Occupy Wall Street: The Movement Grows

[Uncensored2008]

I'm certainly not one of the 99%. You should have seen some of the looks I got while walking around wearing my US Army Retired hat and an Army wind breaker...........

99% of the population aren't part of the Shitter Revolution. The Shitters are the 1%

 

[Dragon]

The problem is the protesters are not exactly protesting the same issues as the poll.

Yes, actually, they are. The biggest single issue is the influence of business on government. The number two issue is the yawning disparity of wealth in our economy.

Many of them are there because of high tuition costs. The face that their over-priced education can't guarantee employment.

This is part and parcel of that yawning disparity in wealth. It all comes down to a shortage of jobs, a bigger shortage of well-paying jobs, declining real wages over time; on the other end, increasing education costs and increasing health-care costs, both making the decline in real wages even worse than it appears on first glance. All of this is a result of excessive corporate influence on government.

Who should they be protesting really?

Both Wall Street and the government. But it's Wall Street that pulls the strings. The puppet master is always more important than the puppet.

 

[Dragon]

Of course you don't want to pay attention to Rasmussen. You don't like what the poll results are.

I also know how he operates. This is nothing new. Rasmussen is consistently (except in election polls close to election day) an outlier, with poll results that are consistently well to the right of other polls. He uses likely voter screens on polls like this one where they serve no legitimate purpose, and uses different screens for different purposes.

Rasmussen demonstrably has two modes, which might be called "set a narrative" mode and "get it right" mode. He goes into "get it right" mode when election day comes close and he begins to take polls on who is likely to win elections. He's very reliable under those conditions. At all other times, especially when there is no objective way of checking his results, he tweaks his polls through creative adjustment of likely voter screens so as to generate a right-leaning result. It doesn't work perfectly (the only thing that would work perfectly is if he made stuff up, and he's not THAT dishonest), but it works most of the time.

When we have several polls showing higher support for OWS than disapproval, including some that show an outright majority of the people approve, and Rasmussen alone among all pollsters shows more disapproval than approval, it's obvious what's happening and obvious who not to believe.

 

[flacaltenn]

Just exactly how fucking stupid is President Obama?

Not stupid at all. He can see that this is a very popular movement (something you apparently can't see, so who's the stupid one here?) that he may be able to ride for political success. He's being very smart here. The stupid thing would be to continue alienating the very people who got him elected in 2008.

There is very little evidence that it is a popular movement.

That would mean wide-angle shots of massive throngs of protesters. We're not seeing that here.

Obama is smart in one respect; He knows his own strengths and weaknesses.

He knows he has no answers but he sure as shit can count on SEIU to back up his 99% nonsense.

The guy promises jobs and gives us protests and an accompanying stench.

So all he's produces is human waste.

Jobs can wait another 4 years or so.

Yep.. Nothing says "Lack of Leadership" like random, unfocused, ill-informed demonstrations breaking out in the streets and BEING PRAISED by the leadership..

 

[Uncensored2008]

Obama wants America to become like Europe.

The Shitters want America to be just like Greece.

Millionaires in Europe have to inherit their riches. This is one of the reasons our forefathers left and came here.

At least here you have a chance to become wealthy without being born into it.

The Shitters are dedicated to ending this, to pulling the ladder up and keeping the peasantry at the bottom. That's why Soros funds them.

Notice the highlighted sentence; Heirs are twice as likely to believe that their wealth causes more problems that it solves.

Those who inherited their wealth often consider it a curse rather then a blessing perhaps because they don't appreciate their good fortune as much as one who has lived in poverty and made good, something that is next to impossible to do anywhere else.

I think those who inherit great wealth are generally mentally screwed up.

 

[Uncensored2008]

Ideology is not fact.

Nor is stupidity. What your Marxist comrade posted was sheer stupidity.

Raising taxes and regulating business do not cause loss of jobs.

What an incredibly stupid thing to say. Not stupid because you believe it, no one with an IQ about 10 would believe such idiocy, but stupid because you think that others might actually believe it.

Do you REALLY have such a low opinion of people here that you think anyone would believe that?

When the U.S. economy was strongest in its entire history, the top marginal tax rate ranged between 70% and 92%,

And the infrastructure of the rest of the world was in rubble.

All you need to do is reduce the commerce centers of Europe and Asia to dust and you can continue to engage in predatory acts, you just need to ensure that business has no where to go.

and regulation particularly on the financial industry was much greater than it is today.

Utter bullshit, as you know.

Regulation is the primary reason that manufacturing has left the USA. Compliance cost in America is thousands of times greater than in China or India.

That is a fact. It disproves your ideology. You are simply wrong.

You making up bullshit makes me wrong?

It's obvious you've never run a business.

ROFL

Where does the money come from for a business to "make money"? From its customers.

Well, there you go. Investors and those who partake of an IPO have no impact on raising of capital, nor do lending institutions nor the floating of bonds.

You've got it all figured out.

Why does a customer give money to a business? Because the business can supply a product or service the customer wants.

Not usually. While deposits and upfront funding occasionally are used, in the overwhelming majority of cases, money is exchanged for finished product or services.

How does the business supply this product or service? By employing people to do the work necessary.

Most business, that which is not government funded, expects to make a profit on the venture.

A company hires people when it cannot serve its customers (from whom all its money comes, and who are the be-all of any business)

You have no clue at all, do you? You've never had a business or economics class in your life, have you?

In business, we use the term "stake holders," this includes share holders, employees and customers. All have a stake in the business.

A business will expand or reduce a customer base in response to pressures from regulation, unions and other factors, a SWOT analysis will reveal the general conditions.

with the staff it has. Because serving its customers is HOW it makes money.

True.

So if Joe makes baseballs, the materials cost $2 per ball, wages cost $3 and he runs a 300% overhead. He sells the balls for $12 each. What happens if he gets a 6% increase in taxes and a 30% increase in EPA regulation costs?

If he only loses $4 per ball sold, can he make it up with volume?

The first statement is an exaggeration with some truth at the core. The second is flat-out wrong.

Both were entirely correct.

 

[Dragon]

And the infrastructure of the rest of the world was in rubble.

False. Except for Germany and Japan, most of the major industrial powers had their capacity survive the war almost intact. Most of Britain's industrial strength was in the north of the island, out of Luftwaffe range and so never bombed. France, Norway, Denmark, and the Low Countries fell so quickly to the Blitzkrieg that the Germans hardly damaged their industrial plant at all.

I realize that "the rest of the world was destroyed" is a common right-wing meme to explain the postwar prosperity, but it's based on a non-fact.

A business will expand or reduce a customer base in response to pressures from regulation, unions and other factors, a SWOT analysis will reveal the general conditions.

This may be true (actually I think it's total nonsense), but it has no bearing on what we were talking about. A business hires people in order to satisfy its customer base. Even if a business will voluntarily shrink its customer base in response to pressure from regulations, unions, etc. (which, again, I think is total nonsense), it will still hire people in order to satisfy its customers.

So if Joe makes baseballs, the materials cost $2 per ball, wages cost $3 and he runs a 300% overhead. He sells the balls for $12 each. What happens if he gets a 6% increase in taxes and a 30% increase in EPA regulation costs?

1) He raises prices; or

2) He accepts a lower profit margin; or

3) He splits the difference between those two, doing both to a lesser degree.

Both were entirely correct.

Prove that OWS is union-run.

EDIT: Aside from the above, your entire post consisted of nothing but content-free rhetoric, which does not deserve a reply. You could have saved a lot of bandwidth if you were more interested in discussing issues than in pointlessly insulting people, but I guess that's your choice.

 

[Uncensored2008]

False. Except for Germany and Japan, most of the major industrial powers had their capacity survive the war almost intact.

Coventry will be so pleased to hear this.

So many there thought they will literally bombed into oblivion. Now that the Marxists have seen fit to rewrite history to fit their agenda, we find that Europe was in fact not at all harmed by WWII.

I take it that no one actually died in the conflict either?

Most of Britain's industrial strength was in the north of the island, out of Luftwaffe range and so never bombed. France, Norway, Denmark, and the Low Countries fell so quickly to the Blitzkrieg that the Germans hardly damaged their industrial plant at all.

It's good that history is flexible and can be changed to fit the needs of the radical left.

I realize that "the rest of the world was destroyed" is a common right-wing meme to explain the postwar prosperity, but it's based on a non-fact.

And by "fact" you mean that which serves your purpose. What actually occurred is clearly irrelevant to you.

This may be true (actually I think it's total nonsense),

I'm not surprised, the depth of your ignorance is impressive. (and well guarded.)

but it has no bearing on what we were talking about. A business hires people in order to satisfy its customer base.

I see, so if you want ice cream cones for ten cents a scoop, then Basken Robbins will hire people to give them to you for that price. You are a customer and all they care about is satisfying you.

Even if a business will voluntarily shrink its customer base in response to pressure from regulations, unions, etc. (which, again, I think is total nonsense), it will still hire people in order to satisfy its customers.

I see. What boards of directors and share holders think is irrelevant.

You've got this all figured out.

1) He raises prices; or

Thus pricing himself out of the market.

2) He accepts a lower profit margin; or

Accounting is yet another discipline you have zero knowledge of, I see. Per the numbers I gave you, his gross margin goes about 35% negative. He looses about $5 per ball sold. But in your world, that isn't a concern.

3) He splits the difference between those two, doing both to a lesser degree.

Loose a little less per unit, but makes it up on volume...

Prove that OWS is union-run.

 

[Dragon]

Coventry will be so pleased to hear this.

I didn't say no one in Britain was hurt or killed by the bombing, I said that British industrial capacity survived the war virtually intact. That's true. The same is also true for almost all other industrial powers. Even Germany and Japan had been restored to pre-war levels by the mid-1950s, but no one else was significantly hurt at all in terms of factories destroyed, etc.

You have no answer to this, apparently, except for empty rhetoric once again, which I'm snipping as pointless and undeserving of a reply.

I see, so if you want ice cream cones for ten cents a scoop, then Basken Robbins will hire people to give them to you for that price. You are a customer and all they care about is satisfying you.

Are you really so stupid that you think that is a reasonable interpretation of what I said, or are you trying to be clever?

B-R's ice cream pricing and its hiring decisions are virtually distinct; about the only connection between them is that its labor costs are part of what sets a floor under its prices. As with most products, B-R sets its price so as to generate the most revenue, recognizing that higher prices reduce sales while lower prices reduce per-sale revenue. It hires people so that it will have enough staff in its stores that its customers won't wait in long lines and get aggravated and go elsewhere. If for some reason the number of people wanting to buy B-R ice cream increased by 50%, it would hire new people and probably open new stores to take advantage of this. If it can meet all the demand for its product with the staff it currently has, it won't hire anyone.

This isn't controversial nor is it rocket science.

Thus pricing himself out of the market.

The factors you listed would affect all of his competitors equally, so they would be doing the same thing, so no. The "losses" you projected were based on the price you hypothesized; if the price of baseballs rose to match new conditions, there would be no loss per sale.

The image you presented shows that that union supports OWS. What you need to show is that OWS is controlled by the union. That image doesn't show anything of the kind.

 

[mudwhistle]

The problem is the protesters are not exactly protesting the same issues as the poll.

Yes, actually, they are. The biggest single issue is the influence of business on government. The number two issue is the yawning disparity of wealth in our economy.

Many of them are there because of high tuition costs. The face that their over-priced education can't guarantee employment.

This is part and parcel of that yawning disparity in wealth. It all comes down to a shortage of jobs, a bigger shortage of well-paying jobs, declining real wages over time; on the other end, increasing education costs and increasing health-care costs, both making the decline in real wages even worse than it appears on first glance. All of this is a result of excessive corporate influence on government.

Who should they be protesting really?

Both Wall Street and the government. But it's Wall Street that pulls the strings. The puppet master is always more important than the puppet.

Okay, that's the spin.....what's the real deal neal???

Even the protesters admitted early on that student loan debt and jobs was the primary issues that drew them to Wall Street.

That is before the Worker's Family Party (ACORN. SEIU) handlers showed up.

 

[Dragon]

Okay, that's the spin.....what's the real deal neal???

That is the real deal. That's really what this is about: excessive corporate influence on the government and the resulting worsening of living standards for everyone except the very rich.

Even the protesters admitted early on that student loan debt and jobs was the primary issues that drew them to Wall Street.

Student loan debt and jobs are specific manifestations of what I just said.

 

[flacaltenn]

Okay, that's the spin.....what's the real deal neal???

That is the real deal. That's really what this is about: excessive corporate influence on the government and the resulting worsening of living standards for everyone except the very rich.

Even the protesters admitted early on that student loan debt and jobs was the primary issues that drew them to Wall Street.

Student loan debt and jobs are specific manifestations of what I just said.

Nope Dragon -- all this bloviating about business being the puppet master and those poor clowns in the Congress being the puppet -- are not facts in evidence.

There is NO evidence that Corporate influence created ideas like "1st time homebuyer tax credits" or even that "Subprime Loans" were invented because greedy bankers wanted to make riskier loans under the eyes of super competent regulators. THis is a battle of ideas. The ideas exist politically independent of the Cash flowing in both directions. The power to SEND THE REGULATORS home -like Barney did -- is just pure arrogance of power. "Too big to fail?" -- GM bailouts that screwed current investors and favored the Unions?

Your "puppet" theory is STILL bass-ackwards.. You want to ignore the SOURCE of the POWER to grant favors and meddle. Can't fix the problem with that blinding influence.

 

[Dragon]

There is NO evidence that Corporate influence created ideas like "1st time homebuyer tax credits"

There is also no evidence that first time homebuyer tax credits had much, if anything, to do with causing the economic meltdown.

The ideas exist politically independent of the Cash flowing in both directions.

Are you actually naive enough to believe this?

There are records of Clinton administration internal discussions that reveal the repeal of Glass-Steagal as part of a deal demanded by Wall Street in exchange for certain concessions and favors.

The power to SEND THE REGULATORS home -like Barney did -- is just pure arrogance of power. "Too big to fail?" -- GM bailouts that screwed current investors and favored the Unions?

No, it's not "pure arrogance of power," it's what the big contributors wanted. Wall Street gives massive amounts of money to both parties. Because of this, both parties kiss Wall Street's ass. That there was going to be some sort of deal pulling their patoots out of the fire at public expense was a given.

There might have been a bailout anyway ("too big to fail" wasn't entirely false), but without the corrupting influence of campaign cash it would have had a lot more strings attached to it and been much more in the public interest.

You want to ignore the SOURCE of the POWER to grant favors and meddle.

It's impossible to fix that. If the government suddenly decided to keep its hands off the economy in all but the most basic ways, as libertarians want, corporate campaign donors would use their influence to make it butt back in. That's how the government got into the economy in the first place back in the late 19th century.

 

[Baruch Menachem]

I only have one word on this whole stupidity.



Metamucil.

 

[mudwhistle]

Okay, that's the spin.....what's the real deal neal???

That is the real deal. That's really what this is about: excessive corporate influence on the government and the resulting worsening of living standards for everyone except the very rich.

Even the protesters admitted early on that student loan debt and jobs was the primary issues that drew them to Wall Street.

Student loan debt and jobs are specific manifestations of what I just said.

Now wait a minute....just who do you think is running the government? (Democrats)

Explain why they can still be on the take but not be involved in the corruption you speak of?

That's the million dollar question.....no pun intended.

Answer: They can't, but that never stopped them from attempting to cast blame on the GOP, the rich, or Whites in general.

 

[Dragon]

Now wait a minute....just who do you think is running the government? (Democrats)

Explain why they can still be on the take but not be involved in the corruption you speak of?

They can't. They are involved in it. They are only slightly less corrupt than the Republicans, if that.

Please don't confuse this movement with partisan politics as usual.

 

[Uncensored2008]

I didn't say no one in Britain was hurt or killed by the bombing,

What you said was blatantly false, why you said it was to deceive.

When such chutzpah is employed, mocking in the only valid response.

I said that British industrial capacity survived the war virtually intact. That's true.

It's not even on the same continent as "true," it is the "big lie" in action. England was devastated by German attacks. Because the facts don't serve your purpose, you have crafted a complete fabrication that bears no resemblance to the facts.

The same is also true for almost all other industrial powers. Even Germany and Japan had been restored to pre-war levels by the mid-1950s, but no one else was significantly hurt at all in terms of factories destroyed, etc.

Imagine having a world war and not causing any significant damage....

In 2001, my company bought a company with operating plants in France and England. Even that late, the damage from WWII was still everywhere, in both countries. Bayeux had the shells of factories that never were rebuilt, Birmingham and Coventry obviously bore massive scars.

You have no answer to this, apparently, except for empty rhetoric once again, which I'm snipping as pointless and undeserving of a reply.

I understand why you run, you recite talking points and cannot engage in a rational debate.

Are you really so stupid that you think that is a reasonable interpretation of what I said, or are you trying to be clever?

What you have said is utterly stupid. You are like a two year old holding your breath and demanding "Gimmee Gimmee Gimmeee."

You know literally nothing about business nor economics and posit absurdity as if it were relevant.

B-R's ice cream pricing and its hiring decisions are virtually distinct; about the only connection between them is that its labor costs are part of what sets a floor under its prices.

Really?

So contribution is never considered in hiring by B-R?

Not that reality has any bearing on your bullshit, but Baskin-Robbins operates are a franchise. Most of the stores are privately owned and operated. The proprietors are mostly operating on razor thin margins. Nothing can be done about sunk costs, but inventory, labor and some overhead items can be controlled.

Let's say you have a young Marxists meeting for your state every Saturday. After the meeting, all four of you got to B-R for an ice cream. The bourgeoisie make you wait so you think that they should hire more glorious peoples workers to serve you. Oddly though, they don't. Even though you, as a customer, desire more service, the greedy capitalist pigs fail to acquiesce. It is both troubling and confounding to you.

As with most products, B-R sets its price so as to generate the most revenue,

Revenue? So you are aware that such a concept exists - good.

recognizing that higher prices reduce sales while lower prices reduce per-sale revenue. It hires people so that it will have enough staff in its stores that its customers won't wait in long lines and get aggravated and go elsewhere.

Ah, so to meet a 20 minute rush, the owner is willing to add tremendous cost in labor and overhead?

In economics, one of the ratios that determine the health of an organization is "SPE," sales per employee. If the ratio is low, then the organization is headed for bankruptcy. Adding headcount ALWAYS lowers SPE.

If for some reason the number of people wanting to buy B-R ice cream increased by 50%, it would hire new people and probably open new stores to take advantage of this. If it can meet all the demand for its product with the staff it currently has, it won't hire anyone.

No, in real life it will add head count if this increases the profitability of the organization. Do the increased sales warrant the increase in labor and overhead?

This isn't controversial nor is it rocket science.

You are simply clueless. You clearly show why Communist countries are miserable shit holes. You have no grasp of the concept of value.

The factors you listed would affect all of his competitors equally,

I see...

so they would be doing the same thing, so no.

What if they move the operation to Mexico or India to escape the predatory regulation costs?

A great many companies have done that. You know, labor is virtually NEVER the driver for offshoring.

The "losses" you projected were based on the price you hypothesized; if the price of baseballs rose to match new conditions, there would be no loss per sale.

You have a fantasy that all will simply accept what the state does, that is false.

The image you presented shows that that union supports OWS. What you need to show is that OWS is controlled by the union. That image doesn't show anything of the kind.

Most of the people at the Shit-in are Union goons.

 

[Dragon]

I'm going to start snipping anything you say that you fail to provide any evidence for. Your bluster is not a refutation of what I said about most of Europe's industrial capacity (except for Germany's of course) being undamaged by the war.

There may have been a factory or two in southern England bombed by the Germans during the Blitz, but the bulk of British industry was in the north, and the Luftwaffe could not reach it. England suffered only minimal damage to its industrial capacity. The same is true of all other combatants except for Germany, Japan, and the Soviet Union (but the USSR wasn't a significant U.S. trade partner after the war so only Germany and Japan suffered significant industrial damage as that impacted U.S. trade).

The idea of a world in rubble is a myth. It did not happen that way.

So contribution is never considered in hiring by B-R?

Reread what I said, and try again. That is a non-response.

No, in real life it will add head count if this increases the profitability of the organization.

You've come back twice now with general statements like that in no way conflict with what I said, then tack a "no" on in front of it as if that by itself made it actual response.

Workers added in order to meet unmet consumer demand DO increase profitability. Workers added when there is no consumer demand to justify them DON'T increase profitability. Workers will be added when need to meet unmet demand BECAUSE that will increase profitability, and won't be added otherwise because it would NOT do so.

Twist and squirm though you may, the bottom line is that hiring is done in response to consumer demand and for no other reason.

What if they move the operation to Mexico or India to escape the predatory regulation costs?

Rather than to take advantage of the tenfold savings in labor costs? In other words, what if they do the same thing that a lot of other companies have done, but for a totally different and by comparison trivial reason?

Takes all kinds, I guess.

Most of the people at [OWS] Union goons.

Prove it.

 

[mudwhistle]

Now wait a minute....just who do you think is running the government? (Democrats)

Explain why they can still be on the take but not be involved in the corruption you speak of?

They can't. They are involved in it. They are only slightly less corrupt than the Republicans, if that.

Please don't confuse this movement with partisan politics as usual.

I'm not confused....they're joined at the hip.

Who do you think made sure they had a park to protest in?

Guess how much the use of that park cost the tax-payer?

Would you believe a $100 million dollar loan guarantee by the Obama Administration?


Btw, supporters of OWS grows longer:

China
Iran
Barrack Obama
The PLO
SEIU
ACORN
Communist Party of America
The DNC.........

US Congressional member Bernie Sanders called today for a run on these evil rat-bastard banks.

Now the left is calling on a financial meltdown.

I wonder whom is behind all of this????

Hmmmmmmmmm???

 

[Dragon]

I'm not confused....they're joined at the hip.

No, you are confused, and that's why you asked that question about Democratic corruption as if it were somehow contradictory of something else, when in fact the answer is obvious. The Democrats are part of the problem, part of what's being protested here. The Democratic Party is one thing. Occupy Wall Street is something else. Assertions to the contrary are lies.