Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 66 (9164 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: ChatGPT
Post Volume: Total: 916,472 Year: 3,729/9,624 Month: 600/974 Week: 213/276 Day: 53/34 Hour: 1/2


Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Occupy Wall Street, London and Evereywhere Else
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 94 of 208 (643469)
12-07-2011 9:31 AM
Reply to: Message 92 by onifre
12-07-2011 1:18 AM


Re: Obama Supporters?
McCain's position on the bailouts is highly foresightful and as quoted does indeed chime with the OWS movement. But even taking that into account anyone advocating a progressive tax system, public investment in education health and infrastructure, a reduction in corporate influence and a liberal stance on various social issues is going to struggle to find a reason to ever vote Republican aren't they?
Because historically and currently the predominant Republican philosophy is that of ideological pro-corporate free-marketeering and the belief that government acts as a barrier to, rather than a facilitator of, an environment in which wealth is generated for all in society. Republicans essentially believe in an unrestrained entrepreneurial elite and some form of trickle down economics.
I don’t see how that, no matter what any Republican candidate says on any specific issue, is ever going to resonate with the things the Occupy movement are advocating.
Oni writes:
Ron Paul
I looked this guy up and in terms of the above he seems pretty typically Republican. He even opposed the civil rights act on the basis of it interfering with the free-market in labor.
Wiki writes:
Paul was critical of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, arguing that it sanctioned federal interference in the labor market and did not improve race relations.
Then there are the various more crackpot stances he takes on isolationism and religion etc.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 92 by onifre, posted 12-07-2011 1:18 AM onifre has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 99 of 208 (643479)
12-07-2011 10:48 AM
Reply to: Message 96 by New Cat's Eye
12-07-2011 10:29 AM


CS writes:
So we cannot consider letting some banks fail without considering making every bank fail?
I guess it depends which banks we are talking about. "Too big to fail" is the phrase generally used here.
CS writes:
What kind of flimsy house-of-cards are we talking about?
One that needs radical and deepseated reform. That one of the Occupy movements demands.
CS writes:
I don't see how letting, say, Bank of America fail would mean that my Local Building & Loan would fail as well. Why would everyone pull their money out of their local bank because a corporate one failed?
As I understand it the problem is one of complexity related to derivatives and the fact that no one really knows how much exposure one financial institution has to any given other.
Very few banks were actually left to fail and we still ended up with a credit crunch and recession. What would have occurred if all banks that would have collapsed had just been left to do so? That is the question.
CS writes:
How about this scenario: Joe the Banker opens up a new local bank for people that have left the big corporate ones. Couldn't that work?
Why don't you be "Joe the banker" and let me know what obstacles stand in your way. Starting capital would seem an obvious hurdle.
CS writes:
If there were other banks, tho, then it wouldn't be the problem you're making it to be.
Christ CS I of all people am not advocating bailing out banks for the sake of it or to save the asses of fuckwitted bankers!! I'm saying that if there really is a possibility of complete financial paralysis, extreme almost overnight economic contraction leading to depression and the complete collapse of the economic system as a whole - Then bailing out banks is a less worse option.
If a given bank can definitely fail without causing even greater adverse consequences then - absolutely - let it go.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 96 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-07-2011 10:29 AM New Cat's Eye has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 108 of 208 (643537)
12-07-2011 6:01 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by New Cat's Eye
12-07-2011 3:10 PM


Re: If you have any doubts or questions about the Occupy Movement - go visit one
CS writes:
I'm not anti-OWS at all, let alone "very"...
I asked a lot of questions. And they got answered.
Given what you have heard - Are you now pro the Occupy movement?
If not what is it that you disagree with?
You are almost certainly one of the much fabled 99% so in what sense do you disagree with the Occupy aims?
I am genuinely interested to hear from a conservatively inclined but not entirely lunatic person such as yourself...

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-07-2011 3:10 PM New Cat's Eye has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 109 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-08-2011 10:17 AM Straggler has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


Message 180 of 208 (644898)
12-21-2011 1:15 PM
Reply to: Message 176 by Artemis Entreri
12-21-2011 11:02 AM


Re: what a joke
AE writes:
WE ARE THE 99%
Indeed you are. Whatever you think of the protestors you can't really fault them on grounds of exclusivity.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 176 by Artemis Entreri, posted 12-21-2011 11:02 AM Artemis Entreri has not replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 194 of 208 (648114)
01-13-2012 9:36 AM
Reply to: Message 193 by DC85
01-13-2012 12:01 AM


Re: Adendum ... II
DC writes:
it's getting to the point that the issues brought up are mainstream talking points.
I agree. Here in the UK we have a conservative prime-minister declaring that boardroom pay is out of control and reflects a "market failure" that is the result of "crony capitalism" and which needs to be addressed.
It's difficult to establish any direct link but I think that the occupy movement and other such protests have definitely brought these things to the fore and made politicians who would otherwise be championing market forces as the be-all-and-end-all take note of people's rising frustration and discontent.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 193 by DC85, posted 01-13-2012 12:01 AM DC85 has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 196 by DC85, posted 01-13-2012 8:33 PM Straggler has replied

  
Straggler
Member
Posts: 10333
From: London England
Joined: 09-30-2006


(1)
Message 199 of 208 (648336)
01-14-2012 5:04 PM
Reply to: Message 196 by DC85
01-13-2012 8:33 PM


Re: Adendum ... II
DC writes:
That's wonderful.
It's good that even a conservative politician feels the need to accept the legitimate public feeling on this issue to at least the extent of making PR proclamations on the issue. I think the Occupy movement can claim some credit in getting the issue to that level of awareness. But I wouldn't get too carried away. Cameron's proclamations are no doubt somewhat superficial and band wagon inspired.
David Cameron didn't go into politics to tackle the market failures in top pay. Indeed his party is significantly funded by these people and ideologically tied to a variety of policies that support the status quo. So we'll see what actually happens.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 196 by DC85, posted 01-13-2012 8:33 PM DC85 has not replied

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024