end of racism, legalization of marijuana, ect.
Its pretty incoherent. Much like Tea party rallies, outside of a few slogans and broad ideas, it's the babble of thousands of conflicting ideas,dreams and aspirations.

This is why I chose the "They havea point" I feel amid the general cries of indignation outrage and general noise. There are some points there that deserve consideration. why should a CEO receive a bonus worth more than a lifetime of work for nearly bankrupting a country?

I think what OWS types are most upset about is what I think of as the "Parasite" class. They do not work. They simply have allot of money which then does the work for them. The people who have sufficient money they were able to make enough investments that they can simply live of their dividends. I have a hard time seeing the difference between them and the Russian aristocrats of the late 18th century who lived off the labors of their vast serf worked estates. The only difference is that now we are tied to their jobs instead of being tied to their lands.

In the past the power of the parasite class was much more overt. Now it is far more subtle but also far more pervasive.

Indeed, and codifying that message into a manifesto or tying it into the existing political process while demanding that that process be reformed is pretty much what killed of the Tea Party as a chance for decent reform.

For the most part they seem to be arguing that different ideas should be heard and a right to peaceful protest should be respected.

[john9blue]

I think what OWS types are most upset about is what I think of as the "Parasite" class. They do not work. They simply have allot of money which then does the work for them. The people who have sufficient money they were able to make enough investments that they can simply live of their dividends. I have a hard time seeing the difference between them and the Russian aristocrats of the late 18th century who lived off the labors of their vast serf worked estates. The only difference is that now we are tied to their jobs instead of being tied to their lands.

In the past the power of the parasite class was much more overt. Now it is far more subtle but also far more pervasive.

but are they as bad as the other "Parasite" class, that does not work, and simply has taxpayers do the work for them?

[Phatscotty]

I think what OWS types are most upset about is what I think of as the "Parasite" class. They do not work. They simply have allot of money which then does the work for them. The people who have sufficient money they were able to make enough investments that they can simply live of their dividends. I have a hard time seeing the difference between them and the Russian aristocrats of the late 18th century who lived off the labors of their vast serf worked estates. The only difference is that now we are tied to their jobs instead of being tied to their lands.

In the past the power of the parasite class was much more overt. Now it is far more subtle but also far more pervasive.

but are they as bad as the other "Parasite" class, that does not work, and simply has taxpayers do the work for them?

wait. what/who is the host of these "parasites"?
Is Warren Buffet a parasite?

[john9blue]

we are allllll parasites

[Army of GOD]

fetuses are the parasites

[BigBallinStalin]

Are you going to apply small instances of violence to every single individual of every single OWS-related movement?

Where are the news stories of the Occupy movement in New Orleans trashing businesses, shooting cops, and burning cars? Did that happen in New York? Is this common, or is NS merely applying a small instance to the entire movement?

if the tea party are racists, then the OWS kids are violent.

I believe in my neck of the gloom, that's what we call a little petty. I believe the dignified response would be, even though people tried to blanket the entire Tea party movement with the actions of a few, I won't do likewise to a movement I don't suport. Grownup responses are so passe though.

i take far more enjoyment than i should in pointing out hypocrisy wherever i see it.

tea party protesters were frequently portrayed as violent and racist without any substantial evidence... and now the OWS protesters are innocent? the amount of delusion a person has to have to hold those two thoughts in their mind simultaneously is staggering.

what do you mean, JB2? The Tea Party is a racist and violent organization. They even have Death Squads!

[Phatscotty]

I think what OWS types are most upset about is what I think of as the "Parasite" class. They do not work. They simply have allot of money which then does the work for them. The people who have sufficient money they were able to make enough investments that they can simply live of their dividends. I have a hard time seeing the difference between them and the Russian aristocrats of the late 18th century who lived off the labors of their vast serf worked estates. The only difference is that now we are tied to their jobs instead of being tied to their lands.

In the past the power of the parasite class was much more overt. Now it is far more subtle but also far more pervasive.

but are they as bad as the other "Parasite" class, that does not work, and simply has taxpayers do the work for them?

I understand JB's point much better. Those people live off the taxpayers, and it does not get more parasitic than that, until the parasites start demanding more and more taxpayer money, at which point the parasite mutates into a viral parasite. Then the parasite kills the host, except for this time the parasite blames the very host that allowed it to survive in the first place.

When the f*ck did the world turn upside down anyways?

[Baron Von PWN]

I think what OWS types are most upset about is what I think of as the "Parasite" class. They do not work. They simply have allot of money which then does the work for them. The people who have sufficient money they were able to make enough investments that they can simply live of their dividends. I have a hard time seeing the difference between them and the Russian aristocrats of the late 18th century who lived off the labors of their vast serf worked estates. The only difference is that now we are tied to their jobs instead of being tied to their lands.

In the past the power of the parasite class was much more overt. Now it is far more subtle but also far more pervasive.

but are they as bad as the other "Parasite" class, that does not work, and simply has taxpayers do the work for them?

The Russian aristocrats had their "parasites" as well. They would curse "Lazy" serfs who wouldn't work hard on their master's estates. Damning them for not working to improve their master's lot for a pittance. Our lazy serfs are those who survive on state welfare. Whether conscious of it or not, it isn't worth it for them to work 40 hours a week for someone else's benefit and still barely make do. Its true they could attempt to work for themselves, but they need money for that and who would lend money to a lazy stupid serf?

[Baron Von PWN]

I think what OWS types are most upset about is what I think of as the "Parasite" class. They do not work. They simply have allot of money which then does the work for them. The people who have sufficient money they were able to make enough investments that they can simply live of their dividends. I have a hard time seeing the difference between them and the Russian aristocrats of the late 18th century who lived off the labors of their vast serf worked estates. The only difference is that now we are tied to their jobs instead of being tied to their lands.

In the past the power of the parasite class was much more overt. Now it is far more subtle but also far more pervasive.

but are they as bad as the other "Parasite" class, that does not work, and simply has taxpayers do the work for them?

wait. what/who is the host of these "parasites"?
Is Warren Buffet a parasite?

The host for the parasites is anyone who makes their living primarily off their income from working, rather than their income from ownership. In my analogy the Estates are corporations, great money making ventures. The aristocrats are shareholders, the only difference between the two is the modern parasite owns part of a venture rather than the whole thing. Shareholders put nothing into the corporation other than purchasing partial ownership, yet through virtue of that ownership they receive the benefits of its production(in proportion to their share). The people generating that wealth, your wallmart greeter, the cashier, the hassled manager, get a pittance the smallest portion of the wealth they have generated.

Warren Buffet is a very wealthy man who makes his living off of his investments. He engages in Charity and attempts to better the lot of the modern serfs. However like liberal reform minded Aristocrats of 19th century Russia his survival is still based on the labours of others. So yes he is a parasite, though a nice one.

[Night Strike]

If you didn't have private individuals investing their money, you wouldn't have an economy. People who invest their money risk their money on whether or not that company will succeed. That's why they deserve to earn a share of the profits: they float some of the money needed to either start or to sustain the company. There are more ways to contribute to the success of a company than manual labor.

[Baron Von PWN]

If you didn't have private individuals investing their money, you wouldn't have an economy. People who invest their money risk their money on whether or not that company will succeed. That's why they deserve to earn a share of the profits: they float some of the money needed to either start or to sustain the company. There are more ways to contribute to the success of a company than manual labor.

Yet if you are a clever parasite and own enough shares of enough different companies you will never really be in any danger. If a company fails, well you sell of your portion take a modest loss and buy up some other bit of an estate. Too bad for the serfs of the failed estate though.

There is little risk for the parasite who has a bounty of hosts.

[PLAYER57832]

If you didn't have private individuals investing their money, you wouldn't have an economy. People who invest their money risk their money on whether or not that company will succeed. That's why they deserve to earn a share of the profits: they float some of the money needed to either start or to sustain the company. There are more ways to contribute to the success of a company than manual labor.

A share, sure, but their "share" has grown while the benefits the working folks recieve has shrunk. This has been masked, in part because a fair number of average people own stocks and/or recieve some assistance from family.

The real basis for economy is purchases. Cut people's ability to buy and the economy will fail, as it is now. It is delayed somewhat by credit purchases, but not halted.

You, Nightstrike, criticize "government regulations" and subisidies. Yet, who is the number one employer today? It is Walmart. Walmart, a company notorious for offering very poor wages to most of its workers, poor healthcare coverage to the few who even qualify and for bargaining for lower local tax rates in exchange for the "priviliage" of out-competing local businesses who seem "inefficient" , except that they return more money to their communities than Walmart. Walmart exists because people can depend on subsidies for healthcare coverage, childcare, housing or just partial support from family, particular spouses or other incomes sources such as social security.

You cannot feed the top and pretend the bottom can just live off the dregs. It does not work. What works is to ensure that we protect and support folks who actually work, and then let those who want to play the money game play with what is left after that.

Most people could really care less if the overriding economic system is a socialism, capitalism, monarchy or a dictatorship. They want food on the table, education for their kids and the ability to laugh and play a bit. (music, art, sports, etc.) The rest is political gamesmanship.

There has arisen a mindset that this is somehow wrong. That these people who want to decide that they will risk THEIR futures and THEIR incomes on THEIR dreams somehow are justified in criticizing people who want security, a fair paycheck for fair work. This garbage about people "being lazy", etc is just excuse. Its easy to blame someone who has failed.. no one, after all is perfect. Everyone makes mistakes. The point is if making a mistake in choosing the wrong career, trusting the wrong person, etc should really mean they deserve nothing better than to starve, here in the US when we have the ability to continue to be the wealthiest nation on Earth.

Nightstrike, you want to paint some fiction of a dream world that never existed where entrepreneurs and the like could do as they wish and suddenly everything worked out OK, except maybe for a few modern tweaks to allow for things like pollution. When I suggest that the fact that a contaminent persists for 200 years means we need to ensure it is safe for 200 years before sending it out.. you act as if I am insane. Well, that is exactly why we have not a single uncontaminated stream or moutaintop in this country and very likely on Earth. And.. make no mistake, it matters. It may not spell our death tommorrow, but we know enough to know that many of these cause serious and direct harm. The rest is resting on ignorance. Perhaps you are comfortable feeding your kids unkown substances on the assurance that they are proven safe in a 6 month or year long test. Most people are not.

What we need is to first protect our overall base.. the environment that allows us to live and survive. Then we need to protect our production base, prmoting sustainability and safety for long-term production, along with worker supports and protections.

[Night Strike]

Great story there player, even though it accomplishes nothing.

People are constantly clamoring for lower-priced items. The only way to provide that is to cut expenses. If you want low prices, you can't also demand that everyone who works at the company gets paid a 6-figure income. If the government would stop providing the "safety net" (aka, government dependence), the workers would either put in the effort to make themselves more eligible for higher paying jobs, or they would make sure the employer paid them more. If you don't like the wages you're earning, then go find another job. Quit crying to the government to force the "rich" to give you more money.

And your pollution example is just dumb. It's impossible to test contamination for 200 years before putting an item on the market. When you realize that something will be persistent in the environment, a new company (you know, that free market concept) can come along and develop a process that can remove that contaminant. I believe it's YOUR philosophies that want us to return to 1800s, not conservative philosophies.

[john9blue]

i'm not sure who brought up this whole "parasite" business

the fact is that people will always take what they can get from other people

we all depend on each other, yet would bleed each other dry if given the chance

that's why i said that we are all parasites

[natty dread]

Great story there player, even though it accomplishes nothing.

People are constantly clamoring for lower-priced items. The only way to provide that is to cut expenses. If you want low prices, you can't also demand that everyone who works at the company gets paid a 6-figure income. If the government would stop providing the "safety net" (aka, government dependence), the workers would either put in the effort to make themselves more eligible for higher paying jobs, or they would make sure the employer paid them more. If you don't like the wages you're earning, then go find another job. Quit crying to the government to force the "rich" to give you more money.

And your pollution example is just dumb. It's impossible to test contamination for 200 years before putting an item on the market. When you realize that something will be persistent in the environment, a new company (you know, that free market concept) can come along and develop a process that can remove that contaminant. I believe it's YOUR philosophies that want us to return to 1800s, not conservative philosophies.

Funny how night strike can write a long post that addresses none of the points it pretends to respond to.

[Phatscotty]

I think what OWS types are most upset about is what I think of as the "Parasite" class. They do not work. They simply have allot of money which then does the work for them. The people who have sufficient money they were able to make enough investments that they can simply live of their dividends. I have a hard time seeing the difference between them and the Russian aristocrats of the late 18th century who lived off the labors of their vast serf worked estates. The only difference is that now we are tied to their jobs instead of being tied to their lands.

In the past the power of the parasite class was much more overt. Now it is far more subtle but also far more pervasive.

but are they as bad as the other "Parasite" class, that does not work, and simply has taxpayers do the work for them?

wait. what/who is the host of these "parasites"?
Is Warren Buffet a parasite?

The host for the parasites is anyone who makes their living primarily off their income from working

Who's income should the parasite live on if not their own?

[Night Strike]

Funny how night strike can write a long post that addresses none of the points it pretends to respond to.

Funny how you NONE of the posts you make contribute to a discussion.


And for the record, my points DID address comments player made. (But you would know that if you actually read something BEFORE replying.)

[Phatscotty]

If you didn't have private individuals investing their money, you wouldn't have an economy. People who invest their money risk their money on whether or not that company will succeed. That's why they deserve to earn a share of the profits: they float some of the money needed to either start or to sustain the company. There are more ways to contribute to the success of a company than manual labor.

Yet if you are a clever parasite and own enough shares of enough different companies you will never really be in any danger. If a company fails, well you sell of your portion take a modest loss and buy up some other bit of an estate. Too bad for the serfs of the failed estate though.

There is little risk for the parasite who has a bounty of hosts.

I see kind of where you are coming from BVP, but really the parasite angle isn't gonna work. Owning shares of a company in most cases helps create jobs, boosts pension coffers, encourages growth, development, research etc.

As far as if someone realizes a gain or a loss in a companies stock, that is called risk. If the investor was using other peoples money or taxpayer money you might have something, but if the investor risks their own blood an money than that's not really a parasitic attribute.

[BigBallinStalin]

The analogy with the parasite is incorrect.

Typically, the exchange between a host and a parasite is zero-sum. The parasite takes, while the host receives nothing beneficial (for the most part).

With investments, money for labor, etc., it's a positive-sum exchange, i.e. it's mutually beneficial ex-ante. Ex-ante means "from the beginning," or as it's perceived at the time the exchange was made (later on, the expected value comes into contact with the actual value, and the difference may result in high satisfaction, indifference, or frustration).

The analogy doesn't hold up because the exchanges aren't the same.

[Lootifer]

Yes. Iliad I don't have anything personal against ideological adversaries here. If peeps could just relax a little bit and drop all the assumptions and hatemongering and look n listen objectively, we would find we have a lot in common, I guarantee it. So we go about it different ways, not a big deal to me.

Ahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.

*breath*

ahahahahahahahahahhahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahah.

Pure gold right there.

So does this mean you'll be dropping all your sarcastic and condescending dialog?

[BigBallinStalin]

Yes. Iliad I don't have anything personal against ideological adversaries here. If peeps could just relax a little bit and drop all the assumptions and hatmongering and look n listen objectively, we would find we have a lot in common, I guarantee it. So we go about it different ways, not a big deal to me.

I'm against hatmongering too!

[Baron Von PWN]

The analogy with the parasite is incorrect.

Typically, the exchange between a host and a parasite is zero-sum. The parasite takes, while the host receives nothing beneficial (for the most part).

With investments, money for labor, etc., it's a positive-sum exchange, i.e. it's mutually beneficial ex-ante. Ex-ante means "from the beginning," or as it's perceived at the time the exchange was made (later on, the expected value comes into contact with the actual value, and the difference may result in high satisfaction, indifference, or frustration).

The analogy doesn't hold up because the exchanges aren't the same.

The relationship is mutually beneficial for the corporation (estate) and the shareholder(aristocracy). Not necessarily for the people working (serfs) in the corporation.

What benefit does the worker receive from investment in their parent company? If wall mart does well the masses that make it work see very little of that benefit, they continue to make very little. The majority of its profits go to the shareholders and board of directors.

The very people making the profits possible receive the smallest share.