""We're running out of hope. Can't you see?"

Discussion in 'Wall St. News' started by nitro, Oct 20, 2011.

  1. nitro


    "Farr: 100,000 Protestors, a Warning for the US"


    It won't matter. It will come to this. It must. That is the way of the human condition. Only at the precipe do we change.
  2. Change to what exactly?
  3. I hate to say it but Greece is the case study for what will happen here . Digging the debt hole has never had a good ending throughout history.

    Thinking "this time it's different" is a mistake . History repeats.
  4. he must be short.
  5. nitro


    So difficult to say. The OWS are now joined by Socialists, Communists and Nazis. This will confused things terribly.

    The problem as I see it is, you don't want to limit innovation, so you don't want to crush the capitalist spirit by making everyone the same. That rules out communism. This has nothing to do with Jews, so that rules out the Nazis. That leaves some weird form of Free-Market-Socialism, which is a dirty word in this country. But hear me out.

    Somehow, the key to the whole thing is, you should be able to make gobs of money, huge sums, I don't care, by being a capitalist. What you cannot do with that money, is guarantee my enslavement by controlling my employment or not, or by forcing me to work three jobs just so that I can survive, pay rent and eat, forget health insurance for now. That should be a golden rule worldwide.

    The tea party says, "well you are beginning to sound an awful lot like the socialists that want to be taken care of by the rest of us, and that these entitlements have brought us to the brink of defaulting on our debt, and I am not going to pay for your house," etc etc etc.

    Some will counter and point out that all this waste of building more arms, fighting more wars, bailing out banks repeatedly, giving incredible advantages to people that hardly need it, that this sums to trillions of dollars a year. We just want to be able to live humbly without the constant fear of being on the street, and without having to live our live constantly fighting to stay alive.

    I truly believe that the US has its heart in the right place. When things go bad, we begin to look at each other for blame. I do not know what the ultimate solution is. I think that 90% of the population couldn't give a rats ass about how much money other people make, as long as they are allowed a decent existence. I realize that this is becoming increasingly hard with more and more people around the world all seeking the same thing, but if that means curbing our capacity to limit the brightest a bit, while allowing the rest of humanity to catch up, I think it is the moral thing to do. The detail of how we do that as a world is not clear. Building infrastructure for the sake of it just seems like more lying to ourselves. What we need are real solutions, private sector solutions.

    I suspect that if there was one enemy of the poor, it is inflation. if the cost of living was not relentlessly going higher (people will give you all sorts of statistics but it costs more to live today than it did yesterday for people in the 30 - 50K range), we could live on the meager wages available. Corporations, and their shareholders have to understand one basic thing. Corporations have to make explicit in their Qs, "we could have made an extra .01 per share if we outsourced to China (whatever) but we chose to create work here in the US even if it is a bit more expensive." The market should not punish that. Then, with the help of technology, and education, and even the help of unions that will negotiate a five hour work day if you use the other three hours to further your skills (helped by the government), the rich still stay rich and we get more amazing products and continue to work 80 hour weeks, the poor and middle class earn a humble living and continue to educate themselves to be better employees as Corporations require more educated people, and shareholders forgive corporations for not squeezing every penny out of a market and people.

    I don't know what else we can do. I don't know what political philosophy this is called. But it is humane. Will it work? I don't know, that is for professional economists to conjecture. Maybe it has already been tried and failed. :( Maybe the answer is hidden in this wiki somewhere?


    Remember, I don't want to curb the rich. Free-Market-Socialism. Does such a thing exist?
  6. TGregg


    You are misguided. Not only do more than 10% care about what everyone else makes, but most people do, probably closer to 90% than 10. I know, it's nuts. Easy to verify. Go up to some friends and say "Dude, got a couple questions for you. How'd you feel if you went in to the office tomorrow and they freaken' doubled your salary?" And he'll get all excited and be very happy. Then say "Then how would you feel if you found out that all your coworkers are now making four times as much as they used to?" And watch the storm clouds come to his face.

    Personally, I'd be even happier because presumably that means there's even more money I can make (unless I am a serious slacker or was already making way more than my coworkers). But most people are not deep thinkers.

    Not to mention that people who earn a good living make other lazy slackers look like. . . well. . . like lazy slackers. If they are all hanging around together, a deadbeat circle jerk if you will, no worries. But when they see somebody capable, someone earning a good living, all of a sudden they are reminded of what a bunch of losers they really are.
  7. nitro


    Fine, I accept the premise that people care more about what others make than if what they make is enough (although even if true, you are misguided by what the reason is, and it is actually economic, not emotional). What I don't accept is that if someone doesn't want to work as hard as someone else, for WHATEVER REASON, that they are "losers" (I don't even know what that means, but it sounds demeaning). This makes no sense whatsoever. I don't measure how hard or little I work on anyone but my own desires for money so that I can do with my FREE time what I want. If I want a 1) Porsche and I want to work hard to get it, go for it. 2) If I just want to be able to pay my bills drive a Toyota Echo, by working five hours a day 30 weeks a year and travel the rest of the time, fine too!

    The problem is that society has forced option 1 on EVERYONE, as if it is some law of nature that we must live to work, retrain by going to school at night, so we can do more work. What a miserable existance.

    Richard Branson gets it:


  8. piezoe


    Isn't it more or less a matter of degree? I don't understand those that want no regulation and no government interference with capitalists-- that want total laissez faire capitalism. Ironically, that will only lead to calls for more government regulation rather than less, and likely bad regulation at that. A perfect example is the repeal of Glass-Steagall in 1998. That's what the capitalists wanted, and it led to financial ruin and more, but not necessarily better, regulation. So I would argue that for their own good capitalists should want both good government regulation and a level playing field. But they don't. They want no regulation and monopolies and cartels.

    Free markets are what you get when you have regulations in place and enforced that prevent monopolies and cartels from forming and encourages competition. This creates a fertile climate for innovation.

    I don't see why free markets can't exist within both socialist and capitalist societies, but probably not easily in a communist society, of course, since in communist states capital and the means off production are controlled by the State.

    I have noticed that many posters here on ET like to speak of capitalism and free markets in one breath as though they were one in the same. They are not.
  9. What you cannot do with that money, is guarantee my enslavement by controlling my employment or not, or by forcing me to work three jobs just so that I can survive, pay rent and eat, forget health insurance for now. That should be a golden rule worldwide.


    I don't feel the "enslavement" is cause by the capitalist corporations. It may have been that way years ago when the employer owned the housing and company store, today we have more choices.

    Imo, the enslavement is gov't policies toward the capitalist system and we the people become consequently enslaved.

    Take fast food, everybody works 30 hours, that's it. Why? 40 hour week you have to provide benes. The gov't regulates benefits for a "full" time worker.

    Prior, to gov't policy every co could choose what days off, how many sick days/time, etc, free market for those who worked 40 hours. Well, if you take way corporate choice (competition/level the playing field and everyone has to offer maternity leave, etc for full time workers), the capitalist system is now rigged and not in everyone favor.
  10. BSAM


    Hold up Greggo.
    The measure of a man isn't by how much money he has.
    The best people I've known in life have been poor people.
    There's some really pathetic rich people all around.
    I think you are a bit misguided here, bro.
    Thanks for letting me help you along.
    #10     Oct 20, 2011