Saffire

I think shareholders should lose 100% of their investment, and bondholders are left with the remaining money the company can raise from selling off its assets. In a free market, other investors/companies will make offers on the productive assets the company has (like factories, land, inventory, etc). The price of labor will drop in that area (given the influx of jobless) and this leads to an incentive for former workers to move to other towns where they can get higher pay. (This is, of course, assuming there's no "minimum wage".) Let's say it's a car company. As there are now fewer car companies in existence, there is generally less competition in this field, which drives car prices higher (even if only slightly). The higher profit margins in that industry lead to greater incentive for investors to start a new car company. Or it's entirely possible the car industry was already saturated, so prices won't significantly rise (there's already enough competition). In this case, the labor will flow toward another industry that's not as competitive. Maybe the manufacture of cell phones or bicycles!

Hey "the_gloaming09" (I'm not sure what your name is), One interesting analogy I've read elsewhere on the 'net is newly-freed slaves after the Civil War. Nobody asked the question, "But where will the black people work now?" Granted, back then the economy was much more primitive - many people were still largely agrarian living a subsistence lifestyle and only saving a bit of money. Nobody expected retirement. But the point still stands. Look around you. There is always work to be done. There is always the possibility of demand, if the price is low enough. Americans have largely priced themselves out of the global labor market. They must accept pay cuts, and get back to work. They must work on things that people actually desire - not on things the government desires. If this happens, the country's "chains of production" will be geared toward maximizing an increase in our quality-of-life. We'll have more cars, more boats, more homes, more TVs, more clothes, etc. And when we have more of this stuff, suddenly it won't really matter that we're making less money than we made in the past - because the price of everything will be lower. Economics for me is utterly harmonious, like a sunrise or classical music.

Chuck, what if a large corporation like GM or Netflix or Bank of America were about to go bankrupt... and thousands, or maybe hundreds of thousands of people might lose their money/jobs. Would you be okay with a bailout in that case?

Here's another chemical that works to cure cancer: http://www.thedcasite.com/ [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jH0BJKC_LLw]Sodium Dichloroacetate (DCA) - The Cancer Cure - YouTube[/ame]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUZuNzAgY6s]Proof the FDA is suppressing the cure for cancer - YouTube[/ame] Fantastic and gripping documentary. It's not "too good to be true" (the treatment isn't perfected yet, it only cures about 1/3 of patients), and it's backed by real data available to the public. Tons of footage of testimony before Congress and judges. This guy isn't a quack, and this could be the future of cancer treatment!

This would definitely be an area worth researching - the number of police on payrolls nationally since 2007. Has it declined much? Increased? I'm too tired to look into it now, but I definitely will tomorrow. I'll make a wild guess that it's increased, but I may have to eat my shoe tomorrow. I think what happens in situations like this, leading up to a revolution, is that eventually you reach a "critical mass" of people who are negatively affected by the police, either directly or indirectly. So eventually most Americans will remember their previous interaction with a cop being a traffic ticket, a rude shout-down, or a pat-down before a ball game. Some people may have friends or family who are currently in jail for non-violent "offenses", or may know people who were treated unfairly in the court system. When they share their stories and videos, it creates a snowball effect. This is why you may see sites like "copblock.org" shut down in the near future. Google was already asked by the government to take down police brutality videos from YouTube, and they (thankfully) refused. I do expect a revolution to happen in America. I'm not sure when it will happen, but it feels like it's sooner and sooner. I've been linking to videos on this forum and talking about it for several years now. Hopefully the police do the honorable and intelligent thing, and lay down their weapons before it gets too bad. Also, I have a feeling the guys in the US military are slightly less likely to harass American citizens than their blue-costumed counterparts...but it all depends on how effective we are at propagandizing in favor of freedom, and against authoritarianism. This is why I have a problem with socialism and progressivism - it is exceedingly dangerous to advocate solutions that expand government power, in a time where government is already too powerful and already abusing its power. There's a time and a place for everything. Now's the time to be talking about freedom. EDIT: Chuck, if I were a Prince, I'd love to have you as the "voice of reason" for the youth in my country! "Keep calm and carry on", as they say...

Big man on campus, eh? Perhaps one day I'll be lucky enough to experience the trials and tribulations of a uniformed officer "on the front lines" at a makeshift hippie commune in a city park. I at least hope I get dental and health insurance. Oh and that $15,000,000,000,000? See, that's practical in the real world. Nevermind the $65 trillion that isn't included, you know, the stuff like Medicare and Social Security. If you think these cops have it bad today... wait six months to a year. They'll be dealing with a lot more than hippies and 20-year-olds.

Oh no! Men wearing helmets and bulletproof vests were almost hit by bottles and rocks! Yeah I guess the whole tear gas thing is a *bit* extreme, considering it's banned in warfare by the Geneva convention but apparently it's still legal to use it on citizens.

I'm not sure what the local laws are on open-carry, but I think if enough people do it at once, you wouldn't see enforcement. It's a tricky thing - nobody will ever agree on everything. But it's important for the police to occasionally be reminded that there is a very real possibility of retaliation if the public views their actions as counterproductive. This isn't about a war with the cops, just a friendly reminder that they aren't slaveholders.

Well of course I am pro-peace and very non-violent (I'm a voluntaryist). But I think it's very important for everyone to have a gun, and have it visible during protests. The whole idea of "non-violent protest" is a 20th century elite meme. After all, if you were in a government, you wouldn't want protestors to have guns, would you? ;) "Power" is defined as an imbalance of strength. When you have a disarmed population (like Germany's), the government is all-powerful. When everyone is equally powerful, the potential for rights violations is lessened. There's a good quote by Thomas Jefferson along these lines - "When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

Well the changes will occur, I have no doubt about that. The elite are just trying to push them off further into the future, for as long as possible. The point of the video is that the elite will use their old playbook, The Hegelian Dialectic, to consolidate power after a collapse. But I'm not so sure it will work this time, with the internet... which is like the Gutenburg Press of our day.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Myqffx8Mdg4]An Open Message to the 99% (Occupy Wall Street) - YouTube[/ame]

Gautama, have you heard of an "agent provocateur"? Look it up. Police use them a lot here in the US.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/oct/25/state-department-buys-70000-worth-obama-memoir/ Words fail me.

The police are afraid of retaliation... very good. Although I'm confident most of these "occupy" protestors don't have guns, unfortunately.

Well that's very objective of you to recognize that. People have a tendency to believe that life will continue in the same way for many years to come... that we live in boring times, and sometimes the stock market falls... but it always comes back up again. Sometimes the price of gas rises $1. But it always falls back down again. Sometimes we are disappointed with a president. But there's always next election. What Americans don't realize is, that's over. On Halloween, our Debt:GDP ratio will finally pass 100%. This marks the beginning of the end of "normal". http://www.zerohedge.com/news/ray-dalio-whether-current-hopeless-mob-rule-deleveraging-can-lead-ascent-another-hitler Ray Dalio is a hedge fund manager of one of the biggest funds in the world. When he starts talking about the rise of a new Hitler, it's time to take this stuff seriously.

Sure he does. It's not a physical challenge like climbing a wall the fastest. He just needs to get enough votes. If we can convince people that voting for Ron Paul would be good for the country, then he could easily win. He wins almost all the straw polls! Saying that someone can't win an election is funny to me, because it's a self-fulfilling prophesy. If everyone believes someone can't win, nobody will vote for that person. If people actually believe he can win, then people might vote for him. Anyway, Ron Paul should be Chuck's candidate of choice. Because there's a greater chance that he'll be elected, than Obama suddenly changing his tune on Wall Street. ;)

I can think of a few amendments that are regularly ignored, Chuck. :) Paper does nothing. Funny how you're afraid to talk about Ron Paul... the candidate who has the most individual-donations, and zero corporate money. I guess that's not pragmatic enough for you.

So it's not Obama's fault personally, he's just a debtor and he's doing the honorable thing and repaying the people who loaned him money. I see. ;) It's the "system's" fault, not Obama's. Obama would be "free" from the shackles of the banks if he would stop taking Wall Street campaign cash. Gosh, this really sounds like Obama is pretty powerless! Maybe we should have an emperor instead. How about another presidential candidate currently running? Maybe one of them is a good alternative... who's not getting his money from big corporations, but from the people... who might that be, Chuck? ;) http://www.thedailybell.com/3079/Top-Journo-Matt-Taibbi-Weighs-in-on-5-Demands-to-Fix-Wall-Street

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RFvpfkUyBqE]Testimony of Libya - Lizzy Phelan - ????????????? ?? ????? (English) - YouTube[/ame] Food for thought...

Heh, probably so. And money will be doled out to Africa so they can finally be rich! Print, print, print!

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/10/24/idUS264245887020111024 Keep in mind that the "market" is simply peaceful (voluntary) trading between people. The only alternative to this is force - guns, punishments, etc. The Vatican proposing a "Central World Bank" as a solution to problems created by central banks is like proposing bloodletting as a solution to the flu. In order for this institution to function, there must be global laws forcing everyone to use its money, even if they don't want to. It must have a monopoly on counterfeiting (which creates inflation and hurts the poor). The Vatican has revealed itself as nothing more than a tool of the elite. [ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uAI70cIGynk]Economic Coordination and the Business Cycle (by Graham Wright) - YouTube[/ame]

Which presidential candidate will do anything about this? Why hasn't Obama acted?

Smiling because OWS isn't calling for his impeachment.