Occupy Wall Street Movement

[js207]

Is this limited to representative democracy? I kinda doubt it. I think people would still tend to identify within groups, whether political, religious or social. And some would try to use that tendency to control people, just as the political groups do today. Maybe they wouldn't be Republican or Democrat, and maybe there would be more than just two, but there would still be divisions among people, and "leaders" who would exploit those divisions.

It isn't exclusive to representative democracies, but worst there - when you're voting on specific issues it will be greatly diminished. Far more people would vote for a candidate they disagree with on an issue because of his party association than would vote directly against their own beliefs because some party platform or figure said so.

[Omega22]

"Enthusiasm" based systems don't work if there's no reward for the enthusiastic worker. In the CCCP (USSR) the only "enthusiastic" ones were the political leaders, who were able to get anything they wanted for themselves and their families. The average citizen could look forward to little but more work for no gain, while those who did no work still got fed, clothed and housed.

their leaders were mostly terminally ill old men who were incapable even to steal stuff anymore.
When we talk about rewards it should be something else than money. It can be satisfaction with your work and fame.

So you're better off being lazy? You get fed, and you don't have to work! Sounds great to me.

you still have to work something or you will be bored to death. it is just that if you want something more than basic living conditions you need to work and feed those who are satisfied by that.
in other words it is taxing of greed. better living standards you require more taxes you pay.
we don't need to promote consumption we need to force people to lower their living requirements. Don't buy all crap and there will be no need to make it. So you can be lazy if someone wants lots of crap like IPad or plasma TV or big new car then he can donate something for others.

Which means everyone but the guy with the resources starves. Sounds like the USSR, all right.

and what he is going to do with these raw resources? just dont let him to sell them and problem solved.
also resources should be taxed, so if you hog something you pay.

I am not suggesting to turn US into USSR
USSR had lots of problems but it also had lots of good stuff. unfortunately communism was too early at that time.
today efficiency is improved in may orders of magnitude and everything is different.
You have no choice. Capitalism is going to fail soon, or everything will turn into living hell.

[Thorne]

When we talk about rewards it should be something else than money. It can be satisfaction with your work and fame.

That will only take you so far. When you find yourself working long hours, sacrificing free time, and getting little more than the lazy neighbor next door, the satisfaction fades pretty quickly. And who needs fame?

you still have to work something or you will be bored to death. it is just that if you want something more than basic living conditions you need to work and feed those who are satisfied by that.

There are many ways to avoid boredom. And if you have to work to feed not only yourself but someone else boredom seems the lesser evil.

in other words it is taxing of greed. better living standards you require more taxes you pay.

And how do you pay those taxes without gaining any reward? I won't work to make just enough to survive, so that others can also survive. I don't mind paying my fair share, but not to waste it on derelicts and slackers.

we don't need to promote consumption we need to force people to lower their living requirements.

Why? So everyone can be miserable? The whole point of consumption is that it promotes better living conditions for all.

Don't buy all crap and there will be no need to make it.

Then there will be no jobs. More people sucking at the government teat.

So you can be lazy if someone wants lots of crap like IPad or plasma TV or big new car then he can donate something for others.

Forced taxation is far different than donations. Forced donations is simply taxation. Again, what's the benefit for the worker?

and what he is going to do with these raw resources? just dont let him to sell them and problem solved.

If he can't eat them, he'll trade them. With someone else who can't sell them. Don't tell me that there was no black market in the USSR.

also resources should be taxed, so if you hog something you pay.

Earning through your own labor is hardly hogging resources. One way or another you pay.

USSR had lots of problems but it also had lots of good stuff.

Like what?

today efficiency is improved in may orders of magnitude and everything is different.

Tell that to the people starving in North Korea. Tell that to the pre-capitalist Chinese. Any efficiency, whether in farming or manufacturing, has come from capitalist countries.

You have no choice. Capitalism is going to fail soon, or everything will turn into living hell.

Maybe so, but going back to an already failed system won't prevent that. The USSR was already a living hell before the collapse.

[Omega22]

That will only take you so far. When you find yourself working long hours, sacrificing free time, and getting little more than the lazy neighbor next door, the satisfaction fades pretty quickly. And who needs fame?

so dont work long hours, work only a little as much as you really need. All overworking is just waste of sacred resources.

There are many ways to avoid boredom. And if you have to work to feed not only yourself but someone else boredom seems the lesser evil.

any examples what are you doing to do? so you are living is some shitty house get shitty food and you just lay on the bed and watch TV all year.
I think no sane human will we able to be that lazy. But it is good, because if you don't move you conserve energy and you will be cheap to feed.

And how do you pay those taxes without gaining any reward? I won't work to make just enough to survive, so that others can also survive. I don't mind paying my fair share, but not to waste it on derelicts and slackers.

They get reward, and quite a big one. I don't say you must work for free you just pay about 90-95% of taxes. and you only get to keep 10%, but that 10 % is way more than you get doing nothing.

Why? So everyone can be miserable? The whole point of consumption is that it promotes better living conditions for all.

this is no longer the point, because we do not have enough resources to consume. It is dead end.
You simply cant continue that way of life anymore. you have either fight with all world to take their resources or reduce your consumption.

Then there will be no jobs. More people sucking at the government teat.

then maybe we should pay people for littering and then pay other people for cleaning?
making and buying crap is same as just burning stuff. it does not make your life better.
to make it better you need correct jobs like improving infrastructure and inventing new better tools not just produce useless ipads that go to trash can next year.

Forced taxation is far different than donations. Forced donations is simply taxation. Again, what's the benefit for the worker?

he gets benefit to live in better conditions than everyone else.

If he can't eat them, he'll trade them. With someone else who can't sell them. Don't tell me that there was no black market in the USSR.

there was no point in black market, because resources were dirt cheap. Only problem was getting consumable goods.

Earning through your own labor is hardly hogging resources. One way or another you pay.

If you buy land then you take it away from public use thats hogging of resources. and you must pay big taxes fro owning that land.
if you by car you also hog some amount of metal and plastic which is not available for public use anymore.

Like what?

life USSR was really calm without any competition and stress, you had all your basic needs fulfilled. there was no need to fight for your place when you finish high school government gives you some job and place to live. then you work something and live easy boring life. However, if you need something above basic living it gets really hard to obtain.

Tell that to the people starving in North Korea. Tell that to the pre-capitalist Chinese. Any efficiency, whether in farming or manufacturing, has come from capitalist countries.

their only problem is lack of modern tools dont forget that these people do not feed on gasoline like US
they use their muscle power instead of machines. give modern farm equipment to Koreans and they will feed themselves with no problems.
Us is not in better situation, because these nations at least produce everything they need, unlike US who produces only half of what it consumes and rest goes in debt.
Isn't it funny that USSR is lending money to US?

Maybe so, but going back to an already failed system won't prevent that. The USSR was already a living hell before the collapse.

It was not hell at all only problem there was that life was quite boring. system failed because it went ahead of time. it is like capitalism in stone age.
However you still have no choice if you don't limit consumption you will by limited by law of conservation of mass and energy.
You cant indefinitely increase consumption of limited resources.
in the end it will result war between these who hogged all resources and these who are starving because they cant get anything.

[Thorne]

I don't say you must work for free you just pay about 90-95% of taxes.

And what does that work gain me? I get the same thing as the lazy bum next door. If I want anything else I buy it with my 10%. Except, there isn't anything to buy, because nobody is making anything!

Only problem was getting consumable goods.

Exactly! Because no one was working to make consumable goods. So what good is your 10%?

If you buy land then you take it away from public use thats hogging of resources. and you must pay big taxes fro owning that land.
if you by car you also hog some amount of metal and plastic which is not available for public use anymore.

This makes no sense. What is the public going to do with the land, or the plastic? They have no money to do anything with it!

when you finish high school government gives you some job and place to live. then you work something and live easy boring life. However, if you need something above basic living it gets really hard to obtain.

Sounds idyllic. Not.

their only problem is lack of modern tools dont forget that these people do not feed on gasoline like US
they use their muscle power instead of machines. give modern farm equipment to Koreans and they will feed themselves with no problems.

Ahh, so we should stop using resources and just give them to Koreans, so they can use them instead of us. Again, why?

Isn't it funny that USSR is lending money to US?

There IS no USSR. Russia MAY be lending us money, I don't know. But that's beside the point. Where are the Russians getting the money in the first place? By manufacturing products and selling them! Using resources. And getting wealthier. Basically, becoming capitalists.

[Omega22]

And what does that work gain me? I get the same thing as the lazy bum next door. If I want anything else I buy it with my 10%. Except, there isn't anything to buy, because nobody is making anything!

money doesn't work in that way, if you got 10% then you still produced 100% of something but 90% or your stuff you give to 100 lazy bums and 10% keep for yourself. in result you still live 10 times better that these lazy people.
the whole point is to limit greed, so that you would not have any desire to work more than you really need.

Exactly! Because no one was working to make consumable goods. So what good is your 10%?

it has nothing to do with USSR
it was completely different instead of getting 10% you were paid fixed amount independent of how much you work. and you had to fulfill some arbitrary norms.

This makes no sense. What is the public going to do with the land, or the plastic? They have no money to do anything with it!

you know sometimes you may need to build a road or use it for recreation.
or just build a house where you like. just because someone claimed land as his property first, that doesn't give him right to hog it or ask me to pay.

Sounds idyllic. Not.

that was quite fine for most people.

Ahh, so we should stop using resources and just give them to Koreans, so they can use them instead of us. Again, why?

well you dont need to do that if you don't mind to start world war 3 or suffer from terrorist attacks.
alternatively you coudl just kill all these poor people
they wont stai as dumb as they are indefinitely soon they will identify who is parasite sucking their blood and will try to do something.

There IS no USSR. Russia MAY be lending us money, I don't know. But that's beside the point. Where are the Russians getting the money in the first place? By manufacturing products and selling them! Using resources. And getting wealthier. Basically, becoming capitalists.

they do not manufacture anything, they just sell oil and other resources.
if they were like US they would consume everything themselves and you would get nothing.
in fact they give everything for free because it is obvious that neither US neither EU will ever pay their debts.

most likely in 2030 there will be some war or other kind of apocalypse when these idiots will stop giving goods for US and EU for free.
and since we do not have anything anymore, we will starve to death or most likely we will attack these poor countries to suck their last drops of blood and then we will start killing each other.

[Thorne]

This conversation has become very bizarre. I never thought I'd hear someone actually be nostalgic about the USSR and communism. Except maybe one of the politburo members, perhaps. Or one of the "lazy bums" who want everything handed to them without having to actually work for it.

Why has it become a crime for someone to work hard and earn enough money to keep his family well provided for? Why is having more than someone else considered evil? My wife and I have worked our whole lives, saving for retirement. Should we know just hand that money over to people who don't want to work? Why? It's not my fault they're broke.

just because someone claimed land as his property first, that doesn't give him right to hog it or ask me to pay.

Ahh, maybe here is the problem! Yes, I own property. I own my home. I own my car. I have PAID for them. When the time comes, I'll happily SELL them to you. And YOU can PAY for them. In the meantime, I continue to pay taxes on them, so that the state can build those roads for everyone to use. Of course, if I can't pay those taxes, the state will take my property from me. Then maybe I can complain about those who pay their taxes, own their property, and live normal lives. Because they've EARNED it!

And that seems to be the crux of Omega22's complaints: Some people are just evil enough to actually EARN more than he does. The reasons don't matter to him, only that they have more than he does. And it also seems to be the problem of the OWS movement, too. They want everything handed to them, on a silver platter. Tax the rich and give to the poor. Until the poor have the money, and then they'll complain about having to pay the taxes.

soon they will identify who is parasite sucking their blood and will try to do something.

The only way they will learn that is if their government allows them to become educated. And once that happens they will quickly learn that it is their own government that is the parasite sucking their blood!

[IAN 2411]

Why has it become a crime for someone to work hard and earn enough money to keep his family well provided for? Why is having more than someone else considered evil? My wife and I have worked our whole lives, saving for retirement. Should we know just hand that money over to people who don't want to work? Why? It's not my fault they're broke.

What a surprise, I asked this same question of someone the other day and they accused me of living off their taxes because I was a pensioner. As soon as I said one of my pensions was an Army war disability pension, I was accused of defrauding the government because I could still [would you believe] walk.

Ahh, maybe here is the problem! Yes, I own property. I own my home. I own my car. I have PAID for them. When the time comes, I'll happily SELL them to you. And YOU can PAY for them. In the meantime, I continue to pay taxes on them, so that the state can build those roads for everyone to use. Of course, if I can't pay those taxes, the state will take my property from me. Then maybe I can complain about those who pay their taxes, own their property, and live normal lives. Because they've EARNED it!

Some people are just evil enough to actually EARN more than he does. The reasons don't matter to him, only that they have more than he does. They want everything handed to them, on a silver platter.

It is in that statement that you have hit the nail on the head. In one word it’s, “Jealousy.” Most of the people complaining have not yet got to retirement age, but they want the perks that the secure not wealthy pensioners get without paying into the pot. As far as I am concerned they can sit outside St Pauls until their balls drop off from the cold weather that is about to hit them. I would think that most of them are on benefits anyway, and as they are not seeking employment they should lose that.

Be well IAN 2411

[Omega22]

This conversation has become very bizarre. I never thought I'd hear someone actually be nostalgic about the USSR and communism. Except maybe one of the politburo members, perhaps. Or one of the "lazy bums" who want everything handed to them without having to actually work for it.

You miss my point.
I dont say that USSR was perfect but it is good system which forces you to be lazy and conserve resources, you wont get reward for being active earth destructor. Economy cannot grow indefinitely because earth is limited.
I don't say it is something we should desire but there just no other way and it is not that bad as it seems.
we just cant continue this insanity we need to become lazy bums or severely reduce earth population.

Why has it become a crime for someone to work hard and earn enough money to keep his family well provided for? Why is having more than someone else considered evil? My wife and I have worked our whole lives, saving for retirement. Should we know just hand that money over to people who don't want to work? Why? It's not my fault they're broke.

You are evil because you burn gasoline when you fly to Hawaii. You are burning what belongs to everyone.
If I will not consume my share of gasoline you will burn it all and leave nothing to me.

Ahh, maybe here is the problem! Yes, I own property. I own my home. I own my car. I have PAID for them. When the time comes, I'll happily SELL them to you. And YOU can PAY for them. In the meantime, I continue to pay taxes on them, so that the state can build those roads for everyone to use. Of course, if I can't pay those taxes, the state will take my property from me. Then maybe I can complain about those who pay their taxes, own their property, and live normal lives. Because they've EARNED it!

So you sell them to me and where are you going to live? I think Chinese and Russians will gladly buy everything you have, and pay well, but you will notice that you have no place to live anymore, because they doesn't need your hard work, they only need your land.

The only way they will learn that is if their government allows them to become educated. And once that happens they will quickly learn that it is their own government that is the parasite sucking their blood!

Of course blame their government but who the hell is supporting these corrupt governments? who is giving them guns and money?
I guess it is not these poor uneducated people.
And I think you know what happens to government that refuse to obey, they all end like Qaddafi and Saddam.

[IAN 2411]

You miss my point.
I dont say that USSR was perfect but it is good system which forces you to be lazy and conserve resources, you wont get reward for being active earth destructor. Economy cannot grow indefinitely because earth is limited.
I don't say it is something we should desire but there just no other way and it is not that bad as it seems.
we just cant continue this insanity we need to become lazy bums or severely reduce earth population.

It was such a good system that they pushed walls over to get out of it. What you’re saying is that you don’t want to work, and everyone should do the same so that you don’t feel guilty.

You are evil because you burn gasoline when you fly to Hawaii. You are burning what belongs to everyone.
If I will not consume my share of gasoline you will burn it all and leave nothing to me.

By those remarks, so too is every bus, taxi, lorry driver. Military aircraft, ship and vehicle that looks after your ass. They are all burning your air without thinking of you. Is it because you don’t own anything of value you feel that no one else should either. There is nothing stopping you earning money and flying anywhere.

So you sell them to me and where are you going to live? I think Chinese and Russians will gladly buy everything you have, and pay well.

I find that hard to believe, they might take a look at the west see the state it’s in, give you a couple of hundred £/$ to keep it and piss home.

Be well IAN 2411

[Thorne]

You miss my point.

Probably because I haven't been able to see one.

I dont say that USSR was perfect but it is good system which forces you to be lazy and conserve resources, you wont get reward for being active earth destructor.

Are you kidding? The USSR was one of the worst polluters in the history of the planet!

Economy cannot grow indefinitely because earth is limited.

Then maybe we need to start looking OFF of the Earth.

we just cant continue this insanity we need to become lazy bums or severely reduce earth population.

But it's the lazy bums who are increasing the population! The workers know enough to limit the number of children, generally. It's the uneducated, unemployed, lazy bums who have nothing to do but screw all day that are bringing more and more kids into the world for the workers to feed.

You are evil because you burn gasoline when you fly to Hawaii.

I haven't been on a plane in more than 10 years, and almost all of my plane trips were work related, earning those privileges which you want for nothing.

You are burning what belongs to everyone.

I am burning what I've paid for with my hard work! Or aren't I part of "everyone"? If I decide NOT to use gasoline so that you can have more, what are you going to do with it? Give it away to someone less fortunate than yourself? Sooner or later, someone is going to burn it! And if I can pay for it, than I say I should be the one to do it.

If I will not consume my share of gasoline you will burn it all and leave nothing to me.

And just how am I preventing you from getting your share? Oh, that's right! You deserve it because you were born! Well, do like the oil companies did! Go out and find the oil, and drill for it, and transport it to your refinery, and turn it into gasoline! What? You don't have a refinery? Well, then you'll have to build one. Or maybe you can rent one from your neighbor. He'll probably do it for a share of "your" oil. And don't forget to give him HIS share, too. Even though he hasn't gone and dug it up himself.

Of course blame their government but who the hell is supporting these corrupt governments? who is giving them guns and money?

At one time it was the USSR. I'm sure the Chinese are still supporting North Korea, too.

[tedteague]

lol...allrighty then...you go right on thinking its not a science if you want while the people who know it is use what they know to work the system.

Numbers don't lie. Cliometrics and it's uses in Political Science are well known factors that involve a lot of in depth statistical analysis.

If money wasn't a factor Romney wouldn't be pulling back ahead of Newt in the primaries right now.

On another note :

There is a lot of overlap in things the Tea Party and the Occupy movements want and I think they would be better served by combining their independent efforts and dropping or excluding the two primary parties from participation....haven't we seen this before with the Reform and Whig parties back in the day?

How can you establish an empirical, causal connection between campaign contributions and candidate electability. One could say that Huntsman receives no money because he is not popular, OR that he is not popular because he receives no money from PACs and special interest groups. This is my problem with the social sciences AS A WHOLE. the only two I can tolerate are econometrics (not micro or macro) and Psychology. The others don't seem to establlish much of a conclusion. And econ is rapdily losing any of the meager credibility it had before

[leo9]

How can you establish an empirical, causal connection between campaign contributions and candidate electability. One could say that Huntsman receives no money because he is not popular, OR that he is not popular because he receives no money from PACs and special interest groups. This is my problem with the social sciences AS A WHOLE. the only two I can tolerate are econometrics (not micro or macro) and Psychology. The others don't seem to establlish much of a conclusion. And econ is rapdily losing any of the meager credibility it had before

Nine tenths of the economists spent the last ten years telling us the world economy was getting better and better and nothing could possibly go wrong. The other tenth who told us we were riding for a fall were starting from exactly the same data and theories, so the fact that they were right just shows that they had better intuition, nothing to do with science.

As for psychology, it fails all the tests of a real science: its propositions cannot be falsified, its predictions do not come right more often than chance, and there is no objective way to test one theory against another. All successful schools of clinical psychology are based on the simple fact that most people can heal their own mental problems if they can talk to someone non-judgemental for long enough. It doesn't make a scrap of difference whether the listener calls hirself Freudian, Jungian, NLP, CBT, Behaviourist or whatever, so long as se has the nous to keep quiet and let the patient talk hirself out of trouble.

[thir]

Nine tenths of the economists spent the last ten years telling us the world economy was getting better and better and nothing could possibly go wrong. The other tenth who told us we were riding for a fall were starting from exactly the same data and theories, so the fact that they were right just shows that they had better intuition, nothing to do with science.

Or maybe the guts to stand up to status quo?

As for psychology, it fails all the tests of a real science: its propositions cannot be falsified, its predictions do not come right more often than chance, and there is no objective way to test one theory against another. All successful schools of clinical psychology are based on the simple fact that most people can heal their own mental problems if they can talk to someone non-judgemental for long enough. It doesn't make a scrap of difference whether the listener calls hirself Freudian, Jungian, NLP, CBT, Behaviourist or whatever, so long as se has the nous to keep quiet and let the patient talk hirself out of trouble.

While I find it horrible the way psychology is taken as an exact science to the extent of determining people's fates in a number of situations, I think this statement it going to far in the other direction.

Originaly psychologists were armchair thinkers and moralists, and there are lots of those still, to be true. But these days at least we have some imperical research as in collecting lots of material and comparing it all.

For example we have the big American and Norwegian investigations showing that people inot BDSM are no different from a vanilla control group. Or to put it in other words: we are normal. Meaning no disrespect to anyone ;-)

As for talk, there are those who have a sublime knack of helping people asking themselves the right questions, and thereby helping them rather better than just letting them talk. Also compiling info about special groups - alchoholics, junkies, terminally ill people, people who have been in wars or terrible accidents and so on have shown useful. For instance we know now why KZ prisoners and some soldiers can have so strange problems and act to weirdly.

But it is not an exact science and should not be treated as such.

[Thorne]

The biggest problem I have with psychology is that it deals in generalizations, but is used by some to make specific claims about individuals. As a group, people tend to behave within certain parameters, but individual variations within that group can vary tremendously. Not everyone who suffers a trauma, be it physical or emotional, will respond in exactly the same way. There may be similarities, but there's no hard and fast rule. So I agree with thir, it's not an exact science, and I'm not sure it should be classified as a science at all. More of an art form than anything else.