Forum adverts like this one are shown to any user who is not logged in. Join us by filling out a tiny 3 field form and you will get your own, free, dakka user account which gives a good range of benefits to you: No adverts like this in the forums anymore. Times and dates in your local timezone. Full tracking of what you have read so you can skip to your first unread post, easily see what has changed since you last logged in, and easily see what is new at a glance. Email notifications for threads you want to watch closely. Being a part of the oldest wargaming community on the net. If you are already a member then feel free to login now.

While some of this is insightful, I have to question the reliability of a polling firm that describes what could only be a person walking around a protest asking for interviews a "random sample".

The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies. On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York's Zuccotti Park. Our findings probably represent the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion.

dogma wrote:While some of this is insightful, I have to question the reliability of a polling firm that describes what could only be a person walking around a protest asking for interviews a "random sample".

The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies. On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York's Zuccotti Park. Our findings probably represent the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion.

WAA! Thats from the Wall Street Journal! Thats the Tokyo Rose of EVIL WALL STREET THATS EVILLY EVILLLLL!!!!

I hardly think the WSJ is a propaganda piece. It's a functional paper, designed to bring information first and foremost, unlike say FOX or tabloids.

Well they are paper of notice for evil Wall Street Bankers, who evidently are the cause of all that is wrong with the world (they and GBush of course). in fact, because all the evil bankers read it, they are EVIL*2!

I hate to be the fatalist here, but I don't think this will accomplish anything. It's a fine display, but in the end, there will always be the greedy, the poor, and the powerful.

You say that almost as if you have some knowledge of history and human nature, there, Kasrkai!

Monster Rain wrote:You say that almost as if you have some knowledge of history and human nature, there, Kasrkai!

....Either:

A. Implying I have a strong history of idiocy

B. Expanding upon the nature of my obvious common knowledge epiphany

C. True praise for my insight

D. CRASSUS ARMORED ASSAULT TRANSPORT

C and D, partner.

If I'm being hostile, you'll know it. Thanks for not simply assuming it was A and getting crabby about it!

Kasrkai wrote:I hate to be the fatalist here, but I don't think this will accomplish anything. It's a fine display, but in the end, there will always be the greedy, the poor, and the powerful.

When you have one group saying 1% of the population is the cause of all the population's problems, thats not a recipe to fix those problems. Its a recipe for Kristalnacht.

Frazzled wrote:
When you have one group saying 1% of the population is the cause of all the population's problems, thats not a recipe to fix those problems. Its a recipe for Kristalnacht.

Well, when that 1% is generally composed of the wealthiest and most powerful members of society its closer to revolution than it is to genocide.

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
When you have one group saying 1% of the population is the cause of all the population's problems, thats not a recipe to fix those problems. Its a recipe for Kristalnacht.

Well, when that 1% is generally composed of the wealthiest and most powerful members of society its closer to revolution than it is to genocide.

I didn't say genocide, but thats about right. Usually thats the next day. the 1% usually end up not breathing or voluntarily being re-educated at the local enlightenment center, if they lose of course.

... While the " Occupy" protesters may not " accomplish" anything...I can clearly understand the ire against the top 1%.

Albatross wrote:. And after that, the Jobcentre.

Which is precisely the problem. There are no jobs despite large companies sitting on record amounts of cash, and banks continuing to post high profits.

Where are the jobs?

It the 1% wants this all to go away, they can just create a bunch of decent jobs here instead of overseas, and get these people working. When they are too busy thinking about how to improve a companies bottom line and get promoted, then they won't have time to think about revolution and class disparity. If they do, they will be too shackled to the "Golden Handcuffs" to do anythign about it. It is the unemployed who are dangerous to the Status Quo.

Of course, that that "could" endanger their profits a bit, but would also allow them to maintain their system for a while longer. Corporate overlords of the past knew that, now apparently they are too stupid and greedy. Today's corporate ovelrods, aren't as smart as the corporate overlords of yesteryear.

All of this crying about the Top 1% yet there are no complaints about actors, musicians or athletes. Things that make you go hmm.

I resent these fools speaking for me, I am by no means wealthy, bit someone making a milli doesn't bother me. Did they steal it from me? No? Damn, guess I'll go complain about the banks giving me loans for an overpriced and overhyped school. That masters degree in Fine Arts from Columbia was such a great decision.

Bunch of useful idiots.

Frazzled wrote:
I didn't say genocide, but thats about right. Usually thats the next day. the 1% usually end up not breathing or voluntarily being re-educated at the local enlightenment center, if they lose of course.

Not when the 1% are simply "the wealthy". What you're describing is more akin to using ethnicity or religion as a scapegoat than it is to class revolution, historically anyway. There have been exceptions, of course (Nicaragua stands out), though not all that many.

Stormrider wrote:All of this crying about the Top 1% yet there are no complaints about actors, musicians or athletes. Things that make you go hmm.

i hate to tell you, but those guys aren;t ven int he same league as Buffet, Kochs, Bloombergs, Soros, and a bunch of Wall Street Hedgefund managers.

The people you listed are in the top 20% sure, but not the top 1%.

Stormrider wrote:All of this crying about the Top 1% yet there are no complaints about actors, musicians or athletes. Things that make you go hmm.

Actors, musicians, and athletes don't have a significant impact on the economic system, generally.

Easy E wrote:

Albatross wrote:. And after that, the Jobcentre.

Which is precisely the problem. There are no jobs despite large companies sitting on record amounts of cash, and banks continuing to post high profits.

Where are the jobs?

china, India, Vietnam, Bangladesh, Brazil, Chile, and interestingly Germany.

It the 1% wants this all to go away, they can just create a bunch of decent jobs here instead of overseas, and get these people working. When they are too busy thinking about how to improve a companies bottom line and get promoted, then they won't have time to think about revolution and class disparity. If they do, they will be too shackled to the "Golden Handcuffs" to do anythign about it. It is the unemployed who are dangerous to the Status Quo.

You do know thats now how hiring works...right? You have taken at least one economics course...right?

Of course, that that "could" endanger their profits a bit, but would also allow them to maintain their system for a while longer. Corporate overlords of the past knew that, now apparently they are too stupid and greedy. Today's corporate ovelrods, aren't as smart as the corporate overlords of yesteryear.

And then China will crush them.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

dogma wrote:

Frazzled wrote:
I didn't say genocide, but thats about right. Usually thats the next day. the 1% usually end up not breathing or voluntarily being re-educated at the local enlightenment center, if they lose of course.

Not when the 1% are simply "the wealthy". What you're describing is more akin to using ethnicity or religion as a scapegoat than it is to class revolution, historically anyway. There have been exceptions, of course (Nicaragua stands out), though not all that many.

USSR
Cambodia
North Korea
Cuba
Nicaragua
China

No one appreciates chaos for it's own sake anymore. I made a playlist for some of my occupier friends in Melbourne, if for nothing but that. I have to think that drawing attention helps at least a little bit.

Frazzled wrote:
USSR

The Bolsheviks killed off the royal family, and Stalin killed off political opponents, but neither targeted the wealthy for extermination.

Frazzled wrote:
Cambodia

Pol Pot didn't purge the wealthy either.

Frazzled wrote:
North Korea

Neither did Kim il-Sung

Frazzled wrote:
Cuba

Or Castro.

Frazzled wrote:
Nicaragua

I already said this is one of the few cases in which purging the wealthy occurred, though largely because "the wealthy" could be swapped for "the Somozas".

Frazzled wrote:
China

Mao revolted, sure, but again did not target the wealthy for a purge.

You're confusing communist revolts with "kill all the rich people."

Frazzled wrote:You do know thats now how hiring works...right? You have taken at least one economics course...right?

I wouldn't know, have they been hiring?

Oh.

No.

They haven't.

What we DO have is record corporate profits, record unemployment, wages that aren't keeping up with inflation, and a tax system that heavily favors corporations and those whom make money with money instead of doing something productive.

And so people, including me, are angry. I damned well hope there's a job at the end of my Chemistry degree, or I might end up doing something I'll regret..

*Being angry doesn't create jobs (ok security jobs maybe).
*Someone having more money than you doesn't create jobs. They can give you their money or you can steal their money, but you haven't created a single job.
*Companies don't create jobs, just to create jobs. They create positions when they have a need for those positions, and the cash flows/busines case supports its.

Frazzled wrote:*Being angry doesn't create jobs (ok security jobs maybe).

Neither are corporations.

Frazzled wrote:*Someone having more money than you doesn't create jobs.

They're able to by hiring others.

Frazzled wrote:*Companies don't create jobs, just to create jobs. They create positions when they have a need for those positions, and the cash flows/busines case supports its.

So what you're saying is that these companies, because they have no reason to hire, are useless to the American public, so we should not give one gak about how our laws effect them.

Sounds good to me. Frak them, they aren't helping the situation.

Melissia wrote:
Sounds good to me. Frak them, they aren't helping the situation.

Well, they help my situation, but then I have a portfolio.

Though you are correct, they aren't helping the unemployed. But, that isn't their job, that's the job of government (braces for libertarian flaming). However, you can't just screw corporations over, that doesn't help anyone, so you have to consider their interests.

dogma wrote:

Melissia wrote:
Sounds good to me. Frak them, they aren't helping the situation.

Well, they help my situation, but then I have a portfolio.

Though you are correct, they aren't helping the unemployed. But, that isn't their job, that's the job of government (braces for libertarian flaming). However, you can't just screw corporations over, that doesn't help anyone, so you have to consider their interests.

Oh, I wasn't thinking screw them over. Just ignore them in favor of someone whom WILL solve the problem and stop favoring them because it's not working now and hasn't really ever worked.

Melissia wrote:Oh, I wasn't thinking screw them over. Just ignore them in favor of someone whom WILL solve the problem and stop favoring them because it's not working now and hasn't really ever worked.

Ah, fair point then, though I wouldn't say that ignoring them is right approach; though relative to the present period it might be a fair recommendation. Certainly the issue is one of balance, or at least a balance people will accept, and that appears to be something that does not presently exist.

Either way, I'm pleased because political tumult means I'll have plenty of work going forward.

Easy E wrote:

Albatross wrote:. And after that, the Jobcentre.

Which is precisely the problem. There are no jobs despite large companies sitting on record amounts of cash, and banks continuing to post high profits.

Where are the jobs?

Why? You looking for a job? I could get you a job with my company tomorrow. There are actually plenty of jobs here. I should know, I was job-searching less than 3 months ago - there was no shortage then. The private sector in the UK has actually not been too bad at creating jobs in recent months.

Sure, the situation might be different over there in the States, but then, I wasn't talking about the States. Also, I'm not convinced that banks posting healthy profits is a particularly bad thing, especially if they're state-owned. Even if they aren't, it's in all of our interests for the institutions to remain healthy. It would be disastrous if another major bank went to the wall.

Record profits by itself is not bad, sure.

But record profits combined with job losses and stagnating wages which can't even match inflation IS a bad thing.

This is exactly why there's no consumer confidence. The average consumer is having less and less money to spend, and (in the US) a harder time finding jobs, with real unemployment being quite a bit higher than the government's reported unemployment numbers (such as govt. saying 9% when the real number is 15-20%).

Melissia wrote:Record profits by itself is not bad, sure.

But record profits combined with job losses and stagnating wages which can't even match inflation IS a bad thing.

This is exactly why there's no consumer confidence. The average consumer is having less and less money to spend, and (in the US) a harder time finding jobs, with real unemployment being quite a bit higher than the government's reported unemployment numbers (such as govt. saying 9% when the real number is 15-20%).

How, in your opinion, would consumer confidence be affected by another run on a major high-street bank (as in the case of Northern Rock) or the collapse of another major financial institution (see Lehman Brothers)? When people are already being squeezed, the prospect of their savings potentially going up in smoke is not something I'm prepared to tolerate. Are you? I doubt that. Don't get me wrong, it's easy to look at one side and see people struggling to get by, and to be mad when you look to the other side and see banks doing reasonably well. I get that. What I don't get, is why people would be so keen to knee-cap a major cornerstone of their country's economy at a time when that same economy is looking so precarious. Do you think spooking the markets by taking punitive measures against banks is going to help the recovery? I don't. It just doesn't make sense to me. We've got to be prudent in our public spending, and that means people will lose their jobs, but we can cushion the blow by supporting the private sector. The UK has shown that this can be done, as we HAVE been doing it. We are recovering slowly, sure, but it's sustainable and built on solid foundations.

One of the ways in which we can support the private sector is by nurturing market confidence - attacking our banking sector is not the way to go about it. Neither is stimulus, at least, not in this context. That's a different discussion, though.

Albatross wrote:How, in your opinion, would consumer confidence be affected by another run on a major high-street bank

Why do you support the logically fallacious point that you either prop you the banks at the expense of everyone who actually needs help, or you push them into trash can and kick them over?

I never said these things you think I'm saying. You are wrong.