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.

Ugh. Why did I even bother? You're literally not worth my time.

/ignore

If me pointing out that you are arguing with someone other than me (because I never said that) pisses you off, you probably shouldn't be debating in the first place...

I hear a lot of complaints and rhetoric from these protests, but not a lot of solutions.

I get that people are mad, and a growing number of people are getting desperate. Desperate, mad people do desperate, mad things. They do not want to do them, and anybody else who likes to sleep at night without worrying about their homes and families doesn't want those mad, desperate things.

Class war and eating the rich (two phrases I've heard a lot over the past few weeks,) aren't good solutions. They don't allow us to change the government to a more equitable system, they only allow people to pick a target and blame them carte blanche for all the reasons their lives aren't the best.

I'm not attacking anyone here, but my overall impression from reports on these protests is that people are mad, but expect a solution to rise up out of that angry soil. I think they'll be dissapointed in that.

Solutions ARE rising out of the anger. The debate is more "which ones will work"...

Melissia wrote:If me pointing out that you are arguing with someone other than me (because I never said that) pisses you off, you probably shouldn't be debating in the first place...

Right, one last thing... I never said that you did. This isn't a debate. It's not an argument. It's a discussion. There is absolutely no need to be as hostile as you are with such tedious regularity. It is this hostility that has led me to place you on ignore. That sort of behaviour is just boring to read.

To clarify (not that it should be necessary): You rightly said that consumer confidence is lagging. My post was meant to address this issue within the wider context of the punitive measures against banks (and very loosely-defined 'fat-cats') that the 'Occupy' groups seem to be demanding. I was asking you genuine questions and you responded with your usual anti-social bs.

Anyway, that's not my problem anymore.

Melissia wrote:Solutions ARE rising out of the anger. The debate is more "which ones will work"...

What are these 'Solutions'?

People can debate till they're blue in the face but A. They won't ever agree upon a course of action and B. No-one in power will take the slightest bit of notice.

Alba is right when he says that we should leave the banks alone for a while.... Although (at least here in the UK) we do need a government that will keep a tighter rein on the 'investment' banks. The ConDems current proposals for 'Ring-Fencing' are laughable.

The thing is J, I don't see any alternative to separating the investment arms of banks from their high-street operations. The latter need to be tighter than a duck's arse, over-capitalised, if anything. The former need to invest, as they are a major source of equity for all sorts of things...

...But never the twain should meet. HBOS should not be able to gamble with my wedding fund.

J.Black wrote:

Melissia wrote:Solutions ARE rising out of the anger. The debate is more "which ones will work"...

What are these 'Solutions'?

Well, the ones I've suggested are campaign finance reform (such as, but not limited to, outright outlawing corporate donations), focusing efforts on small business as opposed to big (small businesses are generally more innovative than big ones, and having a few big ones leads to far less competition), focusing tax and financial reform on increasing demand instead of increasing supply (IE, tax breaks for corporations and the rich are the wrong way to go, as proven by the fact that it isn't wroking now), etc.

If all you look at are the protests, sure, that's all you'll see-- a few catchy phrases and angry people. But you could instead try talking to people who support the idea....


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Albatross wrote:I was asking you genuine questions

Questions that were utterly irrelevant to me. It's like if someone asked Obama "why do you support communism" and then got pissed off when he responded "I don't."

Wow. Alot of cynicism, alot of dismissal, alot of belittling and apathy. Seems to me like history is being made, and many people aren't keeping up. The banks, the president, the 1% - they are behind the curve. So are alot of regular joes. Things are changing, this is part of a global movement. The 21st century will be the Century of Democracy, and personally, I'm exited to be witnessing the start of a new world.

Check out Danny Glover's speech the other day...

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/10/17/danny_glover_cornel_west_speak_out

Albatross wrote:The thing is J, I don't see any alternative to separating the investment arms of banks from their high-street operations. The latter need to be tighter than a duck's arse, over-capitalised, if anything. The former need to invest, as they are a major source of equity for all sorts of things...

...But never the twain should meet. HBOS should not be able to gamble with my wedding fund.

Absolutely. Unfortunately, actually dismantling all those banks into 'bank' and 'investment houses' would be a political nightmare, though. I mean, I saw the fight accounting firms put up to have audit and financial services properly* seperated, and that was just from the relatively minimal political connections of accounting firms. The banks can't be tackled in the same way.

There's also a whole load of people in the US who have recently gotten in the habit of freaking out ridiculously at the suggestion of government doing anything, and a whole lot of people on the other side who find it a lot easier to talk about fantastical dreams of revolution against the capitalist oppressors. The net result is that practical modifications to the system become near impossible.




*A new business model has developed in the last couple of decades in accounting, where the minimally profitable audit services are used as a way to sell highly profitable financial services from the same company. Predictably, this led to compromised audit reports, which in turn led to Enron.

Melissia wrote:

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.

You do realize that if you "Frak them" lots of people get unemployed right? Unless there are magical mystery jobs sprinkled with faery dust there are either corporate jobs or government jobs. Corporations aren't "them." Corporations are us.*

*Unless of course you're a hippy or government employee, in which case, never mind.


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Melissia wrote:Solutions ARE rising out of the anger. The debate is more "which ones will work"...

Horse gak.
Taxing the rich, eating the rich, driving the zionist bankers out of the USA, and killing the fed are not solutions to anyone except maybe Chavez. How's that cancer Chavez?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

murdog wrote:Wow. Alot of cynicism, alot of dismissal, alot of belittling and apathy. Seems to me like history is being made, and many people aren't keeping up. The banks, the president, the 1% - they are behind the curve. So are alot of regular joes. Things are changing, this is part of a global movement. The 21st century will be the Century of Democracy, and personally, I'm exited to be witnessing the start of a new world.

Check out Danny Glover's speech the other day...

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/10/17/danny_glover_cornel_west_speak_out

The moment you use Danny Glover as anything exvept an example of bad acting, you lose all legitimacy to do...anything.

Frazzled wrote:You do realize that if you "Frak them" lots of people get unemployed right?

So basically the same situation we're already in, yes?

Oh wait. Yes. that is the situation we're in. Continuing to do the same thing (tax breaks and other favors to corporations), which has a long history of failure as well as not working right now, and expecting different results-- isn't there an old adage about what this is? Something about insanity?

murdog wrote:Wow. Alot of cynicism, alot of dismissal, alot of belittling and apathy. Seems to me like history is being made, and many people aren't keeping up. The banks, the president, the 1% - they are behind the curve. So are alot of regular joes. Things are changing, this is part of a global movement. The 21st century will be the Century of Democracy, and personally, I'm exited to be witnessing the start of a new world.

Check out Danny Glover's speech the other day...

http://www.democracynow.org/2011/10/17/danny_glover_cornel_west_speak_out

He's getting too old for this gak...



@sebster - Couldn't agree more. It seems like the only sensible option is the least practical - to facilitate any sort of bank 'break-up', we'd have to rely on the banks in question being willing to make themselves a less attractive investment vehicle, because it's the investment side of the operations that generate the lion's share of returns for their shareholders. I can't see those particular turkeys voting for Christmas any time soon.

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:You do realize that if you "Frak them" lots of people get unemployed right?

So basically the same situation we're already in, yes?

Oh wait. Yes. that is the situation we're in. Continuing to do the same thing (tax breaks and other favors to corporations), which has a long history of failure as well as not working right now, and expecting different results-- isn't there an old adage about what this is? Something about insanity?

No its not, not at all. The more you crush corporations the higher unemployement will be. Your ultimate goal of frakking them would create 70% unemployment. brilliant.

Frazzled wrote:No its not, not at all. The more you crush corporations

Whoever said anything about that? Oh wait no one, go back and read.

Albatross wrote:The thing is J, I don't see any alternative to separating the investment arms of banks from their high-street operations. The latter need to be tighter than a duck's arse, over-capitalised, if anything. The former need to invest, as they are a major source of equity for all sorts of things...

...But never the twain should meet. HBOS should not be able to gamble with my wedding fund.

See we aren't that different after all. We agree on this completely.

Thanks for the offer on helping me get a job. I have one, and it is pretty good. It's at a bank. I am "Teh EEEEVIL!"

That doesn't change the fact that in the states, "real" wages have been declining since 1977. I have never lived in a time where I could reasonably expect wages to increase faster than other factors. How long can that last before something breaks? We were all able to mask it for a long time by putting more peope to work (i.e. women and teens) and then by taking debt from our equity. Now what are we going to do to mask it?

I know, lower the legal working age to 10 and get those pre-teens into the job market!

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:No its not, not at all. The more you crush corporations

Whoever said anything about that? Oh wait no one, go back and read.

So what do you mean by frakking corporations? Offering them daisies?


Automatically Appended Next Post:

Easy E wrote:

Albatross wrote:The thing is J, I don't see any alternative to separating the investment arms of banks from their high-street operations. The latter need to be tighter than a duck's arse, over-capitalised, if anything. The former need to invest, as they are a major source of equity for all sorts of things...

...But never the twain should meet. HBOS should not be able to gamble with my wedding fund.

See we aren't that different after all. We agree on this completely.

Thanks for the offer on helping me get a job. I have one, and it is pretty good. It's at a bank. I am "Teh EEEEVIL!"

That doesn't change the fact that in the states, "real" wages have been declining since 1977. I have never lived in a time where I could reasonably expect wages to increase faster than other factors. How long can that last before something breaks? We were all able to mask it for a long time by putting more peope to work (i.e. women and teens) and then by taking debt from our equity. Now what are we going to do to mask it?

I know, lower the legal working age to 10 and get those pre-teens into the job market!

What is the benefit of breaking them up again?

Frazzled wrote:

Melissia wrote:

Frazzled wrote:No its not, not at all. The more you crush corporations

Whoever said anything about that? Oh wait no one, go back and read.

So what do you mean by frakking corporations? Offering them daisies?

BEHOLD FOR THE ANSWER IS...!

Melissia wrote:

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.

... already stated by me in a post almost immediately following the one you are raging so hard about.

So gak or get off the pot. What are you actually recommending? This is sophistic nonsense and why this OccupyDumpwater movement is balls as the Brits would say.

WHAT THE feth DO YOU ACTUALLY CONCRETELY WANT TO DO???

Frazzled wrote:So gak or get off the pot. What are you actually recommending?

... how many times do I have to answer this question before you finally get it?

I know you don't like reading and have a flair for the dramatic, Frazzled, but I've repeated myself numerous times. That you refuse to read is your failure, not mine. But I'll repeat again, with quotes from three separate posts on three separate pages of this thread:

Melissia wrote:[...]political donation regulation reform.

... IE campaign finance reform or whatever you want to call it has been a big issue for me, that I've stated numerous times in this thread, including-- though not exclusively-- the idea of outlawing all campaign contributions from corporations.

Melissia wrote:a monetary policy dedicated to increasing demand

... is something I've mentioned numerous times. Supply-side economics-- IE trickle-down policies-- is a lie that politicians tell people to get them to support them even as theyr'e putting in policies which only benefit corporations and the already-rich. It hasn't worked... and it's not going to, either. Tax cuts, stimulus packages, and other economic plans should be focused on increasing the spending power of the common person, thus increasing demand and thus bettering our economy.

Melissia wrote:focusing efforts on small business as opposed to big

... is something I've consistently supported throughout my stay on Dakka, so this is hardly new. Lower taxes on small businesses, patent reform with an eye on helping small businesses and preventing patent predation, simplifying paperwork, reducing monopolies or oligopolies, and so on.

You mustn't be an Occupier then. None of these statements, outside of limiting speech by corporations (fine by me but limit unions too) is on the Occupied agenda.

However your concept of tax cuts is supply side. How Republican of you...

Frazzled wrote:You mustn't be an Occupier then. None of these statements, outside of limiting speech by corporations (fine by me but limit unions too) is on the Occupied agenda.

The fact that US Government fiscal policy is focused on benefitting the rich is constantly mentioned by the Occupy Whatever movement. I just worded it more intelligently than the average protestor is capable of.

The small business bit can also be extrapolated from the Occupy Whatever's hatred of Wall-Street and corporations, as well as with the fact that small businesses hire more private sector employees than big businesses. Again, I dont' really expect protesters to state their positions eloquently and intelligently. Certainly the Tea Party protesters didn't (and still haven't).

But that doesn't mean that there is nothing the movement can support.

Frazzled wrote:However your concept of tax cuts is supply side.

No it isn't. Supply-side tax cuts focus on corporations and those with money, believing that the benefit will "trickle down" to everyone else.

TBF, I'm seeing a lot of "That will never work!" but not a lot of "This is how we can fix the thing that is objectively broken and unsustainable."

Cannerus_The_Unbearable wrote:TBF, I'm seeing a lot of "That will never work!" but not a lot of "This is how we can fix the thing that is objectively broken and unsustainable."

Its hard to even start the argument when one group is saying its all the fault of 1% of the population, that evil corporations are evilly evil, banks are evillyevilly evil *2, and that government (ie me I guess) needs to pay for every mouthbreathing hippy's education, healthcare, all their amassed debts, and provide them a "living wage" which is substantially higher than my dad had when he retired as an engineer. Frankly I'd rather communism. At least everyone will be screwed and not just me.

It's harder to start an argument with people who ignore all attempts at intelligently written discussion to instead attack slogans and catch phrases...

Normally these kinds of people would be called trolls, I think.

Frazzled wrote: Its hard to even start the argument when one group is saying its all the fault of 1% of the population, that evil corporations are evilly evil, banks are evillyevilly evil *2, and that government (ie me I guess) needs to pay for every mouthbreathing hippy's education, healthcare, all their amassed debts, and provide them a "living wage" which is substantially higher than my dad had when he retired as an engineer. Frankly I'd rather communism. At least everyone will be screwed and not just me.

Stephen Colbert couldn't caricature that any better.

Here's an interesting idea, from a person who has a CPA in fact:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-2

Compensation should be limited by law in all publicly held companies... The highest annual compensation, including wages, fees, benefits and stock options, for employees, directors, consultants and consulting firms should be limited to the higher of 100 times the annual compensation of that company's lowest paid full time employee (after one year of employment) or 50 times the median (not average) annual compensation of all its employees... If current overpaid CEOs refuse these limitations, they can form their own private companies and pay themselves without restrictions.

Notably, she had kept her name off the idea because she is "isn't very brave", in her words. But it's an interesting idea for executive compensation reform. According to the article she also mentioned "several additional tax brackets at income levels starting above $750,000" and "allowing Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices with pharmaceutical companies."

Melissia wrote:Here's an interesting idea, from a person who has a CPA in fact:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-2

Compensation should be limited by law in all publicly held companies... The highest annual compensation, including wages, fees, benefits and stock options, for employees, directors, consultants and consulting firms should be limited to the higher of 100 times the annual compensation of that company's lowest paid full time employee (after one year of employment) or 50 times the median (not average) annual compensation of all its employees... If current overpaid CEOs refuse these limitations, they can form their own private companies and pay themselves without restrictions.

Notably, she had kept her name off the idea because she is "isn't very brave", in her words. But it's an interesting idea for executive compensation reform. According to the article she also mentioned "several additional tax brackets at income levels starting above $750,000" and "allowing Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices with pharmaceutical companies."

You seem to be advocating, or find "interesting" what the early Nazi's proposed in Germany.
You seem not to have any problem with heading down the slippery slope.

Please show the rest of us where in the constitution it says that the government has the authority to decide executive compensation?

Freedom isn't free, and Liberty is hard to get back once it's gone. Sometimes a Republic can be messy, there are no (and should not be) guarantees of success, nor should there be punative measures against an entity for making the most of it's opportunities. Sour grapes are more of a vice than avarice.

Regards,

Phanatik wrote:

Melissia wrote:Here's an interesting idea, from a person who has a CPA in fact:

http://www.economist.com/blogs/democracyinamerica/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-2

Compensation should be limited by law in all publicly held companies... The highest annual compensation, including wages, fees, benefits and stock options, for employees, directors, consultants and consulting firms should be limited to the higher of 100 times the annual compensation of that company's lowest paid full time employee (after one year of employment) or 50 times the median (not average) annual compensation of all its employees... If current overpaid CEOs refuse these limitations, they can form their own private companies and pay themselves without restrictions.

Notably, she had kept her name off the idea because she is "isn't very brave", in her words. But it's an interesting idea for executive compensation reform. According to the article she also mentioned "several additional tax brackets at income levels starting above $750,000" and "allowing Medicare to negotiate lower drug prices with pharmaceutical companies."

You seem to be advocating, or find "interesting" what the early Nazi's proposed in Germany.
You seem not to have any problem with heading down the slippery slope.

Please show the rest of us where in the constitution it says that the government has the authority to decide executive compensation?

EDIT: Ah. In my haste I misread the post. I mistook 'publicly-held' for 'publicly-owned'. Disregard.

Though, I will say this - Phanatik, you're crazy. Just because something bears a structural similarity to something the NSDAP did, that doesn't mean that said thing will necessarily lead to extermination of the Jews. The Nazis wore trousers. My trousers will not lead to gas-chambers, per se.

Albatross wrote:
Though, I will say this - Phanatik, you're crazy. Just because something bears a structural similarity to something the NSDAP did, that doesn't mean that said thing will necessarily lead to extermination of the Jews. The Nazis wore trousers. My trousers will not lead to gas-chambers, per se.

Oh no, its already begun!