http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2012/04/ows-may-day-nyc-protests-solidary-march.html Super Dude says: I fell off the Occupy bandwagon a long, long time ago, although I think this whole "taking ourselves out of the economy" deal sounds pretty good as far as principles go. More power to 'em I guess, although I'm not gonna throw in my own support, at least not actively.
Honestly all I see is a bunch of whiners wanting a free hand out. Bitching about money, but doing things that will prevent a progression of their lively hoods? Yeah....that'll teach the "1%"....
It's not about a hand-out...but the shitty thing is that they are right. If America didn't buy shit for one day there will be some rich people jumping out of tall buildings. But you can't get a nation filled with struggling people to say "Let's risk our lively hood so we can stick it to the man that helps/fucks our lively hood"
I will say something just to get things out into the open: I am the 1%. I went with my family and girlfriend on a beautiful Caribbean cruise over the winter. However, it is ludicrously obvious that this country is broken and that the current system is highly unfair. It may not be in my interest to support greater economic fairness personally, but I do believe it's in everyone's interest to fix this thing. In a word, I think it's simply the right thing to do.
I will admit that there's a lot of things going on that benefit the ultra wealthy. However when people blame all corporations and CEO's it becomes asinine and nothing more than generalization by people looking for someone to blame. That method of thinking won't solve a damn thing, just cause class warfare.
Whoever is poor, here's a tip: Stop being poor. Yes, stop, no, quit your bitching and stop being poor. It's easy. Step one: Stop being poor. Step two: Stop being poor. Step three: Don't be poor. Step four: Be rich. Step five: Profit. See this is extremely easy advice, all you have to do is stop being poor. Sincerely, a very rich guy. 1% for life.
Alright, I mean it's useless and asinine to blame all corporations and rich folks, but that doesn't change the fact that corporations and rich folks worthy of blame abound in this country.
It's not about being poor. Whether you're rich or poor, you must be blind to not see that the system needs a big change.
Sounds like something straight out of Fox News. "Class warfare" is a scare word invented by people who use money to buy politicians, to discourage the complaining of people who notice that people are using money to buy politicians. It's a guilt trick by the rich to prevent anyone noticing that they were the first to start class warfare. Really, using buzzwords and scare phrases as an argument here is pretty weak sauce, there. If you were paying attention, you'd notice that voting in an election doesn't mean squat anymore. All of your choices have been bought out. We live in a plutocracy now.
I was being facetious. I'm surprised it had to be pointed out. By the way, if you're poor stop it and be rich! Easy as one two there. Being serious. Vriska said it well.
Inequality is necessary for a healthy economy. But what we have now is inequality combined with unfairness. It's not a level playing field. Government creates this unfairness by working with corporations to stifle the poor. With a fair economy, the 99% are able to work their way up the ladder through hard work and determination with zero restrictions and nothing preventing them from realizing their goals. The way it is now, unfortunately, doesn't allow the lower class to do that thanks to all the regulations and laws and red tape. Government creates class warfare, and it creates a much weaker economy as a result of holding the poor back.
I was with you until you started going on about all the regulations and red tape. Yes, government creates unfairness by allowing corporations to do whatever they want, but the solution isn't less government, it should be better governance. In essence, it should be about the government working against corporations rather than with them. Or at least not willingly taking their shit as is the current status quo. After all, the only thing lowering regulations will do is make it easier for corporations to get away with shit they're already doing by bribing off folks.
you also forgot larger competitors smashing the smaller ones because they have better lawyers, using laws that they themselves pushed through congress. The dragon is at least two-headed. You repeatedly address the danger of government but does nothing to address the dangers created by the rich aristocracy. You fail to realize that government creates class warfare because it is controlled by the wealthy. Bingo. I think a proper government would be a part of a checks and balances system between themselves, the rich aristocracy, and the majority masses. Giving too much power to any single part will destroy the country. Same about minimizing it.
Right. But government is the device that makes all of it possible. Without government, there are no laws and regulations that make it possible for the rich to run the nation through force. Corporations would be subject to actual competition and wouldn't be protected by regulations that they bought that make it impossible for any other companies to compete. Without government, the companies that are the best adaptable towards consumers will be the richest. There won't be regulations or bailouts that protect failing businesses and keep them at the top like we have now. Obviously a proper government with angelic, incorruptible, unbiased, and trustworthy politicians would most likely work. Humans don't fit that criteria, though. There will always be a corruptness to it that brings power to the people who can take advantage of it. There will always be people who are submitted to force against their will.
Are you suggesting anarchy? Government is a necessary evil, so we just can't scratch that off and think everything will be peachy keen. It is the case that there is no perfect solution, so we have to work with what we got. It doesn't mean the idea of government isn't inherently flawed, it may just mean that a country's founders just didn't get everything right on the first try (in the USA's case, 2nd try). They're only human. There are powers that they did not consider in the country's creation or the future in general, and so they are not balanced. The forces aren't being played against each other, some forces are joining together (ie, the aristocrats and the gov't) and stepping on everyone else's toes. This means the rules need to be changed, not necessarily that players need to be removed.
They don't need government in order to be powerful, that's why the rich are running the government, not the other way around. And to the second bit: the same can be said about corporations, except I can say with absolute certainty that corporations are never angelic or incorruptible, whereas a government can always aspire to these qualities and brought closer to them by democratic governance.