[deathfun]

Unfortunately, you have groups from WSWS talking about complete worldwide revolution over these occupations. Some don't follow that same self-improvement thought, but rather a total overhaul.

[Al-Rik]

I'm no history expert, but I'm pretty sure that things in the US are not even remotely as bad as they were for Germany in the 20s.

Well if you listen to the rhetoric from the activists...

The Nazis claimed that the politicians and the banks are corrupt, working for their own profit instead for the benefit of THE PEOPLE.
They also claimed that the majority of the Germans demands a government that works for the people, not for big business, and that the majority of THE PEOPLE standing behind Hitler, a strong leader who works for THE PEOPLE.

So I'm a little bit sacred if a large group of persons claim they are representing 99% of THE PEOPLE... that left not much room for dissidents.
Could become pretty nasty, for the remaining 1% or those who are declared to be that 1% ( did they have a name for them yet, like "Enemies of THE PEOPLE ?" )

A lot of the early Nazi-Propaganda was very anti capitalistic.
During the 90s a lot of discussion was going around inside the left Scene in Germany about the dangers of simplified anti-capitalism as a fuel for a right - or left - populist movement.

One signal for that simplified anti-capitalism is the use of moralistic rhetoric like "greedy banksters" . This critic doesn't target the economic rules of capitalism, it targets a person as moral inferior.
It's like calling a prostitute "slutty" and don't try to understand the economic background that is forcing her to sell her body.

While this simplified critic won't help you to understand or solve a problem, it gives you the good feeling to be moral superior compared to the greedy bankster or the slutty prostitute.
And isn't that feeling good enough ?

[Aardwolf]

(thought I'd inject some humor)

[deathfun]

HAHA
Nice one. That made my day wolf

[General Battuta]

Unfortunately, you have groups from WSWS talking about complete worldwide revolution over these occupations. Some don't follow that same self-improvement thought, but rather a total overhaul.

The presence of crazy extremists in any group of people is pretty much a given, not a cause for panic. Protesters could stand to dress up nice though.

[Beskargam]

but I would very much enjoy to see all these people gather around the 12 Federal Reserve banks in the USA, preferably with the proverbial torches and pitchforks, as they're at the center of the bailouts and monetary and financial problems.

FED has a lot of stabilizing influence. rather than a destructive one. they're also one of the few government institutions to turn a profit in this downturn. I keep seeing a lot of hate for them in general. yet it is arguable that we are better off with them than without. and things could have been worse without the bailout

the monetary financial problems are not caused/centered around the FED, but rather a large debt caused by a war that we arent/havent been paying for. among other things

[Klaustrophobia]

 

[Unicorn20]

FED has a lot of stabilizing influence. rather than a destructive one. they're also one of the few government institutions to turn a profit in this downturn. I keep seeing a lot of hate for them in general. yet it is arguable that we are better off with them than without. and things could have been worse without the bailout

Free banking was better, less capacity over utilization/inflation. Also, the bailout created its own moral hazard problems and there is little evidence that it helped. You can read John Taylor's black swan stuff on it. But to each his own. On an unrelated note, Black Swan was a very good movie with a nice lezzie scene.

Yeah but in this case there's actually a quantifiable problem. I'm a big advocate of the idea that our current social and economic systems work very well and will continue to work well and improve themselves, but I think that movements like Occupy Wall Street are an important corrective force and a crucial part of that self-improvement.

I don't want to say liberal circlejerk again. But seeing this kind of consensus thread after thread almost makes me want to post breastfeeding goats at a woman's teat just to spur some kind of discussion.

The direction these protests and movements are going is not a productive one. I'm going to go off a slippery slope if you don't mind, but Wagner's Law is at work. 'Murka will be communist some day; all the right wing can do is hold off the rabble and delay them a bit.

[NGTM-1R]

Yet another man who doesn't get communism?

[General Battuta]

You can read John Taylor's black swan stuff on it. But to each his own. On an unrelated note, Black Swan was a very good movie with a nice lezzie scene.

classy

Yeah but in this case there's actually a quantifiable problem. I'm a big advocate of the idea that our current social and economic systems work very well and will continue to work well and improve themselves, but I think that movements like Occupy Wall Street are an important corrective force and a crucial part of that self-improvement.

I don't want to say liberal circlejerk again. But seeing this kind of consensus thread after thread almost makes me want to post breastfeeding goats at a woman's teat just to spur some kind of discussion.

The direction these protests and movements are going is not a productive one.

If 'ending wage stagnation that's lasted decades' is unproductive I'm not really sure what is

[Unicorn20]

If 'ending wage stagnation that's lasted decades' is unproductive I'm not really sure what is

Higher wages means less profits, and that means less investment. So to an anal retentive Chipotle mexican jumping bean in my anus retainer GDP fascist like me, yes, thats unproductive.

At risk of making people take me too seriously, I'll put things in simple terms. The USA is still a less-**** version of Europe, let's keep it that way.

[General Battuta]

Higher wages means less profits, and that means less investment.

Noooo they don't you silly man

e: Unless CEO salaries are 'profits'

So to an anal retentive Chipotle mexican jumping bean in my anus retainer GDP fascist like me, yes, thats unproductive.

You said anus twice!

[Unicorn20]

That's an empirical question, with a Google answer.

Hirsch (1991a) provides a comprehensive empirical analysis of union effects on investment, both in physical and intangible capital. He is also distinguishes between the "direct" and "indirect" effects of unions on investment. The direct effect, as discussed above, stems from the union tax on the returns to long-lived and relation-specific capital, leading firms to cut back on investment so as to equate the marginal post-tax rate of return with the marginal financing cost. The indirect effect of unions on investment arises from the higher financing costs owing to reduced profits (and, thus, internal funding of investment) among union firms.

Because I'm doubly retentive.

[General Battuta]

Investment isn't an end in and of itself. If the dividends of investment are concentrated it's not getting anything done!

[Unicorn20]

I say. Your argument rests on the assumption that dividends destroy the capital that investment created, which makes about as much sense as a sighting of Elvis riding a unicorn.

edit: Unless you're advocating equality as a desirable thing, which would be irrational, subjectivist and anti-mind.

[MP-Ryan]

Whoa, pointy-headed ungulate.

GDP and economic growth are not an end unto themselves.  There is a reason that the US consistently ranks below less-capitalist countries in quality of life indicies, and it is virtually always a derivative of the fact that wealth and opportunity are consolidated strongly within the control of a very select few individuals.

The returns on investment and growth in the United States are not benefiting large proportions of the population in the slightest.  In fact, one could argue that reduced investment actually leads to higher quality of life for workers at the lower end of the scale.  Economic growth is meaningless without a human-benefit measure factored in, because otherwise the growth has no context.  Growth realized by the top 20% of earners does not necessarily translate into increased human-benefit measures for anyone else.  Yeah, it's nice that CEO could afford a second yacht.

And the study you just cited is 20 years old and therefore absolutely irrelevant to the current financial state of the United States.  All the data on that page references conclusions drawn in the 70s, 80s, and 90s, which were a very different economic world than we live in now.  If you'd like to perhaps look at some real disparities now in terms of what's happened since 1991, I'd suggest following this link and clicking "H1 - All Races":  http://www.census.gov/hhes/www/income/data/historical/inequality/index.html (Further breakdown is provided in each of the other H - All Races" categories).

The numbers speak for themselves.  Greater growth in the top 5% has not translated into greater gains for employed persons in the US as a whole.

[deathfun]

Dem overpayed CEO's! Curse you all for being successful!

[Mars]

Dem overpayed CEO's! Curse you all for being successful!

What are they doing that warrents them being payed many times as much as any number of other components in society. I could see a CEO getting payed ten or twenty times what an average worker makes, but it goes way beyond that at this point, and for CEOs that can only keep their companies together because the tax-payers bailed them out.

[deathfun]

I know. I never said they were smart did I?

[Mars]

Sorry, I mistook you for a Ayn Rand style libertarian charging up.