Occupy Wall Street: Not on major media but worth watching!

[SpasticGramps]

We have laws and regulations against fraud. They just are never upheld by the institutions mandated to do so because they are corrupted beyond all repair. Piling on more laws and regulations that inhibit the 99% and will only continued to ignored by the .001% when convenient isn't going to solve much, but rather have negative consequences IMO.

Higher civil damages would be nice, but if someone robs a bank they go to jail. When the banks rob you nothing happens. Trillions was wiped out. Trillions more stand to get wiped out in the European sovereign debt bubble. There should be a lot of people in jail. There are none of consequence. If we as a collective society cannot purge systemic fraud and the criminals which allow it to continue then we are lost.

John Corzine will probably get his own reality show.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

We have laws and regulations against fraud. They just are never upheld by the institutions mandated to do so because they are corrupted beyond all repair.

Here's where I get a little cynical when it sounds like a broken system is being blamed for inactions (it's apparently too broken to fix?) We can reasonably assume that something broken might not work the way it once did.

Statistics don't reveal a static response to the crimes of the 1%. We have historic trends. I wouldn't have initially pointed this out but the trend appears to follow ideology in one direction and 20/20 hindsight in the (direct) opposite direction.

(Legit) corporations are judged more by respective bottom lines and less by their individual actions. If they turn a legit profit they're largely accepted. Even the ones that struggle are admired for getting their acts together and turning profits.

In contrast, the perspective changes with government. Some resist looking at the cumulative benefits vs expenditures. Where business is admired for investing in it's long term stability, government is condemned.

Piling on more laws and regulations that inhibit the 99% and will only continued to ignored by the .001% when convenient isn't going to solve much, but rather have negative consequences IMO.

I get the impression that something else is being ignored - like the fact the regulation pile is smaller, not larger. Going after these white-collar crooks requires laws, not perspective. Laws that used to define and mitigate actions as punishable crimes were largely deregulated. It's no accident that key laws were removed.

We have to better manage campaign contributions. When we better mitigate the special interest, we have the opportunity to better serve the public interest.

Higher civil damages would be nice, but if someone robs a bank they go to jail. When the banks rob you nothing happens.

Enter the deregulation of almost 60 years of management and

Trillions was wiped out.

They'd have never had this (now legal) chance if laws hadn't been removed.

Trillions more stand to get wiped out in the European sovereign debt bubble. There should be a lot of people in jail. There are none of consequence. If we as a collective society cannot purge systemic fraud and the criminals which allow it to continue then we are lost.

Enter reform that re institutes the laws necessary to mitigate transgressions.

John Corzine will probably get his own reality show.

In a managed system, we won't necessarily have to distinguish between political or former-lawmaker status.

 

[dagnabit]

they would have never taken the gamble unless they knew regulation mitigated their risk.....

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

they would have never taken the gamble unless they knew regulation mitigated their risk.....

Sounds like an argument for regulation.

 

[dagnabit]

im for regulation.

ive postulated effective,enforceable regulation several times in this thread.
but "regulation" is also what got us into this mess.

it's a dual edged sword when regulation is no longer used to prevent wrongdoing and it is used as an engineering tool. Both for social change and market management.
the government uses "regulation" to pick winners and losers or to try to address some social ill.
every regulation begets some unintended or unforeseen consequence as they are added to and subtracted from by politicians who are wholly owned subsidiaries of their parent corporation.
so "regulation" as we know it no longer serves the people it serves the guys that own the Ds and Rs.
to suggest the fox's pet chicken hawks should write the regulation that protects the eggs is laughable.
we have hundreds of thousands of pages of financial regulations.(just a sample http://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutftb/manuals/audit/bank/bankfront.pdf ) very little of it serves the people.
what recent "regulation" did for us in the mid '90s was create the moral hazard that allowed GS(et al)to take the gamble they would never have taken.
but for it

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

im for regulation.

ive postulated effective,enforceable regulation several times in this thread.
but "regulation" is also what got us into this mess.

it's a dual edged sword when regulation is no longer used to prevent wrongdoing and it is used as an engineering tool. Both for social change and market management.
the government uses "regulation" to pick winners and losers or to try to address some social ill.

I think you're mixing the two basic fundamentals of regulations and subsidies.

every regulation begets some unintended or unforeseen consequence as they are added to and subtracted from by politicians who are wholly owned subsidiaries of their parent corporation.

Sorry. Subjective never quantifies.

so "regulation" as we know it no longer serves the people it serves the guys that own the Ds and Rs.

Sounds like an argument for reform.

to suggest the fox's pet chicken hawks should write the regulation that protects the eggs is laughable.

agreed

we have hundreds of thousands of pages of financial regulations.(just a sample http://www.ftb.ca.gov/aboutftb/manuals/audit/bank/bankfront.pdf ) very little of it serves the people.
what recent "regulation" did for us in the mid '90s was create the moral hazard that allowed GS(et al)to take the gamble they would never have taken.
but for it

So much for momentarily leaning toward relevance.

 

[bombadil.360]

I think a system can be designed to cater to some and leave others in a bad situation, on purpose, with intent, inescapable.

Yeah when it comes down to it people are the ones doing these actions, however current systems are designed and are controlled by people unknown... meaning the system is part of the problem, weather you like it or not, it is helping get evil done.



^This is an absolute statement, kind like "Power corrupts"

I believe we can gain from statements like this, however I also believe that this sidesteps actual introspection; we just accept, "yeah we suck!" "We totally can't handle power!!!" Then proceed to give all the power to 3 people forgetting PEOPLE ARE CORRUPTED BY IT LOL


I agree people suck right NOW, but I think we have a bright future

Cant use the system, need to dismantle, maybe someone has other ideas?

this really comes down to what is it you are refering to as 'the system' and what I am refering.

to me, the system is good and it could work if people were not so prone to abuse it; the system allows good works to obtain value; what you do with such value is up to you since we live in a free society up to a point. we cannot really be completely free anyway, since we need to work to obtain the basic needs and wants that our biological organism imposes upon us, just a fact of life.

the current systems were designed by known people btw, and they are not controlled by the 'illuminaty' nor any other childish assumption of the sort; don't underestimate the power of communal idiocy; just look out the window of any city and you will see its results.

no need to conjure up pseudo-mystical scape-goats to justify the general stupidity of people.

I like your optimism about the future and people not sucking as much as they do today; even if I see the younger generations addicted to shallow-living way more than in my generation, which as it is, was already pretty shallow.

as I see it now, in Science and Religion, there's more rise of blind extreme dogmatism; in politics, well, don't get me started. in the arts, music etc... what do kids listen to these days?

and no, it is not the illuminaty making kids listen to shitty music and follow after clothing brands, it is each individuals' personal choices that shapes each individual into the plastic shallow humanoid of today.

end rant

peace to you and yours

 

[dagnabit]

I think you're mixing the two basic fundamentals of regulations and subsidies.

nope..
i think the concept might be beyond you.

Sorry. Subjective never quantifies.

it's in the context.
the regulation creates the moral hazrd

Sounds like an argument for reform.

goddamn right!

agreed

so why do you argue the opposite so much?

So much for momentarily leaning toward relevance.

yes because discussing the ramifications of regulation is irrelevant to a discussion concerning regulation?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

nope..
i think the concept might be beyond you.

Regulation and subsidy aren't the same thing.

it's in the context.
the regulation creates the moral hazrd

In the context of (?) value. In the absence of value, hip shots are subjective. Be objective and quantify.

goddamn right!


so why do you argue the opposite so much?

Because you mix (and split) soooooooooooo many things so unconventionally.

yes because discussing the ramifications of regulation is irrelevant to a discussion concerning regulation?

Only when you fail to distinguish one from the other.

From the crowd that says compromise is weakness comes the idea that the (now) unlocked, open door isn't deregulated. The (now) unlocked, open door merely has further regulation on top of the closed door and lock (that no longer applies).

Like the supply-side narrative that disguises starve-the-beast intent, there's something unsaid from those advocating reform yet appearing to oppose exactly that.

 

[bombadil.360]

Fanning the fears of communism is funnier than Hydro's assigned reading lessons.

the problem is that although communism/socialism may sound like a good system in theory, its application is nearly impossible when we consider the nature of humans; even kibbutzism have privatized because of abuses of such systems; there's always the big bunch that put only the very minimal work to receive full benefits; but that way any system fails since to make things work we need to put in the necessary amount of work, not just the very minimum, so as to ride on the backs of those who are in fact putting in the work it really takes to make things move.

the best warnings against communism for today are venezuela and cuba, see how the 'ruling class of socialists' live, compare how the working classes live; make up your own mind, see where is the social justice there? by comparisson, the social justice of such systems is virtually non-existence when compared to the U.S, even with all the social inequality the U.S has atm.

in venezuela and cuba, the ruling socialst class are very truly rich, and everyone else is equally truly poor, that's 'their equality', everyone equally fucked and unable to work since work is 'evil' and 'imperialistic', go figure...

 

[dagnabit]

Regulation and subsidy aren't the same thing.

i know...

In the context of (?) value. In the absence of value, hip shots are subjective. Be objective and quantify.

i did..
in the post you dissected silly...
funny you demand quantification.
how many posts of yours do you think i could dig up where you refuse to quantify?

regardless i did quantify.

Because you mix (and split) soooooooooooo many things so unconventionally.

sorry i don't think as simply as you...

Only when you fail to distinguish one from the other.

what?

From the crowd that says compromise is weakness comes the idea that the (now) unlocked, open door isn't deregulated. The (now) unlocked, open door merely has further regulation on top of the closed door and lock (that no longer applies).

what crowd?
the entire crowd are owned...
you still believe there is a red or blue...
how quaint

Like the supply-side narrative that disguises starve-the-beast intent, there's something unsaid from those advocating reform yet appearing to oppose exactly that.

we don't want no supply side...
forget the WPA,TVA and hoover dam..

another one of those times you are out of your depth methinks.
the party got your head all twisted or something.


honestly how the hell did you get to subsidies?

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

... the best warnings against communism for today are venezuela and cuba, see how the 'ruling class of socialists' live, compare how the working classes live; make up your own mind, see where is the social justice there? by comparisson, the social justice of such systems is virtually non-existence when compared to the U.S, even with all the social inequality the U.S has atm.

in venezuela and cuba, the ruling socialst class are very truly rich, and everyone else is equally truly poor, that's 'their equality', everyone equally fucked and unable to work since work is 'evil' and 'imperialistic', go figure...

And now, the top 10 wealth-disparate nations on the planet***

Number 10..... New Zealand

Number 9........Australia

Number 8....... Italy

Number 7....... United Kingdom

Number 6....... Portugal

Number 5....... Israel

Number 4........United States

Number 3........Turkey

Number 2........Mexico

And the Number 1 wealth-disparate nation on earth is

Chile, the CIA test-bed of Friedman utopia.
***according to The Organization For Economic Co-Operation And Development

BTW, Venezuela is #97 and Cuba is #167.

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

...we don't want no supply side...
forget the WPA,TVA and hoover dam..

You realize that not one person on the planet makes this conceptual bastardization other than you.

 

[dagnabit]

You really are laughable...

 

[U4ic]

This whole thread is laughable....

 

[dagnabit]

the whole "movement" is laughable

 

[onegreenday]

Chavez is changing things in Venezuela and the people love him.

Can't use Cuba as an example cause USA embargo on them for decades.

USA Socialism is hypothetical / theoretical since we have no power to change the
'entrenched' government.

and Amerika is not Cuba or Venezuela.

WE/ USA can make socialism anything we want ,

when we get the POWER back!

Obama is an actor really presenting the 'entrenched' government actions/ideas in a manner/speech that is palatable to most people.

An election is an Acadamy Awards for politicians,
since we know it's an act.

93 US Senators just crapped on the Constitution
the other day.

Jimmy Hendrix once said politicians only had 'the art of words'
meaning no substance; just words.....

the problem is that although communism/socialism may sound like a good system in theory, its application is nearly impossible when we consider the nature of humans; even kibbutzism have privatized because of abuses of such systems; there's always the big bunch that put only the very minimal work to receive full benefits; but that way any system fails since to make things work we need to put in the necessary amount of work, not just the very minimum, so as to ride on the backs of those who are in fact putting in the work it really takes to make things move.

the best warnings against communism for today are venezuela and cuba, see how the 'ruling class of socialists' live, compare how the working classes live; make up your own mind, see where is the social justice there? by comparisson, the social justice of such systems is virtually non-existence when compared to the U.S, even with all the social inequality the U.S has atm.

in venezuela and cuba, the ruling socialst class are very truly rich, and everyone else is equally truly poor, that's 'their equality', everyone equally fucked and unable to work since work is 'evil' and 'imperialistic', go figure...

 

[onegreenday]

http://sfbayview.com/2011/tea-parties-and-occupy-protests/

Tea parties and Occupy protests
November 9, 2011
Powered by Translate

by Mumia Abu-Jamal


As the Occupy Wall Street movement gains steam and inspires similar protests worldwide, defenders of the so-called Tea Party have decried the Occupation activists as “law breakers,” “radicals” and even “un-American” – unlike themselves, of course.

One imagines that such objections, coming from Tea Partiers, are meant to contrast them not only from themselves, but from the original groups of Americans who made the term tea party history.

In this version, they were nice, law-abiding folk, engaged in a little, oh, patriotic disagreement. Suffice it to say, it didn’t exactly happen that way.

The late great historian, Howard Zinn, in his groundbreaking “A Peoples History of the United States: 1492-Present” (Perennial Classics: 2003), recounts the Boston Tea Party as a great event not only of rebellion, but law-breaking. Imagine the worth of crates of imported tea, broken into and tossed into the Boston harbor. The property of local merchants – destroyed. Why? Because of the taxes added on, which made Americans angry at such high prices for something they considered a staple. It was also a thumb in the eye of the British.

The British government responded to this provocation by passing Parliament’s Coercive Acts. They closed down Boston’s port, dissolved the local colonial government and brought in armed troops, virtually establishing martial law (Zinn 67).

Now – which contemporary group more closely resembles their American ancestors? The Tea Party or Occupy Wall Street?

And lest we miss the big lesson, women played a pivotal role in these protests as well. John Adams’ wife, Abigail, wrote of a “coffee party” led by nearly 100 women, who, angry at the high coffee prices at a Boston store, marched down to the warehouse and demanded the “stingy” merchant surrender his keys.

When he refused, Adams writes: “Upon which one of them seized him by his neck and tossed him into the cart. Upon his finding no quarter, he delivered the keys when they tipped up the cart and discharged him; then opened the warehouse, hoisted out the coffee themselves, put it into the trunks and drove off. A large concourse of men stood amazed, silent spectators of the whole transaction” (Zinn 110).

“Law-breakers?” “Radicals?” “Un-American?” Well, they broke the law, certainly, for, during colonial days, English law ruled. Were they radicals? Probably.

Were they un-American? They destroyed private property. They reacted to the rich getting richer by looting their warehouses.

Sounds pretty American to me.
The OCCUPATION

by Mumia Abu-Jamal

In Lower Manhattan’s Zucotti Park – renamed ‘Liberty Square’ by the demonstrators – the cast of thousands swell in rebellion against the betrayals by the banks, Wall Street’s relentless greed, the plague of joblessness and the craven servility of the political class – both Republicans and Democrats – to their moneyed masters.

In short, the central focus of their protest is capitalism – greed writ large, especially since the economic tumble of fall 2008.

Begun mostly by unemployed youth, it has drawn the presence and support of public workers, urban youth, students, teachers and a considerable number of gray hairs.

That’s because social discontent is so widespread that it is spreading like wildfire: Wall Street and then, days later, Boston, Baltimore, Philadelphia, Los Angeles and beyond. Demonstrations springing up like mushrooms after a storm in protest to the crony capitalism brought to us by the professional sellouts called politicians.

And, like vampires at a blood bank, politicians are descending on Wall Street to try to suck the life out of a movement that could threaten their monopoly on power. For politicians’ only interest in this protest is to exploit it, to weaken it, while they continue to serve the very bosses the protestors oppose. You can count the number of politicians who truly oppose Wall Street on one hand [one of them, John Avalos, holds second place in the race for San Francisco mayor – ed.] – and still have a few fingers left.

Perhaps America’s greatest white revolutionary, abolitionist John Brown, had little regard for politicians. He told his family: A professional politician you never could trust; for even if he had convictions, he was always ready to sacrifice his principles for his advantage.”

Think about that. Now think about every politician you know.

See?

This is People’s Power, sparked in part by the mass protests in Cairo and Wisconsin. Other sparks were the Troy Davis injustice, the assault on several demonstrators by New York cops, the repression on the poor and working class by the political class, and discontent with the long, wasted years at mindless wars abroad.

This is people’s power.

May it remain so.

Sources: W. E. B. DuBois, “John Brown: A Biography.” Armonk,NY/London:M. E. Sharpe, 1997 p.83.; Robert Wells, “Passing Through to the Territory,” manuscript of a historical novel extending the life and times of Huck Finn, Jim – and John Brown! forthcoming in 2011-12, p.224.

© Copyright 2011 Mumia Abu-Jamal. Read Mumia’s latest book, “Jailhouse Lawyers: Prisoners Defending Prisoners v. the U.S.A.,” available from City Lights Publishing, www.citylights.com or (415) 362-8193. Keep updated at www.freemumia.com. For Mumia’s commentaries, visit www.prisonradio.org. For recent interviews with Mumia, visit www.blockreportradio.com. Encourage the media to publish and broadcast Mumia’s commentaries and interviews. Send our brotha some love and light at: Mumia Abu-Jamal, AM 8335, SCI-Greene, 175 Progress Dr., Waynesburg PA 15370.

 

[Hydro-Soil]

The system cannot regulate the individual without extreme inefficiency and corruption.

Support for the individual comes from the community. Anything beyond the community becomes extremely inefficient and ripe for corruption.

Support for a system that tries to tell people how they're supposed to act is folly. The majority of our issues arise from regulation that is completely unnecessary and contrary to a productive society.

Raise your hand if you know all 6 million+ federal laws, by-laws, regulations and whatnot? Yeah. Thought so. WTF People?

More Education, Less Regulation.

Stay Safe!

 

[DiscoBiscuit]

The system cannot regulate the individual without extreme inefficiency and corruption.

Where's your assigned readings to verify the claim?

Support for the individual comes from the community. Anything beyond the community becomes extremely inefficient and ripe for corruption.

Pay your damn taxes already, you whiny baby.

Support for a system that tries to tell people how they're supposed to act is folly. The majority of our issues arise from regulation that is completely unnecessary and contrary to a productive society.

Oh snap, you said society like a Commie bastard.

Raise your hand if you know all 6 million+ federal laws, by-laws, regulations and whatnot? Yeah. Thought so. WTF People?

More Education, Less Regulation.

Stay Safe!

Oh my gawd, regulated is relegated to memory only. Sounds like more home schooling - and more dumb asses.