Protests in America 0.o

Nope, the civil rights movement was for equality. Theres a fine line between that and this. I like how you and rebel head bring both those same exact points and call me out for it. If everyone had the same amount of 'fairness and wealth' in this country, this would be communist and socialist, but guess what, we are a Capitalist, hungry, Democratic Republic. Dont like it? Than assuming your in Euro, come to the US and protest for government change, after you get a passport.

Higgs, maybe this might loosen you up a bit. I think you are, just a bit mad?

 

No I'm not mad.
I am just depressed that someone thinks giving banks trillions of dollars of tax payers money with virtually no interest is capitalism.

 

I didnt say I think that, nor did I say that. Now you are just assuming, your point is irrelevant about civil rights and your post is irrelevant. Take some anti-depressants.

If the US Gov't did not bail out those banks, and those banks and businesses failed - do you have the slightest idea, how screwed up the US would be? Not just the US, the EU, China, Taiwan, Brazil, all countries that have economic ties to the US. There is a bigger picture than the simple minded "My tax money is being spent on a bank" mentality.

Again, realism. It is what it is, and what was done was the lesser of two evils.

 

^ And now we are off topic.

 

You're making the same mistake I mentioned earlier. America has more than two parties.




Also, regarding the banks: The main problem is the lack of accountability within the failed banks. If they had switched management as part of the bail-out I think there would be a lot less complaints.

 

Wait I thought capitalism was about allowing people to fail. Hm. That's rather a strange dictionary you're using there mate. By the way I am not necessarily against the bail out, unlike you I don't treat "government" as a dirty word. But there is difference between BUYING out the banks and GIVING AWAY the money for free. Those banks are still private entities, they have no burden of interest on them in regards to the heap of money they got from the federal reserve and they still continue to make bets on derivatives with other people's money.

There are simple, REALISTIC solutions to this.
- Illegalize derivatives and/or disallow banks from taking part in gambling with money. Banks are not supposed to be hedge funds. We all saw what happened when they were treated like one.
- Overturn the stupid court ruling that corporations are people.
- Cripple lobbyist. I can't believe that someone can be surprised that his government is bought when it is legal to make dontations to politicians in return for 'favours'.
+ more technical stuff that I am not qualified to dabble into but economists are, such as raising taxes on the rich to their previous levels and closing up ridiculous loop holes.

I agree with you I am an idealist because I demand these things: Because the government is already bought. That is why U.S. needs people to go out and force change.

 

Yes, they do have to parties, I thought I acknowledged that.

Sadly, they are either not as popular, or as organized and powerful as the Republicans and Democrats. There are even independants in congress.

What I meant by not voting is that if we dont get the people who screwed up the country out of office to show that people are watching and as a warning to other politicians as a way to check them, than they will keep going. Just a thought, I have no factual, sources, or any experience, its just a thought.

 

"Capitalism: an economic system characterized by private or corporate ownership of capital goods, by investments that are determined by private decision, and by prices, production, and the distribution of goods that are determined mainly by competition in a free market " - Dictionary.com

When people invest and do all that mumbo jumbo with them, it is based on trends, trends and more trends (Predictions). No one can promise anything, there is no promising in the contract only estimations based on current trends. People dont read the fine print.

Where did I treat the word 'government' as a dirty word? Im all for government if you couldnt tell.

"Those banks are still private entities" - Yes
"they have no burden of interest on them in regards to the heap of money they got from the federal reserve" - thats kind of how it works? As I stated above.
"and they still continue to make bets on derivatives with other people's money." - How else are people going to benefit if they dont take the risk, its always said that its a risk when investing. There are no guarantee's and everything is based on a trend and predicted outcomes.

 

The problem is that the risks don't exist. If a bank succeeds, it makes money and the managers/share-holders have a party. If a bank stagnates, it makes money and the managers/share-holders have a party. If the bank fails, it gets bailed out, makes money and the managers/share-holders have a party.

 

And again, the only reason the third parties have no power is because no one is voting for them. The reason no one is voting for them is because they have no power. It is a vicious, vicious cycle. That can be broken if people would just vote for them.

 

There are misinformed people and informed people. Both of them make up shareholders and investors. Only difference is, when the investment goes wrong, one pulls out, the other will ride it out becuase its all they got and it has worked in the past.

Its not like banks get bailed out every day. When a huge bank/corporation like Sallie Mae, Chase, BofA, and all those others are about to go under, its in the best interest <--- that scary word, of the government to bail them out becuase of how connected they are to everyone else and how much the US will suffer for years. Sallie Mae, the largest of federal student loans, was about to go under, and got bailed out, if they didnt, the US College student ratio would have fallen dramatically. Hell, who here has 40,000 to just hand over?

 

I think that was my point from the beginning.

 

The difference is that you are laying the blame of the current political and economical climate at the feet of the politicians that are bought by the major companies, while I blame the people that are upset by those people yet still vote for them.

 

I was also blaming people for not going the political route.

 

Since this thread has spiraled out of control I'll just address IJffdrie's point

Not true at all. The US electoral system uses First Past The Post which is not proportional like the one that your country or (to a lesser extent) mine has. It's a winner takes all system that means that if you vote and lose your electorate you are not represented.
I wiki'd and the Dutch system is beautifully proportional with all parties having an equal percentage of seats as votes.


And the 2010 UK election (First Past The Post), for comparison, which created a bit of stir for this reason, as Labour got over half the seats with just over a third the votes, and the Liberal Democrats got under a tenth of all seats with over a fifth of all votes.


The system is built for 2 parties, or moreso, 2 parties are the natural result of the system with parties combining and people switching votes to get their views at least vaguely represented against a more different ideological block. If you vote for a party which stands no chance you are throwing your vote away. You can't fault people for strategically voting to keep out what they see as the greater evil when the other option is effectively not voting.

 

That was highly informative. I'm now blaming the founding fathers instead.

Still, actually voting for other parties might be an impulse for a reform. On the other hand, seeing how long it takes the US senate to make any decisions with only 2 parties, and the fact that half the laws need to go through a long process of sueing, it might actually be a bad idea to introduce more stuff to slow it down.

 

Whats funny is that I was talking with a fellow student who does attend these rallies today as the topic appeared in class today. (he is heavy into the movement, and we had quiet the debate/arguement)

For occupy boston, and perhaps the rest of them there is a consensus that...

-They want the government to regulate wall street
-They dont want political party affiliation
-They want to seperate corporation from politics
-They wont vote, they want the D's and R's to do that for them
-They are will only go as far as protesting and demonstrating for change

Words right from the horses mouth, I already rebutted him with the same arguments I said here.

-More people dont want the governments hand in the cookie jar (Obama's Healthcare Plan)
-So they want to complain, but wont vote and stride for change
-I agree, but who else will fund the politicians? Obama's 2008 campaign seen the highest vote out in decades (54.4%) of eligable voters in the US
-They wont vote for either D or R... so......?
-So of the 99%, some of which make well over 100K and are established economists and lawyers, will not create a committee to go to Washington and help shape the future, instead they will protest and block intersections

More than this was said, and although I did learn a few things, all the arguments I made here are very valid points that he even agreed with but had rebutted as well.

The 2 Party system has screwed up, America already knows this. But the American people will absolutely not vote for a 3rd party, or help create the change they want and get them into Congress because they want the democrats and republicans to fix this.

CONTRADICTING - Way tu go thar OWS/C

As for your insight Overmind, thanks for the input, I actually tried to convey this same point and got sort of somewhere but not far. The D's and R's control the house, and typically smash smaller parties, and the only other side is Independant, and those are typically the people that determine the vote out.

 

Honey I'm home! I got distracted by Blizzcon and managed to completely forget about this so I'll just take it from here: Shadow[E]
- I am very uncertain as to what exactly you are talking about but according to the polls overwhelming majority of people including the Republican voters are for stepping down on the big corporations (compensating for the buy out, closing loop holes, regulation, etc.)
- Obama's campaign is famous for being funded primarily by small donors and individuals as opposed to big companies and corporations (although in reality they still had a huge share in it as well). I don't see your argument as an argument though; so we'll have less posters and t-shirts, that's in no way a bad thing. In fact I would rather see more of what Ron Paul is doing - using resources such as internet to spread his message cost-free and run on ideas rather than sheer volume.
- You didn't respond to this one, I am guessing you agree then but then I am puzzled why are you so opposed to all this since this is the primary goal of the OWS movement(s).
- I didn't understand what the original point made neither the response actually refers to...
- Yes because if it could be done by simply forming a committee and going to Washington nobody would have done it by now huh? What does it even mean? You don't just form committes and do what you want, the HoR/senate/president is the legislature and it is completely bought out and/or incompetent that's why we have protests.

And finally: YES during protests people can often end up being a nuisance to the public use of space, that's the whole point of a protest! If you send all the protested on a field outside of the city nobody would give a damn and they would easily get ignored. I don't remember any great civil rights or other movement in America or Europe winning by renting out couple of rooms and getting together in private.

 

Dutch Protestants before the statue-storm era. Though the only reason that worked is that the government already cared that protestants still existed.

 

Meh,im done. W/e we say to eachother wont resonate, so it doesnt matter. This is one epic thread for the history books. It was a very good argument/debate/spectacle of a conversation. Hope theres more.