Some things cannot be bought and sold like so many pounds of silver or so many bushels of grain.

Occupy Wall Street | NYC Protest for American Revolution

It isn't government that's the problem, it is government controlled by a wealthy minority, which then no longer serves the greater good of all citizens.

But if we are to make government smaller, I am in favor of that only if it shrinks the components of government which are Orwellian in nature, or shrinks that which can be easily misused by the powerful, and the savings passed on to the working classes, for they actually buy things (as opposed to investing in lucrative scams to further suck dry the workers) and have been given such a raw deal in recent decades, they actually deserve some reimbursement. But then, we need to actually make things citizens want, and fix the roads and bridges and rail system to get the good and the people safely to market. Richard Wolff isn't off the mark on this, indeed he hits many a sensitive nerve of those in high places, and I think he's on the right track.

Here's what Professor Wolff has to say about Occupy Wall Street's 99%:

Criticism, Violence and Roosting Chickens | Scoop News

"So now, the weapon of criticism wielded by the 99 percent suffers the counter criticism of violence by servants of the 1 percent. No one will miss which side resorted to organized, massive violence so early and so unnecessarily in this conflict. As in Iraq, Afghanistan, and elsewhere, having failed to win hearts and minds, US government agencies cover their failure by resorting to violence. Chickens raised abroad return home to roost as they often do. Consider the image: New York Police Department machines and personnel destroy the free library that had functioned so well in Zuccotti Park.

 

 

 

New York has acquired newly renamed mayor: Mubarak Bloomberg. Situated atop the 1 percent, he gave the order to "clear and clean" Zuccotti Park. This mayor, who presides over some of the world's filthiest tunnels and stations - that daily threaten the public health of millions of subway riders - suddenly acquired an obsession with cleanliness in the small Zuccotti Park. This mayor - whose city handles garbage by piling it in bags on the street that forever break and scatter their contents across the streets - wants us to believe he is concerned about public safety.

Will the failures that renamed New York's mayor spread to yield a Mubarak Obama too? Or will the Arab Spring - so blithely praised by Secretary of State Clinton as "freedom struggles" - resurface here to confront the Clintons with their hypocritical complicity in repression policies at home?

The deepening economic inequality, the moneyed corruption of politics and the collapsing fortunes and prospects of the mass of Americans: none of those basic conditions and causes of Occupy Wall Street have been addressed by Bloomberg or Obama. Instead, they seek to repress those who expose and oppose those conditions.

Meanwhile, the system that keeps reproducing those conditions - a capitalism becoming increasingly intolerable - loses more bases of support. In times like these, the criticism of weapons risks losing to the weapon of criticism. Will the Arab Spring be reborn as the American Winter?"

Richard Wolff isn't off the mark on this, indeed he hits many a sensitive nerve of those in high places, and I think he's on the right track

 

You have quoted Richard Wolff on multiple occasions now (and your posts certainly endorse his views) - why don't you cut to the chase and just say you want a socialistic state. :rolleyes:

 

Back on topic, favorability ratings for OWS continue to plummet as expected. 2/3 of New York city alone now believe OWS protestors don't represent the 99% (I haven't even gotten to the numbers of other OWS sites which all tell the same story...) On the national level, approval ratings for OWS has dropped all the way down to 33%. In the same time frame, those opposed to OWS has increased to over 45%. More shockingly, OWS is now officially more unpopular than the Tea Party movement in the eyes of the American public.

 

chuck kottke may continue to rant something nonsensical about the "liberty bell," quote Thomas Paine out of context and continue to protest this "movement" isn't dead. But I live in the real world, not some fantasy socialistic world. And the fact of the matter is, all the recent trends points to the inefficacy of OWS. What does it say about the state of your "cause" when liberals like Jon Stewart starts ripping on you on his show?

 

I've said this multiple times: OWS needs to articulate an issue which can be addressed (any at this point will do), something that isn't derivative of "It's not fair they're rich and I'm not!" if they want to remain relevant. Because let's face it: that's what most Americans now believe OWS has boiled down to and a majority will never ever join that cause. Ever.

And the fact of the matter is, all the recent trends points to the inefficacy of OWS. What does it say about the state of your "cause" when liberals like Jon Stewart starts ripping on you on his show?

 

I think you're confusing democratic popularity with substantive concerns.

 

You'll never have a protest with a leader that all members accept as their representative, and you'll never have a protest with people who are 100% ethical/restrained/"normal".

 

OWS is just a vent, a way for the uneducated youth to show their frustration with how tough their lives are. Currently young people have the highest unemployment rate seen since the Great Depression, and are the poorest among us. They've been taught in Government schools that economic problems arise from too few regulations and "capitalism run amok". So they are petitioning the government for greater interventions, which will of course lead to further economic ruin.

 

If OWS could be boiled down to one thing, it's an uneducated reaction to corporatism (fascism).

 

It really reminds me of this:

 

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=VMeXGE_a8Gg]Louis CK Punches Dog In The Face To Save Her Life - Conan On TBS - YouTube[/ame]

 

Like Louis CK's dog, the OWS crowd will hate the "medicine" needed to fix the problem.

 

And the same could be said of Americans generally. They want change... but they're afraid of it. So anyone who comes out for significant changes in government policy/spending is vilified as "out of the mainstream" or "too extreme".

 

Democracy is prom king politics. And when the jocks are in charge, society collapses.

I think you're confusing democratic popularity with substantive concerns.

 

You'll never have a protest with a leader that all members accept as their representative, and you'll never have a protest with people who are 100% ethical/restrained/"normal".

 

Nope, I'm not confusing anything at all. Obviously I know you'll never get 100% support on any issue. But when one of the most liberal media personalities who consistently backs 99% of liberal agenda starts criticizing the protests and the protestors' aims, you know something has gone wrong. (And let's be real - OWS has devolved into a liberal movement).

 

Can you also not ignore the empirical data that I keep posting? What's your response to the fact that public support has decreased two-fold in a matter of 2 weeks to an all-time low of 33%? Or that a clear majority of New Yorkers, including the very 99% OWS claims to represent, support Mayor Bloomberg (someone who is normally very unpopular with New Yorkers)? Or the fact that independents + moderates in battleground states have consistently rejected OWS aims? Or the fact that OWS is now more unpopular than the Tea Party movement?

 

OWS is just a vent, a way for the uneducated youth to show their frustration with how tough their lives are. Currently young people have the highest unemployment rate seen since the Great Depression, and are the poorest among us.

 

Do you know what happens when you control for variables like standards of education? Predictably, unemployment levels among college graduates at the top universities are very low. It's only when you start looking at the bottom universities and colleges where you start to see a spike in unemployment levels. Is it mere coincidence that the % of unemployed is higher at bad schools? Or that there's a statistical significance at the p-value of 5% between school rankings and %Employment? There's a reason why you don't see many Columbia grads at the protests in NYC or UChicago grads at the protests in Chicago or Stanford grads at the protests in San Francisco - they all have jobs and make a good living.

 

Can you also not ignore the empirical data that I keep posting? What's your response to the fact that public support has decreased two-fold in a matter of 2 weeks to an all-time low of 33%?

 

I don't think public support is relevant.

 

Most of the public are brainwashed idiots. They believe the economy has natural periods of stagnation, and many believe inflation is a natural effect of capitalism.

 

Public support for a movement only becomes important when things start to get really violent. I give it another year, max.

 

(And let's be real - OWS has devolved into a liberal movement).

 

There are actually a lot of libertarians and "Tea Party" people who participate in and support it.

 

Do you know what happens when you control for variables like standards of education? Predictably, unemployment levels among college graduates at the top universities are very low. It's only when you start looking at the bottom universities and colleges where you start to see a spike in unemployment levels. Is it mere coincidence that the % of unemployed is higher at bad schools?

 

Ah the old "I attended Yale and did a stint with a Bloomberg terminal" argument.

 

1. Ivy League schools like Yale charge very high tuition, which allows them to weed out low-income students. Students from low-income families tend to not do as well in school generally.

 

2. Ivy League school select the best and brightest students from high schools, so naturally they will still be "the best and brightest" when they graduate. The university itself has little to no effect on their curiosity, work ethic, and intelligence.

 

3. Have you paid attention to which sectors of the economy are growing and shrinking lately? Hint: manufacturing isn't growing. Hint 2: Non-productive sectors are growing, such as government positions and legal positions at firms that specialize in bankruptcy. These are positions filled by nonskilled workers who scored high on their SATs and graduated from a school that has a lot of government connections - like Yale.

 

Is it mere coincidence that the % of unemployed is higher at bad schools? Or that there's a statistical significance at the p-value of 5% between school rankings and %Employment?

 

I'm glad you learned about p-value in your Intro to Stats course, but any buffoon at a community college learns that. If you can start a substantive conversation with me about central bank interventions in the Japanese bond market and how it affects the carry trade, I might be slightly more impressed.

http://www.washingtonsblog.com/2011/11/video-oakland-police-strike-army-ranger-with-nightsticks-on-his-back-ribs-shoulders-and-hands-lacerating-his-spleen-and-causing-internal-bleeding.html

I don't think public support is relevant.

 

Most of the public are brainwashed idiots. They believe the economy has natural periods of stagnation, and many believe inflation is a natural effect of capitalism.

 

Public support for a movement only becomes important when things start to get really violent. I give it another year, max.

 

:facepalm: So I take it you don't know much about the importance of public support in political movements, something that has been well-documented by both political scientists + sociologists? Even chuck kottke, someone who I've had disagreements with, also acknowledged the importance of public support. Seriously, how do you ever come up with these assertions? Especially when it goes against documented research and historical precedents?

 

There are actually a lot of libertarians and "Tea Party" people who participate in and support it.

 

No there aren't. Are there some libertarians at these protests? Sure. Are there some people in the Tea Party? Sure. Are there a lot? No. Both anecdotal and statistical evidence prove this.

 

Ah the old "I attended Yale and did a stint with a Bloomberg terminal" argument.

 

1. Ivy League schools like Yale charge very high tuition, which allows them to weed out low-income students. Students from low-income families tend to not do as well in school generally.

 

2. Ivy League school select the best and brightest students from high schools, so naturally they will still be "the best and brightest" when they graduate. The university itself has little to no effect on their curiosity, work ethic, and intelligence.

 

3. Have you paid attention to which sectors of the economy are growing and shrinking lately? Hint: manufacturing isn't growing. Hint 2: Non-productive sectors are growing, such as government positions and legal positions at firms that specialize in bankruptcy. These are positions filled by nonskilled workers who scored high on their SATs and graduated from a school that has a lot of government connections - like Yale.

 

Have you ever heard about the phrase straw man fallacy? You surely must have because it's been a common tactic that you use over and over again, "refuting" a proposition by replacing it with a similar yet unequivalent proposition. Nowhere did I talk about the Ivy League or mention a Bloomberg terminal but for some reason, you keep bringing it up. Whatever I'll play along and address your refutations:

 

1. If you actually know anything about the Ivy League schools, you'll know it's nowhere near being among the most expensive colleges in the nation. In fact, Dartmouth is the only Ivy League school that's even in the top 25 expensive colleges. Furthermore, you should know that Ivy League schools have the most generous financial aid packages around, especially towards low-income students. For example, any Harvard student who comes from a family making less than $60,000 do not have to pay at all for college. In fact, it's not uncommon for students to pay less at Harvard or Columbia than they would have had at a state school. It's a complete myth that these schools weed out low-income students like you assert.

 

2. You're absolutely naive if you think a university has little to no effect on the level of education you receive. Guess who teach at these "top" universities - the leading academics in their field (and obviously, this doesn't have to be limited to Ivy League schools). If you were to clone a person and send him/her to two different colleges, one to a top-20 school and the other to a local community college, do you honestly believe they'll have the same breadth of knowledge at the end?

 

3. First off, government positions have been consistently on the rise since the FDR administration so I don't know what you're trying to prove. As for these increase in legal jobs? Do you actually think a firm like Skadden or Wachtell look at your SAT scores before deciding to hire you? They don't even look at your LSAT scores for goodness sakes (Granted, connections might come into play if you're a fringe prospect but you can say that about any profession). Not to mention that top-10 US firms like Simpson Thacher + Davis Polk have actually been reducing their offers over the last couple of years. You're not a lawyer in NYC are you? Because if you were, you surely wouldn't make claims that legal positions are increasing.

 

Something that I keep noticing is your deep resentment towards Ivy League schools (and similar colleges) - I'm sorry you were rejected and didn't get to attend but you shouldn't let that cloud your judgment. I don't care if you disagree with what I'm saying but at the very least, address the actual arguments I'm making, instead of making personal attacks on colleges. I'm actually starting to feel really sorry for you because your posts suggest some deep school inferiority complex.

 

I'm glad you learned about p-value in your Intro to Stats course, but any buffoon at a community college learns that. If you can start a substantive conversation with me about central bank interventions in the Japanese bond market and how it affects the carry trade, I might be slightly more impressed.

 

Once again, another logical fallacy. Was I trying to display my "expertise" in p-values? No. If you actually bothered to read the post, it talks about various empirical studies that support my arguments. But sure, choose to ignore all that and make derisive comments about me learning all this in a Stats 101 class. That's all you've been doing when I keep presenting evidence after evidence to address your points.

 

(And if you actually want to converse with me about Japanese bond markets, options trading, M&A deals and other goodies, then let me know. After all, this is exactly the stuff that I did full-time as an investment banker :rolleyes:)

Go Parrotdies!

 

/hasnt read thread and do not understand much of this news topic but well aware that Saffire is a bullshit artist

Yale, I'm not even sure what your argument here is.

 

If it's that polling data shows support for OWS is declining, then sure. How can I debate those numbers? What's your point?

 

But if it's that OWS isn't borne out of a serious and real problem with systemic unemployment, then I disagree. And I can refute that assertion with numbers.

 

You seem to be saying that unemployed people just need to go to Yale or a "top 20" school in order to get a job. Frankly, that's idiotic.

 

For example, any Harvard student who comes from a family making less than $60,000 do not have to pay at all for college. In fact, it's not uncommon for students to pay less at Harvard or Yale or Columbia than they would have had at a state school. It's a complete myth that these schools weed out low-income students like you assert.

 

That's because they're cherry picking the smartest students. I already pointed this out to you. And I never said Ivy League schools were the most expensive in the nation, just that they're expensive to attend generally. Look who's making straw men.

 

You're absolutely naive if you think a university has little to no effect on the level of education you receive.

 

Okay. I guess that makes me naive.

 

Now show me empirical evidence the "top 20" schools contribute to students' success. In order to do this, you'll need to control for all these factors:

 

1. That the students attending these schools tend to come from wealthier families.

2. That the students attending these schools are already the best students in their graduating high school classes.

3. That the name-brand recognition associated with these schools enables them access to better jobs upon graduation, giving them access to more capital to be productive with.

 

That's a tall order!

 

I stand by my position that these schools *don't* in fact imbue students with any special skills or knowledge that you couldn't learn on the internet or at a community college.

 

And then you go on to name-drop a bunch of law firms you're familiar with.

 

I didn't bother to read the rest of your post because you and Reilly are just going to drag me into some mindless pit of "Aha! I caught you in a logical fallacy!" and "Check out my amazing credentials." and "I'm arguing something that's corroborated by polling data! I'm SUBSTANTIVE."

 

It's old.

 

And the funny thing is, Reilly himself thinks he's some sort of badass. As far as I know, he's a 17 year old in the UK.

I've said this multiple times: OWS needs to articulate an issue which can be addressed (any at this point will do), something that isn't derivative of "It's not fair they're rich and I'm not!" if they want to remain relevant. Because let's face it: that's what most Americans now believe OWS has boiled down to and a majority will never ever join that cause. Ever.

 

Look at this crap.

 

I mean seriously, there's nothing here that's substantive whatsoever. No meat. How could anyone disagree with it? It's the most middle-of-the-road, meaningless, yellow position you could possibly take on the subject.

And the funny thing is, Reilly himself thinks he's some sort of badass. As far as I know, he's a 17 year old in the UK.

 

So that would mean I was 9 years old when I started posting here.

 

As far as referring to a person as "Yale", did you need any furthermore confirmation that you are indeed a pompous asshole? I hope you've just accepted that you are a dick and you learn to live with that fact.

Something that I keep noticing is your deep resentment towards Ivy League schools (and similar colleges) - I'm sorry you were rejected and didn't get to attend but you shouldn't let that cloud your judgment. I don't care if you disagree with what I'm saying but at the very least, address the actual arguments I'm making, instead of making personal attacks on colleges. I'm actually starting to feel really sorry for you because your posts suggest some deep school inferiority complex.

 

Thankfully my self esteem isn't derived from the diploma I got. I'm not ashamed of the school I went to at all, or what I graduated with.

 

You, on the other hand, seem to be intent on letting other people know you went to Yale (which I'm seriously doubting, by the way).

 

My 7th grade English teacher was a graduate of Harvard. He was an overweight, single, balding man who probably only makes 30k a year. And he was known for being an asshole who was always flaunting his Harvard degree.

Reilly, you've got over 30,000 posts on this forum alone. I might be a dick to you, but at least I don't spend all my waking hours posting to a Coldplay forum.

Reilly, you've got over 30,000 posts on this forum alone. I might be a dick to you, but at least I don't spend all my waking hours posting to a Coldplay forum.

 

This is why you are a moron and totally unreasonable, I will admit of course you know more about economics then me, but being reasonable comes into intelligence.

 

I've been a member here for years, I've spent many spells not on here, including recently when I wasn't on here for a few months. So for you to say that just because I have 30,000 posts means I spend all my time, 100%, of my time, on this forum, for the entire time since I registered, is incredibly stupid.

 

This is exactly why you're a moron.

You, on the other hand, seem to be intent on letting other people know you went to Yale (which I'm seriously doubting, by the way).

 

You're the only person who keeps bringing it up! Out of all my 553 posts, I've mentioned that I attended Yale just once. Now here are your posts (don't you just love the internet?):

 

You, on the other hand, seem to be intent on letting other people know you went to Yale (which I'm seriously doubting, by the way).

 

Ah the old "I attended Yale and did a stint with a Bloomberg terminal" argument.

 

Yale, I'm not even sure what your argument here is.

 

For a Yale graduate, you sure do make a lot of assumptions - for instance, I don't necessarily support every single protestor out there, or their actions.

 

These are positions filled by nonskilled workers who scored high on their SATs and graduated from a school that has a lot of government connections - like Yale.

 

Well you're the one who put it out there. That's like painting your house pink and being offended when someone comments on it. How many lawyers, traders, politicians, and bureaucrats does Yale crank out every year?

 

Can't you see why others might think you have some kind of inferiority complex towards your school? You're the only one who keeps bringing Yale back into these conversations.

I will admit of course you know more about economics then me

 

That was very man of you to say.

 

This is exactly why you're a moron.

 

I love you, too.

 

The reason I called him "Yale" was because it's easier to type out than "Parrotdies".

 

If Mr Parrot wants to chime on about the economics of the situation (rather than poll numbers and police brutality), then he's more than welcome to.

 

But the "top 20" schools argument is a pointless aside. Education doesn't create jobs.

Can't you see why others might think you have some kind of inferiority complex towards your school? You're the only one who keeps bringing Yale back into these conversations.

 

Actually you brought it up again here:

 

Do you know what happens when you control for variables like standards of education? Predictably, unemployment levels among college graduates at the top universities are very low. It's only when you start looking at the bottom universities and colleges where you start to see a spike in unemployment levels. Is it mere coincidence that the % of unemployed is higher at bad schools? Or that there's a statistical significance at the p-value of 5% between school rankings and %Employment? There's a reason why you don't see many Columbia grads at the protests in NYC or UChicago grads at the protests in Chicago or Stanford grads at the protests in San Francisco - they all have jobs and make a good living.

 

There are so many fallacies wrapped up into this one paragraph that I tried to dissect it for you, but then you started complaining that I had an inferiority complex.

 

Let's get to the bottom of this: was your contention that everyone could have jobs if they went to "top 20" schools?

 

I'm trying to figure out what your point is.

That was very man of you to say.

 

 

 

I love you, too.

 

The reason I called him "Yale" was because it's easier to type out than "Parrotdies".

 

If Mr Parrot wants to chime on about the economics of the situation (rather than poll numbers and police brutality), then he's more than welcome to.

 

But the "top 20" schools argument is a pointless aside. Education doesn't create jobs.

 

You should enter into the type of politics that you appear to hate so much, because you brought up this irrelevant fact that I have a lot of posts on here, and then you get challenged on that and suddenly it doesn't matter anymore.

 

That is why you're a total sham. You may have the knowledge but you don't have a functional and reasonable brain.

 

I admitted that I don't have a clue what you're talking about because I have enough to follow in my own country which was on the brink of defaulting (Until about 2 months ago until we met IMF standards) but from briefing over things your arguments are pathetic, and in this example especially you will bring up anything other then the point itself, as you always do. You can't be proud of yourself, you're petty.

There are so many fallacies wrapped up into this one paragraph that I tried to dissect it for you, but then you started complaining that I had an inferiority complex.

 

=My little brain can't compute the different complexities of the issues I so strongly made points about.

Damn, Reilly, you really want to continue this?

I know that you definitely don't want to continue this, otherwise you'd just have responded like a normal person.

Reilly, you're assuming a "normal person" would want to continue a petty, pointless argument with you on a forum, which has nothing to do with the topic.

 

You really need to get outside once in a while. Or maybe get to bed. Isn't it 4:00AM where you are? Yeesh.

I'm not really sure as to what you wanted to continue, because you didn't make that clear. I go back to my politician point, you evade the topics that elude you're reasoning.

PS. No I am not 17, thanks for NOT admitting that, and no, its not 4am here, thanks for NOT admitting that, you clueless asshole.

that elude you're reasoning.

 

That elude my am reasoning?

 

Dude, hit the hay.