Forum Settings
       
Reply To Thread

I Totally Support the Occupy Movement...Follow

#652 Nov 28 2011 at 11:12 AM Rating: Excellent
******
44,511 posts
I ***** about the tax dollars my job wastes. Not like my quitting would eliminate the job and I'm not idiotic enough to give up a sweet gig.
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#653 Nov 28 2011 at 3:16 PM Rating: Excellent
Avatar
****
9,380 posts
police brutality at occupy vancouver protest: http://twitpic.com/7k7b7o
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#654 Nov 28 2011 at 3:23 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
Can't say I would have used the word brutality, but yea, that's not right, at all.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#655 Nov 28 2011 at 3:25 PM Rating: Good
Avatar
****
9,380 posts
I was using irony in the Alanis Morissette sense
____________________________
lolgaxe wrote:
When it comes to sitting around not doing anything for long periods of time, only being active for short windows, and marginal changes and sidegrades I'd say FFXI players were the perfect choice for politicians.

clicky
#656 Nov 28 2011 at 4:16 PM Rating: Default
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,016 posts
These people obviously haven't listened to enough Rage Against the Machine :p

The posts in this thread have more of a chance of changing anything than the Occupy Movement.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#657 Nov 28 2011 at 4:34 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,984 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
These people obviously haven't listened to enough Rage Against the Machine :p

The posts in this thread have more of a chance of changing anything than the Occupy Movement.


Why would you say that? Most people assumed OWS would disappear once it started getting cold, but it hasn't. And it doesn't seem like it will.

And it has a lot of people, ourselves included, talking about it. Regardless of what side you fall on, that new dialogue is a pretty huge change, imo.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#658 Nov 28 2011 at 4:50 PM Rating: Decent
****
5,684 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
These people obviously haven't listened to enough Rage Against the Machine :p

The posts in this thread have more of a chance of changing anything than the Occupy Movement.


Why would you say that? Most people assumed OWS would disappear once it started getting cold, but it hasn't. And it doesn't seem like it will.

And it has a lot of people, ourselves included, talking about it. Regardless of what side you fall on, that new dialogue is a pretty huge change, imo.

except the new dialog is directed more on whether people think OWS is retarded instead of actually discussing ways to fix the economy.
____________________________
Almalieque wrote:
I admit that I was wrong

God bless Lili St. Cyr
#659 Nov 28 2011 at 4:55 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
It hasn't started getting cold yet. Tell us they didn't in mid-January/February.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#660 Nov 28 2011 at 11:00 PM Rating: Decent
Prodigal Son
******
20,043 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
It hasn't started getting cold yet. Tell us they didn't in mid-January/February.

This. It's been near sixty almost all month. If they can survive New York in February, when it's twenty degrees and raining, then I'll start to consider being impressed.
____________________________
publiusvarus wrote:
we all know liberals are well adjusted american citizens who only want what's best for society. While conservatives are evil money grubbing scum who only want to sh*t on the little man and rob the world of its resources.
#661 Nov 28 2011 at 11:01 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
These people obviously haven't listened to enough Rage Against the Machine :p

The posts in this thread have more of a chance of changing anything than the Occupy Movement.


Why would you say that? Most people assumed OWS would disappear once it started getting cold, but it hasn't. And it doesn't seem like it will.

And it has a lot of people, ourselves included, talking about it. Regardless of what side you fall on, that new dialogue is a pretty huge change, imo.

except the new dialog is directed more on whether people think OWS is retarded instead of actually discussing ways to fix the economy.



I dunno Id say its a large number of the representatives of OWS. The values expressed however are what is the point and the core value (the money gap issue) has pretty non-retarded discussion value, there is a lot of ****** **** brought into it too.

The issue with the movement is the lack of any real organization. What it has turned into is a bunch of people sitting in a park, ******** about various ****, but not really doing anything. I don't even know why Canada has an Occupy movement, it makes no sense to me when our country is trucking along and has already surpassed its pre-recession economy. I look at the Occupy Bay Street (I guess, thats where our rich people make money.) movement in Canada with disgust, these people don't have jobs because they don't want them. Alberta and Saskatchewan are screaming for workers, the NWT and NFLD is also looking for workers. Ontario and Quebec are slowly coming around but are married to the economy of the USA more than any other province (Ontario mostly). If the US populous is not spending its money, the the manufacturing sector in these provinces grinds to a halt.

I think the OWS movement is a good thing, it is poorly represented through lack of organization and thus a clear message. I don't think the discussions people have are about that. In fact this various thread has divulged into several economic related discussion covering 2 countries because of the OWS + OBS movements. (although I think OBS is an absolute crock of **** and anyone who genuinely support the Canadian movement is a lazy ****, there is work here you just have to want a job)
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#662Kelvyquayo, Posted: Nov 29 2011 at 12:29 AM, Rating: Sub-Default, (Expand Post) I can't disagree with that. I don't see them as much different than the government in that regard; the government is just more well armed.
#663 Nov 29 2011 at 7:50 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
rdmcandie wrote:
I look at the Occupy Bay Street (I guess, thats where our rich people make money.) movement in Canada with disgust, these people don't have jobs because they don't want them.

The issue behind OWS isn't purely "give us some sort of job" but rather about wealth disparity and the treatment of the working class by the government & corporations (versus the treatment of the upper class and corporate concerns by the same).

How these issues fit into Canadian politics, I won't presume to say but saying "Go here and get a job" misses the larger point.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#664 Nov 29 2011 at 7:58 AM Rating: Excellent
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,320 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Quote:
The issue with the movement is the lack of any real organization. What it has turned into is a bunch of people sitting in a park, ******** about various sh*t, but not really doing anything.


I can't disagree with that. I don't see them as much different than the government in that regard; the government is just more well armed.
Another issue is that anyone who is interviewed who actually, by some miracle, is able to state any specific goals state the following:

-We want businessmen to stop wanting to make so much money
-We want politicians to stop wanting so much power
-We want greedy people to stop being greedy
-We want humans to stop being humans

Yeah, GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!


I think it's:

- we want politicians to stop wanting so much money.
- we want business to stop having so much power
- we want regulations and laws - checks and balance on the system that will hedge against huge economic imbalance created by human greed.

Angry Kelvy's seems not so astute...



Edited, Nov 29th 2011 2:58pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#665 Nov 29 2011 at 9:31 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,984 posts
Bardalicious wrote:
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
These people obviously haven't listened to enough Rage Against the Machine :p

The posts in this thread have more of a chance of changing anything than the Occupy Movement.


Why would you say that? Most people assumed OWS would disappear once it started getting cold, but it hasn't. And it doesn't seem like it will.

And it has a lot of people, ourselves included, talking about it. Regardless of what side you fall on, that new dialogue is a pretty huge change, imo.

except the new dialog is directed more on whether people think OWS is retarded instead of actually discussing ways to fix the economy.


That might be what you are talking about. It certainly isn't what most of the discussions I have overheard consist of. And a dialogue concerning whether or not their demands are valid is still a dialogue.

Debalic wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
It hasn't started getting cold yet. Tell us they didn't in mid-January/February.

This. It's been near sixty almost all month. If they can survive New York in February, when it's twenty degrees and raining, then I'll start to consider being impressed.


November had two weeks of freakish cold, and they didn't clear out. Yeah, a longer spell of freazing weather is going to be difficult, but they are extremely well stocked with food/blankets/etc.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#666 Nov 29 2011 at 9:35 AM Rating: Default
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,016 posts
I'm not angry; I just don't ignore the fact that business, politics, power, and wealth are more tightly woven together as cancer and a pancreas.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#667 Nov 29 2011 at 9:36 AM Rating: Excellent
Elinda wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
Quote:
The issue with the movement is the lack of any real organization. What it has turned into is a bunch of people sitting in a park, ******** about various sh*t, but not really doing anything.


I can't disagree with that. I don't see them as much different than the government in that regard; the government is just more well armed.
Another issue is that anyone who is interviewed who actually, by some miracle, is able to state any specific goals state the following:

-We want businessmen to stop wanting to make so much money
-We want politicians to stop wanting so much power
-We want greedy people to stop being greedy
-We want humans to stop being humans

Yeah, GOOD LUCK WITH THAT!


I think it's:

- we want politicians to stop wanting so much money.
- we want business to stop having so much power
- we want regulations and laws - checks and balance on the system that will hedge against huge economic imbalance created by human greed.

Angry Kelvy's seems not so astute...



Edited, Nov 29th 2011 2:58pm by Elinda
Bless you for nailing on the head.
____________________________
Edited, Mar 21st 2011 2:14pm by Darqflame Lock Thread: Because Lubriderm is silly... ~ de geso

Almalieque wrote:
I know what a glory hole is, but I wasn't sure what the business part was in reference to.

My Anime List
#668 Nov 29 2011 at 10:47 AM Rating: Excellent
*****
19,984 posts
Kelvyquayo wrote:
I'm not angry; I just don't ignore the fact that business, politics, power, and wealth are more tightly woven together as cancer and a pancreas.


I think you are being inherently disingenuous (on a gbaji-esque level) if you are actually going to claim that the people involved in Occupy are ignoring this.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#669 Nov 29 2011 at 10:47 AM Rating: Excellent
Meat Popsicle
*****
12,018 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Alberta and Saskatchewan are screaming for workers, the NWT and NFLD is also looking for workers.


Well yeah, no one wants to live there. Cold weather is cold. Smiley: rolleyes
____________________________
That monster in the mirror, he just might be you. -Grover
#670 Nov 29 2011 at 11:01 AM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Kelvy went from looking for fairies under the azalea bush to bitter disillusionment. Next comes bargaining, depression and finally acceptance.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#671 Nov 29 2011 at 11:21 AM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,136 posts
Elinda wrote:
I think it's:

- we want politicians to stop wanting so much money.
- we want business to stop having so much power
- we want regulations and laws - checks and balance on the system that will hedge against huge economic imbalance created by human greed.

Am I the only person who thinks that numbers 1 and 3 are at odds with each other? "We want government to stop having so much power, and we want to accomplish that by having the government make more laws" seems just a wee bit contradictory.

Before it's mentioned, yes I read the whole original post, and noticed that Elinda clearly tried to differentiate between "power" and "money" in regards to the government. However, to believe that they are mutually exclusive in that area is adorably naive.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#672 Nov 29 2011 at 11:23 AM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
We have more checks and balances in Canada than you do in the US and I'm not sure our government is any more powerful as a result.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#673 Nov 29 2011 at 11:51 AM Rating: Good
*****
19,984 posts
Demea wrote:
Elinda wrote:
I think it's:

- we want politicians to stop wanting so much money.
- we want business to stop having so much power
- we want regulations and laws - checks and balance on the system that will hedge against huge economic imbalance created by human greed.

Am I the only person who thinks that numbers 1 and 3 are at odds with each other? "We want government to stop having so much power, and we want to accomplish that by having the government make more laws" seems just a wee bit contradictory.

Before it's mentioned, yes I read the whole original post, and noticed that Elinda clearly tried to differentiate between "power" and "money" in regards to the government. However, to believe that they are mutually exclusive in that area is adorably naive.


"Lower taxes!" isn't really a rallying cry of OWS. Their concern is primarily that the vast majority of politicians are upper class, which leaves one to wonder if such a gov't can actually properly represent the needs of a population that is primarily middle and lower class.

The only real tax-based objection is that they are largely ****** off that taxes are so high but go to things they don't want them to go to and very little is placed in areas they value.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#674 Nov 29 2011 at 12:01 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Well, and I'll say this is where you can give any "correct" answer since it's not a homogeneous group, but you have people upset that Congress will fight tooth and nail to save the tax cuts on the wealthy and then say there's no money to extend unemployment benefits, job training programs, payroll tax cuts, child care tax credit, etc.

Edited, Nov 29th 2011 12:05pm by Jophiel
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#675 Nov 29 2011 at 12:13 PM Rating: Excellent
Needs More Smut
Avatar
******
20,541 posts
The student population of OWS is more concerned about the lack of future jobs than they are the present unemployment rate.

The baby boomers who have decided to put off retirement for a while because their 401Ks evaporated in 2008 aren't helping that situation.
____________________________
FFXI: Catwho on Bismarck. Once again a top bard on the server: Dardaubla 90 on 1/6/2014
Thayos wrote:
I can't understand anyone who skips the cutscenes of a Final Fantasy game. That's like going to Texas and not getting barbecue.

FFXIV: Katarh Mest on Lamia - Member of The Swarm and leader of Grammarian Tea House chat LS
#676 Nov 29 2011 at 12:25 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
We have more checks and balances in Canada than you do in the US and I'm not sure our government is any more powerful as a result.


We also pay less federal and provincial (state granted not all of them but for the most part) Income taxes too. Take that Uncle Sam.




Edited, Nov 29th 2011 1:27pm by rdmcandie
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#677 Nov 29 2011 at 12:25 PM Rating: Decent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
The student population has the least to worry about out of the last 3 generations when it comes to future jobs. They can suck it up for a few years, which is less than those before them.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#678 Nov 29 2011 at 12:26 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
rdmcandie wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
We have more checks and balances in Canada than you do in the US and I'm not sure our government is any more powerful as a result.


We also pay less federal and provincial Income(state) taxes too. Take that Uncle Sam.


Edited, Nov 29th 2011 1:25pm by rdmcandie
You might, I'm not so sure I do (Provincial).
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#679 Nov 29 2011 at 12:31 PM Rating: Default
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
depends on how much you make obviously but the base rates for most provinces are in line with or less than a lot of states. I think Alberta is the only one that is a flat rate everyone pays regardless of income.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#680 Nov 29 2011 at 12:43 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,320 posts
Demea wrote:
Elinda wrote:
I think it's:

- we want politicians to stop wanting so much money.
- we want business to stop having so much power
- we want regulations and laws - checks and balance on the system that will hedge against huge economic imbalance created by human greed.

Am I the only person who thinks that numbers 1 and 3 are at odds with each other? "We want government to stop having so much power, and we want to accomplish that by having the government make more laws" seems just a wee bit contradictory.

Before it's mentioned, yes I read the whole original post, and noticed that Elinda clearly tried to differentiate between "power" and "money" in regards to the government. However, to believe that they are mutually exclusive in that area is adorably naive.

Power should lay with the government, not the corporations. We don't elect corporate CEO's.

And yes, money and power go hand and hand. That's kind of the problem that needs to be addressed.

How do we keep the powers of governance from being completely bought out by the corporations?

Adorably naive...really Twiz? Smiley: lol

Edited, Nov 29th 2011 7:45pm by Elinda
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#681 Nov 29 2011 at 12:45 PM Rating: Decent
Avatar
****
7,481 posts
get rid of money, and go back to trading services for services.
____________________________
HEY GOOGLE. **** OFF YOU. **** YOUR ******** SEARCH ENGINE IN ITS ******* ****** BINARY ***. ALL DAY LONG.

#682 Nov 29 2011 at 12:55 PM Rating: Excellent
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
Elinda wrote:
How do we keep the powers of governance from being completely bought out by the corporations?
Dictators.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#683 Nov 29 2011 at 1:03 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,320 posts
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Elinda wrote:
How do we keep the powers of governance from being completely bought out by the corporations?
Dictators.

Elected dictators?
____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#684 Nov 29 2011 at 1:03 PM Rating: Default
Imaginary Friend
*****
16,016 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Kelvyquayo wrote:
I'm not angry; I just don't ignore the fact that business, politics, power, and wealth are more tightly woven together as cancer and a pancreas.


I think you are being inherently disingenuous (on a gbaji-esque level) if you are actually going to claim that the people involved in Occupy are ignoring this.


The term "herding cats" comes to mind.
____________________________
With the receiver in my hand..
#685 Nov 29 2011 at 1:05 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
rdmcandie wrote:
get rid of money, and go back to trading "services" for services.

*Wink*wink*
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#686 Nov 29 2011 at 1:22 PM Rating: Good
Soulless Internet Tiger
******
34,765 posts
Elinda wrote:
Uglysasquatch wrote:
Elinda wrote:
How do we keep the powers of governance from being completely bought out by the corporations?
Dictators.

Elected dictators?
The first one, maybe.
____________________________
Donate. One day it could be your family.
Need a hotel at a great rate? More hotels being added weekly.

An invasion of armies can be resisted, but not an idea whose time has come. Victor Hugo

#687 Nov 29 2011 at 1:32 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,136 posts
Elinda wrote:
Power should lay with the government, not the corporations. We don't elect corporate CEO's.
Both of them want to take your money, but only one of them actually has to provide a competitive, valuable service in return (ignoring the larger systemic dependencies of both, of course).

Quote:
And yes, money and power go hand and hand. That's kind of the problem that needs to be addressed.

How do we keep the powers of governance from being completely bought out by the corporations?
You obviously find this a bigger issue than I do, but I don't think the answer includes "24/7 drum circles", "unlawful occupation of public property", or "defacement and destruction of private property".

Quote:
Adorably naive...really Twiz? Smiley: lol
Upon further reflection, "adorably idealistic" might have been nicer, but "willfully naive" more accurate.
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#688 Nov 29 2011 at 1:44 PM Rating: Good
Skelly Poker Since 2008
*****
16,320 posts
Demea wrote:
Elinda wrote:
Power should lay with the government, not the corporations. We don't elect corporate CEO's.
Both of them want to take your money, but only one of them actually has to provide a competitive, valuable service in return (ignoring the larger systemic dependencies of both, of course).

Quote:
And yes, money and power go hand and hand. That's kind of the problem that needs to be addressed.

How do we keep the powers of governance from being completely bought out by the corporations?
You obviously find this a bigger issue than I do, but I don't think the answer includes "24/7 drum circles", "unlawful occupation of public property", or "defacement and destruction of private property".
I don't think OWS is going to solve problems. But maybe it's purpose was/is more to bring the questions out into the public.

I've not actively supported the movement in any way, but I'm not willing to criticize them either. It's a grassroots movement which in and of itself is admirable. But there seems to be some sincere desire among the movement as a whole to try and better the country a bit.

Did they park in your spot?

____________________________
Alma wrote:
Post and be happy!
#689 Nov 29 2011 at 2:47 PM Rating: Decent
Encyclopedia
******
31,948 posts
Elinda wrote:
Power should lay with the government, not the corporations. We don't elect corporate CEO's.

And yes, money and power go hand and hand. That's kind of the problem that needs to be addressed.

How do we keep the powers of governance from being completely bought out by the corporations?


Can we agree that the problem is that you have a government with power, but no inherent profit motive, and private business with profit motive, but no power, but when the two interact the business world will attempt to sway government to rig the rules to make them more money, and the power motive of those in government will take that money if it helps them gain/keep power. Assuming that's more or less the problem, then there's basically two approaches to this:

1. Get the government out of managing the private businesses (ie: free market). If government isn't in a position to regulate in ways which benefits the bottom lines of businesses, then businesses have no profit motive to involve themselves in government.

2. Get the private businesses out of private business (ie: socialism). Take the profit motive out of industry via heavy regulation (or outright direct control). Have government set salaries, cap CEO pay, and otherwise control business to the point where those in the decision making positions no longer have a profit motive to operate on.


Both in theory can eliminate the sort of private/public corruption we're all so aware of. But honestly, I think I'd rather lean towards the first option rather than the second. For a whole slew of reasons.


Isn't this really what this is all about?
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#690 Nov 29 2011 at 3:18 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
1. Get the government out of managing the private businesses (ie: free market). If government isn't in a position to regulate in ways which benefits the bottom lines of businesses, then businesses have no profit motive to involve themselves in government.

Except most people would agree that government should regulate business to some degree so this isn't an honest solution. To be fair, your other solution isn't honest either but this is the one you were promoting.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#691 Nov 29 2011 at 3:37 PM Rating: Good
*****
19,984 posts
Quote:
Can we agree that the problem is that you have a government with power, but no inherent profit motive, and private business with profit motive, but no power, but when the two interact the business world will attempt to sway government to rig the rules to make them more money, and the power motive of those in government will take that money if it helps them gain/keep power.


No, I don't remotely agree that we have a system in which we have businesses with profit motives and no power. I think we have a system in which businesses, with profit motives, have entirely too much power.
____________________________
IDrownFish wrote:
Anyways, you all are horrible, @#%^ed up people

lolgaxe wrote:
Never underestimate the healing power of a massive dong.
#692 Nov 29 2011 at 4:14 PM Rating: Good
Official Shrubbery Waterer
*****
14,136 posts
Elinda wrote:
I don't think OWS is going to solve problems. But maybe it's purpose was/is more to bring the questions out into the public.

I've not actively supported the movement in any way, but I'm not willing to criticize them either. It's a grassroots movement which in and of itself is admirable. But there seems to be some sincere desire among the movement as a whole to try and better the country a bit.

And now we're taking about how drum circles are dumb.

Mission Accomplished, OWS!
____________________________
Jophiel wrote:
I managed to be both retarded and entertaining.

#693 Nov 29 2011 at 4:24 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,948 posts
Jophiel wrote:
gbaji wrote:
1. Get the government out of managing the private businesses (ie: free market). If government isn't in a position to regulate in ways which benefits the bottom lines of businesses, then businesses have no profit motive to involve themselves in government.

Except most people would agree that government should regulate business to some degree so this isn't an honest solution. To be fair, your other solution isn't honest either but this is the one you were promoting.


Leaning towards. Obviously, neither can (should) be taken absolutely. However, I would hope we can agree that this is a pretty clear demarcation in terms of approach to public/private corruption. A liberal will say that the solution is more government regulation. A conservative will say that we need less. Frankly, while I'll freely admit I'm biased here, I just think that it makes a **** of a lot more sense to work to minimize the degree to which government regulates business and thus the degree to which business can profit by lobbying the government than the other way around. It just seems to me that you will only make the problem of businesses using government as a profit methodology worse as you increase government regulation until/unless you push that regulation to a point beyond where I believe most people are comfortable.


I just don't see this as being two equivalent halves of a whole. It's more like a scale with a small amount of government regulation and public/private corruption at one end, with increasing amounts of both of those as you move towards the other, until you reach a point where government regulation effectively destroys the private profit motive and then public/private corruption ends (but you now have a nearly completely government run economy). To me, it's quite obvious that unless we're willing to go that far with government regulation than any increase is simply a step in the wrong direction. We will only make things worse, not better.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#694 Nov 29 2011 at 4:28 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,948 posts
idiggory, King of Bards wrote:
Quote:
Can we agree that the problem is that you have a government with power, but no inherent profit motive, and private business with profit motive, but no power, but when the two interact the business world will attempt to sway government to rig the rules to make them more money, and the power motive of those in government will take that money if it helps them gain/keep power.


No, I don't remotely agree that we have a system in which we have businesses with profit motives and no power. I think we have a system in which businesses, with profit motives, have entirely too much power.


Because they lobby government to pass regulations beneficial to their businesses, right? But what if we limited the governments power to regulate those things in the first place? Wouldn't that *also* reduce the power of the businesses? A business in a free market can't force you to buy its product over its competitors (baring some sort of monopolistic condition, which I agree is a necessary intrusion government should make). But the second you put government in the position of regulating the market, you open exactly that sort of power to the businesses.


It's how GE can lobby the government to put its products on the "green energy" list so that it gains a huge competitive advantage and makes a boatload of money, while getting huge tax breaks. It's not a lack of government regulation which causes this, but too much.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#695 Nov 29 2011 at 4:50 PM Rating: Excellent
That's it? "Stop regulating businesses and they'll stop bribing politicians!"?

HAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha
____________________________
Come on Bill, let's go home
[ffxisig]63311[/ffxisig]
#696 Nov 29 2011 at 5:22 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
Makes sense, right? Consider how politically impotent the Captains of Industry were during the Gilded Age.
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
#697 Nov 29 2011 at 5:28 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,948 posts
Technogeek wrote:
That's it? "Stop regulating businesses and they'll stop bribing politicians!"?

HAhahahahahahahahahahahahahahaha


Perhaps if you stopped the Pavlovian laughter and actually thought about it, you'd find that it's not such an absurd idea. Why would businesses spend any money lobbying government if the government couldn't/wouldn't act in some way to benefit them in return? I'm not joking here.

Here's a neat test: Quick! Think of a monopoly. Baring that, think of a company which we have to regulate to prevent becoming a monopoly (or had to in the past). Got one? Got five? Write the name(s) down.



Now... Did that company operate in a way which required government licensing, land use, application of eminent domain on their behalf, etc? I'm quite sure that you'd have a hard time thinking of any monopoly or near monopoly in the history of the US that wasn't created because of government intervention itself. Either land rights for railroads, licensing/easements for utilities, broadcast licenses for telecoms, or some other similar arrangement. It's hard to look at the history of "bad business" and not see that overwhelmingly it's not a free market which creates such problems, but government intervention which does. Now in some cases, we have no choice. Can't have 50 companies ripping up the street every week to run stuff into people's houses, so we have to grant licenses to companies via geography to operate such things.

And that's why we should do this only to the minimum degree necessary. Going in the direction of more regulation and thinking that it'll somehow reduce the amount of corruption is just insane. It's *because* of the regulations and the profit motive of working around them that the corruption exists in the first place.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#698 Nov 29 2011 at 5:30 PM Rating: Good
******
44,511 posts
I guess if we pretend that Reaganomics didn't lead up to this idiocy ...
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#699 Nov 29 2011 at 5:32 PM Rating: Default
Encyclopedia
******
31,948 posts
lolgaxe wrote:
I guess if we pretend that Reaganomics didn't lead up to this idiocy ...


Are you saying that it did? So we had no corruption between businesses and government until after 1981? Love to see the argument for that one.
____________________________
King Nobby wrote:
More words please
#700 Nov 29 2011 at 5:38 PM Rating: Excellent
******
44,511 posts
gbaji wrote:
So we had no corruption between businesses and government until after 1981?
Is this another example of the liberal tendency to define everything in all-or-nothing terms?
____________________________
George Carlin wrote:
I think it’s the duty of the comedian to find out where the line is drawn and cross it deliberately.
#701 Nov 29 2011 at 5:42 PM Rating: Excellent
Liberal Conspiracy
*******
TILT
gbaji wrote:
Here's a neat test: Quick! Think of a monopoly. Baring that, think of a company which we have to regulate to prevent becoming a monopoly (or had to in the past). Got one? Got five? Write the name(s) down.

Ok. Microsoft.

Quote:
Now... Did that company operate in a way which required government licensing, land use, application of eminent domain on their behalf, etc?

No.

Quote:
I'm quite sure that you'd have a hard time thinking of any monopoly or near monopoly in the history of the US that wasn't created because of government intervention itself.

So, is there a prize I win or something?
____________________________
Belkira wrote:
Wow. Regular ol' Joph fan club in here.
Reply To Thread

Colors Smileys Quote OriginalQuote Checked Help

 

Recent Visitors: 48 All times are in CST
Kavekkk, Samira, TirithRR, Anonymous Guests (45)