|
Post by Sock on Oct 11, 2011 14:45:14 GMT -5
Like I said, the main thing uniting the Wall Street protesters is that they all want to change the giant gap between the wealthy and the poor in this country. How to go about doing it is another matter entirely.
|
|
|
Post by Jo on Oct 11, 2011 14:49:54 GMT -5
Like I said, the main thing uniting the Wall Street protesters is that they all want to change the giant gap between the wealthy and the poor in this country. How to go about doing it is another matter entirely. But surely how to go about doing it is THE main point? XD I'm sure the government want to reduce the gap- I doubt they sit about all day thinking "How can we make it so that everyone in our country except the top 1% is at a disadvantage?". So it seems to me pretty silly to stand around waiting for some 'magic cure' to end the wealth divide, which is a huge problem that every country suffers from, when nobody at the protest even seems to agree on how that should happen.
|
|
|
Post by Cow-winkle on Oct 11, 2011 15:37:31 GMT -5
I doubt they sit about all day thinking "How can we make it so that everyone in our country except the top 1% is at a disadvantage?". A lot of people aren't aware of this inequality, and many of those who do, including a few of the posters on this thread, seem to think that it's a good thing. I think going from "There's no problem at all!" to "There's a problem, but we don't know how to solve it" would be an improvement. That's just ridiculous, though. A corporation is a corporation. It solely exists to make money--not to give people jobs or whatever they want. That is the entire point and purpose of a corporation. I do agree that government needs to change it's relationship with business and stay out of it when not necessary. And no, most government involvement in business is not necessary and only compounds and creates all the problems therein. Corporate greed is the profit motive. Without that motive, there is no point in doing any business. And then everyone suffers. The fact that the profit motive can lead to good things doesn't justify the many unethical things that corporations do to get profits. There are plenty of economic incentives to do destructive things, with or without the government's involvement. I'm hoping that you're not suggesting that anything a corporation does for profit is, by definition, a good thing. When corporations are as big a force as they are in our society, they can't just be allowed to do whatever they want. We're not living in a system of perfect competition, with a bunch of small firms where no one business can affect prices, wages or benefits -- if such a system is even possible outside the minds of armchair theorists. Corporations have a lot of power, and there have to be some rules as to how they exert it.
|
|
|
Post by Sock on Oct 11, 2011 16:06:54 GMT -5
I doubt they sit about all day thinking "How can we make it so that everyone in our country except the top 1% is at a disadvantage?". A lot of people aren't aware of this inequality, and many of those who do, including a few of the posters on this thread, seem to think that it's a good thing. I think going from "There's no problem at all!" to "There's a problem, but we don't know how to solve it" would be an improvement. This. And honestly, I'd say very few political movements say "We want this, and this, and this, right now!". The whole point of political movements, most of the time, is to get people talking and then to create a domino effect for meaningful change. I can't see how that's a bad thing, even if they don't have a concrete "this is what the government needs to do" sort of plan. If nothing else, it's getting people talking about it.
|
|
|
Post by Sq on Oct 11, 2011 16:10:34 GMT -5
A lot of people aren't aware of this inequality, and many of those who do, including a few of the posters on this thread, seem to think that it's a good thing. I think going from "There's no problem at all!" to "There's a problem, but we don't know how to solve it" would be an improvement. This. And honestly, I'd say very few political movements say "We want this, and this, and this, right now!". The whole point of political movements, most of the time, is to get people talking and then to create a domino effect for meaningful change. I can't see how that's a bad thing, even if they don't have a concrete "this is what the government needs to do" sort of plan. If nothing else, it's getting people talking about it. Yeah, there's no way some magical solution is going to be thought of overnight. A democratic process takes time and patience. A true resolution may never even be reached. The important part is people are taking steps toward finding solutions.
|
|
|
Post by Stal on Oct 11, 2011 16:29:18 GMT -5
I did say necessary laws, after all. But as someone that works within a corporation--not very high on the totem, either--and knowing plenty of others that do, most government involvement really does make things worse. SOX, for example (Sarbanes-Oxley) is one of the dumbest pieces of legislation written. It creates a headache for everyone. Why? Because it was written by politicians and people who don't understand business. The aims were fine and necessary. The application is terrible.
Everytime a regulation is devised, you're creating more burdens (often completely unnecessary) for the company and creating even more problems that the regulation was intended to solve to begin with.
Mandated wealth redistribution ("closing the wealth gap") is tantamount to thievery. I have no respect for that position or demands. In the end it's just people that believe they have a right to something that isn't theirs or doesn't belong to them.
No, not everything that's done for a profit is good. But the more burdensome you make that goal, the less people are to care to try and succeed and achieve. Perfect competition may not exist, but socialist ideals and government involvement still stunt the business world and successes.
The corporations aren't the problem. The problem is people that feel entitled to stuff they haven't earned or really don't have a given right to. That and the massive speeding and unsustainable lifestyles of people who don't live in their means.
Again, all I see with Occupy Wallstreet is unrestrained personal greed and entitlement. They phrase it in high-sounding ideals, but it's greed and entitlement all the same. Plus what looks to be hatred for those that do succeed. "Four legs good, two legs bad"
|
|
|
Post by Jo on Oct 11, 2011 16:36:10 GMT -5
This. And honestly, I'd say very few political movements say "We want this, and this, and this, right now!". The whole point of political movements, most of the time, is to get people talking and then to create a domino effect for meaningful change. I can't see how that's a bad thing, even if they don't have a concrete "this is what the government needs to do" sort of plan. If nothing else, it's getting people talking about it. Yeah, there's no way some magical solution is going to be thought of overnight. A democratic process takes time and patience. A true resolution may never even be reached. The important part is people are taking steps toward finding solutions. But it seems to me Occupy Wall Street is very much about "We want this, and we want it now!" It seems like the people protesting expect to see change come about in just a matter of days. And I hardly see how doing this protest is taking a useful step towards any sort of solution. All the people are doing is demanding the government close the wealth divide, without stating how this should be done.
|
|
|
Post by Sock on Oct 11, 2011 17:16:19 GMT -5
Yeah, there's no way some magical solution is going to be thought of overnight. A democratic process takes time and patience. A true resolution may never even be reached. The important part is people are taking steps toward finding solutions. But it seems to me Occupy Wall Street is very much about "We want this, and we want it now!" It seems like the people protesting expect to see change come about in just a matter of days. And I hardly see how doing this protest is taking a useful step towards any sort of solution. All the people are doing is demanding the government close the wealth divide, without stating how this should be done. It's not terribly motivational for a protest to say "we want this sometime!". :P It's taking a useful step by getting people to talk about these things and discuss solutions.
|
|
|
Post by Deleted on Oct 14, 2011 11:41:59 GMT -5
So, guys, this weekend I'll be visiting New York City and I'm thinking of interviewing both protesters and policemen. The suggested questions have come from a couple history teachers and friends, including a libertarian who's particularly critical of the movement. My current list may be sufficient, but I'd like to see if there are better questions to add and some lame questions to nix. What is the highest degree you have received? (High School, GED, Bachelor's, Master's, Doctoral) If you went to college/university, what was/were the degree(s) in? If you had to narrow it down to three to four issues, what do you believe should be the OWS platform? Do you believe the movement needs a leader? Who? If this protest does not succeed, what will you do in the future? Have you protested in the past? If so, what have you protested? How many people do you know who are attending this? Do you have any experience in business? Do you believe you have a firm understanding of economics? Do you believe Keynesian economics is effective? What is your opinion on Medicare, Medicaid, and other welfare programs? What magazines/papers do you read? Do you believe the media as a whole has a bias? In what direction do you believe it leans? When you were a child, were politics discussed heavily at home? Are you interested in change within the system, or a complete upheaval? (basically progressive vs. socialist, in the case of liberals) What to add? What to drop? I think I should add some more questions geared towards the policemen, but I haven't any ideas yet.
|
|
|
Post by Yoyti on Oct 14, 2011 16:06:32 GMT -5
Can I tell you a story? There's this chocolate shop I like to go to. It's run by one woman. She's a very nice woman, and the chocolates she makes are delicious. Well, the chocolate shop will very likely go out of business for two reasons. One reason is that the rent on the building keeps increasing. The second is that people would much rather buy mass-produced chocolates. There is also a butcher I know, who produces great meat. He is very amiable, and sells his beef at very reasonable prices. He gets very little business.
I'm not necessarily against big corporations, but I want to do all I can to help out the small family-run companies and stores like the chocolate shop and the butcher. If I understand Occupy Wall Street, its motives at least might provide a better outcome for these people. So I support their aims to that extent. Of course, there are other ways to help these small shops (I do it by giving the chocolates to my friends, and then telling them where I got it) so I probably wouldn't protest.
|
|
|
Post by Crystal on Oct 14, 2011 23:06:00 GMT -5
Nat; what about asking what the policemen feel personally about the goals of this protest? You could get some nice stories. Or how it compares to other protests they've been in? Can I tell you a story? There's this chocolate shop I like to go to. It's run by one woman. She's a very nice woman, and the chocolates she makes are delicious. Well, the chocolate shop will very likely go out of business for two reasons. One reason is that the rent on the building keeps increasing. The second is that people would much rather buy mass-produced chocolates. There is also a butcher I know, who produces great meat. He is very amiable, and sells his beef at very reasonable prices. He gets very little business. I'm not necessarily against big corporations, but I want to do all I can to help out the small family-run companies and stores like the chocolate shop and the butcher. If I understand Occupy Wall Street, its motives at least might provide a better outcome for these people. So I support their aims to that extent. Of course, there are other ways to help these small shops (I do it by giving the chocolates to my friends, and then telling them where I got it) so I probably wouldn't protest. Well, like Jo said, I don't think people go around thinking "What can I do today to increase the disparity between the rich and the poor?" I'm all for buying goods from small, family-run businesses and keeping them in shape, for not allowing unethical policies in companies, so on and so forth. And I try to do so whenever feasible. However, it's probably not very convenient for most people to go to a butcher shop, a grocery shop, and a chocolate shop on a daily basis, unless their goods are truly superior. We'd like to get all our groceries done at once. That said, there are a bunch of things small shop owners can do, like gathering in a group (always better), or catering to certain niche groups (people buy mass-market regular items, but for special things, you'd go to a small store every time), or even delivering food to homes, which I know there is a farmer's group for here in Wisconsin. So it's not a complete lost cause. Like I said earlier in this thread, I don't disagree with the goals of Wall Street Occupiers. I just think their time and energy could be better spent doing something about this instead of camping in the streets waiting for someone else to do something. Things need to be regulated. It's the whole reason laws exist - people (and corporations, also, by extension) need regulations, otherwise some will do things that are extremely corrupt. And a lot of these corporations are doing things that are extremely corrupt, and that hurt their employees and the average citizen. That isn't right, so there needs to be stronger laws in place. Could you quote some of them? Cow: What sort of rules do you feel would be adequate? Could you name a few cases? Occupy Wall Street has a lot of different ideas but they seem to be united by one thing: they want to end the large wealth disparity in the country and help out the working class. How to go about it is debated amongst them, but that seems to be their ultimate goal. Here is a list of demands made by someone, and here is another. Personally, I agree with the second. I actually completely disagree with the second. xDDDD 1) Raising the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hour would probably break most employers - especially the small, family business ones who don't make much (and we're arguing for them, right?) 2) A universal single payer health insurance system is ridiculous in terms of reform. You'd have to shut down hundreds of companies in order to do it, and then where would employment rates be? Also, we (er, the American government) already do have a single-payer system; Medicare/Medicaid. That covers health insurance for everyone over a certain age/below a certain poverty level, and it's also one of the biggest chunks out of the federal budget every year - somewhere in the trillions. The cancellation of Medicare alone would get the United States out of debt within a few years. That's not to say that similar systems haven't been implemented well in other countries - Japanese people, for instance, pay next to nothing for healthcare. The tipping point, though, isn't that the government pays more; the doctors, pharmacies and hospitals just get paid less. A lot less. Japanese hospitals are practically in debt. So saying that the government should institute it 'for the good of the doctors' is downright silly - I can't even begin to comprehend the massive paycut those doctors would get! I could name you a lot of things that could be done to reform healthcare - like cutting the costs of drugs, making x-rays cheaper, having doctors order less x-rays - but that isn't one of 'em. 3, 4, 6, 7, 11!!!! (omg, 11)) xDDDDDDDD Seriously, how much is this dude willing to pay in taxes? Mine are at about 25%, and believe me, it's already pretty painful. A lot of European countries have free health and education, which he seems to want, but they also pay ridiculous taxes. He won't have much of his newly-elevated minimum wage left by the time it's all said and done. xD I don't know. I could go on and on about this guy, he's just that uneducated. ;____; I don't even agree with Demand Nine, which would instantly make me a citizen of the USA, and that would be great, except that I wouldn't want to be a citizen for long. EDIT: Although, if you scroll on down the page, after people are done making fun of the poor dude they do actually begin presenting some To Do lists that make more sense.
|
|
|
Post by Sock on Oct 15, 2011 6:00:22 GMT -5
I actually completely disagree with the second. xDDDD 1) Raising the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hour would probably break most employers - especially the small, family business ones who don't make much (and we're arguing for them, right?) 2) A universal single payer health insurance system is ridiculous in terms of reform. You'd have to shut down hundreds of companies in order to do it, and then where would employment rates be? Also, we (er, the American government) already do have a single-payer system; Medicare/Medicaid. That covers health insurance for everyone over a certain age/below a certain poverty level, and it's also one of the biggest chunks out of the federal budget every year - somewhere in the trillions. The cancellation of Medicare alone would get the United States out of debt within a few years. That's not to say that similar systems haven't been implemented well in other countries - Japanese people, for instance, pay next to nothing for healthcare. The tipping point, though, isn't that the government pays more; the doctors, pharmacies and hospitals just get paid less. A lot less. Japanese hospitals are practically in debt. So saying that the government should institute it 'for the good of the doctors' is downright silly - I can't even begin to comprehend the massive paycut those doctors would get! I could name you a lot of things that could be done to reform healthcare - like cutting the costs of drugs, making x-rays cheaper, having doctors order less x-rays - but that isn't one of 'em. 3, 4, 6, 7, 11!!!! (omg, 11)) xDDDDDDDD Seriously, how much is this dude willing to pay in taxes? Mine are at about 25%, and believe me, it's already pretty painful. A lot of European countries have free health and education, which he seems to want, but they also pay ridiculous taxes. He won't have much of his newly-elevated minimum wage left by the time it's all said and done. xD I don't know. I could go on and on about this guy, he's just that uneducated. ;____; I don't even agree with Demand Nine, which would instantly make me a citizen of the USA, and that would be great, except that I wouldn't want to be a citizen for long. EDIT: Although, if you scroll on down the page, after people are done making fun of the poor dude they do actually begin presenting some To Do lists that make more sense. Actually almost all industrialized nations have a universal healthcare system. And honestly, I don't think paying more taxes is such a bad thing if it ends up benefiting the people (which, honestly, most of these would). I don't agree with all of it, but. The thing is, most of these things have already been implemented in a lot of European countries. Like Sweden, for instance, which has most of these things and is one of the happiest nations in the world with the best health and lowest unemployment rates.
|
|
|
Post by Jo on Oct 15, 2011 9:58:00 GMT -5
I actually completely disagree with the second. xDDDD 1) Raising the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hour would probably break most employers - especially the small, family business ones who don't make much (and we're arguing for them, right?) 2) A universal single payer health insurance system is ridiculous in terms of reform. You'd have to shut down hundreds of companies in order to do it, and then where would employment rates be? Also, we (er, the American government) already do have a single-payer system; Medicare/Medicaid. That covers health insurance for everyone over a certain age/below a certain poverty level, and it's also one of the biggest chunks out of the federal budget every year - somewhere in the trillions. The cancellation of Medicare alone would get the United States out of debt within a few years. That's not to say that similar systems haven't been implemented well in other countries - Japanese people, for instance, pay next to nothing for healthcare. The tipping point, though, isn't that the government pays more; the doctors, pharmacies and hospitals just get paid less. A lot less. Japanese hospitals are practically in debt. So saying that the government should institute it 'for the good of the doctors' is downright silly - I can't even begin to comprehend the massive paycut those doctors would get! I could name you a lot of things that could be done to reform healthcare - like cutting the costs of drugs, making x-rays cheaper, having doctors order less x-rays - but that isn't one of 'em. 3, 4, 6, 7, 11!!!! (omg, 11)) xDDDDDDDD Seriously, how much is this dude willing to pay in taxes? Mine are at about 25%, and believe me, it's already pretty painful. A lot of European countries have free health and education, which he seems to want, but they also pay ridiculous taxes. He won't have much of his newly-elevated minimum wage left by the time it's all said and done. xD I don't know. I could go on and on about this guy, he's just that uneducated. ;____; I don't even agree with Demand Nine, which would instantly make me a citizen of the USA, and that would be great, except that I wouldn't want to be a citizen for long. EDIT: Although, if you scroll on down the page, after people are done making fun of the poor dude they do actually begin presenting some To Do lists that make more sense. Actually almost all industrialized nations have a universal healthcare system. And honestly, I don't think paying more taxes is such a bad thing if it ends up benefiting the people (which, honestly, most of these would). I don't agree with all of it, but. The thing is, most of these things have already been implemented in a lot of European countries. Like Sweden, for instance, which has most of these things and is one of the happiest nations in the world with the best health and lowest unemployment rates. In the UK, we have free healthcare, and it causes no end of problems XD I 100% think that it's something that should be done, but implementing it is in no way simple. Especially in a country which is a large as America, there's no way that's gonna be easy. And if you want that and free university, your taxes will go through the roof. America is a lot larger and more diverse than Sweden, I'd imagine it'd suffer a lot more problems trying to put in free healthcare and university. I definitely think that free healthcare is something America should have, but I think realistically it's not going to happen any time soon, since it seems to me many people are opposed to it.
|
|
|
Post by Sock on Oct 15, 2011 11:28:12 GMT -5
Of course. Nothing good is easy. But just because it's hard doesn't mean America shouldn't have it.
|
|
|
Post by Komori on Oct 15, 2011 11:48:45 GMT -5
Of course. Nothing good is easy. But just because it's hard doesn't mean America shouldn't have it. The debate against universal healthcare isn't just about it being hard. There's also the debate about whether or not it's actually good either. If it was just a matter of a good thing being hard, it wouldn't be up for so much debate. And honestly, I don't think paying more taxes is such a bad thing if it ends up benefiting the people (which, honestly, most of these would). I don't agree with all of it, but. Same sort of concept: I don't think giving the government more money will be that much of a benefit. Maybe on paper, if the government wasn't corrupt or a screw-up. But considering how much fail gets created on the government's dime, I'm not really in the mood for them to take more of my money to flush away.
|
|