Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I Totally Support the Occupy Movement...Follow

#227 Oct 26 2011 at 6:15 PM Rating: Good
***
1,000 posts
Sometimes it';s amusing to see him type so many words to prove he's a clueless corporate drone.
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#228 Oct 26 2011 at 6:19 PM Rating: Excellent
Drunken English Bastard
*****
15,268 posts
I've yet to read a full post.
____________________________
My Movember page
Solrain wrote:
WARs can use semi-colons however we want. I once killed a guy with a semi-colon.

LordFaramir wrote:
ODESNT MATTER CAUSE I HAVE ALCHOLOL IN MY VEINGS BETCH ;3
#229 Oct 26 2011 at 6:52 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Nilatai wrote:
I've yet to read a full post.


Neither have I, and I end up in arguments with him fairly often. :P
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#230 Oct 26 2011 at 6:56 PM Rating: Excellent
******
49,831 posts
I read everything. It makes everything that much sweeter.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#231 Oct 26 2011 at 7:06 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
I don't know why anyone argues these points with gbaji. He's shown time and time again that in his world $ > people. IN. EVERY. CASE.


Nope. I disagree with people who believe that those two things are in opposition.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#232 Oct 26 2011 at 7:11 PM Rating: Good
Gurue
*****
16,299 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
I don't know why anyone argues these points with gbaji. He's shown time and time again that in his world $ > people. IN. EVERY. CASE.

And this always amuses me. It's like he thinks he's one of those corporate billionaires, the way he defends them.
#233 Oct 26 2011 at 7:21 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
I don't know why anyone argues these points with gbaji. He's shown time and time again that in his world $ > people. IN. EVERY. CASE.


Nope. I disagree with people who believe that those two things are in opposition.


Naturally they aren't always in opposition. But when we are talking about rich people getting richer, we are NECESSARILY talking about the poor getting poorer.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#234 Oct 26 2011 at 7:52 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,344 posts
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
I don't know why anyone argues these points with gbaji. He's shown time and time again that in his world $ > people. IN. EVERY. CASE.


Nope. I disagree with people who believe that those two things are in opposition.


That is a meaningless statement.

How about: He's shown time and time again that in his world the value of $ > the value of people.


Your god is Magog, gbaji.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#235 Oct 26 2011 at 8:00 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
I don't know why anyone argues these points with gbaji. He's shown time and time again that in his world $ > people. IN. EVERY. CASE.


Nope. I disagree with people who believe that those two things are in opposition.


Naturally they aren't always in opposition. But when we are talking about rich people getting richer, we are NECESSARILY talking about the poor getting poorer.


Only if we assume that economics is a zero sum game. I thought we established that it's not. Or, at the very least, no one has sufficiently argued that it *is*.


I disagree with your assumption. A rich person getting richer does not make the poor poorer. And no one has provided evidence to the contrary.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#236 Oct 26 2011 at 8:04 PM Rating: Decent
****
7,861 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
I don't know why anyone argues these points with gbaji. He's shown time and time again that in his world $ > people. IN. EVERY. CASE.


Nope. I disagree with people who believe that those two things are in opposition.


Naturally they aren't always in opposition. But when we are talking about rich people getting richer, we are NECESSARILY talking about the poor getting poorer.

Not really. If the "fat cat" CEO makes a million one year, and 2 million the next year, his earnings have increased by 100%. If the employee made 50k one year, and then 60k the next year, his earnings have increased by 20%. Sure, the CEO increased more, but they both had an increase in earnings.
____________________________
People don't like to be meddled with. We tell them what to do, what to think, don't run, don't walk. We're in their homes and in their heads and we haven't the right. We're meddlesome. ~River Tam

Sedao
#237 Oct 26 2011 at 8:32 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
I don't know why anyone argues these points with gbaji. He's shown time and time again that in his world $ > people. IN. EVERY. CASE.


Nope. I disagree with people who believe that those two things are in opposition.


That is a meaningless statement.


How so? I think it's very meaningful to point out that the very comparison being made is irrelevant. Unless we're being forced to choose between them, then trying to rank them in some way is pointless.

Quote:
How about: He's shown time and time again that in his world the value of $ > the value of people.


Honestly, even that's a ridiculous and strawman-tempting misrepresentation. A better way to express it would be: Pursuit of $ > economic outcomes for the people. I happen to believe that in the process of pursuing money, a wealthy person also generates positive economic outcomes for others. And when we use an economic system which most rewards people financially when they produce something which others are willing to pay to buy, then we most ensure that the pursuit of money benefits the maximum number of people.


In such a system, it's illogical to make the argument you guys are making. It would be like saying that the pursuit of a medical degree is more valuable than the health of the people. One not only isn't in opposition to the other, but arguably benefits the other. Same deal here.


Show me that as the wealth gap between rich and poor has grown within the US, that the overall life condition of the poor has gotten worse. I don't think you can do it. In fact, whenever I ask for this, the statistic I usually get back is a comparison of relative incomes. But that's circular, right? It's a given that earnings for the rich have increased faster than earnings for the poor. So it follows that the relative amount of those things will have changed accordingly. The question isn't whether a poor person has less money relative to a rich person, but whether over the period of time during which this happened, the real living conditions of the poor have gotten worse in absolute terms. Do they live in worse homes? Do they have less access to food? Do they have less education, health care, transportation? Do they have fewer luxuries?


I just think that when you look at the issue in those terms, the answer overwhelmingly is "no". The conditions for the poor haven't gotten worse. They have in fact gotten massively better over the whole period of time. So what is the problem? Are you seriously arguing that during a time in which the poor experienced greater real gains than at any point in human history, it all doesn't matter because the rich gained a greater relative number of dollars over the same period of time?


That's what I mean when I talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You put more weight on something you can't even clearly argue is important in the first place, than a whole list of very real very well defined very easily argued important things. I just don't understand this obsession with comparing the relative number of dollars of rich and poor. Why does that matter? I keep asking this question because no one can give me a really good explanation. How does a rich person having more money hurt you? You all keep insisting that it does, but not one person can explain how, much less show that it has happened.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#238 Oct 26 2011 at 8:40 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,344 posts
Funny how you decided to skip the Magog part. But hey, I know you hate discussing your religion.Smiley: laugh



garbaji, try, TRY to pay attention here. I am giving you an easy way to admit to your God-hating moneyworship. My statements here are reflective of your religious belief structure, not the economy.

Goddam, you really have become dense as lead lately.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#239 Oct 26 2011 at 9:41 PM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Kastigir wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Friar Bijou wrote:
I don't know why anyone argues these points with gbaji. He's shown time and time again that in his world $ > people. IN. EVERY. CASE.


Nope. I disagree with people who believe that those two things are in opposition.


Naturally they aren't always in opposition. But when we are talking about rich people getting richer, we are NECESSARILY talking about the poor getting poorer.

Not really. If the "fat cat" CEO makes a million one year, and 2 million the next year, his earnings have increased by 100%. If the employee made 50k one year, and then 60k the next year, his earnings have increased by 20%. Sure, the CEO increased more, but they both had an increase in earnings.


Except that wealth doesn't increase linearly across classes. Never has and, under a capitalist system, it never will.

At any one time, there's a limit to the amount of capital in the system. Even though that amount increases every day (to simplify things to monetary values, only 95% of newly printed bills go to replacing old ones), it doesn't do so quickly or in massive quantities. Even over the course of the year, the actual increase in capital for the global economy is extremely small (and a decrease in capital is also possible).

Generally speaking, the majority of income gains for the rich are going to come directly from profit from services used by the people. If their income is growing (more than can be explained by a natural swell in capital), it's because they aren't increasing their market investments proportionally.

And it is definitely true that a person can have increased income from one year to the next. But it is equally true that they can be poorer from one year to the next despite increased income, since the value of the dollar decreases.

Most importantly, "poor" and "rich" are relational properties, not one-place properties. If I earn 100 dollars more today than I did yesterday, I do see a gain in wealth. However, if Mr. Rich gains $20,000 more today than he did yesterday, I became poorer, since the gap between us has widened.

"The poor get poorer" does not translates into "the poor have less money today than yesterday." It means that they control a smaller percentage of available capital today than they did yesterday, which is a very different thing.

To put it in perspective, in 1760 5% of the taxpayers held 40% of the wealth. Now, the top 1% of taxpayers (which is not referring specifically to the group OWS is attacking) now controls over 70% of assets. That's a BIG difference.

The poor are today are certainly "richer" than the poor of 1760, but not in an economically meaningful way. They are richer in a historically meaningful one. Those two should not be conflated. We are certainly less destitute today, but that doesn't mean that we aren't poorer in relation to our rich (which is what we should care about).
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#240 Oct 27 2011 at 10:59 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
13,407 posts
Question for those who may know more about this kind of thing then I do.

Linky

Someone in charge of the finances took $20,000 that had been donated and started a non-profit with it to "protect the groups money." She's since received death threats and such.

An excerpt from the groups response is as follows:

Quote:
If anything, this incident illustrates the very reason we are protesting. Our protest against corporate power and control is now colored by people who have used this very structure we are protesting against to deprive us of donations and resources that the community as a whole helped establish for our protest.


So I'm not understanding why they'd be against putting together a non-profit, and how this would be against their motives? Can someone explain this to me? Or is this just in-fighting, or something specific to the PDX group?

<--- Officially confused yet again... Smiley: lol

____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#241 Oct 27 2011 at 5:25 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
gbaji wrote:
Show me that as the wealth gap between rich and poor has grown within the US, that the overall life condition of the poor has gotten worse. I don't think you can do it. In fact, whenever I ask for this, the statistic I usually get back is a comparison of relative incomes. But that's circular, right? It's a given that earnings for the rich have increased faster than earnings for the poor. So it follows that the relative amount of those things will have changed accordingly. The question isn't whether a poor person has less money relative to a rich person, but whether over the period of time during which this happened, the real living conditions of the poor have gotten worse in absolute terms. Do they live in worse homes? Do they have less access to food? Do they have less education, health care, transportation? Do they have fewer luxuries?

...

That's what I mean when I talk about throwing the baby out with the bathwater. You put more weight on something you can't even clearly argue is important in the first place, than a whole list of very real very well defined very easily argued important things. I just don't understand this obsession with comparing the relative number of dollars of rich and poor. Why does that matter? I keep asking this question because no one can give me a really good explanation. How does a rich person having more money hurt you? You all keep insisting that it does, but not one person can explain how, much less show that it has happened.


idiggory, King of Bards wrote:

Most importantly, "poor" and "rich" are relational properties, not one-place properties. If I earn 100 dollars more today than I did yesterday, I do see a gain in wealth. However, if Mr. Rich gains $20,000 more today than he did yesterday, I became poorer, since the gap between us has widened.

"The poor get poorer" does not translates into "the poor have less money today than yesterday." It means that they control a smaller percentage of available capital today than they did yesterday, which is a very different thing.

To put it in perspective, in 1760 5% of the taxpayers held 40% of the wealth. Now, the top 1% of taxpayers (which is not referring specifically to the group OWS is attacking) now controls over 70% of assets. That's a BIG difference.

The poor are today are certainly "richer" than the poor of 1760, but not in an economically meaningful way. They are richer in a historically meaningful one. Those two should not be conflated. We are certainly less destitute today, but that doesn't mean that we aren't poorer in relation to our rich (which is what we should care about).



Why is that what we should care about? This is the question I keep asking, but no one can seem to answer. You all acknowledge that as this process of wealth concentrating at the top has gone on that the actual quality of life for the poor has increased. So why is this a problem?

It's circular. No one's debating that the rich don't have a larger portion of the total wealth today than say 100 years ago. The question is whether this actually "hurts the poor". You can't just point back at the starting given (the rich having a larger relative portion) as your proof. You need to show me why or how this hurts the poor.

Can you do that?

Edited, Oct 27th 2011 5:55pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#242 Oct 27 2011 at 9:03 PM Rating: Excellent
GBATE!! Never saw it coming
Avatar
****
9,344 posts
gbaji wrote:
Why is that what we should care about? This is the question I keep asking, but no one can seem to answer. You all acknowledge that as this process of wealth concentrating at the top has gone on that the actual quality of life for the poor has increased. So why is this a problem?


I bet the lot of the average French peasant improved between 1600 and 1798.

How did that turn out?
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
Last week, I saw a guy with an eyepatch and a gold monocle and pointed him out to Flea as one of the most awesome things I've seen, ever. If I had an eyepatch and a gold monocle, I'd always dress up as Mr. Peanut but with a hook hand and a parrot.
#243 Oct 28 2011 at 1:59 AM Rating: Good
Avatar
******
29,388 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Why is that what we should care about? This is the question I keep asking, but no one can seem to answer. You all acknowledge that as this process of wealth concentrating at the top has gone on that the actual quality of life for the poor has increased. So why is this a problem?


I bet the lot of the average French peasant improved between 1600 and 1798.
Perhaps up until the famine.


Edit: I'm just saying, it's probably not the best counter example.

Edited, Oct 28th 2011 2:09am by Poldaran
#244varusword75, Posted: Oct 28 2011 at 9:34 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Back on topic...anyone notice how city govn that are controlled by Dems are giving these occupy whacko's a pass while charging the tea party folk for everything they could possibly think of?
#245 Oct 28 2011 at 9:38 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Nope.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#246 Oct 28 2011 at 9:38 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
varusword75 wrote:
Back on topic...anyone notice how city govn that are controlled by Dems are giving these occupy whacko's a pass while charging the tea party folk for everything they could possibly think of?

So, what's your point?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#247 Oct 28 2011 at 9:44 AM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,595 posts
gbaji wrote:
Why is that what we should care about? This is the question I keep asking, but no one can seem to answer. You all acknowledge that as this process of wealth concentrating at the top has gone on that the actual quality of life for the poor has increased. So why is this a problem?


It doesn't matter what you think is a satisfactory lifestyle for peasants to have.

The reality is the 1% gets to decide how much and what part of the pie you get. So, while averagejoe may be able to sustain him/herself on the crumb, they'll never feel satiated knowing that the all the really good stuff in the pie is not being shared with the masses.


____________________________
Alma wrote:
I lost my post
#248 Oct 28 2011 at 9:48 AM Rating: Good
******
20,020 posts
Friar Bijou wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Why is that what we should care about? This is the question I keep asking, but no one can seem to answer. You all acknowledge that as this process of wealth concentrating at the top has gone on that the actual quality of life for the poor has increased. So why is this a problem?


I bet the lot of the average French peasant improved between 1600 and 1798.

How did that turn out?


Just to nitpick, it actually got a lot worse. After they abolished the feudalistic system in favor of a capitalist one, the lords no longer had any obligation to the peasantry. In the previous centuries, they used a system of manorialism--in exchange for protection, law, services, etc. the peasants would provide labor for the lords.

But once the system was gone, all the same taxes survived, but the seigneurs no longer had any legal duty to aid the people. Peasants rapidly fell deeper and deeper into debt, attempting to survive. Even though they could technically change their class (which some people managed to do), the system was such that it would be incredibly difficult to do so.

It's not THAT different from modern America, really, just worse. The only real difference was that the people in the power were necessarily the rich. In America, it's just extremely difficult for someone who isn't rich to gain power.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#249varusword75, Posted: Oct 28 2011 at 1:01 PM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) Elinda,
#250 Oct 28 2011 at 1:56 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
varusword75 wrote:
You people talk about being bi-partisan and want all this "cooperation" among politicians but when it comes to actually treating citizens of a paricular opposing ideology equally then you really couldn't care less how they're treated.

This would make more sense if I ever asked for the Tea Party folks to be tear-gassed and beaten with clubs or whatever.

Quote:
when Obama sends assasination teams to take out americans abroad you shut the h*ll up.

Terrorist lover.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#251 Oct 28 2011 at 2:13 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
34,982 posts
Elinda wrote:
gbaji wrote:
Why is that what we should care about? This is the question I keep asking, but no one can seem to answer. You all acknowledge that as this process of wealth concentrating at the top has gone on that the actual quality of life for the poor has increased. So why is this a problem?


It doesn't matter what you think is a satisfactory lifestyle for peasants to have.


You are correct. But I'm not the one starting out by saying "I think this group of people should get this result" and then arguing that we should change things to make those outcomes happen. All I'm doing is pointing out that even though we use a system which doesn't do this the actual outcomes have still been positive.

I'm countering the argument that the poor are somehow worse off because the rich have a larger slice of the pie. And I'm still waiting for anyone to argue in what way they are without using the circular "but they have a smaller slice of the pie" approach. I'm not the one arguing that the status quo is bad. I'm the one asking people to show me what is "bad" about it.

Quote:
The reality is the 1% gets to decide how much and what part of the pie you get.


No they don't. The 1% doesn't give a fig what part of the pie different groups of people get. That's the problem. YOU care about how large a slice of the pie people get. And this leads you to results which don't jibe with the free market ideas that you earn whatever the value your actions have for others.

Quote:
So, while averagejoe may be able to sustain him/herself on the crumb, they'll never feel satiated knowing that the all the really good stuff in the pie is not being shared with the masses.


Only because you and people like you have chosen to obsess over this and constantly tell averagejoe that he should be upset because even though he's doing well in all the ways that really matter, he should care even more about the fact that some other people have more little pieces of paper with numbers printed on them.

Are you kidding?


Edited, Oct 28th 2011 1:14pm by gbaji
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 2 All times are in CST
Anonymous Guests (2)