# The "Occupy" Movement



## a_majoor (11 Oct 2011)

WSJ on the "Occupy Wall Street" movement:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970203633104576623042789155716.html#U502989597974DJB



> *Capitalist Tool Meet Jesse LaGreca, Disney's Audio-Animatronic revolutionary*.
> By JAMES TARANTO
> 
> "I'm the only working-class person you're going to see on Sunday news, political news," declared Jesse LaGreca on "This Week With Christiane Amanpour" yesterday. "Maybe ever." Truly America does not have a rigid class structure, for this self-proclaimed working-class tribune "is a blogger for the liberal website Daily Kos," as Amanpour said in introducing him. "And he's been a fixture at the Wall Street protests."
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2011)

part 1 of 2

I'm not going to “die in ditch” in favouring this article, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Foreign Affairs_, but two facts, and I believe they are facts, stand out: first, as the author's lunch companion said, _"We're just not that good anymore,"_ and, second, our (relative) decline has been accompanied by a dramatic shift in the ratio of executive to 'worker' compensation. Maybe, and I'm very happy to consider it, the two effects are coincidental and their is no causal relationship, but, equally, maybe the rise of “celebrity CEOs” is connected to the declines in productivity, shareholder value and so on. In any event, for your consideration:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136402/george-packer/the-broken-contract?page=show 


> The Broken Contract
> *Inequality and American Decline*
> 
> By George Packer
> ...



End of Part 1


----------



## Edward Campbell (11 Oct 2011)

Part 2 of 2



> *THE RISE OF ORGANIZED MONEY*
> 
> Two things happened to this social arrangement. The first was the 1960s. The story is familiar: youth rebellion and revolution, a ferocious backlash now known as the culture wars, and a permanent change in American manners and morals. Far more than political utopia, the legacy of the 1960s was personal liberation. Some conservatives argue that the social revolution of the 1960s and 1970s prepared the way for the economic revolution of the 1980s, that Abbie Hoffman and Ronald Reagan were both about freedom. But Woodstock was not enough to blow apart the middle-class democracy that had benefited tens of millions of Americans. The Nixon and Ford presidencies actually extended it. In his 2001 book,The Paradox of American Democracy, John Judis notes that in the three decades between 1933 and 1966, the federal government created 11 regulatory agencies to protect consumers, workers, and investors. In the five years between 1970 and 1975, it established another 12, including the Environmental Protection Agency, the Occupational Safety and Health Administration, and the Consumer Product Safety Commission. Richard Nixon was a closet liberal, and today he would be to the left of Senator Olympia Snowe, the moderate Republican.
> 
> ...




First: the key is issue is not _”who has done better by the government -- the United Auto Workers or Citicorp?”_ The question is, or ought to be, who has been more productive _despite_ government? There can be little doubt that big labour _productivity_ – which we can measure in membership and wages – has declined, by both measures but so, I would argue, has the Western, not just American, financial, industrial, scientific/technical and service sectors.

I do not believe that there is any _merit_ in the inequality between 'workers' and executive which has grown rapidly and measurably, since, say, the 1950s. The CEO of, say, _Air Canada_ is not 'worth' 200 times as much as a flight attendant or 100 times as much as a pilot. The last half dozen CEOs of _Nortel_ were not 'worth' 100 times a senior engineer in _Nortel_ but that's how much they were paid.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Oct 2011)

The real issue is Crony Capitalism, which uses connections and State power to distort markets and send taxpayer monies in a circular flow between the various crony partners (politicians, crony capitalists, big labour, lobbyists etc.). This ability to distort markets and gain access to taxpayer monies is one factor (and a large one I would say) in the disparity between worker and executive compensation and the decline of innovation and productivity.

In the market, rewards have to be earned, and a company which spent its capital and distributed its profits in such a distorted fashion would rapidly pay for this as competitors who allocated their capital more efficiently (funding innovation and keeping overall costs low) would overtake them and drive them from the market.

In today's world, companies like GM can get bailed out to the tune of $50 billion dollars, and the numerous small American automakers (yes, read the Let Them Fail thread) are shut out of the market since the corpse of GM remains like a beached whale sucking up the potential investment capital and blocking market access. Companies like Carbon Motors or Aptera *could* have expanded, or individual GM divisions like Saturn that were profitable could have carried on alone. (Incidentally, Saturn was one of the profitable GM divisions, so ask yourself why a non union division in Tennessee was axed while non profitable divisions in Detroit were retained....)

The TEA Party movement and the OWS are looking at the two sides of the coin, although only the TEA Party movement seems to have a workable solution; reduce the size and scope of government. (Memo to the OWS movement: more government regulation is _not_ the answer to crony capitalism).

I look forward to Glen Reynolds (Instapundit) reportage of this issue, he brings up points the Legacy media constantly seem to overlook.


----------



## Brad Sallows (11 Oct 2011)

I don't buy the author's argument that it is a recent phenomenon, or that there was some sort of magical "contract" that arose in the immediate postwar years.  It is just the historical way of the world, and the "establishment" was briefly caught napping in the wake of WWII - which was an enormous upheaval - and temporarily lost control during the sudden expansion of wealth (ie. movement of time and resources from applications of "low utility" to "high utility").  That control is being steadily reasserted.

The enabler has been mentioned ad nauseum in many places, but few are willing to acknowledge it because they are simply set on believing they can win the game ("permanent 'X' majority"): the bigger the stakes, the bigger the struggle.  The breadth and depth of government powers escalate almost without interruption, so government is the go-to institution for any and everyone who seeks power, influence, wealth, whatever.  Those kinds of people rarely pursue goods for the human race in an altruistic manner; their centres of interest are much closer.

The only way to turn the tide is to reduce that authority - to reduce the payoff - because there will always be political factions (parties) who disagree as to specific aims.  Good news is that if the authority doesn't systematically act to reduce itself, it will eventually be shrunk forcibly.  Bad news is that the latter will be violent.  Those who advocate more government involvement in any particular area probably never stop to think, but in some not very distant future their great-great-great...grand-daughter's throat is being cut in this universe's track of reality - and it is, in part, their fault.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Oct 2011)

No TEA Party movement protest ever featured speakers like these (and there are thousands of blogs posting about the TEA Party since it's inception in 2009, peruse the links and try to find some):

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/10/11/occupy-l-a-speaker-violence-will-be-necessary-to-achieve-our-goals/



> *Occupy L.A. Speaker: Violence will be Necessary to Achieve Our Goals*
> 
> Citizen journalist Ringo captured this speaker at the Occupy Los Angeles camp a few days ago letting the cat out of the bag: After dismissing nonviolence as a dead end, he admits that for the Occupiers to achieve their goals, violence and bloodshed will be necessary:
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (12 Oct 2011)

Every time I have some, tiny hope that the _liberal_* political elements will talk a little sense they let the inmates run the asylum again, as evidenced by this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/arrest-bush-when-he-visits-bc-amnesty-tells-ottawa/article2198617/


> Arrest Bush when he visits B.C., Amnesty tells Ottawa
> 
> The Canadian Press
> 
> ...




Alex Neve is terminally f__king stupid and appears hell bent on destroying what few shreds of credibility Amnesty International Canada might have.

Bush is not equal to Mugabe or even to Putin, for that matter - both of whom need to be hauled in front of some court of justice before we even think about George W Bush. But this will make the Canadian loony left so happy ...






Alex Neve
Secretary-General
Amnesty International, Canada


----------



## a_majoor (12 Oct 2011)

Look at the link and read the various screeds the OWS people are putting up as their justification. The response these got from me was "_how is that my problem?_"; if you choose to spend tons of money to buy an inferior education or major in an economically useless degree, "choose" non renumerative work or blog against your employer then you will have to live with the consequences of your actions. The examples are paraphrases of the actual signs these people made and published...

Only one individual seems to have grasped the issue, although she does not seem to have followed through to the solution (although she may yet, I believe in redemption and always look to the good in people).

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/10/11/scenes-from-the-so-called-99/?singlepage=true



> *Scenes from the So-Called 99%*
> 
> Our third foray into the “We Are the 99 Percent” web site finds that while they still don’t represent 99% of America — who does? — some of the photo posters accidentally make sense. Take this one, for instance.
> 
> ...


----------



## ballz (12 Oct 2011)

> And finally…
> 
> I don’t mean to mock anyone and I’m not one to quarrel with the value of an education, but the content of that education matters. What does the modern university actually teach about citizenship? When it comes to getting and keeping a job, a degree is a utility, a means to an end. The common thread that keeps emerging from many of these photos (excepting the ones posted by people who ran into major health problems through no fault of their own, or who voted for Obama and now expect that keeping him in office will change anything for the better) is that the higher educational establishment sold them a bill of goods. It made it too easy for them to rack up huge debt, while teaching them little to nothing about what the real economy needs and values in workers. The professors keep their tenure, the university presidents keep their lavish homes and manicured lawns, and the students who pay exorbitant fees to keep the bubble inflated get left unprepared for the real world, with little but a lifetime of debt to show for it.
> 
> Many of these protesters have legitimate beefs. They’re just misdirecting their anger, thanks both to the political rhetoric coming from the White House, and to the poor quality of the education their hard work has purchased.



This is a gem. I'll have to post this on g+ for all my peers who think there is a 90k/year waiting at the other end of the Business Admin building.


----------



## ModlrMike (12 Oct 2011)

I'm having this very discussion with my kids right now. They want to go into astronomy and paleontology, I suggest something in healthcare. This downturn is going to last 10-15 maybe 20 years before full recovery. They need something that puts food on the table and a roof over their heads. Neither of which belongs to me.


----------



## Kalatzi (12 Oct 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> This downturn is going to last 10-15 maybe 20 years before full recovery.



Hmmm, thats rather long for a recession, is'nt it. Seems awfully, what's  the word I'm looking for, Depressing, sort of. Greatly Depressing.


----------



## Brad Sallows (12 Oct 2011)

That's what happens when you pull future spending into the present.  If I have $5,000 per year "disposable" income and I blow $30,000 this year on some sort of recreational toy, it means the government books the revenue on the $30,000 transaction (and trickle down transactions this year) and does not book the revenue on my $5,000 for several succeeding years as I pay off the debt.  If governments are stupid enough to calibrate their spending to the revenue they booked on the $30,000, I expect them to cut whatever is necessary when they come up short next year.

The recent bubble caused a lot of people to pull future spending into the bubble period.  Governments got all excited at the increased revenues and ramped up spending.  (See how smart all those people really are?)  Now people have debts to pay.  Governments are suddenly finding the promises they made unsupportable.   Those promises should never have been made, so it's time to break them.  Clawing more future spending into the present isn't a solution; it just ensures the eventual correction will be much more violent.


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Oct 2011)

Excellent summary, Brad.

Every time someone tells me that we need more stimulus spending I respond with:

"You can't borrow your way to prosperity."

They usually stop talking after that.


----------



## Kalatzi (13 Oct 2011)

Thank you, both.


----------



## cupper (13 Oct 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I'm having this very discussion with my kids right now. They want to go into astronomy and paleontology, I suggest something in healthcare. This downturn is going to last 10-15 maybe 20 years before full recovery. They need something that puts food on the table and a roof over their heads. Neither of which belongs to me.



Tell them Law and Politics. That's where the money is. :Tin-Foil-Hat:

And if they are willing to relocate south of the border, they'll have it coming out of their ... umm.... ears.

Bonus, you can spend the colder parts of the year living off of them. PAYBACK!


----------



## Nemo888 (13 Oct 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I don’t mean to mock anyone and I’m not one to quarrel with the value of an education, but the content of that education matters. What does the modern university actually teach about citizenship? When it comes to getting and keeping a job, a degree is a utility, a means to an end. The common thread that keeps emerging from many of these photos (excepting the ones posted by people who ran into major health problems through no fault of their own, or who voted for Obama and now expect that keeping him in office will change anything for the better) is that the higher educational establishment sold them a bill of goods. It made it too easy for them to rack up huge debt, while teaching them little to nothing about what the real economy needs and values in workers. The professors keep their tenure, the university presidents keep their lavish homes and manicured lawns, and the students who pay exorbitant fees to keep the bubble inflated get left unprepared for the real world, with little but a lifetime of debt to show for it.




Universities were not trade schools in my day. They taught critical thinking and college was vocational. Those "useless" Arts and Humanities degrees were gold. Corporations and governments actively sought out people who knew how to think and reason.  Knowing that someone with that skill could be taught anything. Now universities are reduced to second rate trade schools. University then was hard. You needed to think. Now I can get a 75% without even reading the course material. (I didn't even open the book.) The loss of the arts has gutted more than you know. I had a teacher tell me last week that she is sure my generation is the last smart one. Education as utility makes good drones and horrible citizens.


P.S. It was dirt cheap back then too. Society thinking that education gave a greater return on investment than any other tax expenditure. My brother actually paid his mortgage and supported his family on scholarships. 1700$ tuition per semester was not a hardship. If your parents made less than 40k OSAP gave you grants, not loans. Canada was really something back then IMO.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (13 Oct 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> P.S. It was dirt cheap back then too. Society thinking that education gave a greater return on investment than any other tax expenditure. My brother actually paid his mortgage and supported his family on scholarships. 1700$ tuition per semester was not a hardship. If your parents made less than 40k OSAP gave you grants, not loans. Canada was really something back then IMO.




It's still dirt cheap,.....I am amazed at how little my Daughter will owe when all is said and done.

It makes me cringe now when I think of all the whining I have had to listen to during my lifetime from those who attended. Actually they sounded like you with your "back in my day it was hard" claptrap.


----------



## Nemo888 (13 Oct 2011)

I did not know this till I went back to the same University after 22 years. The courses are much easier now. I was busy with work and kids but still sailed right through. I didn't even buy the books on the reading list. All I needed was google and bull crap. I actually considered a side business writing essays. Not that I was smart, just so many of the kids seemed retarded or lazy.

In my day going to school was easy. Summer jobs were always available and would pay your entire tuition. Scholarships were abundant . The courses were harder though. It may be anecdotal but it is my direct experience. This offends you?


----------



## lethalLemon (13 Oct 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Universities were not trade schools in my day. They taught critical thinking and college was vocational. Those "useless" Arts and Humanities degrees were gold. Corporations and governments actively sought out people who knew how to think and reason.  Knowing that someone with that skill could be taught anything. Now universities are reduced to second rate trade schools. University then was hard. You needed to think. Now I can get a 75% without even reading the course material. (I didn't even open the book.) The loss of the arts has gutted more than you know. I had a teacher tell me last week that she is sure my generation is the last smart one. Education as utility makes good drones and horrible citizens.
> 
> 
> P.S. It was dirt cheap back then too. Society thinking that education gave a greater return on investment than any other tax expenditure. My brother actually paid his mortgage and supported his family on scholarships. 1700$ tuition per semester was not a hardship. If your parents made less than 40k OSAP gave you grants, not loans. Canada was really something back then IMO.



 :bullshit:

Hahaha... You can say what you want, but my education is not so easy as you make it out to be, and I was an honour roll student in high school (and not the "privileged, the world owes me everything and I shouldn't have to work for anything" honour roll type) and I bloody well work my ass off... yet there are some that showed up for the first class and I only seem them show up for exams and they're pulling A+'s out of their arse. What gives? I'm not retarded or lazy. Explain that?

How little education costs? Sure a lot less than in the USA... but it's still bloody expensive, but I guess that's because you're lucky enough to make real good money or had very generous family contributions and scholarships raining down like snow on Christmas


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2011)

lethalLemon: your university costs (tuition, books and fees) is cheaper for the _average_ family - when measured as a percentage of average family income - than was the tuition etc for Nemo88 a generation* ago and much cheaper than when I was your age, nearly a half century back.

While neither knowing nor caring about your specific circumstances, _most_ Canadians pay too little for education: directly (through tuition etc) and indirectly through taxes.

Two problems:

1. Too many Canadians borrow for university because their families made choices to satisfy _optional_ 'wants' leaving insufficient funds to buy the "user's share" their children's education - i.e. they bought a 50" flat screen TV when the old 30" CRT still worked well enough rather than saving for their child's tuition.

2. "Free" health care eats up an ever increasing share of provincial budgets. Taxpayers are unwilling to pay more in taxes. Governments cut _*highly* productive_ spending on R&D and education in order to buy votes pay for _*less* productive_ health care.


----------
* 20 to even 30 years these days


----------



## lethalLemon (13 Oct 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> lethalLemon: your university costs (tuition, books and fees) is cheaper for the _average_ family - when measured as a percentage of average family income - than was the tuition etc for Nemo88 a generation* ago and much cheaper than when I was your age, nearly a half century back.
> 
> While neither knowing nor caring about your specific circumstances, _most_ Canadians pay too little for education: directly (through tuition etc) and indirectly through taxes.
> 
> ...



Still doesn't explain how I will be nearly $42k in debt at the end of my program (in 6 months), when both my parents (separated) don't even make $50k/annum, or own flat screen TVs let alone barely able to afford a vehicle. Not that I really care as they both refused to support me in any way, shape, or form the day I graduated High School all because I wanted to go to a university that wasn't in Calgary. I work 40hrs a week and sometimes only have a 2 hr nap in a period of 3 days in order to pay for my education and still put food in my stomach, and still study book after book and note after note, and still drag myself to classes 6 days a week and There have been months where I eat nothing but bread and water because I can't afford anything else. (my circumstances are even much worse than this, but as you say, nobody cares).

So you can say it's so much easier these days all you want... but how can someone like me who never opened a book even in High School and was pulling A's can't even break C+ in University and I use ANY means to complete the work and test etc necessary (without plagiarism or cheating of course). My program require a minimum B+ in order to graduate, at this rate I'm never going to make it.  Despite my High School honour roll status, I only received one $5000 scholarship which barely covered my first year of University (there's always people with better grades). I am certainly not retarded or lazy as you claim everyone these days are or seem to be.

Now don't get me wrong, I am a dignified Conservative and follow the "What I have worked for and earned is mine, and not for anyone else" mantra, and I rarely ever complain about my situation because I know that hopefully one day, I can be out of this mess, but I still have the right to complain at the end of the day - however I don't go marching out into the streets blaming everyone else for it, or saying that I'd rather suffer through high taxes so that it's all free. If I wanted that, I would have moved to France or Denmark.

Lack of employment? I'm sorry but that's bullshit. There are always companies looking to hire people because there's always someone out there that is short staffed. I guess that these protesting leftist hippies think that working at McDonalds just to survive is beneath them because they can't get paid $100/hr for standing around bragging about how they "were part of the Anti-Vancouver Olympics group, and not the one that used violence either" or text all day. No wonder they have no experience, or a job, or money.


----------



## Nemo888 (13 Oct 2011)

At least you are getting a good education. Some universities have turned into diploma mills. Many people have equated paying 22$ per lecture with a guarantee of a pass. Some professors even get calls from parents saying that with the amount they paid they expect little Susie to pass.


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2011)

lethalLemon said:
			
		

> Still doesn't explain how I will be nearly $42k in debt at the end of my program (in 6 months), when both my parents (separated) don't even make $50k/annum, or own flat screen TVs ...



No, it doesn't, but, as I said, I neither know nor care about your individual situation. But Canadians, _en masse_, don't pay _enough_, directly or indirectly, for education.




			
				lethalLemon said:
			
		

> ...
> So you can say it's so much easier these days all you want... but how can someone like me who never opened a book even in High School and was pulling A's can't even break C+ in University and I use ANY means to complete the work and test etc necessary (without plagiarism or cheating of course). My program require a minimum B+ in order to graduate, at this rate I'm never going to make it.  Despite my High School honour roll status, I only received one $5000 scholarship which barely covered my first year of University (there's always people with better grades). I am certainly not retarded or lazy as you claim everyone these days are or seem to be.
> ...



At the risk of sounding even more cruel or, at least even less caring, go talk to Emmett Hall _et al_. On the surface - and remember please that I neither know nor care about your individual situation - it appears that the public education system failed to prepare you for *real* education. Perhaps the high school curriculum is insufficient, perhaps the _guidance_ system encouraged you to follow a path for which you are not well enough suited.




			
				lethalLemon said:
			
		

> ...
> Now don't get me wrong, I am a dignified Conservative and follow the "What I have worked for and earned is mine, and not for anyone else" mantra, and I rarely ever complain about my situation because I know that hopefully one day, I can be out of this mess, but I still have the right to complain at the end of the day - however I don't go marching out into the streets blaming everyone else for it, or saying that I'd rather suffer through high taxes so that it's all free. If I wanted that, I would have moved to France or Denmark.
> ...



Good for you, but hardly relevant to _education_ at either the systemic or individual levels.




			
				lethalLemon said:
			
		

> ...
> Lack of employment? I'm sorry but that's bullshit. There are always companies looking to hire people because there's always someone out there that is short staffed. I guess that these protesting leftist hippies think that working at McDonalds just to survive is beneath them because they can't get paid $100/hr for standing around bragging about how they "were part of the Anti-Vancouver Olympics group, and not the one that used violence either" or text all day. No wonder they have no experience, or a job, or money.



Equally off topic.

___________
Your own personal experiences ought to have raised some questions about why and how we educate our population.

Let me offer one idea: pay for performance. Imagine a system in which those, but only those who are graded as A students - *maybe* on a Bell Curve or by some other system that denies professors and schools the option of giving everyone an A - get 100% of tuition book and other fees paid and get a living allowance, too. But such a system would deny further participation in the __[difficult but rewarding]__ programme to those who get less than a B average - those C and below students would be required to try another less demanding (and ultimately less rewarding) career path. Would we reward the "rich," who tend to have parents who support them at home (books and music lessons rather than _X boxes_) and who also tend to attend better public schools? Yes. Is it worth it? Maybe.

I'm thinking top level, not about individuals, and my concern is national _productivity_ not "happiness."


----------



## foresterab (13 Oct 2011)

Best discription I heard of the cost of going to school was from a family friend who went to university in the 1960's.

Back then after working whatever summer jobs he could he came out with a debt equal to his first year's gross income working.

My father who went to school 10 years later than him...same ratio.

And when I went through school 20 years later...same ratio.

So while the dollar sum of the debt is higher it's not out of proportion to that which previous generations have recieved.  The biggest difference I see is that several professions have specialized even further so that your basic degree is no longer enough to get your foot in the door (especially true for several arts program such as psycology) and/or professional accredidation is needed along with the science degrees (P.Eng., RPF, RN etc) to be fully employable.

Anyways, my two cents.


----------



## ballz (13 Oct 2011)

I am a 4th year BBA student, taking 4th year BBA classes. There is another 4th year BBA student in one of my classes that doesn't know the difference between profit and revenue. The questions in this class (Management Science.... what an oxymoron) are usually asking some form of "maximize profit, maximize revenue, minimize costs." So it's quite easy to see he doesn't know the difference between profit and revenue when the question asks for "revenue" and his answers coming back as "profit."

Two reasons I want to bring that story up:

1. I don't want to use one student as an example of "students these days" being unable to think for themselves without it being spoon fed to them, although I will say I see similar examples and similar levels of stupid amongst my peers classmates quite frequently. But even though the prof should have pointed this simple fact to him by now, even though he should not have slipped through the cracks this far, it's so simple and basic that if he wasn't stupid he SHOULD have figured it out on his own by now.

2. Almost every professor he has had has clearly failed him. The university has failed him. He should not have slipped through the cracks this far without knowing the difference, and the university which we pay so much money for as "an investment" has failed us as taxpayers because someone that doesn't know the difference between the two shouldn't be in a 4th year Management Science class, and someone who can't figure it out on their own after 4 years of a BBA program shouldn't be capable of graduating.



			
				lethalLemon said:
			
		

> yet there are some that showed up for the first class and I only seem them show up for exams and they're pulling A+'s out of their arse. What gives? I'm not retarded or lazy. Explain that?



Using your grades in high school sure as hell isn't proof that you are smart (if they were bad, it's not proof you are stupid either). There are plenty of people that get A+'s throughout high school, and even university, that I would fold the business before I'd hire. 

I can promise you that from the perspective of those people that don't go to class that are pulling A+'s, you are "retarded."



			
				lethalLemon said:
			
		

> Lack of employment? I'm sorry but that's bullshit. There are always companies looking to hire people because there's always someone out there that is short staffed.



The world consists of more than Alberta eh?


----------



## ModlrMike (13 Oct 2011)

Normally I wish for a long and balmy indian summer. Right now however, a good blizzard might change some perspectives.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Oct 2011)

More on what the OWS people profess to believe:

http://pajamasmedia.com/ronradosh/2011/10/11/occupy-wall-street-and-the-delusions-of-the-left/?print=1



> *Occupy Wall Street and the Delusions of the Left*
> 
> Posted By Ron Radosh On October 11, 2011 @ 3:37 pm In Uncategorized | 49 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Oct 2011)

Interesting and, I think, well balanced take on OWS which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _National Post_:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/10/13/jonathan-kay-on-occupy-wall-street-its-a-symptom-of-something-serious/


> Jonathan Kay on Occupy Wall Street: It’s a symptom of something serious
> 
> Jonathan Kay
> 
> ...




I find this the most reasonable analysis yet.


----------



## Brad Sallows (13 Oct 2011)

Both movements share some common ground, but there is a difference between working within the system to change it and having a temper tantrum.  I would rather see a repeat of the American Revolution than the French one (the first one, I mean).


----------



## a_majoor (13 Oct 2011)

The discussioon about education tweaked my interest in this post:

http://www.transparencyrevolution.com/2011/10/degree-required/



> *Degree Required?*
> Posted on October 13, 2011 by Phil
> 
> There’s a great scene in the movie The Right Stuff where the space program guys show up at Edwards Air Force Base to recruit astronauts. They explain to the Edwards liaison officer that they’re not interested in talking to Chuck Yeager, the man who broke the sound barrier and who has been “at the top of the pyramid” for years. (Yeager never went to college.) The liaison officer is shocked. “You don’t want to talk to our best pilot?”
> ...


----------



## GAP (13 Oct 2011)

Listening to interviews tonight.....the mantra they are espousing is economic justice, but from anything I am hearing it boils down to "I am entitled to my entitlements "


----------



## cupper (13 Oct 2011)

"But at least" .... "BUT AT LEAST"

"You got to hear it" ..... "YOU GOT TO HEAR IT"

"Twice" ..... "TWICE"


----------



## cupper (13 Oct 2011)

Gotta love pure democracy.  ;D


----------



## a_majoor (14 Oct 2011)

I suppose I could add some snark here, but the article speaks for itself so eloquently:

http://www.therightsphere.com/2011/10/donate-to-help-needy-boston-residents-hurt-by-the-%E2%80%98occupy%E2%80%99-protests/?utm_source=twitterfeed&utm_medium=twitter



> *Donate to Help Needy Boston Residents Hurt by the ‘Occupy’ Protests*
> Posted by Brandon Kiser in Blog, Featured on October 13, 2011 7:32 pm / 11 comments
> 
> Since ‘Occupy Boston’ has forced the cancellation of the Greenway Mobile Food Fest, The Right Sphere is trying to raise $1,000 for the Greater Boston Food Bank, which was supposed to benefit from that event. Please consider donating as little as $1, $5 or $10 to the Greater Boston Food Bank to help defray the Occupy movement’s damage to Boston’s nonprofits and to to show that we can put our money where our mouth is and support the needy in Boston. You can do so using the button below. We understand that times are tough, so if you are unable to donate at this time, you can still help by sending this to others and posting this on any social media platforms you may use.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2011)

Another interesting assessment of the OWS _movement_ in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/chrystia-freeland/wall-street-protesters-need-to-find-their-sound-bite/article2200223/


> Wall Street protesters need to find their ‘sound bite’
> 
> CHRYSTIA FREELAND
> From Friday's Globe and Mail
> ...




A problem (*The* problem?) for the inchoate _left_ is that they cannot express the problem much less the solution, in clear, simple terms. Reagan could and did; he offered:

1. Stop, then lower the growth of government spending;
2. Reduce marginal income tax rates;
3. Reduce regulation; and
4. Control the money supply to reduce inflation.

People could understand, after a fashion, and support that; even those who could not really grasp the implications understood that Reagan had a plan and they got behind him.

I might, did, as I recall, argue with both 3. and part of 4. But that didn't mean that I didn't want Reagan to succeed.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2011)

There are some skilled "communicators" in the "Occupy _______" _movement:






(Emmanuel Dunand/AFP/Getty Images)_


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Oct 2011)

The main difference between Bank of Canada governor Mark Carney and most people who talk about the "Occupy" movement is that Carney is smart.

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act fro the _Globe and Mail_ are Carney's comments:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/bank-of-canada-head-calls-occupy-protests-entirely-constructive/article2202064/


> Bank of Canada head calls Occupy protests 'entirely constructive'
> 
> JEREMY TOROBIN
> OTTAWA— Globe and Mail Update
> ...




Hmm.


----------



## a_majoor (14 Oct 2011)

Here are some people the OWS crowd "should" be protesting; but who do these people fund in the political arena?

http://www.humanevents.com/article.php?print=yes&id=46849



> *Fair Share Alert: Obama’s Top Solyndra Crony Claimed Zero Income*
> by John Hayward (more by this author)
> Posted 10/14/2011 ET
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (14 Oct 2011)

More on how OWS "thinks":

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204002304576629060988023464.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_MIDDLETopOpinion



> *The Truth About Advertising*
> College know-it-all hippies lead the left hilariously astray.
> 
> By JAMES TARANTO
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (15 Oct 2011)

This should be printed up as posters and plastered around every OWS site around the world: priceless!


----------



## a_majoor (16 Oct 2011)

This may be the real point behind the OWS movement getting wall to wall coverage:

http://www.examiner.com/conservative-in-national/top-media-outlets-ignore-subpoena-of-entire-top-tier-of-obama-administration?CID=examiner_alerts_article



> *Big media outlets ignore subpoena of entire top tier of Obama Administration*
> 
> Add a comment
> Anthony Martin, Conservative Examiner
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (16 Oct 2011)

Since I am in Pet, I don't get SUN TV, but CTV News is entirely clueless about the OWS movement in Canada; the reporters are in the camps standing in front of CUPE signs and saying (with a straight face) that the movement is "spontanious" and "leaderless".

The OWS movement is so fun to report on because it is so full of contradictions, but as Ayn Rand says; "the nature of reality does not allow contradictions", there is really only one way for this to end. (See Chicago 1968 for the preview):

Two articles here

http://thevimh.blogspot.com/2011/10/president-goldman-sachs.html



> *President Goldman Sachs*
> A special word of thanks to Instapundit for the six (so far!) times he's linked this post from 2008:
> 
> Goldman Sachs Loves Obama
> ...



http://pajamasmedia.com/richardfernandez/2011/10/13/harbinger/?print=1



> *Harbinger*
> Posted By Richard Fernandez On October 13, 2011 @ 11:32 am In Uncategorized | Comments Disabled
> 
> Jesse Jackson Jr [1]. shares his thoughts on how to fix the economic crisis, solve the jobs problem, end state government deficits, and save the republic:
> ...


----------



## krustyrl (16 Oct 2011)

SOoooo..how long until this "protest" in Canada goes violent.?  Anyone.????


----------



## Celticgirl (16 Oct 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Normally I wish for a long and balmy indian summer. Right now however, a good blizzard might change some perspectives.



 :rofl:


----------



## vonGarvin (16 Oct 2011)

MGalantine said:
			
		

> My parents saved up for a good decade or so and invested in an RESP for my education- Wasn't easy, considering in this time they went through a complete bankruptcy and couldn't afford things like a basic computer and whatnot. Yet they somehow saved $40k. However, their caveat on me getting this money for education was that I had to spend it on a degree that would allow me to live without worrying about my financial situation like they did theirs. So no liberal arts, no journalism or political science. It was either:
> 
> a) Study for a Bachelor's of Engineering
> b) Study for an eventual career as a Doctor
> ...









Well-said.


----------



## Jebus (17 Oct 2011)

Alas a haven of rational thought.

The day I turned 18 I went to the bank and opened a Tax Free Savings Investment Account, I read the Intelligent Investor and learned the value of saving+Investing. Most kids who turn of age, rush to the LCBO and buy whatever, or go clubbing and spend 40-60 dollars in one night, then complain the next day of a hangover. I don't plan on anyone giving me a free lunch, not now and not ever.

I plan on getting a degree in Engineering, because of the job prospects for it. I'm not going to waste my time getting a degree in philosophy, then complain I have to work at Mc Donald's, cause theres no jobs...

If I couldn't find work I'd be more than willing to work for less than minimum wage, instead of demanding 20$ minimum wage across the board (which would cause more unemployment).

Personally, my political views are far different than what we have here in Canada, but I'm not gonna waste my time with a sign, I'm just gonna get a good job and work my way to prosperity, not demand it because I don't have it.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Oct 2011)

I have been reading about and watching/listen to report of the "Occupy" _movements_ (I don't think it's one, monolithic 'thing,' yet) with careful albeit not rapt attention. A few observations:

1. Inequality, growing inequality, is both real and problematical;

2. The "children" (my, personal view of them - from being 35-50 years older than most of them) express "frustration" and "disillusionment" with a system which they cannot fathom;

3. What the children see is that there are a very few, very, very rich people - some of whom appear to gain great wealth for little effort - and there are many, many people who do not have enough. "Enough" is not just sufficient to keep body and soul together, a roof over one's head, adequate clothes and some recreation; "enough" means more than that, it appears, to me again, that it means a higher level of comfort and pleasure that with which the traditional "working class" might be content; 

(Parenthetically, I do not _detect_ any real concern for the "poor." The "Occupiers" appear, to me, most concerned with the _relative_ decline of the middle class - the class to which they belong. Really poor people do not, because they cannot, afford the time or the money march and stream live video at the same time.)





Niko Salassidis chants as he streams a live video of the Occupy Toronto protest in Toronto, Ont. October 16, 2011. Protesters have set up camp at Saint James Park near Toronto's financial district.
(Michelle Siu for Globe and Mail)

4. So, what do these "frustrated" and "disillusioned" and, I repeat, inchoate bands of children do? They 'mobilize,' something they can do well because they are skilled social media users and they have the absolute luxury of free time, and then they 'demonstrate;'

5. We get some ideas of what they are against. Thus far I have no idea, not from "Occupy Wall Street," or "Occupy Bay Street" or "Occupy __[insert street name here]__," what they are demonstrating *for*;

6. I am tempted to look back, before I was born, to the early days of the Great Depression. People 'demonstrated' then, too - about the essential unfairness of the disasters which had befallen them. But we society knew what they wanted: charity;





Hunger march, Edmonton, 1932

7. But in the "dirty thirties" most people (as many as 63% of non farm workers, 75% of all workers) took whatever jobs they could find - two jobs when necessary;

(Parenthetically, again, I can cite known family history - my parents both graduated from university about the time the Great Depression was getting started. They had debts - there were no student loans but family members (both families) had chipped in ($10.00 here, $20.00 there) to finance the last year or so of study and that all had to be repaid. At the same time the good, high paying, professional jobs to which they had looked forward were gone. They had to take more than one lower paying job and live more frugally while they survived, gained experience, paid debts and so on. Maybe attitudes have changed.)

8. So what is the problem? Is it the 1%/99% myth? (Look it up for yourselves, please, you are not bloody helpless - if you were you would be out "occupying" some public park.) Or is it that the Great Recession is so much harder on people than the Great Depression? Or, perhaps, is it that the "children" are too lazy to work and too nervous to steal?

9. Two things about which we can be certain: the children are very media savvy and the media is, _comme d'habitude_, easily fed/led.


----------



## GAP (17 Oct 2011)

From what I can see....no government/organization/etc. can possibly satisfy them.....they want their entitlements now, with no down payment, no debt, without  any effort.....and the supposed rich should be the ones paying for it, cause....they got more....


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Oct 2011)

The protestors want their student loans paid off for them by the government.More importantly is the link between the protest movement and the democrat party.They are Obama's foot soldiers.One can only wonder what happens next. They go away or they attempt a revolution. This protest movement has both the support of the communist party and the nazi party.Odd bedfellows.

http://www.washingtontimes.com/blog/watercooler/2011/oct/9/picket-communists-hijacking-occupy-wall-street-mov/

http://news.yahoo.com/red-white-angry-communist-nazi-parties-endorse-occupy-044626630.html


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Oct 2011)

Holy crap,.....I'm certainly no fan of President  Obama [ how about the proper respect Tomahawk 6?], some people make me laugh how they are falling over each other to blame everything on him.


----------



## tomahawk6 (17 Oct 2011)

Sure thing Bruce.Next time I mention President Obama I will include his title. You must have been in stitches the last couple of years when President Obama blamed everything on President Bush.


----------



## Redeye (17 Oct 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> A problem (*The* problem?) for the inchoate _left_ is that they cannot express the problem much less the solution, in clear, simple terms. Reagan could and did; he offered:
> 
> 1. Stop, then lower the growth of government spending;
> 2. Reduce marginal income tax rates;
> ...



Reagan stopped and lowered government spending?! Maybe that was his pitch, but that certainly did not happen on his watch.


----------



## Redeye (17 Oct 2011)

MGalantine said:
			
		

> IRONY: The guy protesting the decline of the middle class while carrying a Macbook Pro in an environment where it it likely to be damaged.
> 
> A Macbook Pro costs between 1250 and 2500 before tax...



Hey, want to buy this strawman from me? Really cheap!


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Reagan stopped and lowered government spending?! Maybe that was his pitch, but that certainly did not happen on his watch.








Source: http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/spending_chart_1902_2015USp_F0xF0fF0sF0l


It looks to me as though federal spending growth slowed, stopped and actually declined from 1980, when Reagan was elected, to 1989, when he left office.


----------



## DBA (17 Oct 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It looks to me as though federal spending growth slowed, stopped and actually declined from 1980, when Reagan was elected, to 1989, when he left office.



That is total spending expressed as a % of GDP not spending expressed in dollars.  Try using $Billions as the Y axis instead.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Oct 2011)

DBA said:
			
		

> That is total spending expressed as a % of GDP not spending expressed in dollars.  Try using $Billions as the Y axis instead.




Yeah, but I don't like dollars unless they are appropriately _deflated_. It's like horrid games we used to play in NDHQ with "current year" vs "budget year" dollars and the government's tame inflation rate vs. the real inflation rates for e.g. aeropsace.


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Oct 2011)

For the most part, these "occupiers" appear to be upper middle class persons with good educations etc:

Much like the Red Brigades, Baader-Meinhof - Get my drift?

The poor are too busy working and earning a living to take part in this.

Just my  :2c:  indexed for my inflated ego


----------



## Redeye (17 Oct 2011)

Well, I'd never be one to assume there's much intelligence to be found at Pajamas Media, but this is a treat.

The idiocy... well, it's mindblowing:

http://pajamasmedia.com/tatler/2011/10/17/bizarre-neo-swastika-reminiscent-of-the-great-dictator-used-as-power-symbol-by-ows-leaders/

The "symbol"? It's the pound sign - used to make hashtags on Twitter. That's all.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Oct 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Much like the Red Brigades, Baader-Meinhof - Get my drift?


Worst of G7/G20'ists?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Hey, want to buy this strawman from me? Really cheap!



I'm not sure whether it's a 'straw man' or not. I, like most, am having trouble dicerning exactly what their agenda and focus is. Right now, I'm getting a sense of entitlement from the movement. They want, whatever, but are not prepared on their part to do much but complain to get it. So, perhaps, if this fellow's beef is poverty and not being able to make ends meet, maybe the fact that he's got a $2500 laptop doesn't make a lot of sense to most. Hardly a straw man on that point. It would be akin to welfare people tapping away on twitter and facebook with their iPhones and Blackberrys that they cannot feed themselves on the money they receive for nothing.

I just don't know. We can't do much if they don't define their demands. For most, I think, it's just the flavour of the day to participate and feel like their doing something. Even if they don't know exactly why they are.

I might be totally off base, but that's the way it's appearing to me. However, I will admit, I'm not getting too excited about it.

 :2c:


----------



## Redeye (17 Oct 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm not sure whether it's a 'straw man' or not. I, like most, am having trouble dicerning exactly what their agenda and focus is. Right now, I'm getting a sense of entitlement from the movement. They want, whatever, but are not prepared on their part to do much but complain to get it. So, perhaps, if this fellow's beef is poverty and not being able to make ends meet, maybe the fact that he's got a $2500 laptop doesn't make a lot of sense to most. Hardly a straw man on that point. It would be akin to welfare people tapping away on twitter and facebook with their iPhones and Blackberrys that they cannot feed themselves on the money they receive for nothing.



That's not, generally, the message. At least not from those intelligent enough to articulate one (and there's been some that frankly aren't) - the problem is that the disparity between the haves and have nots is widening, and that is troubling. There's also a reasonable concern that while most countries happily socialized the losses of various sectors, the profits remain private. The BS of "trickle down" is just that and there seems to be a lot of people getting fed up.

There's been a lot of strawmen employed to criticize the "Occupy" folks when there's legitimate stuff to discuss about what their goals are, and when means they'd like used to achieve them.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> I just don't know. We can't do much if they don't define their demands. For most, I think, it's just the flavour of the day to participate and feel like their doing something. Even if they don't know exactly why they are.



I think that's it for a lot of people. They want to get engaged even if it's not clear how they should do so, I think. That's why that restlessness, that energy has to be channeled into someting.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> I might be totally off base, but that's the way it's appearing to me. However, I will admit, I'm not getting too excited about it.
> 
> :2c:



Fair statements all.


----------



## Haletown (17 Oct 2011)

I just took a stroll through the Occupy Vancouver site . . very few middle class types . . 90% the street kiddies usually seen hanging around Granville St..  The tattoo and 'dreds, dreamers and wannbes set for the most part.

The signage is 99% along the lines of   Social Justice is a Right-Save the Great Bear Rain Forest-Proud to be a Vegan-Stop the Tar Sands-Be A Sustainable Human-Free Education-Legalize Pot-Marx is the Answer. 

They have a place where you can make you own sign so I made up a "Four Legs Good, Two Legs Bad" sign and hung it on a  railing with the others.

I don't know if irony is part of their core values.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Oct 2011)

We have to be careful with the _inequality gap_ which I agree exists in the West, is widening, at its extremes, and is troubling, in the West.

Part of the problem is the focus on the extremes. There is little, maybe no doubt that the top 1% are getting richer faster than ever before and the bottom 1% are staying horribly poor or, if possible, getting poorer.

But: while the top 10%, are getting richer, but so are the top 50% and so are the top 90%, maybe even the top 95%. In other words almost everyone is getting richer and richer in both absolute and relative terms. The _problem_ is that some, a minority, are getting richer faster than the majority and, thanks to modern communications in the broadest sense, we can see "how the other half (only 10%, actually) lives."

Almost everyone is getting richer and richer in the Americas and Europe but, on a global scale, we were all _relatively_ rich 40 years - two generations - ago. _Circa_ 1970 there were about 3.75 billion people on earth and only about 15% (almost all in the West) were "rich," relative to all the others. Now, 40 years later, there are 7 billion people (that 7th billionth will be born this month, I believe) but only about 15% of them are "poor" relative to all the others. That's an enormous change of huge, historic social significance. In fact the world is getting more and more and more equal at a rate that is unparalleled in all of human history.

My point? The children, as I said, are frustrated and disillusioned with a system which they cannot fathom because they are ill equipped to "see" the whole world in any kind of historic context and to ascribe our increasing global _equality_ to the people who are making the world better and better - the greedy capitalists and global business.


----------



## CountDC (17 Oct 2011)

hmmmm - sweep them all up and ship them to an eastern country - Newfoundland! That will teach them to get on with it and get a job.   >


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Oct 2011)

CountDC said:
			
		

> hmmmm - sweep them all up and ship them to an eastern country - Newfoundland! That will teach them to get on with it and get a job.   >


----------



## a_majoor (17 Oct 2011)

Well, even if CTV seems to think that a demonstration featuring huge CUPE banners is "spontanious" and "leaderless", and CNN can overlook the SEIU presence at the various OWS demonstrations in the US, there _are_ leaders, and this article even has .jpgs of the emails....:

http://bigjournalism.com/dloesch/2011/10/16/journolist-2-0-occupydc-emails-show-msm-dylan-ratigan-working-with-protesters-to-craft-message/



> *Journolist 2.0: Occupy Wall Street Emails Show MSM, Dylan Ratigan, Working With Protesters To Craft Message*
> Posted by Dana Loesch Oct 16th 2011 at 5:47 pm in Democrats/progressives, Exclusives, Featured Story, Mainstream Media, Uncategorized, media bias | Comments (225)
> 
> Big Journalism has learned that the Occupy Washington DC movement is working with well-known media members to craft its demands and messaging while these media members report on the movement. Someone has made the emails from the Occupy Wall Street email distro public and searchable. The names in the list are a veritable who’s who in media.
> ...


----------



## nickanick (18 Oct 2011)

don't know if you guys saw this video about a US marine trying to send a message to the Cops

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=WmEHcOc0Sys

Respect.


----------



## Journeyman (18 Oct 2011)

nickanick said:
			
		

> don't know if you guys saw this video about a US marine trying to send a message to the Cops


While I admit that I gave up on his theatrical tripe before the one-minute mark, I only saw the police standing there not threatening anyone, and no evidence that anyone had been hurt.

            :boring:


----------



## Redeye (18 Oct 2011)

Is everything "Soros funded" to clowns like Andrew Breitbart?  : I'm guessing he read the factually deficient Reuters article that made the claim and was fairly quickly retracted. There's no reason Soros would fund Adbusters, it's not part of his scope of interest.

As for unions getting involved, only natural give common interests, but they weren't the ones who started it, nor are they the ones who're leading it.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Well, even if CTV seems to think that a demonstration featuring huge CUPE banners is "spontanious" and "leaderless", and CNN can overlook the SEIU presence at the various OWS demonstrations in the US, there _are_ leaders, and this article even has .jpgs of the emails....:
> 
> http://bigjournalism.com/dloesch/2011/10/16/journolist-2-0-occupydc-emails-show-msm-dylan-ratigan-working-with-protesters-to-craft-message/


----------



## Redeye (18 Oct 2011)

I took a stroll down to the Grand Parade last night to listen in on the Occupy Nova Scotia crowd. The ones there in the evening were mostly younger, but there was a fairly diverse group there having quite a discussion. I didn't have enough time to get a real feel for the teach-in going on - but I was impressed by one of their chalked statements.

"The rich stay rich. The poor stay poor. The middle class pays for everything." I can't really argue that statement looking factual, nor that it's not really a good thing for society in the long run.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> "The rich stay rich. The poor stay poor. The middle class pays for everything." I can't really argue that statement looking factual, nor that it's not really a good thing for society in the long run.



That's not exactly new.


----------



## turtlerace79 (18 Oct 2011)

I read an interesting opinion article in the National Post this morning that I thought I'd link here:

http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/reaping+what+they+sowed/5564849/story.html


----------



## GAP (18 Oct 2011)

Good article.........

but these Occupy (whatever) could have it their own way.....simply vote communist....the proletariat would own everything, everyone would share equally, no one would do without, why has no one suggested this....................they have?.............oh........that Russia......


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Oct 2011)

turtlerace79 said:
			
		

> I read an interesting opinion article in the National Post this morning that I thought I'd link here:
> 
> http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/reaping+what+they+sowed/5564849/story.html



Good article, and IMO true.


----------



## Redeye (18 Oct 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> That's not exactly new.



It's not. But as the middle class seems to be shrinking while the rich get richer at their expense, it was only a matter of time before some folks started getting angry about it.


----------



## OldSolduer (18 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> It's not. But as the middle class seems to be shrinking while the rich get richer at their expense, it was only a matter of time before some folks started getting angry about it.



From what I've seen on TV it seems to be middle class university types.  I refuse to even go near those people....limosine liberals, without the limosines...smart cars maybe.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Oct 2011)

turtlerace79 said:
			
		

> I read an interesting opinion article in the National Post this morning that I thought I'd link here:
> 
> http://www.nationalpost.com/opinion/columnists/reaping+what+they+sowed/5564849/story.html




This little snippet caught my attention: "[the author] _paid off the debt, invested the balance and vowed to both save and pay monthly bills in full, promises I have kept ever since._" I learned - relearned, actually, because it was a family 'custom' - that same lesson, not nearly as painfully, perhaps, as the author, but I, too, kept that promise to myself. 

I have watched otherwise smart, very well educated, successful people lose their homes (in the USA) because they overextended themselves and had "_things [they] couldn't otherwise afford (and mostly didn't need)_" (a luxurious but heavily mortgaged cottage, a boat, a _Hummer_ just to haul the boat) that were rendered, effectively, valueless in 2008 but on which they were still making payments. Equally, I have watched (again in the USA) a Hispanic family who bought a bit more house than they should have been allowed (by sensible mortgage regulations) and who endured the sudden increase in payments etc and who kept their home by virtue of working two jobs, each, having only one old clunker of a car (because they live in a suburb without transit) and _invest_ what little money they end up with at the end of each month on things that might help their children do better.

It is a good article and Tasha Kheiriddin is on the money, so to speak.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I took a stroll down to the Grand Parade last night to listen in on the Occupy Nova Scotia crowd. The ones there in the evening were mostly younger, but there was a fairly diverse group there having quite a discussion. I didn't have enough time to get a real feel for the teach-in going on - but I was impressed by one of their chalked statements.
> 
> "The rich stay rich. The poor stay poor. The middle class pays for everything." I can't really argue that statement looking factual, nor that it's not really a good thing for society in the long run.




Except that the quote is  :bullshit: - reflecting an abysmally low level of historical knowledge. Never, in all of human history, has money or wealth been so _mobile_. Never, in recorded history, has it been so easy to move up and down the income ladder - it no longer takes generations to move from craftsman to small business owner to _nouveau riche_ industrialist etc - it can be, routinely is, done in one lifetime. And the reverse is true: the scions of the former "landed gentry" are working in "trade," their manor houses long gone. 

What the"chalked statement" tells me is that the education system is a massive failure, maybe a fraud. Because the idea is both factually incorrect and reflect a "gimme" attitude that speaks of mortal decay in our society.


Edit: grammar


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Oct 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This little snippet caught my attention: "[the author] _paid off the debt, invested the balance and vowed to both save and pay monthly bills in full, promises I have kept ever since._" I learned - relearned, actually, because it was a family 'custom' - that same lesson, not nearly as painfully, perhaps, as the author, but I, too, kept that promise to myself.
> 
> ...snip...
> 
> It is a good article and Tasha Kheiriddin is on the money, so to speak.



I agree Ed, a very good article.

My family too learned the lessons of overextending ourselves. In the late 90s we were two kids, one income, and every dollar counted. We had amassed 20K in consumer debt with no plan to pay it off. We took a good hard look at our situation and made some tough choices, going to a cash only economy. Now we're debt free, save the mortgage. We still buy everything paid in full. If we want something special, we take our example from Gail Vaz-Oxlade and put money in a jar.

The 99% are for the most part, responsible for their own situations, but are equally unwilling to accept that fault. It's easy to blame the 1%, but they didn't force you to run up credit you couldn't pay back. As for education, if you're going to get a degree in creative basket weaving, don't complain when you have no marketable skills. The object of any enterprise should be to put food on the table and a roof over your head. If your choices don't contribute to those goals, choose again.


----------



## Redeye (18 Oct 2011)

I understand the sentiment - particularly in the context of the origins of the movement in the US. Billions of dollars were handed to the financial industry to save them  from their own incompetence, essentially socializing their massive losses. Granted, most of the funds doled out under TARP are being paid back, but the overall cost to the economy was nevertheless huge. Pensions eroded, massive budget deficits in some jurisdictions because of the knock on economic effects,  Who's going to pay for that? What kind of moral hazard problem has been created there? The bailouts were undertaken and mostly tolerated with the thought that there'd be some sort of regulation or restructuring of the system to prevent anything like it from happening again.

I'll aggree there is some mobility of wealth - but that doesn't change the fact that the growth of income disparity has never been good for societies, and it's not unreasonable to expect some anger that there's bailouts for Wall Street but not for Main Street. I'll also agree that many of "Main Street" made their own bad decisions - but that's the whole thing - no calvalry came for them. Sadly there's a lot of strawman arguments about them though.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Except that the quote is  :bullshit: - reflecting an abysmally low level of historical knowledge. Never, in all of human history, has money or wealth been so _mobile_. Never, in recorded history, has it been so easy to move up and down the income ladder - it no longer takes generations to move from craftsman to small business owner to _nouveau riche_ industrialist etc - it can be, routinely is, done in one lifetime. And the reverse is true: the scions are the former "landed gentry" are working in "trade," their manor houses long gone.
> 
> What the"chalked statement" tells me is that the education system is a massive failure, maybe a fraud. Because the idea is both factually incorrect and reflect a "gimme" attitude that speaks of mortal decay in our society.


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I understand the sentiment - particularly in the context of the origins of the movement in the US. Billions of dollars were handed to the financial industry to save them  from their own incompetence, essentially socializing their massive losses. Granted, most of the funds doled out under TARP are being paid back, but the overall cost to the economy was nevertheless huge. Pensions eroded, massive budget deficits in some jurisdictions because of the knock on economic effects,  Who's going to pay for that? What kind of moral hazard problem has been created there? The bailouts were undertaken and mostly tolerated with the thought that there'd be some sort of regulation or restructuring of the system to prevent anything like it from happening again.
> 
> I'll aggree there is some mobility of wealth - but that doesn't change the fact that the growth of income disparity has never been good for societies, and it's not unreasonable to expect some anger that there's bailouts for Wall Street but not for Main Street. I'll also agree that many of "Main Street" made their own bad decisions - but that's the whole thing - no calvalry came for them. Sadly there's a lot of strawman arguments about them though.




There is not just some mobility of wealth, there is HUGE mobility of wealth and capital.

It is true that it is not moving to the idle middle class - the ones camping out in public parks to give us all a display of their self centred greed and ignorance.

Let me repeat: there is too much income inequality in America and Europe - but that inequality does NOT include the middle class which continues to get better and better off relative to the lower classes, especially the really poor. The troublesome gap is between the top 2 or 3% and the "working poor."

But the poor and parts of the middle class are "fighting back" in the most effective possible way - go look in the science classrooms and labs at your local university. Look at the faces.






Texas Academy of Maths and Science
Every year the top 100 (maths & science) scholars in 10th grade
are invited to the University of North Texas for a two year programme
that sees 90%+ of the kids go to the top 10% of US universities
with a year plus of credits already under their belts

Look in the BComm classrooms, too. You will see the same thing. Immigrant kids, minority (which too often equals poor) kids, foreign students ... fewer and fewer of the middle class, blond haired, blue eyed boys who were in the mainstream 40 years ago.

That's "mobility of capital" in action.

I'm only unhappy with the idea that there is in some way justifiable "_anger that there's bailouts for Wall Street but not for Main Street_" because it's simply not true.


----------



## kstart (18 Oct 2011)

A show of Occupy respect in Halifax. . .

*Occupy Toronto takes to the streets again*

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/10/16/occupy-canada-sunday.html



> *Police, protesters observe Halifax ceremony*
> On Sunday morning, RCMP and Halifax police gathered on the Grand Parade — where about 40 protesters have set up their camp — for an annual ceremony honouring peace officers killed in the line of duty.
> Before the service, Sgt. Kevin McNeil said police were prepared to gather outside the square, but in the end there was plenty of room for both groups.
> "When we came in this morning, one of the young gentlemen down here, he offered to clean up some of the chalk markings that had been around where the actual monument is, so that was a good gesture,” McNeil told CBC News.


     :yellow:


----------



## a_majoor (18 Oct 2011)

Since both the TEA Party movement and OWS are notionally against the same thing: Crony Capitalism, why have they come to opposite conclusions and taken opposite tracks? The TEA Party movement is doing the heavy lifting of getting engaged in the political process and ejecting politicians who can't or won't respond to their concerns. They are also working on a political and ultimatly social program to reduce the power of the State and divest the State of many of the tools and abilities that allow, encourage and enhance the growth of corruption and Crony Capitalism. (The Libertarianism as a social movement is part of this, as people discover they don't need the State in so many aspects of their lives as they do can do things faster, better and more cheaply by themselves and in cooperation with like minded individuals).

The OWS movement is advocating the opposite; demanding huge increases in State intervention in the economy and our lives in order to achieve some sort of "equality" and "justice", although it is mathematically _impossible_ to give them their "living wage", cancell their debts and give them all their other freebies even if the wealth of all the "rich" (no matter how low you set the bar) was siezed and turned over to them. And of course, siezing the wealth only ensures there will be no wealth produced tomorrow...(perhaps you remember Democrats musing about seizing American IRA's and replacing them with some sort of Government annuity? The seizure of the IRA's would net $2 trillion dollars; enough to cover a _single year's deficit_ by the Obama administration with a small amount left over.)

The real danger, besides ad hominem and strawman arguments that ignore or deflect evidence of what is being said and done by the OWS people, is the crowds will eventually develop a deep sense of frustration. They have no real arguments, but politicians seeking to gain their support will fire up the "class war" rhetoric (you know, the idea that you should "spread the wealth" or that "after a point you have made enough money"); the productive 53% or so of the population will not express sympathy or support for a movement that seeks to seize their wealth, and frustrtion will mount until there is violence. After that, who knows?

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/our-idiot-brother-the-tea-party’s-relationship-to-occupy-wall-street/?print=1



> *Our Idiot Brother: The Tea Party’s Relationship to Occupy Wall Street*
> Posted By Walter Hudson On October 17, 2011 @ 9:56 am In Opinion,Politics | 73 Comments
> 
> [1]
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (18 Oct 2011)

And more from the mouths of the OWS people, this time from the WSJ:

ttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html?mod=rss_opinion_main



> *Polling the Occupy Wall Street Crowd*
> In interviews, protesters show that they are leftists out of step with most American voters. Yet Democrats are embracing them anyway.
> By DOUGLAS SCHOEN
> 
> ...


----------



## Rifleman62 (19 Oct 2011)

I wonder if the OWS people watch the NFL, MBA, MLB, NHL, and what do they think of the players. Possibly, it should be OSS (Occupy Sports Stadiums)?


----------



## turtlerace79 (19 Oct 2011)

In today's Calgary Herald there was another article describing the antics of some of these aimless protesters with their vague agenda, but journalist Licia Corbella  includes some statisitcs that point out how different the Occupy "Insert Canadian city here" with how the Occupy Wall Street American protests are. 

For example, "About 4.4 million Canadians who filed taxes in 2009 each paid less than $100 in income taxes. In the same year, 173,000 Canadians - which is about the size of two Red Deers- paid $28 Billion in tax, or $164,000 on average per filer,"... "According to the Canada Revenue Agency's Income Statistics for 2009, only 0.7 per cent of Canadians earned more than $250,000 per year but paid 19.7 per cent of the income tax tab." 

These are  not stats that suggest we have a 99% vs 1% society growing here up north. I concede that it is often hard for a low-income earner to achieve the breaks that people of means might enjoy, but that doesn't mean it is impossible. I am growing tired of these narrow-minded people copying signs that they don't exactly understand simply because they saw someone using it on Wall Street. We have issues in Canada just like every country, but we cannot just start protesting because someone suggested that we should. Canada does a pretty good job of distributing the wealth, better than the U.S. anyway, and how I know this is because roughly 8 blocks from where these Calgary protesters gather, there is a hospital that they can walk into sans identification and get their health needs taken care of. 

This article mentions the contibutions and anniversary of the "Famous 5"  women that protested back in 1929 to capture what they perceived as a real injustice: women being delcared "persons". It seems almost an insult to these strong-willed and inspired women to have their anniversary overshadowed by a bunch of unintelligent campers with pretty nice tents. 

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/flurry+inaction+Occupy+Calgary/5571556/story.html


----------



## larry Strong (19 Oct 2011)

What has the west done wrong for people/........... (insert expletive of choice) to say ".....that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost...."

Asked by someone who has busted his body at physically demanding jobs for 40 years.


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Oct 2011)

If the "campers" truly wanted change, they would give up their iPhones, laptops, etc and live like poor folk.....


----------



## GAP (19 Oct 2011)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> What has the west done wrong for people/........... (insert expletive of choice) to say ".....that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost...."



oh....you mean Greece.....


----------



## Redeye (19 Oct 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> If the "campers" truly wanted change, they would give up their iPhones, laptops, etc and live like poor folk.....



Why? What does that have to do with anything?


----------



## Redeye (19 Oct 2011)

One of the best commentaries I've seen yet - thanks to Calvin:


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Why? What does that have to do with anything?



Don't you see? They, by using these devices, are supporting the capitalist rich running dogs are they not? They should ditch these devices in favor of snail mail  in support of the poor hard working proletariat!!

 :stirpot:


----------



## Rifleman62 (19 Oct 2011)

Quote from: Jim Seggie on Today at 10:12:24

    





> If the "campers" truly wanted change, they would give up their iPhones, laptops, etc and live like poor folk.....




Redeye: 





> Why? What does that have to do with anything?



Well it would stop posts here from some who are in the "camps".


----------



## RangerRay (19 Oct 2011)

This is awesome...

http://alexgtsakumis.com/2011/10/19/occupy-vancouver-driven-by-the-usual-suspects-pro-drugs-anti-war-conspiracy-theorist-global-warming-louts/



> ...
> 
> Are there nice folks, too, genuinely concerned about the out-of-sync world? Yes, of course but they’re a minority. And do you know what they’re accomplishing by buttressing the efforts of the nutters behind this whole thing? Nothing, nada, zilch, zippo, zero, forget it.
> 
> ...



_*Much*_ more on the link!  Not to be missed!

And this is equally as funny/sad...

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/1225187712001


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> One of the best commentaries I've seen yet - thanks to Calvin:



He forgot Big Union in there


----------



## Strike (19 Oct 2011)

Sent this to a friend of mine who's working at the Occupy Toronto site (works for G&M but is VERY socialist...kinda funny):

http://failbook.failblog.org/2011/10/18/funny-facebook-fails-ows-youre-doing-it-wrong/

Her reply?  Guess who's serving free coffee down there.  Yes, she's sees the irony.  She may be socialist, but she's certainly not stupid.   ;D


----------



## OldSolduer (19 Oct 2011)

Strike said:
			
		

> Sent this to a friend of mine who's working at the Occupy Toronto site (works for G&M but is VERY socialist...kinda funny):
> 
> http://failbook.failblog.org/2011/10/18/funny-facebook-fails-ows-youre-doing-it-wrong/
> 
> Her reply?  Guess who's serving free coffee down there.  Yes, she's sees the irony.  She may be socialist, but she's certainly not stupid.   ;D



Let me guess.....Starbucks? That capitalist running dog corporation? ;D  Of course I say thees with theek Russian accent, no? >


----------



## Jarnhamar (19 Oct 2011)

This whole thing can be summed up (In Strike's link) by the protesters going to starbucks before going out to protest mega corporations.
"But it's tasty!"  yup, one large cup of ironic hold the integrity.  idiots.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Oct 2011)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> What has the west done wrong for people/........... (insert expletive of choice) to say ".....that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost...."


----------



## cupper (19 Oct 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> He forgot Big Union in there



You missed the part about the soul employee DEMANDING high wages. ;D


----------



## cupper (19 Oct 2011)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> "But it's tasty!"  yup, one large cup of ironic hold the integrity.  idiots.



One Venti non-fat no integrity irony please


----------



## a_majoor (19 Oct 2011)

They produce great videos for us as well:

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/10/setting-the-stage-ows-leaders-caught-on-tape-orchestrating-mob-activity-and-arrests-videos/



> *SETTING THE STAGE: #OWS Leaders Caught on Tape Orchestrating Mob Activity and Arrests (Videos)*Posted by Jim Hoft on Wednesday, October 19, 2011, 6:18 AM
> 
> Setting the Stage–
> Radical anti-government activist and leader of the anti-capitalist #occupy movement, Lisa Fithian, was caught in action at the Occupy Chicago protest on October 10, 2011, training Chicago Teachers Union (CTU) members on how to stage their arrests for the cameras.
> ...


----------



## FlyingDutchman (19 Oct 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> One Venti non-fat no integrity irony please


Stop making me want to go to Starbucks dangnabbit. (And I do not even like coffee.)

They really want to be arrested? Oy.


----------



## 57Chevy (19 Oct 2011)

Occupy wall street has gone occupy everywhere.

Occupy everywhere: protests go global
by Amber Jamieson
http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/10/17/occupy-everywhere-protests-go-global/

The recent Occupy Wall Street protests sparked a global day of action on Saturday, with demonstrations in Europe, Asia and Australia seeing thousands take to the streets to protest against corporate greed and corrupt governments.

While the majority of protests were peaceful, Occupy Rome turned violent, leaving 70 people injured, three seriously. Forty of the injured were police officers. 
more at link..
                                        Shared with provisions of The Copyright Act


----------



## Fishbone Jones (19 Oct 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> You missed the part about the soul employee DEMANDING high wages. ;D




Not really. I just thought that if they were slagging the capitalists for out of this world costs, they should try cover all the bases and not just a few select ones. It seems a lot of the people protesting are the makers of their own (mis)fortune. The unions are just as much at fault for driving prices as anyone else.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2011)

The _New Yorker_ magazine on the counter OWS:


----------



## kstart (20 Oct 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Since both the TEA Party movement and OWS are notionally against the same thing: Crony Capitalism, why have they come to opposite conclusions and taken opposite tracks? The TEA Party movement is doing the heavy lifting of getting engaged in the political process and ejecting politicians who can't or won't respond to their concerns. They are also working on a political and ultimatly social program to reduce the power of the State and divest the State of many of the tools and abilities that allow, encourage and enhance the growth of corruption and Crony Capitalism. (The Libertarianism as a social movement is part of this, as people discover they don't need the State in so many aspects of their lives as they do can do things faster, better and more cheaply by themselves and in cooperation with like minded individuals).
> 
> The OWS movement is advocating the opposite; demanding huge increases in State intervention in the economy and our lives in order to achieve some sort of "equality" and "justice", although it is mathematically _impossible_ to give them their "living wage", cancell their debts and give them all their other freebies even if the wealth of all the "rich" (no matter how low you set the bar) was siezed and turned over to them. And of course, siezing the wealth only ensures there will be no wealth produced tomorrow...(perhaps you remember Democrats musing about seizing American IRA's and replacing them with some sort of Government annuity? The seizure of the IRA's would net $2 trillion dollars; enough to cover a _single year's deficit_ by the Obama administration with a small amount left over.)
> 
> ...



We're not in total disagreement, the differences I think relate to analysis of the problem, thereby affecting how the problems are framed in terms of solutions.  It can also be hard to articulate that without clear understanding of current economic situations, and potential near future problems.  I really believe that an honest, respectful dialogue between both parties needs to happen.  I think there's need for clarification of the facts.  Also, there's hope that a bigger crisis can be averted, which I think the G20 are trying to work on that. 

Check this out: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QLdcB0ln9t8&feature=related
When I "wikipedia", both Ron Paul, and Kucinich, I see histories of integrity.  Both can seem radical for their time, the issue is if status quo is heading to greater failure.  

The Occupy movement can be positively patriotic and it can empower our leaders to stand up to the crony capitalism, within country and as globally negotiated.  It can help give our leaders a strong legal mandate that can hold up against what can be a virtual economic hostage-taking (e.g. millions of homes, in some phase of forclosure, and any further global economic crisis can also tip that balance; the robbery of social security pensions [paid into via payroll taxes] is another valid concern]).  The Occupy movement on this side of the hemisphere and with the powers of our democracy, if things get pushed into greater economic crisis, the hope is for peaceful management of problems.  

I respect the work of Thomas Jefferson,et al, the Constitution (though problems later in civil war), maybe this time around, it's not about North vs. South, but Right and Left working together on stabilization, healthy democracy, should the issues not be able to be resolved via the current system.  It's having back-up systems.  In Canada, we have greater stabilization, better banking system, but still risks if we adopt failed policies.

The income disparity has been growing is in a way that's not healthy for a sustainable and healthy capitalist system.  The following is a good link which shows the economic statistics more honestly.  There's tricks to statistics, they can be manipulated to hide reality (I do have some undergrad experience in statistics).  An honest statistician, would make note of "outliers" and include a breakdown of that.  In this video the relationship is shown more honestly: it shows how stats, can be represented by average, vs. median; and more relevant to exposing the 1%, and the 0.01%, is showing the quintiles, and breaking up the top quintile, which exposes the 1%, and the 0.01%.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SA1f2MefsMM 



I'm not in conflict with income disparity, or the concepts of income based on merit.  I'm not "envious of the rich", and certainly not the super-rich, I don't care to be that rich, honestly.  It was even acceptable to me, like whatever, "let them eat their cake" .  Where it does become a concern, is when massive poverty is on the horizon, what can be heading to the 99%.  When one understands the encompassing economic relationships, people are bound by, and what upset can be caused when macro economic forces fail, how devasting that can be: averting massive civil unrest, particularly avoiding the situation of desperate civil unreast (leading to violence) is something I would hope could be avoided (conditions of massive unemployment, food crisis, collapse, dignified care of the elderly [not left to rot on the streets to die]).

I think some of the Republicans are really out to lunch (you can disagree, I'm just stating an opinion I feel strongly about), e.g. the Sims-economics proposed by Cain, the 9/9/9-- I don't think they are seeing what is actually there, and where that could go.  They're also might be out of reality from what the directions from the G20 could be?  Maybe not fully.

I saw a paper somewhere, differences between Tea Party and lefter-sides of Occupy, one being more isolationist, protectionist (liek going back to confederation).  I can't say what's best, but there is also a global context.  Dialogue is important.

The lefty's are aware of Karl Marx' writings (student lefties, economists, etc).  Marx is "not a method", but risks are there if things become too destablized, people desperate, last resort, nothing to lose (I hope that's avoided).  Thing is, it's not the "lefty's who are armed, a lot of faith placed in democracy and peaceful means.  What his model was, was a prediction of how capitalism could collapse.  What's happened also, is that things are hidden, because of the illusion credit debt creates.  But his predictions, loss of the "merchant class" (like the middle class), the risks imposed by radical division of wealth between Proletariate (working class, which is the 99%) and the Borgeousie (top 1%- 0.01%).  We've been villanized and not understood (though there has been a history of whackos, too abstracted from reality, confusing theory with method-- that nuttiness).  Marx in it's proper context, is simply a tool of analysis.  But the wealthy wanted their shot at accumulation, and it worked well enough for a while, income disparity not so radically divided, it worked properly, healthy local economies, etc.

There is understanding that all of it, the money system is created by agreement, panic about buying gold (seen the ads on the Alex Jones-type sites , in reality that's not certain-- and yet I know there is paranoia as well expressed by AJ re: a world currency, and I think some confusion about what New World Order is, but a rightful suspicion of the 'globalists', which can be framed as the 1% and 0.01% of the world).  CBC Meltdown, documentary-series, finance minister of France said some interesting comments, re: re-negotiation of value, looking at things differently.  I imagine there are just sets of back-up plans if the current paths don't work.  But if this is one thing they are looking at, it may not necessitate a case of 99% robbing from the 1%, or lower quintiles robbing from upper quintiles.  See, it can go beyond that.  
Foundational understanding of that relationship: How Banks Work
http://www.youtube.com/user/leearnold#p/c/E3BC3F222D31C78D/0/Byaf9GihXhY

(I like this guy, he helps make economics more accessible for lay people)

Tea Partiers and lefty-Occupiers, being somewhat undefined re: solutions, well really, it's a case of needing the best economists working collectively on the problem, and hopefully ethically done (don't need desperation, or repeats of Hitler/Stalin-- different this time around, learning from history and importance of glboal agreement to prevent world instability, desperation).  It's right to view change with some suspician, looking out for things, to hope for the fairest resolutions, even for both rich and poor, particulary in respect of the 99%.

What people are reacting to in the Occupy movement, are bits and pieces of things, but which do stem from the larger economics, macro level, global as impacting on country, IMO.  Not many have the economics background to understand the bigger picture, of the relation among things.

The biggest task for both Right and Left, is to stop hating.  Propoganda on both sides, and this "war on the minds" has been artificially created, theatrics-- I think both sides can agree to that, and and all the same it's just been about maintaining status quo, but it's competition among bankers, favoured corporations--crony capitalism (also can be called "neo-liberalism"-- not true free market capitalism) and regardless, many fund both 'sides'.  There's movements such as www.getmoneyout.com, to get rid of that influence on our politics.  Acceptable to some degree when the system was working well enough.

I show up at protests from time to time.  I'm mindful of keeping the peace (even protective of the police who are there-- I would stand between them and a crowd, I've been prepared and moved more closely to do that).  In my 'town", the RCMP have been of a better quality, reasonable, well-educated, well-trained (I've also volunteered with them, via community projects, so there's a sense of familiarity, not excessive "otherness').  I protested the Iraq war, what happened at that one though, was a local radio host decided to add more 'fuel to the flames', and create this 'counter protest', so that we were met by an "army of red"-- as if they support the troops and we do not (in a way, I struggled with a sense of shame, but reorganized myself, that this is not what this is about).  I've heard this threat of 'counter-protest' again, to try to get confrontation happening.  Iraq one was a bit freaky, because some idiot decided to burn an American flag (I walked away, I was angry about that, because that also was not what that was about either).  The "army of red" that came, were all big people, like football players, came to confront the protest, but lucky no side decided to directly provoke violence (but the threat of it was there).

I know I'm hated for the long posts, I'm introverted by nature (compelled, maybe in an OCD-like way to express honestly).  The personal story above, is just to demonstrate, that I hope that those sorts of games of division and distortion do not get replayed.  Most on the left ("anarchists"/"fake anarchists/instigators excluded) want to keep it peaceful and work hard to try to keep it that way.  I hope there is respect for democratic movement and there's some principles we are trying to protect.  There's potential for good things to come from this and while things still remain stable enough.  I'm retarded by prose habit, don't know how else to communicate multiple points, analysis, I can't help that I think a lot (even if others see it as twisted-- which I am at times, honest  ).  Writing a lot doesn't mean I think I'm 'smarter'-- I'm not, just putting it out there for consideration.  It's not a panic situation, as much of it is simply beyond our personal control, it's the collective agreements that are reached and if they are successful and heading off further global economic instability (which could come to the 'main player" countries).  I don't think anything too bad will happen.  Good to have faith and not be overrun by fear.

I can come back and show statistics of the Canadian case (and write less).  We do have better stability still, better banking system, a model one, and that also makes us a stronger broker on the global scene.  I worry about the US, and elsewhere, it seems precarious still.  (Like if 3 Trillion were released of the borrowed money, the crisis that could create on inflation, food prices, etc.  I hope there are no 'hissy fits').  Might not be so gloom and doom either, it might just work out.

(When I say "we" as in Occupy-ers, I'm not really a part of the movement, just normally slightly to the left (social justice, 'care', like "leave no soldier behind"   applied universally/all), just there may be abnormal circumstances coming.  I can speak to some left-wing views, because I've been educated in that-- I don't consider myself an 'ideologue', I share some things with "libertarians" and capitalists, even 'catholics'  etc.).  I don't consider myself a 'radical' either.


----------



## cupper (20 Oct 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> The unions are just as much at fault for driving prices as anyone else.



:nod: Couldn't agree more.


----------



## Scott (20 Oct 2011)

Mellian?


----------



## Brad Sallows (20 Oct 2011)

There is no point hoping for the OWS protests to be useful; they have already been hijacked by the organized extreme left as the popular front du jour.  If the protests actually got anywhere, the useful idiots (ie. front members other than the highly organized factions) would be the first victims.  Deja moo.


----------



## PMedMoe (21 Oct 2011)

Sorry, I just had to......






 ;D

Now, back to your regularly scheduled thread.


----------



## cupper (21 Oct 2011)

Which will lead to the inevitable Occupy The Shire, Occupy Rohan, and Occupy Gondor.

And in response the Ents will form the Tree Party Movement.

:rofl:


----------



## Michael OLeary (21 Oct 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> And in response the Ents will form the Tree Party Movement.
> 
> :rofl:



reddit/r/trees?     >


----------



## FlyingDutchman (21 Oct 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> Which will lead to the inevitable Occupy The Shire, Occupy Rohan, and Occupy Gondor.
> 
> And in response the Ents will form the Tree Party Movement.
> 
> :rofl:


Occupy Mordor?  Orcs demand more man flesh!


----------



## Furniture (21 Oct 2011)

Now for wrath, now for ruin, and the red dawn!

Edit: I can't make the image work... I'm not good with computers...


----------



## FlyingDutchman (21 Oct 2011)

Upload and attach it?


----------



## a_majoor (21 Oct 2011)

Cartoonists vs OWS:

http://pajamasmedia.com/lifestyle/2011/10/21/seven-images-that-will-make-the-occupiers-cry/?singlepage=true


----------



## kstart (21 Oct 2011)

What Wall Street Protesters have Right

http://money.ca.msn.com/investing/michael-brush/what-wall-st-protesters-have-right



> Message No. 1: Growing income disparities threaten everyone
> This isn't about "resenting the rich for being wealthy" or declaring "class warfare," though many observers, particularly conservatives, twist the message to discredit the protesters. . .
> 
> While the super-rich keep getting richer, "living standards for the median household have declined more or less steadily since the late 1990s," says Mark Zandi, the chief economist and a co-founder of Moody's Analytics. Here are some stats that back this up. . .
> ...





> Message No. 2: The U.S. needs real bank reform
> Three years after a financial meltdown that nearly took out the American economy, the U.S. has really done very little to change the rules governing financial institutions, to make sure a meltdown like we saw in 2008-2009 doesn't happen again.
> 
> These protesters aren't the only ones to think that the Dodd-Frank financial sector reform law will fall short — even if it's eventually implemented in full. Many analysts, even on the right, share this view. "The principal elements of Dodd-Frank turn out to be useless as a defence against a future crisis," said Peter Wallison, of the American Enterprise Institute, a conservative think tank.
> ...





> Message No. 3: Political cronyism ruins democracy
> Another core complaint of OWS, says Gacuca, is that corporate contributions to U.S. political campaigns lead to crony capitalism, which is bad for democracy.
> 
> This is hardly a fringe issue. And despite being painted as a "leftist" group, OWS faults the Obama administration for being too closely aligned with Wall Street. It cites campaign contributions to Obama from banks, as well as the appointment of William Daley, who has a banking background, as White House chief of staff.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (21 Oct 2011)

Income inequality, like so much else from the OWS, is more of a myth than anything else:

http://blog.american.com/2011/10/5-reasons-why-income-inequality-is-a-myth-and-occupy-wall-street-is-wrong/



> 5 reasons why income inequality is a myth — and Occupy Wall Street is wrong
> By James Pethokoukis
> 
> October 18, 2011, 10:54 am
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Oct 2011)

The real OWS is starting to show its face:

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=31000



> *Report: Occupy Oakland Devolves into “Lord of the Flies”*
> John on October 20, 2011 at 12:01 am
> 
> From the Oakland Tribune:
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (22 Oct 2011)

From the Calgary Herald:

Link



> Little learning or knowledge at Occupy Calgary camp
> 
> 
> By Licia Corbella, Calgary Herald October 22, 2011 5:05 AM
> ...



Read more: http://www.calgaryherald.com/business/Little+learning+knowledge+Occupy+Calgary+camp/5591967/story.html#ixzz1bVbhTP94


----------



## a_majoor (22 Oct 2011)

Explaing OWS:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HYcdOpa5geo&feature=player_embedded


----------



## a_majoor (23 Oct 2011)

From Instapundit 23 Oct 2011. This guy is a TEA Party movement member at heart:



> Plus, how to really occupy Wall Street — with, you know, actual skills and value added and stuff:
> I must have rolled my eyes because Aaron introduced me to the guy. He had long hair, a scruffy beard and was holding an iPhone in one hand and a 5-hour ENERGY drink in the other. All entrepreneurs are trained for the elevator pitch, the 30-second description of what they do in case they are ever on a short elevator ride with a venture capitalist.
> 
> “I’ve taken the best of social networking and high-frequency trading and built a system that beats those Wall Street thieves at their own game. Users input their portfolio, it could be stocks or bonds or even derivatives and then we log each trade and anonymously share the spreads so everyone is on an even keel. First it’s just about information, but then we can start matching trades away from Wall Street. Its over for those guys, the status quo is toast.”
> ...



This sure beats the "Lord of the Flies" environment currently going in the OWS camps. Looking at the various reports coming from the Blogosphere, I feel mostly pity; women being molested or sexually assaulted but being discouraged by the OWS "organizers" from reporting to the Police, people discovering property rights all over again as their possessions get expropriated (stolen) by other OWS members or just plain theives who prey on the encampments, and of course the total lack of "exit strategy", i.e what is their "victory condition" and when do they say mission accomplished and go home?

Smart people like the one highighted above will discover they do have value in the marletplace, and can emgage and make changes to the world. In that respect, he is like the TEA Partiers who no longer demonstrate but work hard to make changes to the political landscape. The rest will simer in frustration until some critical point is reached, then explode into violence (Chicago 1968; Greece 2011), which may be the entire point of this OWS exercise.


----------



## mariomike (23 Oct 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> This sure beats the "Lord of the Flies" environment currently going in the OWS camps. Looking at the various reports coming from the Blogosphere, I feel mostly pity; women being molested or sexually assaulted but being discouraged by the OWS "organizers" from reporting to the Police, people discovering property rights all over again as their possessions get expropriated (stolen) by other OWS members or just plain theives who prey on the encampments, and of course the total lack of "exit strategy", i.e what is their "victory condition" and when do they say mission accomplished and go home?



Sounds like another Rochdale.


----------



## Old Sweat (23 Oct 2011)

mariomike said:
			
		

> Sounds like another Rochdale.



This wiki article is pretty close to the mark.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_College


----------



## kstart (23 Oct 2011)

G20 Meeting, Oct. 15th
http://www.g20.utoronto.ca/2011/2011-finance-111015-en.html



> We have progressed in delivering the commitments we made three weeks ago in Washington DC. In particular, we welcome the adoption of the ambitious reform of the European economic governance. We also welcome the completion by Euro area countries of the actions necessary to implement the decisions taken by Euro area Leaders on 21 July 2011 to increase the capacity and the flexibility of the EFSF. We look forward to further work to maximize the impact of the EFSF in order to avoid contagion, and to the outcome of the European Council on October 23 to decisively address the current challenges through a comprehensive plan. We made progress on our action plan of coordinated policies for consideration by our Leaders at the Cannes Summit. This action plan will encompass a set of measures to address immediate vulnerabilities and strengthen the foundations for a strong, sustainable and balanced growth whereby:
> 
> Advanced economies, taking into account different national circumstances, will adopt policies to build confidence and support growth, and implement clear, credible and specific measures to achieve fiscal consolidation. Those with large current account surpluses will also implement policies to shift to growth based more on domestic demand. Those with large current account deficits will implement policies to increase national savings;
> 
> ...



Anyone notice in the headlines where the Ferrari dealerships have moved to?  Or GAP stores pulling out of NA (their market base being 'middle class'), or Walmart adjusting their wares to match demand to target upper-class?  They're moving to and adjusting to where the buying power is; jumping ship or re-structuring themselves accordingly.

There's the 'what is' of the middle class, and also 'what is to become' of the middle class.  Canada and particularly the US are not the "emerging economies".  In other G20 memos can hear mention of how to sell this to relative countries.  "Unions are baa-aa-aad" (Raitt announces plans to change the laws to the striking powers of workers, to include 'endangering the economy', re-conceptualizing the 'economy as an essential service').  Wage devaluation.  This is good for us?  To be 'globally competitive"?  Or really, about paying down the debts as a result of the criminal practices of the bankers (and disloyal corporations before them and the policies which allowed them to take bailouts and relocate elsewhere) which brought on this mess. 


How is this adjustment going to be for consumerist USA, cultural shift.  The "American Dream" of work hard and you'll get there? Never mind this massive restructuring of economies to compensate for the damage the banksters did to us, which will affect the level of choices of employment opportunties, the wages.



> We debated options for innovative financing, as well as a range of different financial taxes, and look forward to Bill Gates’ report on financing for development. We discussed the World Bank IMFOECDRDBs report on mobilizing climate finance and the recommendations of Trevor Manuel based on this report, taking into account the principles of UNFCCC. We call for further work by MDBs and UN organizations. We look forward to an effective design for the Green Climate Fund, based on the work of the Transitional Committee as an element of a balanced outcome of Durban.


 (Ibid)

Yes, because it may be difficult to draw in foreign investment?

Do we really know how bad it is, what the actual cost-figures are as a result of the bankster fiasco-- their greed.

In addition to housing bubble ripples, student debt is estimated to be at above 1 Trillion:

*OWS-Related Issue: Student Loan Debt and Economy*:
http://www.salon.com/2011/10/20/student_loan_debts_crush_an_entire_generation/singleton/



> USA Today says that at some point this year, student loan debt will exceed $1 trillion, surpassing even credit card debt. Felix Salmon says the number is closer to $550 billion. Either way total student loan debt is rising as other debts have tailed off. Delinquency has increased, too, since the height of the financial crisis.
> It’s a huge mess.
> Some people have noticed that “student loan debt” comes up a lot among the Wall Street Occupiers and the members of the 99 percent movement. Often, older people, who either attended school when tuition was reasonable, or who didn’t attend college at all in an era when a high school diploma was enough of a qualification for a stable, middle-class career, tend to think this is all the entitled whining of spoiled kids. They don’t understand that these kids accepted a home mortgage worth of debt before they ever even had a regular income, based on phony promises, and that the debt is inescapable, regardless of life circumstances or ability to pay.
> Thanks to the horrific 2005 bankruptcy bill, one of the most nakedly venal modern examples of Congress serving the interests of the rentiers and creditors over the vast majority a number of congressional actions, debtors cannot discharge student loans through bankruptcy. The government is shielded from the risk, and creditors are licensed to collect by almost any means they deem necessary, giving no one in charge any real incentive (beyond basic human decency) to fix the situation.
> ...




Where's the incentive to take personal risk in investment on education, when the ROE is not looking good, and it's beyond personal merit, hard-work issues, when it's clearly becoming a structural issue, due to this restructuring of economy.  Anyone who thinks they are just 'whiners', I don't think are awake to the situation looming.


Indicators of decline over the past 30 years:

*Here Are Four Charts That Explain What The Protesters Are Angry About... *  

Read more: http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-four-charts-that-explain-what-the-protesters-are-angry-about-2011-10#ixzz1bdPjZVcE



> 1. Unemployment is at the highest level since the Great Depression (with the exception of a brief blip in the early 1980s).





> 2. At the same time, corporate profits are at an all-time high, both in absolute dollars and as a share of the economy.





> 3. Wages as a percent of the economy are at an all-time low. In other words, corporate profits are at an all-time high, in part, because corporations are paying less of their revenue to employees than they ever have. There are lots of reasons for this, many of which are not the fault of the corporations. (It's a global economy now, and 2-3 billion new low-cost employees in China, India, et al, have recently entered the global workforce. This is putting pressure on wages the world over.)





> 4. Income and wealth inequality in the US economy is near an all-time high: The owners of the country's assets (capital) are winning, everyone else (labor) is losing.
> Three charts illustrate this:
> The top earners are capturing a higher share of the national income than they have anytime since the 1920s: . . .



That's generally, add on this the additional crises created by the fallout of the criminal banksters. . .  I think the students have connected the dots.  It's noticeable when trying to plan a career trajectory, comparing personal investment costs in education to wage outcomes (wanted ads), the difficulty of planning ahead given unstable Labour Market (economic re-structuring affects everything, all job sectors, private and public, and public converted to private enterprises, ROE potential per education investment, where's the incentive?  The hope?  They're suppose to accept wage-slavery quietly, without protest?  Or protest all you want, the American Dream is dead.  Accept it, have no illusions about it.  

Jimmy Carter's Farewell Speech: http://www.youtube.com/watch?NR=1&v=7sjtM9T-ZWY  It feels mocking to listen to now.  They found a way to extend things, but it's stretched to it's very limits, and went way beyond them (banksters) time pay the piper.  Unfortunate stwartship of the country, this has been building for years.  

Bill Black (financial regulator, Regan Administration) gives some history to the deregulation to present, the conditions which brought on current crisis:
http://www.democracynow.org/2011/10/19/former_financial_regulator_william_black_occupy.  

In an earlier interview, Mr. Black mentions a tool the Obama administration did have to reign in the banks, to bring them into receivership, Bill Moyers Interview: http://www.pbs.org/moyers/journal/04032009/transcript1.html



> Black asserted that the banking crisis in the United States that started in late 2008 is essentially a big Ponzi scheme; that the "liar loans" and other financial tricks were essentially illegal frauds; and that the triple-A ratings given to these loans was part of a criminal cover-up. He said that the "Prompt Corrective Action Law" passed after the Savings and loan crisis mandated that ailing banks should be put into receivership. Black also stated that trying to hide how bad the situation is will simply prolong the problem, as happened in Japan's lost decade. Black stated that Timothy Geithner is engaged in a cover-up, and that the administration does not want people to understand what went wrong or how bad the banking situation is today.


  (Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/William_K._Black)


----------



## Brad Sallows (23 Oct 2011)

>fallout of the criminal banksters

At any point do you plan to assign a proportionate share of criminal blame to the politicians who have been spending tomorrow's taxes today for over 40 years?  And, I am curious to know what parts were "criminal" - assuming, of course, you are not referring to any legislation pending which would criminalize selected types of transactions.


----------



## a_majoor (23 Oct 2011)

:rofl: :rofl: :rofl:

http://www.daybydaycartoon.com/2011/10/23/


----------



## Delaney1986 (24 Oct 2011)

MGalantine said:
			
		

> About the student loan situation:
> 
> Why did they run up the debt in the first place? Why didn't they put it towards a degree that would be useful instead of something where the best shot would be a job? I have friends breaking their backs on jobs to pay for their tuition- A friend of mine always ends up sleeping on my shoulder during breaks because she's been either studying, commuting, or at work. But what happens to all of these guys is they then understand the goddamn value of their degree. As much as I think philosophy is a key part of humanity, a philosophy degree won't get you very far when trying to support yourself.
> 
> ...



I know there are other people who have posted similar attitutudes but I have just quoted what you said as it is the most recent.

   I think it's really easy to blame those who choose to go to University and get a "useless" degree as some of you have stated. Easy, and really ignorant. Different degrees come with different skill sets, but very few organizations want to train anyone anymore. They are looking for practical skills and undervalue skills like critical-thinking. I learned so much about how our Country works, how the World works from my "useless" Military History Degree, and although it hasn't directly contributed to me getting a job I am not sorry I did it.

And yeah it would have been great to have been able to save up money for school and not have to take out a student loan, like some of you have made sound very easy. Not all of us have the luxury of living at home, not paying expenses, coming from a middle-class or higher family situation, etc. Some of us come from lower-class families with one or more parents on disability, working for $5.90/hr when I started working, paying for gas, insurance, my own graduation fees, etc, etc, etc. I'm not saying that I think University should be free but if the Government and employers are stressing the importance of a Degree than they should make it more accessible and less burdensome in the long run. ALSO - there are people who don't know where to look for incentives to make paying back their student loans easier because no one tells you about them. NB has several programs, such as the Timely Completion Benefit and the Tuition Tax Rebate.

I would start earlier than University age though in wishing things would change. When I was in High School I was never challenged to think about what I wanted to be when I "grew up". All I ever heard about was *how important University was * and how I should get a degree and all my friends were going to University, etc. Everyone still thought College was for trades and I am FAR from having the Math capabilities to pursue a Trade or Sciences program. Things should change in the High Schools - we should be getting students to think about their futures. Not everyone decides what they want to be when they are in High School. The realities of University don't really come to light until you are already in your 2nd, or 3rd year. No one ever explained to me I would be $40000+ in debt and I never thought about it, I just knew I should get a degree to get a good job because that is what employers want (nor did I really realize how much money $40000 was before I had to start paying it back!  :-\). And to those of you who are ready to type something like "well that is your own stupid fault for not getting the facts", I agree. But not many 18 year olds I know would really stop to look at the facts, that, I learned in University.  

Essentially what I am trying to say - probably inarticulately - is that it's very easy to judge. I could never have done a business degree, or an Engineering degree because that isn't where my interests or skills are (for those of you saying people should choose a degree that brings more profit later on). I barely passed Math in school so I chose a degree with NO math, I just don't get it. There are a lot of things no one tells you about when you go to University. When I started school no one talked about the debt, no one talked about the lack of jobs, etc. So it was a bit of a shock when I graduated and not even the Military could take me, lol. And now I am back in school, in a program that is costing me another $22000 and going for round two! I know it is annoying to listen to people complain about something you may see clearly, but they are well intentioned.

Sorry for the rant!


----------



## Delaney1986 (24 Oct 2011)

MGalantine said:
			
		

> I know you're posting in response to the general trend, but from me, thank you- I might have one view point but I respect a well reasoned counterpoint.



Who doesn't love a good clean debate?  ;D


----------



## Bass ackwards (24 Oct 2011)

Delaney1986 said:
			
		

> No one ever explained to me I would be $40000+ in debt and I never thought about it



Delaney, please understand that I'm not trying to be mean or sarcastic here, but what, precisely, _were_ you thinking ?
I gather from your post that you had to take out a student loan: did the guy (or gal) at the bank not explain what you would be paying ? 
Or the simple fact *that* you would be paying ?
You're obviously smart enough and ambitious enough to want to better yourself, so, bluntly...WTF ?

Couple of questions -again, I'd like to hear your viewpoint. I'm not trying to cut you down and believe me, I've got no business calling anyone else stupid (high school dropout here) so here goes:

1) Is there (in your opinion) a villain here ? Bankers, high school teachers, parents, society at large, George W Bush...?
Who would you be protesting ? 

2) I note that after digging yourself a deep hole and not achieving what you wanted, you seem to be digging yourself an even deeper hole ("another $22,000 and going for round two"...)

Why ? 
I read your profile, I understand what you're aiming for, but why not find some full-time employment somewhere, bank some money and hang in there until there is a call for the career you want.
It involves waiting. It involves doing some drudge work in the interim. Yes, it sucks. 
It's also called "paying your dues".
Wouldn't that make more sense ?


----------



## a_majoor (24 Oct 2011)

The Croney Capitalists who went all in for the Democrat Party in 2006 and 2008 must be either very scared or totally p****d off right about now; but that is the problem with unleashing the mob; it is totally unpredictable and uncontrollable:

http://marathonpundit.blogspot.com/2011/10/video-obama-crony-penny-pritzker-called.html



> *Video: Obama crony Penny Pritzker called out at OccupyChicago by union speaker*
> 
> Obviously I need to work on my video skills. But videotaping at night--with an oblivious person holding a sign near me, presents challenges.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (24 Oct 2011)

And in case anyone still thinks the OWS movement is "leaderless" and "spontanious", the people who planed it provide an introduction to themselves and in their own words:

http://teresainfortworth.wordpress.com/2011/10/12/the-brains-behind-airhead-autumn/



> *The Brains behind “Airhead Autumn”*
> Posted on October 12, 2011 by Teresa in Fort Worth, TX
> 
> The Cover of Adbusters' Nov/Dec 2011 Issue - Umm, guys....doesn't a black crow symbolize "Death"?
> ...



http://thetyee.ca/News/2011/10/07/Kalle-Lasn-Occupy-Wall-Street/


----------



## ballz (24 Oct 2011)

Holy crap, sorry to bring this back to the education discussion we were having, but I'm here reviewing the slides for my Introduction to Political Science course (hey, 4th years need easy electives too ;D) and I must have been passed out cold in class when this slide came up or I assure you I would have been the prof's most-hated student ever.



> 5) Why study politics?
> 
> Its good for us . . .
> 
> ...



Found on slide 22 in the "Introduction.ppt" file http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~russellw/Teaching.html

Talk about a university selling people BULL$#!+

*I realize that it may be statistically correct, but implying that you need a POSC degree, or that a POSC degree applies to / will help you get a job in that 20% of jobs, is completely dishonest.


----------



## mariomike (24 Oct 2011)

Old Sweat said:
			
		

> This wiki article is pretty close to the mark.
> 
> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rochdale_College



That Wiki write-up is pretty tame from what I recall. Some of it first-hand, but mostly from what co-workers and supervisors told me. 
For example, on February 23, 1972, Inspector John Wilson, Chief of the Metro Police Morality Squad reported to the Star that there were already 10 suicides at Rochdale. More than three years later, the place was still occupied, and people were still jumping. Who knows how many of them were thrown out the windows?


----------



## cupper (24 Oct 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> *I realize that it may be statistically correct, but implying that you need a POSC degree, or that a POSC degree applies to / will help you get a job in that 20% of jobs, is completely dishonest.



Hey. I know lots of people with Poli Sci degrees that have jobs. ;D

And burger flipping is considered a job. :rofl:


----------



## Brad Sallows (24 Oct 2011)

>Almost 20% of employment is in PS related fields: Government, law, communications . . . 

They may be "related", but most lawyers think of the law as lawyer's work; ditto communications/journalism majors and communications, etc, etc.


----------



## Delaney1986 (24 Oct 2011)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> Delaney, please understand that I'm not trying to be mean or sarcastic here, but what, precisely, _were_ you thinking ?
> I gather from your post that you had to take out a student loan: did the guy (or gal) at the bank not explain what you would be paying ?
> Or the simple fact *that* you would be paying ?
> You're obviously smart enough and ambitious enough to want to better yourself, so, bluntly...WTF ?
> ...



I get it, trust me, if I had of thought more about it I may have done things differently. I mean that it wasn't like someone gives you a cheque for $40 000. I got a student loan so I recieved money in installments throughout my 4 years in University. I guess I didn't really add it up until it was over, I was a bit older and had to start thinking about paying it back. I wasn't worried about it because everyone I knew was going to University, and I knew people who had gone and were doing fine. I just assumed that I would get a good job and not have to worry about it. I always knew I would have to pay it back, but when you go from having no debt ever to having $40000 it is a big adjustment - especially when that shiny high paying job you are told you will get isn't waiting for you after you Graduate. They can't tell you what your monthly payments will end up being because you never know how much you will get every year, you only find that out in the end.

I can really only chalk it up to being young and naive, not being truly informed about what the risks were - no one talked about the risks, it was always just go to school, get a good job, don't worry about it. I understand it was my responsibility to check things out but I just didn't worry about it. Stupid, like I said, lol.

As far as Villains - I think that is a strong word. I'm not saying I would even protest, I certainly haven't before but just because people are looking for change doesn't mean the only degrees people should be pursuing are ones that are more likely to yield a high profit. That isn't entirely the point to "higher education". Like my last post says, I wish there was a more realistic portrayal of University vs. College and the job market. That kids were better prepared and better informed. Schools, parents, etc should all be pitching in to help. Also, that government assistance programs were talked about more and students were better informed about where to look for that information.

As for the second part of digging myself a new hole, lol, I sort of agree. But there are other back issues that I guess I didn't discuss before. After graduating with my $40000 debt I immediately applied to the Timely Completion Benefit and got accepted, which reduced my Student Loan down to $26000. I had applied for scholarships every year but never recieved any... And when I am done school I fully intend to take advantage of the Tuition Tax Rebate, but I cannot claim that while I am still a student.

I decided to go back to school because I cannot become an Intelligence Officer in the Military off the street, other trades I applied for were closed. I had applied for over 200 jobs in a 6 month period and could not find decent work anywhere. I am currently working Full Time night shifts and going to school full time, so I am paying my "dues" so to speak. I will end up right where I was when I first graduated from University. I have always been interested in Police Work and Military so I figured I would shoot for MP, if not, then the Criminology field has many opportunities I can pursue...hopefully! If not, I will be the most educated Dispatcher at my job for sure.  

I was never saying anyone should "take the blame" just that the problems are at multiple levels and it is unfair and ignorant to blame those who choose to get a degree that some don't view as "lucrative" as deserving what they get. Especially when they are getting fed a line of bullshit about how the only way to get a good job is to have a degree, ya know? Not crucifying anyone, just encouraging people to think critically and look at all angles instead of being judgemental and making snap judgements.  ;D

Hope that clarifies a bit more of my decisions and my situation now, let me know if you have any other questions.


----------



## ballz (24 Oct 2011)

Delaney1986 said:
			
		

> I'm not saying that I think University should be free but if the Government and employers are stressing the importance of a Degree than they should make it more accessible and less burdensome in the long run.



I don't think the government or employers have ever stressed the importance of a university education, the universities have. Unfortunately, you're right, in high school you are led to believe that university is very important. Unfortunately, those teachers are all university educated as well. And also unfortunately, most parents I've come across (including my own) also stressed the importance of university.

I agree that there should be more in high school to prepare educate young people about what's in store, what the realities are, and to challenge them to start asking themselves what they really want to do. Likely to strongly opposed by teachers though, for various reasons. Unfortunately, a high school education has gone the same way as a university education...



			
				Delaney1986 said:
			
		

> And now I am back in school, in a program that is costing me another $22000 and going for round two!



Which program?


----------



## kstart (25 Oct 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >fallout of the criminal banksters
> 
> At any point do you plan to assign a proportionate share of criminal blame to the politicians who have been spending tomorrow's taxes today for over 40 years?  And, I am curious to know what parts were "criminal" - assuming, of course, you are not referring to any legislation pending which would criminalize selected types of transactions.



Check out the links I provided to Bill Black for perspective of the criminal actions of the banksters, he gives a couple of interesting interviews, one with PBS, the other with Democracy Now.  He did have experience as a financial regulator through the Reagan years (and through the Savings and Loans crisis, which compared to the 2008 meltdown, the current being "70 times worse"), and he gives some historical account re: deregulation of banking practices (e.g. whittling down of Glass-Steagall Act, which was created post-Great Depression, as prevention from the same thing happening again).  Also, re: regulation, post-9/11, 500 FBI specialists on white-collar crime were re-allocated to roles of anti-terrorism, and despite the FBI warning in 2004 about white-collar crime being an enormous risk, there was never replacement of those 500 FBI white-collar crime investigators.  They mortgage scam, he sees criminal fraud, both with banks, and also re: the rating of those fraudulent financial products, derivatives, giving AAA ratings to bad products, another level of fraud.  Banks have inordinate power over politicians, they pay for their campaigns, their in the Obama administration, there was bipartisan support for deregulation.  He also states that only about 10% were criminal, the rest applied professional ethics.  Bigger impact because these were the most elite banks involved in the fraud.  Also if uncorrected, an dif another bank goes down, that can cause a Great Depression, so situation there is also tenuous (although it seems G20 are also attending to that ?)

Taxes can be part of the problem, re: careless spending, but also on the otherside of that is distribution of taxation (bigger tax breaks for the super-rich, e.g. the Bush tax breaks: in an earlier 'rant' of mine , I provided a youtube link, an interesting presentation evaluating the economics and impact of that on government spending and saving).  Tax cuts for the super rich don't make sense either when the spending has been increased by 2 wars, anti-terrorism costs, etc. and if those savings are not being re-distributed in things like actual job creation.  It's also criminal, the claim there's no money for social security (when Americans have paid into that via payroll taxes).   But I'm sure there's arguments on either side, both for and against this.  It's interesting to explore it anyhow.

I'm not sure on the union issue re: global competitiveness.  I can re-think that.  Obviously with today's inflation, cost of living, it's not realistic to attempt to pay workers here $2/hour-- that's unlivable (unless there would be government subsidy, or a re-setting of inflation-- I don't know what the economic remedies for that would be).  But in time, the wages of the emerging economies perhaps will get higher, and maybe things will equal out again down the road. . . ?  If there were good wages, where people could save for an education, could bring in something like what Germany has-- learning a pratical vocation, university study later in life. . .?  But where-ever the tinkering comes, it has ripple effects, so I can't just buy a 'slogan' "unions are bad" without consideration for the ripple effects of wage devaluation (plus that effect of local economy, businesses, additionally).  I just hope for fariness, and if sacrifices need to be made, it's also a shared burden, as I can't see milking that much more blood from a stone, on the backs of the working poor.   They're bigger problems than my little mind can figure out, still it's interesting to explore, debate, hear other sides. . .
pax


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Oct 2011)

It's true that Wall Street played fast and loose with other people's money, but those toxic investments were only created because the Clinton White House directed Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac to issue mortgages to people who should never have gotten them. It's completely unfair, and ignores historical fact to blame George Bush for the current state of affairs.


----------



## Delaney1986 (25 Oct 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> I don't think the government or employers have ever stressed the importance of a university education, the universities have. Unfortunately, you're right, in high school you are led to believe that university is very important. Unfortunately, those teachers are all university educated as well. And also unfortunately, most parents I've come across (including my own) also stressed the importance of university.
> 
> I agree that there should be more in high school to prepare educate young people about what's in store, what the realities are, and to challenge them to start asking themselves what they really want to do. Likely to strongly opposed by teachers though, for various reasons. Unfortunately, a high school education has gone the same way as a university education...
> 
> Which program?



It depends on where you apply for a job. Have you ever applied for the government? Almost all of the jobs I have applied for stress that a degree is either a necessity or an advantage over those who do not have one. As far as Government not stressing it, have you never heard a Liberal speak, lol? Not to mention that Universities are federally funded, so if the Government doesn't have a hand in it, than, why would they help fund it? My Uni wouldn't even shut down on a snow day until after noon because they had to stay open a certain amount of hours or something to recieve their money from the government, lol. That's awesome when you drive a Hyundai Accent (standard) with all season tires and your Uni is built on a ginormous hill.  :

I think a lot of different people from different levels need to give their head a shake, and let us know the real deal before we go to school.

Also, I decided to go back and do Criminology at Eastern College. It is the only program in my area that is supported by the Military as entry for Military Police, even if for whatever reason I don't choose Military, I want to keep as many options open as I can. Plus, my husband is Military so it wouldn't have made sense financially for me to go away for school.

Have a good day!  :nod:


----------



## ballz (25 Oct 2011)

Delaney1986 said:
			
		

> It depends on where you apply for a job. Have you ever applied for the government? Almost all of the jobs I have applied for stress that a degree is either a necessity or an advantage over those who do not have one. As far as Government not stressing it, have you never heard a Liberal speak, lol? Not to mention that Universities are federally funded, so if the Government doesn't have a hand in it, than, why would they help fund it? My Uni wouldn't even shut down on a snow day until after noon because they had to stay open a certain amount of hours or something to recieve their money from the government, lol. That's awesome when you drive a Hyundai Accent (standard) with all season tires and your Uni is built on a ginormous hill.  :



I haven't applied for a government job but being in Newfoundland I know a lot of government employees (it's considered one of the top jobs here), most don't have a degree.

Are you confusing "education" with "university?" Universities are federally subsidized, but they are also provincially subsidized, and they both subsidize trade schools and whatnot. They also subsidize apprenticeships, and offer tax breaks to people starting a trade (aka you can get a tax refund for "x" amount of tools that you had to purchase because you were starting an apprenticeship). They both also pay for your high school education. This is done for the obvious reason of having a well-trained, well-educated general population is going to benefit society as a whole. The benefits exceed the cost so to speak.

I don't see it as encouraging people to go to university and get a degree instead of getting a trade or something at all. Actually I'd argue the trades lately have been getting a lot more attention from the government due to the way industry in Canada is.


----------



## Danjanou (25 Oct 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> Holy crap, sorry to bring this back to the education discussion we were having, but I'm here reviewing the slides for my Introduction to Political Science course (hey, 4th years need easy electives too ;D) and I must have been passed out cold in class when this slide came up or I assure you I would have been the prof's most-hated student ever.
> 
> Found on slide 22 in the "Introduction.ppt" file http://www.ucs.mun.ca/~russellw/Teaching.html
> 
> ...



Follow the bouncing links and read the Profs 12 (WTF) CVand it kind of makes the BS clear. Nice to see my alma matter is still hiring the cream to shape young impressionable minds.  :sarcasm:


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Oct 2011)

How about we occupy the Mustang Ranch to liberate those poor oppressed women?

I'll bring some JD. >


----------



## Edward Campbell (25 Oct 2011)

A thought on education:

1. There is no such thing as too much education;

2. There are no "bad" degrees - not everyone wants to or should be an engineer or mathematician;

3. Philosophers are valuable people who, on balance, contribute as much to civilization as do scientists;

4. The is a difference between education and training - it is nice to have both; and

5. Those who elect to study philosophy or political science and who either do not want to or are unable to reach PhD level and teach must consider other useful and valuable careers: MARS or infantry officer, for example. Those men and women will need some training to go with their education but their educations will not be wasted - education rarely is.


----------



## GAP (25 Oct 2011)

.


----------



## Danjanou (25 Oct 2011)

Edward I agree, my academic credentials are in no way directly related to my present profession nor were they to my previous military. In both cases I undertook extensive specialized training and upgrading to be able to "do my job" effectively. However I don't consider my "arts" and "social science" background/formal education as useless. or wasted. There  were many things that could be applied elsewhere.  I did understand that it would require more though to find a usefull and productive career(s). Mine and many others decision was to obtain that or settle for less.  No one hands it to you a platter ( silver or otherwise) no matter how much you may whine. A fact that seems to escape these well meaning but misguided individuals.


----------



## ballz (25 Oct 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> A thought on education:
> 
> 1. There is no such thing as too much education;
> 
> 2. There are no "bad" degrees - not everyone wants to or should be an engineer or mathematician;



I agree that there is not such a thing as a bad "field of study," but there are bad degree programs / bad schools, and a lot of them. A bachelor's degree is the new high school diploma. You pay money, you attend, you regurgitate for 4 years, you get a degree. But Sir Thomas Moore said it best; “Many are schooled, but few are educated."

My argument with my Finance prof is that if taxpayer's are paying out of their @$$ to subsidize this stuff (and we are), then the institution should be expected to maintain a certain standard so that we as a society make good on our investment. I don't believe we are, not even close.

In Germany they subsidize education based on its contribution to the economy. So if 1% of the GDP gets spent on education, and the field of engineering pays 5% of the overall tax revenues, it gets 5% of that 1%. If your field doesn't contribute, it doesn't get funding.

I personally don't understand why a theatre student at MUN is subsidized about $6250 / 2 semesters (not including tax benefits, government grants / interest free loans, etc), yet a kid from a poor family can't get his $500 hockey fee /  $300 martial arts fee / etc paid for by the government. Theatre and hockey are both hobbies. They're both unlikely to lead to a career. They're really not different in my mind, they're both great things if you love to do them but I shouldn't have to pay for it. Now, if the government wanted to take $2550 (cost of tuition for a Canadian citizen at MUN) out of that $6250 and give engineer's a free education, then I am all ears. Not because I think people who want to be engineers are better and deserve more, but because we might actually get a return on that money.

EDIT: So, I guess I could of summed that all up by saying "An education without job prospects is not a waste, but it's a waste of taxpayer's money."


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Oct 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> A thought on education:
> 
> 1. There is no such thing as too much education;
> 
> ...



Music to my ears.

//signed//
Technoviking
BA (Hons) German and *Philosophy* (UWO 99)
And *Infantry Officer*


----------



## OldSolduer (25 Oct 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> .



I like this school.


----------



## ballz (25 Oct 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Music to my ears.
> 
> //signed//
> Technoviking
> ...



I also thought that post was 100% custom made for you ;D


----------



## cupper (25 Oct 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> not everyone wants to or should be an engineer



Everyone wants to be an Engineer, except Engineers.


----------



## Bass ackwards (25 Oct 2011)

Delaney1986 said:
			
		

> Hope that clarifies a bit more of my decisions and my situation now, let me know if you have any other questions.



Nope. No questions.
Just a sincere "good luck" in your endeavours.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Oct 2011)

And back to the actual "occupation" movements; PJM reporter "Zombie" does a walkabout in the Oakland camp with camera and documentary reportage (lots and lots of pics at the link):

http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2011/10/24/is-occupy-oakland-as-bad-as-they-say/



> *Is Occupy Oakland as Bad as They Say?*
> Posted By Zombie On October 24, 2011 @ 2:58 am In Uncategorized | 148 Comments
> 
> Much ado has been made about recent media reports describing Occupy Oakland as a cross between Lord of the Flies and Animal House. The leftist magazine Mother Jones was furious about the negative coverage, deeming it “The Right-Wing Media Assault on Occupy Oakland,” and attempting to debunk the bad press. But Big Journalism lashed back with an article entitled MotherJones: Truth To Unflattering Reports On OWS.
> ...


----------



## kstart (26 Oct 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> It's true that Wall Street played fast and loose with other people's money, but those toxic investments were only created because the Clinton White House directed Fanny Mae and Freddie Mac to issue mortgages to people who should never have gotten them. It's completely unfair, and ignores historical fact to blame George Bush for the current state of affairs.



No, GW just linked to a link on economics from an earlier post, re: the Bush Tax Cuts (for the wealthiest), and fact of lack of regulatory oversight, by removal of 500 FBI white-collar crime investigators, it created favourable conditions for white collar criminal conduct.  Yes, Clinton certainly played a hand in assisting the deregulation of banks, it goes back to Carter as well:



> Deregulation
> 
> Further information: Government policies and the subprime mortgage crisis
> 
> ...



(Source: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Global_financial_crisis_of_2008 ).  According to Bill Black, the Obama Administration did have more powers to go after the big banker criminals.  In Glass Steagall act, part of the power was to maintain separation (prevent conflict of interest) between banking and investment banking, in the Obama admin., there's also a big conflict of interest, the Treasurer, Michael Geitner being awarded for failure.  I can go back and make some notes on that.  Also to point out, much of the deregulation occurred with *bipartisan* support (voted in).  I think it's a concern among the Occupiers, this level of corruption and conflict of interest.  Then there's a higher level of conflict of interest (vs. sovereignty, democracy w/i country), by G20-- when compared to the effects to the 99%, and the working poor, and middle class who are bearing the burden disproportionately.  It's just not a great situation, some decline.  Reality is interdependence re: economy, that kind of flies in the face of what we believe about personal merit, when there are limits imposed as a result of economic restructuring, sometimes personal merit can squeeze through the cracks though, just things are tightening further, I think/suspect.  I read a stats elsewhere, re: 40 M Americans rely on foodstamps (including employed americans); 8 Million jobs were lost as a result of 2008 WS, etc. (from CBC Meltdown Fact Sheet).

---
On another note, glad to hear some respect on the merits of higher education (it's a lucky experience, expansion).  I think with undergrad, need to combine with other education (college diploma)/work experience, e.g. like the Army, etc.  Things have grown into demands for greater specialization.  An undergrad, generally is not worth the same weight now, vs. 20-30 years ago.


----------



## RangerRay (26 Oct 2011)

Meanwhile, things in Vancouver are deteriorating:

http://alexgtsakumis.com/2011/10/26/gregor-robertsons-big-lie-yes-another-and-once-again-the-media-sleeping-get-rid-of-occupy-vancouver-heres-how/



> *Gregor Robertson’s Big Lie (Yes, Another) and Once Again, the Media Sleeping….GET RID OF OCCUPY VANCOUVER–HERE’S HOW*
> ...
> Corporate greed is what started this global mess. We all get that. Goldman Sachs and all their pals sure knew what to do to make such a huge mess and they did it. The Americans have been operating on the systemic, flimsy premise of spend and borrow since the days of Jimmy Carter and all through Reagan, two Bushes, a Clinton and the current, exceedingly mindless occupant of 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.
> 
> ...



More on link


----------



## Nemo888 (26 Oct 2011)

Oakland police shot an Iraq Vet in the face with a tear gas gun. He's in critical condition on a respirator. His crime? Wanting to protest by camping in a city park. 

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/26/iraq-vet-oakland-police-tear-gas_n_1033159.html?ref=fb&src=sp&comm_ref=false#sb=626595,b=facebook


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Oct 2011)

>Check out the links I provided to Bill Black for perspective of the criminal actions of the banksters

I thought you mean criminal as in, prosecuted and found guilty.  I'm sure there are plenty of opinions about criminality, but those are worth what you pay for them.


----------



## Brad Sallows (26 Oct 2011)

>it created favourable conditions for white collar criminal conduct.

But most of your information just seems to be a lament over regulation, not that anyone was playing outside the rules as written.

Maybe if regulators did not press institutions to make shitty loans, institutions would make good loans and would not be as motivated to develop arcane - and legal - strategies to mitigate risk.  Again, the big complaint here seems to be that those goddamn banksters managed to weasel out from under the social engineering yoke Barney and friends created.


----------



## Nemo888 (27 Oct 2011)

Bankers told politicians how they wanted to be  regulated. To say that it was the other way around is an interesting fable. In Canada they tried the same pressure, but our politicians didn't listen. You do notice we skipped the savings and loan crisis and sub-prime. In the US it's essentially blackmail. If candidate X gets 1 million in campaign funds and candidate Y get 5 million guess who wins. How did some irrelevant Chicago community organizer become President? A 600 million dollar war chest.


----------



## aesop081 (27 Oct 2011)

Well then.......

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/zuccotti_hell_kitchen_i5biNyYYhpa8MSYIL9xSDL#.Tqk-ZNvnXXk.facebook



> *Occupy Wall Street kitchen staff protesting fixing food for freeloaders*
> 
> The Occupy Wall Street volunteer kitchen staff launched a “counter” revolution yesterday -- because they’re angry about working 18-hour days to provide food for “professional homeless” people and ex-cons masquerading as protesters.
> 
> ...


----------



## Scott (27 Oct 2011)

That's awesome!


----------



## cupper (27 Oct 2011)

Ken Jennings is the 99%

http://www.npr.org/blogs/thetwo-way/2011/10/26/141738383/former-jeopardy-champ-ken-jennings-i-am-the-99-percent


----------



## larry Strong (28 Oct 2011)

The last guy's paper said his 4 person family makes 80K a year....and he needs his parents help with his bills!!!!!!!


----------



## cupper (28 Oct 2011)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> The last guy's paper said his 4 person family makes 80K a year....and he needs his parents help with his bills!!!!!!!



Not surprising depending on where he lives.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Oct 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> Not surprising depending on where he lives.



Time to move then.


----------



## FlyingDutchman (28 Oct 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Time to move then.


Might not get the same income then, catch 22.


----------



## Nemo888 (28 Oct 2011)

FlyingDutchman said:
			
		

> Might not get the same income then, catch 22.


Remember when 80k was a lot of money? With a mortgage in a neighborhood  that you can raise kids in 80k is a few pay checks away from disaster. Maybe they should just rent till the kids are older.


----------



## aesop081 (28 Oct 2011)

FlyingDutchman said:
			
		

> Might not get the same income then, catch 22.



So the solution is to stay in place and do nothing ?

 :


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Oct 2011)

The business of migrating for economic benefit is well established. Without even considering mass _international_ migrations or those lost in the mists of time, consider:

1. Canada in the 1860s - French Canadians move West;

2. America in the 1920s - Blacks moving North;

3. America in the 1930s - the _Okies_ migrating to California, Oregon and Washington;

4. America in the 1940s - Blacks moving North (again); and

5. China in the 1990s - Chinese from the interior moving to the East coast (quite possible the largest migration in human history). 

Why should it be less popular in the 21st century?


----------



## aesop081 (28 Oct 2011)

ERC, you forgot "Newfoundlanders move to Alberta oil fields" in there somewhere  ;D


----------



## PuckChaser (28 Oct 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So the solution is to stay in place and do nothing ?
> 
> :



and protest about how the man is dragging you down.


----------



## The Bread Guy (28 Oct 2011)

Ah, so THIS is what they want, is it (in Oakland, anyway)?


> Excuse me for being pumped up upon hearing that #occupyoakland voted for a general strike on November 2nd. There are also rumors that the Occupy movement as a whole is talking about a nationwide general strike next May.
> 
> A general strike is exactly what the people need to be doing to wrest control of our government and our future back from the banksters and corporatists. It's one thing to make noise in the street, but mere noise can be ignored. If we want to exercise real power. Real political power. Real people power... THEN WE MUST FUCK WITH THEIR MONEY.
> 
> ...



But are they REALLY ready?


> With people in the Occupy Oakland group calling for a general strike next week, Duke labor historian Robert Korstad said his study of social movements leads him to believe a strike would not succeed now.
> 
> "It's a tremendous way of showing solidarity among groups of people, or across different groups of people," Korstad said during a live "Office Hours" webcast interview Thursday, October 27. However, "historically, general strikes take quite a bit of organizing if they are going to be successful." ....


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Oct 2011)

Some thoughtful advice to the "Occupy" movement from a former head of the Congressional Budget Office, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from _Foreign Affairs_:

http://www.foreignaffairs.com/articles/136611/douglas-holtz-eakin/what-occupy-wall-street-gets-wrong-about-inequality?page=show


> What Occupy Wall Street Gets Wrong About Inequality
> *A Better Way to Think About the Bailout, Jobs, and Taxes*
> 
> Douglas Holtz-Eakin
> ...




Something for the _occupiers_ to chew on, but if the ones reported upon in the media are representative of the _movement_ as a whole then I am confident that they are too self absorbed, too poorly informed, too pampered and too lazy to think about what Douglas Holtz-Eakin has to say.


----------



## ballz (28 Oct 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> ERC, you forgot "Newfoundlanders move to Alberta oil fields" in there somewhere  ;D



1990s - End of time


----------



## cupper (28 Oct 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> So the solution is to stay in place and do nothing ?
> 
> :



May not have a choice. With so many people underwater on their mortgages, they cannot afford to sell at a loss because they'd still owe a huge chunk to whoever holds the sliced and diced mortgage. Yet they are barely able to afford to stay either. And until the new changes in regulations take effect, they can't even refinance, in spite of being current.

I know from personal experience that job mobility has come to a screeching halt. My company has more than enough work to keep our staff of engineers working 60 to 70 hour weeks and still have a backlog of work. We've been trying to hire engineers and CAD Technicians for the past two years with no luck. We get lots of resumes from people looking to come to the US to get a work visa or green card. But to get someone with relevant experience already in the US, is near impossible. Either they want way more than the market rate to relocate or they lack the amount of experience we are looking for.

We have a couple of engineers working for us as part of an agreement with another firm out west where they split  time between our company and the other. We've made offers to them to come to DC and work full time for us, and they can't afford to take the loss on their homes. Both bought at the peak when interest rates were low, and both had standard 30 year fixed mortgages. But when the bubble burst both lost 40% to 50% in value, because their area was one of the hardest hit.


----------



## cupper (28 Oct 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> 2. America in the 1920s - Blacks moving North;



This was mainly due to the racial climate in the South, particularly with the prevalence of lynchings, Jim Crow Laws and lack of ability for Blacks to obtain an education or find a better life in the agriculturally dominant South. Yes, the industrialized North had a better economic oppourtunity, the main driving force was still the social and cultural conditions of race.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Why should it be less popular in the 21st century?



Today, people go where the jobs go. and unfortunately, the majority of manufacturing jobs have gone overseas. The textile industry that drove the Southern economy for many years has all but died due to the influx of cheaper goods from Asia. The Rust belt is in it's final death throes as those jobs have migrated to Mexico, or China.

Any migration taking place within the US is mainly companies moving from one state to another to get more favorable tax breaks, less regulation or right to work laws. This is why Rick Perry claims to have created a Texas miracle, through stealing jobs from other regions.


----------



## Edward Campbell (28 Oct 2011)

cupper said:
			
		

> This was mainly due to the racial climate in the South, particularly with the prevalence of lynchings, Jim Crow Laws and lack of ability for Blacks to obtain an education or find a better life in the agriculturally dominant South. Yes, the industrialized North had a better economic oppourtunity, the main driving force was still the social and cultural conditions of race.
> 
> I don't agree and I also don't think there is any empirical evidence to support your claim. There is no doubt that social conditions in the South were poor for blacks, but people do not, typically, move for social reasons. Economics explains migration.
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (28 Oct 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I don't agree and I also don't think there is any empirical evidence to support your claim.



Perhaps I may have put more emphasis on racial issues than economic, but you do have to agree that racial factors were significant. All of the background I have read on the subject credits both economic and racial factors as the motivation for the northerly migration from 1910 to 1930. 

But one thing you don't take into account was that the majority of the Black population still remained in the South, regardless of better oppourtunities in the North. There was however a migration of Blacks from rural to urban communities. This was due to economic oppourtunities.

The migration from 1945 to 1970's was certainly economic driven. However the reverse migration from North to South that has occurred since is cultural, as Blacks are returning to family roots.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Economics explains migration.



Then how do you explain refugees from war torn areas, severe drought and famine or ethnic discrimination?



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> As long as transportation remains cheap wages will determine factory location.


And how many Americans migrated to Mexico and China to keep their old higher wage jobs? Cheap transportation and cheap wages can be counteracted with tarriffs on imported goods, and disincentives on companies that choose to move their operations overseas in favour of cheap labour at the loss of jobs at home. (Not that the WTO makes this an easy prospect, and consequences of lost overseas trade and higher costs for goods only available from foreign markets)



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> There was/is more than just taxes in the mix that caused the rapid expansion of the "sun belt" after the 1950s.



Like I said, favourable tax incentives, less regulation, right to work laws all go together to lure companies from one state to another.


----------



## GAP (28 Oct 2011)

NY 'occupiers' have generators confiscated
Day before first snow due
By Chris Francescani and Michelle Nichols, REUTERS
Article Link

NEW YORK - Anti-Wall Street protesters’ plans to camp in a New York park throughout the city’s harsh winter were dealt a blow Friday when the fire department confiscated generators and fuel because they posed a danger.

With the first snow forecast to fall Saturday, the Occupy Wall Street movement against economic inequality lost the generators that had been powering heat, computers and a kitchen in the Lower Manhattan camp they set up six weeks ago.

“They think that taking the ’power’ away will take the power away, and that’s absolutely not true at all,” said Occupy Wall Street spokesman Michael Booth.

The movement has sparked so-called occupations in cities across the United States. But recent evictions in places like Oakland, California, where police used tear gas and stun grenades, and Atlanta, have New York protesters on edge. 
More on link


----------



## cupper (28 Oct 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> NY 'occupiers' have generators confiscated
> Day before first snow due
> By Chris Francescani and Michelle Nichols, REUTERS
> Article Link
> ...



And they were worried about hippies practicing free love before this. Good Move. ;D


----------



## a_majoor (29 Oct 2011)

OWS demonstrates either ignorance about the US political system or reveals itself for what it really is:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-occupy-wall-streeters-destroying-the-first-amendment/?print=1



> *The Occupy Wall Streeters — Destroying the First Amendment*
> Posted By Hans A. von Spakovsky On October 27, 2011 @ 12:22 am In Crime,economy,US News | 124 Comments
> 
> The “Occupy Wall Street” protestors have put their platform online with an apparent list of demands [1]. One of those demands — an immediate ban on all private campaign contributions to political candidates — shows a woeful ignorance and virtual contempt for basic rights protected by the Bill of Rights.
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Oct 2011)

Basically, the OWS people are suffering from "If I were dictator for a day..." wishful thinking.  Except, they would not be content with only a day.


----------



## a_majoor (29 Oct 2011)

Seize the wealth!

http://theothermccain.com/2011/10/28/smelly-hippies-get-ripped-off/



> *Smelly Hippies Get Ripped Off*
> Posted on | October 28, 2011 | 40 Comments and 23 Reactions
> 
> They march for free. I mock them for profit.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (29 Oct 2011)

Leaderless and spontanious.....

http://jammiewearingfool.blogspot.com/2011/10/shocker-acorn-paying-ows-protesters.html



> *Shocker: ACORN Paying OWS Protesters*
> 
> Imagine our surprise to discover Obama's buddies from ACORN still meddling around. I though this criminal enterprise ceased to exist?
> The former New York office for ACORN, the disbanded community activist group, is playing a key role in the self-proclaimed “leaderless” Occupy Wall Street movement, organizing “guerrilla” protest events and hiring door-to-door canvassers to collect money under the banner of various causes while spending it on protest-related activities, sources tell FoxNews.com.
> ...


----------



## FlyingDutchman (29 Oct 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> NY 'occupiers' have generators confiscated
> Day before first snow due
> By Chris Francescani and Michelle Nichols, REUTERS
> Article Link
> ...


The city has removed the local occupy movement's portapotty due to a lack of permit.  I feel sorry for them.  Them being the soon to be crowded public wasrooms in the area.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 Oct 2011)

Jurisdictions are finally recognizing the inherent contradictions in the positions they took, and mostly still hold, re: the "occupiers."

The "occupiers" are, generally, camping where camping is not permitted; they are, in short, breaking the law. They are, also, beginning to stink - physically and, from the very first moment, intellectually.

The physical "stink" will, sooner rather than later, evolve into a public health crisis which will require brute force and forced washings and (decontaminating) dustings to sort out - not a minute too soon whenever it happens.

The "occupy" movement was, always and consistently, without a single shred of intellectual worth, despite the fact that it highlights some very real issues. There are "inequality" problems but the children in the "occupy" movement do not understand them.

It is past time that they, the children, went home to their parents' basements where they belong - after a public health nurse scrubs them down and delouses them.


----------



## Brad Sallows (29 Oct 2011)

>NY 'occupiers' have generators confiscated

Ah, the nuclear option good for shutting down anything has finally surfaced: "I have safety concerns".


----------



## a_majoor (29 Oct 2011)

A searing reply to the OWS movement. Post Progressive America will be a very interesting place when these people push out the loafers (who's unionized jobs and fat pensions ended with the collapse of the gravy train):

http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/28/traders-talk-back-to-occupy-chicago/



> *Traders talk back to Occupy Chicago *
> 
> Learn to Trade OnlineInvest at Your Own Pace with Tools & Videos at RBC Direct Investing™. rbcdirectinvesting.com
> Courtesy of Lady Liberty and iOwnTheWorld, here’s a rant somebody’s been handing out at the protests in front of the Chicago Board of Trade:
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Oct 2011)

This guy gets it. Don't think politics either way, just have a listen. 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAOrT0OcHh0&feature=youtu.be


----------



## Redeye (30 Oct 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> This guy gets it. Don't think politics either way, just have a listen.
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OAOrT0OcHh0&feature=youtu.be



I'm sure what it is you think he gets. His 3.5 day idea is quite interesting, but he, like most pundits, has completely missed what the root of the issue Occupiers are pissed about, broadly. It's just more of the same BS strawman arguments. There are some that are anti-corporation without much consideration, but I suspect that's the minority of those 99%ers getting infuriated that they are constantly asked to cover the losses of those whose profits are kept private. It's not hard to understand the anger of people who feel like they paid the bonuses of the people who crashed the financial system in the first place, and who are continuing to be asked to bear those costs while they feel an increasing sense of alienation from the opportunity that their country and its economic system are supposed to provide for those willing to work for it. It's starting to feel to some of them like the work aspect doesn't matter, because they've got little opportunity to go there.

I laughed at some of the stuff he said, about people who kill animals to pack meat for people etc etc - like all those migrant workers - legal or otherwise - who do those jobs. And about the supply of water, which for the most part comes from municipal utilities - often unionized public sector employees who are being vilified by the right. And about electricity, much of the infrastructure for which came through government expropriations, and massive programs like the New Deal. Of course, Whittle doesn't really want to get into those details.

What's worst about the whole thing is watching what's happened in response - the heavy-handed police tactics being used in certain cities - Oakland and Denver come to mind. Since when is exercising one's civil liberties, you know, those ones in that Constitution that tea partiers drone on about, an act which makes people liable to be tear gassed? Shot at with pepperballs? These aren't people destroying property or causing violence, they're people exercising the fundamental freedoms contained within the Constitution of the United States of America, and considered the cornerstone of our traditions: the right to assemble, the right to speak freely, the right to petition their government for the redress of grievances. None of those things have curfews, or are criminal acts.


----------



## IBM (30 Oct 2011)

Pretty much sums up my opinion of this whole OWS thing:


----------



## a_majoor (30 Oct 2011)

The right to peaceful assembly does not include trespassing on private property, or carrying on in manners that threaten public health and safety. 

The TEA Party movement demonstrations were one day events, which they quickly cleaned up afterwards. The TEA Partiers also went to "town hall meetings" sponsored by their political representatives, and when they weren't heard there, they carried out their political assemblies and free speech in local meetings to nominate candidates to their liking, and eject incumbents who did not represent their views. Since they are working on changing the system through actual deeds, you can see the contrast in the numbers of elected Congressmen, State Legislatures and Governors, as well as the economic turnarounds happening in the Red and newly Red states.

It should also strike you as ironic that the Democrats who run Oakland were the first to move to crush the OWS encampment (not to mention the complaints being heard in many OWS encampments that the homeless and other "freeloaders" are coming to eat their food).

The OWS people have been conned into providing a telegenic propaganda event to further some political POV's (and one wonders if the Chicago 68 ending isn't also a feature rather than a bug)


----------



## Redeye (30 Oct 2011)

What colour is the sky in your world?

I'm going to be interested to see what happens in 2012 when there should be a backlash against the Tea Party and their Crony Capitalist masters. Of course, that depends on the Democrats and the middle actually going to vote. It was their petty sitting on their hands that created the mess the Tea Party do-nothing club has unleashed. I can only help that the situation is corrected next November.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> The right to peaceful assembly does not include trespassing on private property, or carrying on in manners that threaten public health and safety.
> 
> The TEA Party movement demonstrations were one day events, which they quickly cleaned up afterwards. The TEA Partiers also went to "town hall meetings" sponsored by their political representatives, and when they weren't heard there, they carried out their political assemblies and free speech in local meetings to nominate candidates to their liking, and eject incumbents who did not represent their views. Since they are working on changing the system through actual deeds, you can see the contrast in the numbers of elected Congressmen, State Legislatures and Governors, as well as the economic turnarounds happening in the Red and newly Red states.
> 
> ...


----------



## RangerRay (30 Oct 2011)

In accordance with all caveats.  It sounds like Occupy Vancouver has decided to infringe on peoples' right to worship...

http://alexgtsakumis.com/2011/10/29/the-greatest-disgrace-of-occupy-vancouver-attacking-holy-rosary-cathedral/



> *The Greatest Disgrace of ‘Occupy Vancouver’: Attacking Holy Rosary Cathedral
> 
> 
> *
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (30 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I'm going to be interested to see what happens in 2012 when there should be a backlash against the Tea Party and their Crony Capitalist masters.



You do relize the TEA Party movement' "public" launch was the rant by CNBC Business News editor Rick Santelli _against_ the Stimulus package, right....? 

You are aware the major thrust of the TEA Party movement is the end of crony capitalist bailouts like TARP, the Stimulus package, Obamacare and the recently defeated "Jobs bill" proposed by President Obama, right.....?

You are aware the TEA Party movement elected 63 new congressmen, and in the process unseated several incumbent Republican congressmen at the nominations, right....?

You are aware that Republicans now control 25 state legislatures, compared to the 15 still controlled by Democrats, and Republicans took control of 29 of the 50 State Governorships after the mid terms, right....?

and of course, you are aware of the economic performance of the "newly Red" states, right....?

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/data-show-majority-of-job-gains-in-red-states/?print=1



> *Red States, Including the ‘Newly-Reds,’ Excel at Job Growth*
> 
> Posted By Tom Blumer On July 29, 2011 @ 12:00 am In economy,Money,Politics,US News | 35 Comments
> 
> ...



I await your FACTS and FIGURES which refute the various observations posted here and in other places. Hersey evidence, strawman arguments and ad hominem attacks do not count.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I'm sure what it is you think he gets. His 3.5 day idea is quite interesting, but he, like most pundits, has completely missed what the root of the issue Occupiers are pissed about, broadly. It's just more of the same BS strawman arguments. There are some that are anti-corporation without much consideration, but I suspect that's the minority of those 99%ers getting infuriated that they are constantly asked to cover the losses of those whose profits are kept private. It's not hard to understand the anger of people who feel like they paid the bonuses of the people who crashed the financial system in the first place, and who are continuing to be asked to bear those costs while they feel an increasing sense of alienation from the opportunity that their country and its economic system are supposed to provide for those willing to work for it. It's starting to feel to some of them like the work aspect doesn't matter, because they've got little opportunity to go there.
> 
> The "BS strawman arguments" are, by and large, those offered by the "occupy" children. I get that they _feel_ deprived but I, for one, do not think they are deprived. Yes they feel a sense of "alienation from opportunity" but that is because, in too many, probably most cases they have alienated themselves from opportunity.
> 
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (30 Oct 2011)

>the Tea Party and their Crony Capitalist masters [skip] the Tea Party and their Crony Capitalist masters [skip] the Tea Party and their Crony Capitalist masters [skip] the Tea Party and their Crony Capitalist masters...

The broken record continues.

It is clear that the TP'ers are exactly the sort of irresponsible, wastrel, vandalism-prone, slovenly, freeloading parasites that will not bother to show up at the ballot box.  Progressive-minding, forward-thinking, compassionate, industrious, fastidious Democrats and other members of the political left in America will show up; the policies of the Obama administration will be given a resounding mandate and increased threefold and there will be prosperity unto the end of time.  Every year, as many bonds will be "sold" as necessary to sustain public spending at 110% of the highest revenue watermark, understanding that they will be redeemed tomorrow, and that tomorrow never comes.


----------



## Infanteer (30 Oct 2011)

You know, I've watched this Tea Party/Republican/Democrat/Socialist/Blogosphere debate on these threads with vague interest for some time now; all I can say is I got to hand it to the Taliban; their platform is clear and they mean what they say.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> What colour is the sky in your world?


Aquamarine, but what's that have to do with the Occupy xxx movement?   ;D


As for the 'heavy-handed' reaction, there are rules about blocking roads, etc, and the reality is that most (99%) of the protestors haven't a real clue why they are there.  For example, listening to the news radio from Fredericton on Thursday or Friday, they mentioned that there are a few down by City Hall.  They interviewed "the leader" and she was asked about the general reaction.  She said that some were negative, but that they "didn't understand the issues", but most people were positive.

I found this to be a load of horse-hooey.  "They don't agree with me, therefore, they don't understand".  I admit that I don't fully comprehend the "why" behind the movement, other than the perception that "life isn't fair".  You know what?  You're right, it isn't.  Now go get a job and take care of supplying yourself and your family with the lower end of the Maslow Heirarchy, and worry about "Self Actualisation" in your spare time.


----------



## aesop081 (30 Oct 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I admit that I don't fully comprehend the "why" behind the movement,



Don't worry, neither does the "movement" itself.


----------



## TN2IC (30 Oct 2011)

Not to throw this off track any part what so ever.. but here is link to the Halifax issue. Hope you can join us on the movement.

http://forums.army.ca/forums/threads/103169.0.html


----------



## Jed (30 Oct 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> >the Tea Party and their Crony Capitalist masters [skip] the Tea Party and their Crony Capitalist masters [skip] the Tea Party and their Crony Capitalist masters [skip] the Tea Party and their Crony Capitalist masters...
> 
> The broken record continues.
> 
> It is clear that the TP'ers are exactly the sort of irresponsible, wastrel, vandalism-prone, slovenly, freeloading parasites that will not bother to show up at the ballot box.  Progressive-minding, forward-thinking, compassionate, industrious, fastidious Democrats and other members of the political left in America will show up; the policies of the Obama administration will be given a resounding mandate and increased threefold and there will be prosperity unto the end of time.  Every year, as many bonds will be "sold" as necessary to sustain public spending at 110% of the highest revenue watermark, understanding that they will be redeemed tomorrow, and that tomorrow never comes.



And we will all be "drinking free bubble up and eating rainbow stew"


----------



## Redeye (30 Oct 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> As for the 'heavy-handed' reaction, there are rules about blocking roads, etc, and the reality is that most (99%) of the protestors haven't a real clue why they are there.  For example, listening to the news radio from Fredericton on Thursday or Friday, they mentioned that there are a few down by City Hall.  They interviewed "the leader" and she was asked about the general reaction.  She said that some were negative, but that they "didn't understand the issues", but most people were positive.



Whether they have a clue or not "why" they are there isn't relevant to determining the reaction. In particular, I'm troubled by the fact that in Oakland there's a guy with a TBI on life support because he was shot in the head some sort of "less than lethal" ammunition by an Oakland cop.



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> I found this to be a load of horse-hooey.  "They don't agree with me, therefore, they don't understand".  I admit that I don't fully comprehend the "why" behind the movement, other than the perception that "life isn't fair".  You know what?  You're right, it isn't.  Now go get a job and take care of supplying yourself and your family with the lower end of the Maslow Heirarchy, and worry about "Self Actualisation" in your spare time.



I know several "99%ers" who'd like nothing more than to have a decent job - who've spent months hunting for one, and who feel like something is horribly wrong with a system where a small number hoard the wealth. When there's so much BS about job creation and economic recovery being spouted by corporatist tea partiers (and I'm restraining my self by not using the term I normally reserve for them and the accompanying contempt) while they have literally done nothing, and several have said they won't because they're more interested in trying to dethrone President Obama, something it appears they have zero chance of doing in 2012.

I wish there was a clearer message, a platform, a strategy to fix the mess that the USA has gotten themselves into, but alas, as yet, there isn't. There's just anger that's trying to channel itself into something.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Whether they have a clue or not "why" they are there isn't relevant to determining the reaction. In particular, I'm troubled by the fact that in Oakland there's a guy with a TBI on life support because he was shot in the head some sort of "less than lethal" ammunition by an Oakland cop.


This guy is doing relatively well  and not on life support.  

What hit him?

The article above makes no claim that the police fired at or upon by the Oakland police.

Here is the relevant part of the article, with all emphasis added by me for, well, emphasis:



> The _something _ was a projectile that _apparently _ came from police lines, fractured Olsen's skull and put him in Highland General Hospital. Doctors upgraded his condition Thursday from critical to fair, and said *they expect him to make a full recovery*




If you want to read more on this guy, go to the website  he created.


----------



## Redeye (30 Oct 2011)

That's an improvement over the last thing I read - there is apparently video of OPD shooting him, but I've not read that much into it - the fact that any of this has happened at all is more than enough to suggest there is something seriously wrong.

As for the site, I will direct you to the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States of America. 



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> This guy is doing relatively well  and not on life support.
> 
> What hit him?
> 
> ...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Oct 2011)

> and who feel like something is horribly wrong with a system where a small number hoard the wealth.



Redeye-

I have watched this with patience but can watch no more.  Your above statement is, to put it charitably, Horse pucky.  You of all people, given where you work in your day job, should know that the supply of wealth in the world is not finite.  

Where was the wealth created by Bill Gates, before he had the idea of Microsoft?  It wasn't anywhere- he created that wealth, literally out of thin air.  The same as when Google was invented. And Facebook.  And Netflix (ok- bad example. That wealth probably came from Blockbuster...).

The point is- when people have good ideas, invent new companies and change paridigms, they get wealthy beyond belief.  And their shareholders (which is you and me, thru mutual and pension funds) get wealthy, too.

What do I care how much money Steve Jobs had or Bill Gates does?  And why should you?  Go friggin invent something, get fabulously wealthy and then give all your money away to the poor.  Or burn it.  Who cares- it will be your money.  Earned legally, fair and square.


----------



## a_majoor (30 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> who feel like something is horribly wrong with a system where a small number hoard the wealth.



And you identify the entire mindset with one magic phrase. Horde the wealth? From whom?

The "wealth" isn't yours or theirs to dispose of, it belongs to the people who earned it. If wealth holders have decided individually that they no longer wish to put their wealth at the disposal of bureaucrats and politicians to dispose of as they see fit (and with little regard to any effective use of the wealth they so freely spend) then more power to them. if they choose not to share their wealth with freeloaders and moochers, then they have made a choice (and a rational one as well). If these OWS freeloaders, their political patrons and the crony capitalists who want to seize my wealth think they are entitled to it, then they can come with guns in hand and try to take it; my property and what wealth I have accumulated is mine by right, and I am willing to defend it.

If they are wondering why they can't get a good job despite "trying", consider that I am close to leaving the Armed Forces and starting my own business. Anyone who shows up with a resume with "Theater Arts" or "Gender Studies" had better be prepared to work for minimum wage as a labourer, since I will have no other use for such a person in a business setting (assuming I have any general unskilled labour positions at all). A business "rule of thumb" suggests that sales should be $200,000/employee, so anyone who wants to work in a highly renumerative job had better have some real skils to take to the table, or be willing to work long, hard hours in uncomfortable settings (like an Infantry soldier) to get there.

Reality is hitting everyone a hard blow, but the decades of out of control spending for special interests at the expense of everyone else is going to stop one way or another. IF *we* get it right, there will be a controlled drawdown, wrapping up of programs and stoppage of entitlements and benefits that are far beyond market rates. If we don't,....the "Man on the white horse" awaits at the end of the road.


----------



## the 48th regulator (30 Oct 2011)

Nuff said,

dileas

tess


----------



## Redeye (30 Oct 2011)

There is nothing wrong with being wealthy. There is a problem when money buys governments. There's a problem when economic growth has been stagnant for a long time. There's a problem when there's a perception (even if not necessarily true) that the losses of a certain set of actors are socialized, but the profits remain private. I don't agree, necessarily, with what the Occupy folks say, but they have a point and it's one worth exploring, IMHO. When that's being abetted by governments, that's a problem.

Anyhow, I think I'm done here, there's no point.



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Redeye-
> 
> I have watched this with patience but can watch no more.  Your above statement is, to put it charitably, Horse pucky.  You of all people, given where you work in your day job, should know that the supply of wealth in the world is not finite.
> 
> ...


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Oct 2011)

And I will stipulate that-

1. Wealth should not buy governments.  Opportunity (but not outcomes) should be guaranteed to everyone.

2. The TARP and GM (etc) bailouts should never have happened.  Had the big US companies failed, there would have been serious, short-term hurt as a lot of people would have lost jobs and savings.  Then, somebody would have come along, picked the bones of the bankrupt companies and filled their business niches. In all likelihood the US would now be firing on all cylinders, wondering what to do with all the cash, instead of what is currently the case.


----------



## the 48th regulator (30 Oct 2011)

My status on Facebook;

_To the remaining "Occupy Protesters"....

Today, two jobs opened up for you to apply this week in Canada. Two warriors did their duty to allow you to play with your iPad in the middle of some lone park in your local city.

If you are quick enough, and got the intestinal fortitude to uphold your views of your protest, you can trundle along to the nearest Recruiting centre, not far from where your MTEC tent is pitched, and offer to fill the lofty boots of these two warriors.

Master Cpl. Byron Greff
Sgt. Janick Gilbert

Otherwise in the vain of all the rest of us, that find you lazy asses as crass, STFU.

Your Friend

tess_

dileas

tess


----------



## Redeye (30 Oct 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> And I will stipulate that-
> 
> 1. Wealth should not buy governments.  Opportunity (but not outcomes) should be guaranteed to everyone.



And that I agree with - and that - in spite of a lot of strawmen, is what most of the discussion generated by "Occupy" has been about. Of course, they don't have a particularly clear message, and there's been a lot of noise that takes away from that.



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> 2. The TARP and GM (etc) bailouts should never have happened.  Had the big US companies failed, there would have been serious, short-term hurt as a lot of people would have lost jobs and savings.  Then, somebody would have come along, picked the bones of the bankrupt companies and filled their business niches. In all likelihood the US would now be firing on all cylinders, wondering what to do with all the cash, instead of what is currently the case.



The situations that created the need to respond in those ways should never have happened. That said, the cold reality is that the US Treasury made money off of TARP, and that was what was expected, since the idea was nothing new, and that was the outcome the last time such a strategy was used. I fail to see how an orderly liquidation of GM would have been possible - the parts GM spun out haven't been picked up, and I would expect that had the company been liquidated, those auto workers who are still working in the restructured GM would instead be unemployed.

Interesting piece from the always brilliant Matt Taibbi here, definitely worth a read: http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/owss-beef-wall-street-isnt-winning-its-cheating-20111025 - I can't find a lot to argue in this piece.
[/quote]


----------



## SeaKingTacco (30 Oct 2011)

> the parts GM spun out haven't been picked up, and I would expect that had the company been liquidated, those auto workers who are still working in the restructured GM would instead be unemployed.



Debatable point- and largely a personal choice, if true.

http://www.ncsl.org/?tabid=13308

Have a look at the unemployment rate in North Dakota.  3.5%.  They are screaming for labour in that state.  But, people don't want to move...which is a personal choice.


----------



## Scott (31 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> That's an improvement over the last thing I read - there is apparently video of OPD shooting him, but I've not read that much into it - *the fact that any of this has happened at all is more than enough to suggest there is something seriously wrong.*



In Oakland. Right? It appears to be an isolated incident to me. Let's not draw conclusions about the rest.

Personally speaking, I am one of the 99% that would choose to be elsewhere so as not to get hit with a projectile that _apparently_ came from police lines.


----------



## Journeyman (31 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Anyhow, I think I'm done here, there's no point.





			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> And that...


Well, that radio silence lasted for all of about 45 minutes.


----------



## Redeye (31 Oct 2011)

Scott said:
			
		

> In Oakland. Right? It appears to be an isolated incident to me. Let's not draw conclusions about the rest.



Denver was also the scene of a pretty heavy-handed response. I think Dallas as well.



			
				Scott said:
			
		

> Personally speaking, I am one of the 99% that would choose to be elsewhere so as not to get hit with a projectile that _apparently_ came from police lines.



As am I - but that's not the issue. The issue is, why was that level of force necessary against people occupying a public space doing exactly what their fundamental freedoms should allow them to do?


----------



## Redeye (31 Oct 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Well, that radio silence lasted for all of about 45 minutes.



Yep. SeaKingTacco posted something interesting and worthy of a response.  The other interesting point was in his original post about how Bill Gates got rich by creating something (he incidentally also supports a lot of "progressive" cauuses and plans to donate much of his wealth when he dies to his foundation rather than passing it on. That got me thinking about the nature of the problem, and the Taibbi piece too. Gates created something of value - a product, which had a market because he saw demand. Ditto Google, Netflix, Facebook, whatever else. The difference when the financial mess happened is that derivatives were engineered as a form of gambling, but it was all basically fixed because the financial "engineers" who dreamed them up knew what they were doing and knew their losses would be socialized. They didn't actually add any value, they didn't see a market opportunity in quite the same way. They gamed a system in a way few could, and I understand the outrage at that.


----------



## vonGarvin (31 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> The issue is, why was that level of force necessary against people occupying a public space doing exactly what their fundamental freedoms should allow them to do?



That's an interesting way to say it.  Although right to assembly, free speech, etc all apply, but it's not exclusive to those protesting.  Others (including the average work-a-day Joe) may wish to use roads for their intended purpose: transportation to and from work.  Just because one has the right to assemble and stuff, there are places for that.  But not being privy to the entire episode (including the mood of the crowd, etc), I can't comment beyond stating that I'm fairly confident that the use of tear gas, bean bag rounds or whatever isn't the issue.  The issue is that dude had his melon messed up.  (and of course, even the riot police aren't trained to shoot for the head: they shoot for centre of mass).  And gas rounds (if that's what it was) are shot to skip on the ground.  Who knows, maybe it skipped up after hitting a rock and got him in the melon.  And who knows?  Maybe he was bending down to pick up a rock when it skipped up?

My point is this: the "protestors" were in all likelyhood not saints, and I highly doubt that the Oakland Police are the Gestapo reincarnated.  I just believe that there's more than what that one video shows.  That's all.


----------



## Scott (31 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Denver was also the scene of a pretty heavy-handed response. I think Dallas as well.



Three out of how many worldwide? I am not saying heavy-handedness, if that's indeed what it was, is correct, it's not. But from what I have been able to see in a few cities it's been more than even tempered. Just as we can't dismiss the protestors claims they were unfairly treated you can't out of hand dismiss the cops claiming they acted in a justifiable manner. 



> As am I - but that's not the issue. The issue is, why was that level of force necessary against people occupying a public space doing exactly what their fundamental freedoms should allow them to do?



With all but a few exceptions wouldn't you agree that one could avoid getting a baton imprint on the melon by simply doing what you're told, when you are told? Seems like simple math to me.

Lastly: What Technoviking said.


----------



## Redeye (31 Oct 2011)

Scott said:
			
		

> Three out of how many worldwide? I am not saying heavy-handedness, if that's indeed what it was, is correct, it's not. But from what I have been able to see in a few cities it's been more than even tempered. Just as we can't dismiss the protestors claims they were unfairly treated you can't out of hand dismiss the cops claiming they acted in a justifiable manner.
> 
> With all but a few exceptions wouldn't you agree that one could avoid getting a baton imprint on the melon by simply doing what you're told, when you are told? Seems like simple math to me.
> 
> Lastly: What Technoviking said.



One such incident is too much - and it's a principle thing I guess. What's the point of much-vaunted freedoms if they exist only as ideas and cannot actually be exercised. I'd like to know what the justification for using CS etc was in the cases where it was used. There's probably a lot more to the story than I know of at this point - but from an early observation I fail to see why that sort of response was in any way justifiable in a supposedly free & democratic society. This wasn't Black Bloc morons destroying property from what I understand, or anything remotely resembling that.


----------



## vonGarvin (31 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I'd like to know what the justification for using CS etc was in the cases where it was used.


Why?  You're not an American Citizen, so, really, who cares?


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> ... This wasn't Black Bloc morons destroying property...




Agreed, but it was band of lawbreakers who decided not to obey a lawful command given by the democratically elected city government. They got what they deserved.

And what about this? The "occupiers" will not vacate the Grand parade in Halifax for Remembrance Day (in fairness they say they have told someone that they are willing to _accommodate_ the services). What should the Mayor of Halifax do? If Mayor Kelly has any spine at all, if he has even a single shred of human decency then he will clear the park, sooner rather than later, in full public view, using water cannon, billy clubs and bulldozers. He will drive the rabble out and back to their parents' basements and then he will clean and fumigate the Grand Parade because the area is, with a doubt, infected with viruses: the _incredibly f_cking stupid_ and _I'm entitled_ viruses in particular.


----------



## Redeye (31 Oct 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Why?  You're not an American Citizen, so, really, who cares?



Really?

I'm married to an American. A lot of my friends are Americans. I live in a country whose economic stability and politics are intimately connected to that of the United States of America. Etc, etc....


----------



## Redeye (31 Oct 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Agreed, but it was band of lawbreakers who decided not to obey a lawful command given by the democratically elected city government. They got what they deserved.
> 
> And what about this? The "occupiers" will not vacate the Grand parade in Halifax for Remembrance Day (in fairness they say they have told someone that they are willing to _accommodate_ the services). What should the Mayor of Halifax do? If Mayor Kelly has any spine at all, if he has even a single shred of human decency then he will clear the park, sooner rather than later, in full public view, using water cannon, billy clubs and bulldozers. He will drive the rabble out and back to their parents' basements and then he will clean and fumigate the Grand Parade because the area is, with a doubt, infected with viruses: the _incredibly f_cking stupid_ and _I'm entitled_ viruses in particular.



Um, you're a day late and a buck short, Mr. Campbell. The folks on the Grand Parade met the Mayor and Legion reps and agreed to clean up the Grand Parade and relocate in time for the Holocaust Memorial and Remembrance Day services. They never, to my understanding, said that they wouldn't cooperate,  and I'm not surprised because they did the same thing for a police memorial service several weeks ago.


----------



## Scott (31 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> One such incident is too much - and it's a principle thing I guess. What's the point of much-vaunted freedoms if they exist only as ideas and cannot actually be exercised.



How long have they been expressing these freedoms before being asked to PFO? I don't think they just turned up only to see the cops roll in wearing riot gear the next minute.



> I'd like to know what the justification for using CS etc was in the cases where it was used. There's probably a lot more to the story than I know of at this point - but from an early observation I fail to see why that sort of response was in any way justifiable in a supposedly free & democratic society.



Why don't you just leave it at _"There's probably a lot more to the story than I know of at this point"_ *Because that's where we all are.* You think the cops went too far, I think the protestors were talking when they should have been listening. Enough already.



> This wasn't Black Bloc morons destroying property from what I understand, or anything remotely resembling that.



We know that. Comparing the two groups is like apples and bowling balls. Besides, if what I have seen from occupy is indicative of the works of them then no one would have enough drive to smash windows out of a Starbucks or torch a cop car.

That said I go back to the point: they were, in all likelihood, asked to move. They didn't. They get smacked. They earned it. If someone delivering the smacks went too far then they should have something coming as well but I am not one of those types who automatically sides with the poor, disenfranchised, iPhone toting, laptop waving, professional protestor. If the cops were in the wrong then they need to pay for that, but just because they went against some bunch of people protesting whatever is cool for the day doesn't make them guilty of anything.



			
				Redeye said:
			
		

> Um, you're a day late and a buck short, Mr. Campbell. The folks on the Grand Parade met the Mayor and Legion reps and agreed to clean up the Grand Parade and relocate in time for the Holocaust Memorial and Remembrance Day services. They never, to my understanding, said that they wouldn't cooperate,  and I'm not surprised because they did the same thing for a police memorial service several weeks ago.



Eh? Check your facts. At first they *flat out refused.* Then they tried the tripe line about how the vets fought for them as well and so they deserve to be there. Then they argued that the people who want them out of there should ask the vets what they want. Then they said IF they leave it will be after a "negotiation". A negotiation. Seriously.

This would all be up on Facebook if they weren't controlling comment threads...they want reasoned discourse...until it interferes with their goals, their occupation, their wishes, their time...see a theme? *I watched it go down* - did you? I watched questions being asked...I also watched some trolling, admittedly, but I also watched them, or at least their Facebook representative steadfastly refuse to answer questions and hold the line that they have the right to be there during ceremonies.

You can have the last word. I'm done. And I do mean that I am done.

_Edited: grammar and emphasis._


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Um, you're a day late and a buck short, Mr. Campbell. The folks on the Grand Parade met the Mayor and Legion reps and agreed to clean up the Grand Parade and relocate in time for the Holocaust Memorial and Remembrance Day services. They never, to my understanding, said that they wouldn't cooperate,  and I'm not surprised because they did the same thing for a police memorial service several weeks ago.




Good for them, but they should relocate to a place where camping is legal.


----------



## vonGarvin (31 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Really?
> 
> I'm married to an American. A lot of my friends are Americans. I live in a country whose economic stability and politics are intimately connected to that of the United States of America. Etc, etc....


My point is just me (partially nic fitting), but it's a common counter I receive when I decry (something) that happens far away and doesn't affect me personally.

(In all honesty, I am of the opinion that right is right, and wrong is wrong, and no matter if it affects you personally or not at all, you ought to stand against the wrong.  I just disagree that there has been a grand "wrong" in this case, considering the available evidence.  If it's the case that a cop went rogue and fired at the guy with the intent to maim, injure or kill, well that's wrong and it ought to be punished.  I'm just not convinced that there was a rogue cop, or that there was an implied or assigned order to the cops to use violence).


----------



## Redeye (31 Oct 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> My point is just me (partially nic fitting), but it's a common counter I receive when I decry (something) that happens far away and doesn't affect me personally.
> 
> (In all honesty, I am of the opinion that right is right, and wrong is wrong, and no matter if it affects you personally or not at all, you ought to stand against the wrong.  I just disagree that there has been a grand "wrong" in this case, considering the available evidence.  If it's the case that a cop went rogue and fired at the guy with the intent to maim, injure or kill, well that's wrong and it ought to be punished.  I'm just not convinced that there was a rogue cop, or that there was an implied or assigned order to the cops to use violence).



I don't think there was any deliberate malfeasance, and have seen no evidence, but to start using CS etc someone had to give an order, presumably, and what I don't get is what the justification for that, in the face of individuals who I've seen no evidence suggest were violent.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Oct 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I don't think there was any deliberate malfeasance, and have seen no evidence, but to start using CS etc someone had to give an order, presumably, and what I don't get is what the justification for that, in the face of individuals who I've seen no evidence suggest were violent.




When you are the "lawful authority" and the democratically elected government says, "move the _'occupiers'_ out of the park" and you go and tell them, "move along," and they say "No!" then what? Do you back away from your assigned, lawful duty just because they said "no1" rather than saying "No!" and tossing a Molotov cocktail? I don't think so. Faced with the "No!" you say, "Move or I'll move you," and then you must move them or the "lawful authority" no longer has much authority with which to enforce the laws. So you push and shove and if they will not move as you require you fire gas or water cannons or call in the horses, but you do not allow the lawbreakers, and let us be clear, that's what they are, to win.


----------



## RangerRay (31 Oct 2011)

Assembling for a protest is one thing.  However, there are laws against setting up camps and structures on public land.  Those laws should be enforced.  If I were to go the park and set up a tent, I can guarantee you that I would be evicted forthwith.  Why should these guys get a pass?


----------



## observor 69 (31 Oct 2011)

I know I am on dangerous ground trying to enter this "discussion" so my brief thought.
My attempt to understand where the Occupy movement is coming from is guided by looking at the Depression era demonstrations. Frustration at a government and economy that had left them with no possibility of any means or opportunity to make a dollar IE. make a living.
Parallels to Occupy can be drawn, tremendous amount of mortgage debt holding down the economy, debt that should never have been given but for greed and a lookout for number one.
An economy that can't generate anything near enough jobs.
A Republican party whose main stated goal is to kill any attempt for reelection of Obama vice any effort at economic recovery. Hence frustration at the governments lack of action.


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Oct 2011)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> I know I am on dangerous ground trying to enter this "discussion" so my brief thought.
> My attempt to understand where the Occupy movement is coming from is guided by looking at the Depression era demonstrations. Frustration at a government and economy that had left them with no possibility of any means or opportunity to make a dollar IE. make a living.
> Parallels to Occupy can be drawn, tremendous amount of mortgage debt holding down the economy, debt that should never have been given but for greed and a lookout for number one.
> An economy that can't generate anything near enough jobs.
> A Republican party whose main stated goal is to kill any attempt for reelection of Obama vice any effort at economic recovery. Hence frustration at the governments lack of action.




The Depression era demonstrations were of a somewhat different order, I think. The people demonstrating, some of them, anyway, were homeless and, sometimes, at or near starvation. They were expression _dissatisfaction_ with government and the economy, to be sure, but they were also *begging* for charity. We are in a long, difficult recession and I do want to minimize the real problems that many people are having, but the "occupiers" are not in anything like the same situation as demonstrators in the "dirty thirties."


----------



## mariomike (31 Oct 2011)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> However, there are laws against setting up camps and structures on public land.  Those laws should be enforced.  If I were to go the park and set up a tent, I can guarantee you that I would be evicted forthwith.  Why should these guys get a pass?



I think a lot of people are asking that question.
I don't know about other cities, but Toronto seemed fairly tolerant of close to downtown "camps and structures on public land", _as long as they stayed low on the public complaint scale._ I remember a hobo jungle in the Don Valley ravine. You could hardly see some dwellings in the ravines until the leaves fell off.
There was also a tent city down near Cherry Beach. It was big. I read that it was, "the largest hobo town on the continent." Nothing left of it now. ( I remember when a lady had a baby in there. They were a long walk from the nearest telephone booth. ) 
There were also people living under the Gardiner Expressway.


----------



## a_majoor (31 Oct 2011)

I think this poster has "gotten" what OWS is really all about. Look closely at the demographic of the campers and professional protesters involved (and the complaints about the burdens of educational loans for essentially useless degrees and credentials) and you will see the point he is trying to make here:

http://volokh.com/2011/10/31/the-fragmenting-of-the-new-class-elites-or-downward-mobility/



> *The Fragmenting of the New Class Elites, or, Downward Mobility*
> Kenneth Anderson • October 31, 2011 11:27 am
> 
> Glenn Reynolds is correct in his weekend post to point to the social theory of the New Class as key to understanding the convulsions in the middle and upper middle class; I’ve written about it myself here at VC and in a 1990s law journal book review essay.  The angst is partly income, of course — but it’s also in considerable part, as Glenn notes, “characterized as much by self-importance as by higher income, and is far more eager to keep the proles in their place than, say, [Anne] Applebaum’s small-town dentist. It’s thus not surprising that as its influence has grown, economic opportunity has increasingly been closed down by government barriers.”
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (31 Oct 2011)

It is very hard, nearly impossible in Canada USA, to find, but here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Financial Times_, is some sense about the "occupy" movement:

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/86d8634a-ff34-11e0-9769-00144feabdc0.html#axzz1cOj0xKRI


> The big questions raised by anti-capitalist protests
> 
> By Martin Wolf
> 
> ...




You can agree, or not, with Wolf but he makes a few points well, in my opinion:

1. The era of bail-outs must end. Restructuring finance to make this credible is of huge importance for the future; 

2. The tendency of a market-oriented financial system to run away with itself has, again, been demonstrated on a large scale;

3. Ways of mitigating the extent and the consequences of such instability [when the financial systems runs away with itself] always need to be found; and

4. It is impossible to define an acceptable level of inequality. Any inequality is corrosive if those with wealth are believed to have rigged the game rather than won in honest competition.

I agree, fundamentally, with all those points; I'm not sure Wolf and I would agree on how to best address them all.

Wolf ends by saying, "Peaceful protest is the right of free people. More important, it is a way to bring issues to our attention." I agree, but the 'right' to protest brings with it a 'duty' to accept the consequences which may include arrest and even imprisonment if one breaks the law. We recall the courage of e.g. the civil rights demonstrators in the USA in the 1950s who did indeed suffer the full weight of (often unjust) law, but they did no cheerfully, indeed even enthusiastically because they wanted to show us that they were taking big risks to expose big issues. I do not find such a sense in the 2011 "occupiers," indeed they are much more like spoiled children than they are like Martin Luther King.


----------



## Wookilar (31 Oct 2011)

OK, now I have been following the OWS since it started...mostly waiting for the hammer to drop on them (and being largely disappointed I must say), but there are a few things I do not understand. I am not an economist (or even an economics student), my degree consisted of anything that sounded cool that would get me my degree (which, ironically, should place me with the OWSers, however, I was sent to school to get a degree, of a certain type, for the job I already had. I didn't take a useless degree without any job prospects). Besides, who wouldn't take a course in Weapons of Mass Destruction if they had the chance? ;D

1: Why are protests happening here? There appear to be fewer of the economic pressures in Canada, than in say, Greece, France or the US itself. Is that why most Canadian based protests have been allowed to continue, because the authorities believe it will just "go away" once the winter hits and the university drop outs run out of their war funds?

2: What are the differences in our financial system(s) here in Canada that we did not see the same extent of corporate bailouts as in the States? Other than the domestic automakers, who else did we actually bailout? I'm not talking "stimulus money" here, straight bailouts. And didn't we get the money back from GM at least? Or was that more lies, damn lies and statistics?

If anyone could shed some light on this for me, I would appreciate it. I understand what they are saying, but the whole 99% thing just doesn't work for me with the way our income tax laws are. Once that tidbit is disposed of, what do they have left?

Thanks.

Wook


----------



## cupper (31 Oct 2011)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> 2: What are the differences in our financial system(s) here in Canada that we did not see the same extent of corporate bailouts as in the States?



Wook, the biggest difference between the Canadian and US systems is that the Canadian system is well regulated, and such regulations are enforced. And said regulations do not smother the business environment.

The US system to some may be over regulated, but the events of 2008 prove otherwise. And what regulations that were in place that could have prevented the collapse were not enforced, even when bright flashing neon arrows were pointing to violations so obvious even  the deaf, dumb and blind kid from Tommy would have been slapping his forehead.

Or so I've heard. ;D


----------



## Zartan (1 Nov 2011)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> 1: Why are protests happening here? There appear to be fewer of the economic pressures in Canada, than in say, Greece, France or the US itself. Is that why most Canadian based protests have been allowed to continue, because the authorities believe it will just "go away" once the winter hits and the university drop outs run out of their war funds?



Solidarity?

In all seriousness, it seems like many of our people, regardless of political stripes, have a very uncritical attitude to the latest fashions coming of the United States.


----------



## Bass ackwards (1 Nov 2011)

This could make things more interesting:

Here's an exceprt from Ezra Levant's column in today's _Toronto Sun_:
Reproduced under the Fair Dealings Provision of the Copyright Act:

http://www.torontosun.com/2011/10/31/arrival-of-mohawks-takes-occupy-up-a-notch

_________________________________________________________________________________________________
But last week, a group of hard-bitten men dressed in camouflage gear showed up and camped out in the ruined Toronto park, too.

They call themselves Mohawk Warriors. And they don’t believe that the laws of Canada apply to them.

Being exempt from Canadian laws has become a specialty of the Mohawk Warriors. These were the folks who had a two-month armed standoff with police and the Canadian army in Oka, Que., that led to the murder of Quebec police corporal Marcel Lemay and the injury of 10 RCMP officers. The Canadian Forces had to be called in.

The Mohawk Warriors conducted another military mission in the Ontario community of Caledonia in 2006, when they occupied a residential development site — again, setting up barricades, harassing and threatening citizens.

This time when the police came, they didn’t try to stop the Mohawks — they stopped the law-abiding community from fighting back. The illegal, gun-toting criminals were protected by the police; mere taxpayers were the ones driven out.

So now the Mohawk Warriors have moved on to their biggest and boldest target yet: Downtown Toronto.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

This is the first I've heard about MW's being there. 
And they _do_ have a way of livening up protests...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (1 Nov 2011)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> This could make things more interesting:
> 
> Here's an exceprt from Ezra Levant's column in today's _Toronto Sun_:
> Reproduced under the Fair Dealings Provision of the Copyright Act:
> ...



I've heard/read about it on various media outlets in the last few days. I live in Kingston and listen/read various Toronto based radio/newspapers so they are more likely to mention it then the MSM in Vancouver or Halifax, for example.


----------



## daftandbarmy (1 Nov 2011)

One occupy movement meets another....


----------



## Nemo888 (1 Nov 2011)

Looks like the church is remembering it's liberal socialist past.  The liberal class that brought in the new deal was not just unions. It also included the Church, artists, journalists and academics. They kept the system balanced back in the day. They confronted racism, sexism, child labour, took on monopolists, brought in the 40 hour work week, better public education, secured us pensions, enabled social class mobility, produced a meritocracy and gave the working class a decent life.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/blog/2011/nov/01/occupy-london-live-coverage-of-protests-and-reaction
*City and St Paul's suspend legal action against Occupy London – Tuesday 1 November 2011*

5.10pm: Here is an evening summary on a busy day at St Paul's Cathedral, where Occupy London protesters woke up thinking they were going to be served with eviction notices and found both the cathedral and the Corporation of London backing away from confrontation.

• Both St Paul's Cathedral and the Corporation of the City of London have suspended their legal action against the Occupy London protest against economic inequality that has been camped next to the church since 15 October.

• The Corporation, the local authority in the City, says its "pause" may only last until tomorrow or a few days' time (see 4.30pm). Its spokesman said it would make a further announcement tomorrow at lunchtime. It suspended its legal action "to support the cathedral", which had already announced it was dropping its action, and "to work out a measured solution" to the problem of the protest camp in the western lee of the church.

• St Paul's Cathedral's decision followed the Chapter of St Paul's, the cathedral's governing body, inviting the Bishop of London, Richard Chartres, to help it decide how to handle the protests after three resignations amongst its clergy. Chartres said today: "The alarm bells are ringing all over the world. St Paul's has now heard that call. Today's decision means that the doors are most emphatically open to engage with matters concerning not only those encamped around the cathedral but millions of others in this country and around the globe." St Paul's now intends to engage "directly and constructively with both the protesters and the moral and ethical issues they wish to address", a statement from the cathedral said. At a press conference, the Right Rev Michael Colclough explained that the change of heart came because the cathedral had received legal advice that as long as they were part of the eviction action they should not engage formally with the protesters (see 4.22pm). Colclough said the church would now try to act as a brokering agent between the protesters and the Corporation in the dispute. Protesters reacted positively to the decision (see 2.15pm).

• In its statement announcing the suspension of its legal action, St Paul's also announced that it was setting up a new initiative to try to reconnect "the financial with the ethical". This will be headed by banker Ken Costa, who wrote in the Financial Times on Saturday: "When such a wide range of people are singing a tune perhaps discordant to a City worker's ears but seemingly in tune with the global view that the market economy has failed to deliver growth, jobs and hope, we need to listen. The cure is not more legislation, or increased regulation. It is the pressing need to reconnect the financial with the ethical." Giles Fraser, who resigned as St Paul's Cathedral's canon chancellor on Thursday, will also be involved. My colleague Riazat Butt points out that the new initiative's brief is very similar to that of the existing St Paul's Institute (see 1.33pm).
(more at link)


----------



## Redeye (1 Nov 2011)

Considering the source is Ezra Levant, I wouldn't get too worked up about this. It's probably a non-story.



			
				Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> This could make things more interesting:
> 
> Here's an exceprt from Ezra Levant's column in today's _Toronto Sun_:
> Reproduced under the Fair Dealings Provision of the Copyright Act:
> ...



_- mod edited to remove questionable content -_


----------



## SeaKingTacco (1 Nov 2011)

Do you feel that the "ad hominem" description of Mr Levant helps with the point that you were trying to make?

Personally, I find that when people stoop to name calling, whether it is directed at Mr Obama, Mr Bush, (the former) Mr Layton, Mr Harper, The Liberal Party, The NDP, The Conservative Party, I automatically begin discounting what is being said.

But that is just me.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Nov 2011)

Protests are happening in Canada primarily because there is a class of horse - I won't call them warhorses, because they are not that useful - that welcomes any excuse to assemble and protest when they get a whiff of....something which is not gunpowder.  It's the same thing that happens when two or more big unions happen to go on strike at the same time - all the hangers-on come out of the woodwork to flex their muscle, muttering about workers and general strikes and all sorts of other bullshit, to an overture of folk songs and "Solidarity Forever".


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Nov 2011)

The main difference in our financial system is that we did not have government leaning on financial institutions to make a greater number of bad loans to homebuyers, or creating/pushing federal agencies to make a greater number of bad loans.  Absent the shitty loans, the financial institutions didn't need to come up with new ways of bundling shitty loans into impenetrable packages they could sell off and "swap" to mitigate their risk - they could just mitigate their risks using the same old transparent practices to which they had become accustomed.  Absent the shitty loans, we had our own bull market in housing but not stoked by additional fuel mandated by government.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Nov 2011)

>A Republican party whose main stated goal is to kill any attempt for reelection of Obama vice any effort at economic recovery. Hence frustration at the governments lack of action.

It puzzles me that some people keep pointing to the Republicans as obstructionist/do-nothing.  Their point is that Obama was obstructionist/do-nothing for three years; why should he be re-elected to solve a problem that does not interest him or be permitted to advance any legislative ball in any direction which will tend to further strangle employers?  So he can spend another four years trying to pass another version of PPACA, or some other meddlesome legislation on the academic left's wish-list?

It puzzles me that anyone can reconcile belief in "promote economic recovery" with belief in "re-elect Obama".

The Republican House has, incidentally, passed a number of measures (also known as "action" or effort, vice "lack of action" or "lack of effort").  They just aren't going anywhere in the non-obstructionist/do-something Democratic-dominated Senate, so that the non-obstructionist/do-something President can veto them.


----------



## cupper (1 Nov 2011)

You want to know why the GOP is considered obstructionist / do nothing?

It's hard to defend a your position as trying to do something to improve the economic conditions when you end up rejecting proposals that are identical to pone put forth by your own party in previous years.

"Obamacare" is modeled on "Romneycare" which is modeled on a proposal by the Gingrich lead GOP.

Many parts of the latest Jobs plan were proposed by Republicans during the end of the Bush years.

Even former GOP lawmakers are calling out their own. Alan Simpson said today the current crop of GOP congressional members need to stand up against their own special interests to do what is right, even if it may be painful to do so.

http://thehill.com/video/senate/191089-former-gop-chairman-says-calling-ending-tax-expenditures-a-tax-increases-is-a-lie-


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Nov 2011)

There's a difference between "rejecting your own proposals" and "rejecting a package that happens to contain some of your own proposals".  Do you understand it?


----------



## cupper (1 Nov 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> There's a difference between "rejecting your own proposals" and "rejecting a package that happens to contain some of your own proposals".  Do you understand it?



No. Clarify it for me. >


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Nov 2011)

SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Do you feel that the "ad hominem" description of Mr Levant helps with the point that you were trying to make?
> 
> Personally, I find that when people stoop to name calling, whether it is directed at Mr Obama, Mr Bush, (the former) Mr Layton, Mr Harper, The Liberal Party, The NDP, The Conservative Party, I automatically begin discounting what is being said.
> 
> But that is just me.



Not just you ST. I began discounting those prose a long time ago. This time I just quite reading after the first sentence.


----------



## Wookilar (2 Nov 2011)

SO...ok then. Let me see if I've got this straight:

In the US, like pretty much every where else, recession hit the whole country (to one degree or another). Gov't responded by "encouraging" banks to loan more money to, in essence, add to the already considerable funds they (the gov't) had already provided in order to "stimulate" the economy. Part of the result of that was the extension of loans to people that otherwise would not have qualified, who largely defaulted on said loans latter on, which added to the growing "loss" of income and aggravated the pop of an inflated real estate market in many (if not most) areas.

The "loss" in Canada was not nearly as severe due to our more regulated banks (so fewer bad loans), the housing bubble still hasn't deflated that much in key areas so no large loss of homes and businesses which left parts of the States a virtual wasteland of empty buildings.

Now, overseas:

Did countries like Greece just overextend themselves with their version of the welfare state and now the people are unwilling to pay the price? Did the same type of activity (bad loans, housing burst, consequential loss of homes/businesses) in the States get replicated in other countries?

So........ what the hell does this all have to do with the 1%?

It seems to me, it wasn't the 1%, like Buffet, that made bad loans they had no hope of repaying, it was the 99% themselves. Yes, occasionally someone does a Trump, but that is a minor part of the so-called 1% that gets a lot of publicity, but doesn't really have a lot of effect in the long term.

I've been through.... 5 houses now, and multiple mortgages with most of them, of different types/durations over the years as interest rates have changed. I've also had personal loans since I was a Pte.

Whether or not the bank was "willing" to give me a loan or not was never my first consideration, it was "how much can I afford" followed by "what benefit will I see from this loan?"

Now, I'm not saying there is not some income disparity in the world. Absolutely there is.

However, I don't understand how some other guy being rich has anything to do with me making a bad loan.

Time to accept responsibility and grow up.

If anyone could add some light to the situation in Europe, I would appreciate it if you could do it like Brad and use small words so I can keep up.

Thanks.

Wook


----------



## Redeye (2 Nov 2011)

A mod rather smartly altered the post, which is of course for the best. However, Mr. Levant's reporting (including his furthering the "Nazi collaborator" smear of George Soros) doesn't make the statement particularly awful. The story is worded to make it sounds as if something horrible is happening, which in fact doesn't appear to be even remotely true.



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> Do you feel that the "ad hominem" description of Mr Levant helps with the point that you were trying to make?
> 
> Personally, I find that when people stoop to name calling, whether it is directed at Mr Obama, Mr Bush, (the former) Mr Layton, Mr Harper, The Liberal Party, The NDP, The Conservative Party, I automatically begin discounting what is being said.
> 
> But that is just me.


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Nov 2011)

Wookilar said:
			
		

> If anyone could add some light to the situation in Europe, I would appreciate it if you could do it like Brad and use small words so I can keep up.
> 
> Thanks.
> 
> Wook



Bread and circuses.


----------



## Redeye (2 Nov 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Bread and circuses.



That's about the simplest explanation I've seen yet and fairly apt.

The Prime Minister of Greece basically decided to put the conditions of the bailout the Eurozone (read: France and Germany) are prepared to give Greece to stabilize it, which includes a lot of austerity measures and an overhaul of the country's fiscal system, pension reforms, and so on, to a referendum, which shocked the world, because there's a chance they could reject the bailout and the Greek economy would be fucked - spreading in turn to the Euro. The only option they have is unpalatable to the average Greek, potentially, and the rest of the Eurozone thus doesn't really want them to get a say in it, they just want Greece to get on with it. With a shaky coalition government, though, it's not so simple.


----------



## GAP (2 Nov 2011)

and if Greece goes....the rest of the PIIGS will go too (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain)


----------



## Redeye (2 Nov 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> and if Greece goes....the rest of the PIIGS will go too (Portugal, Italy, Ireland, Greece, Spain)



Yes. Spain is the biggest area of concern it seems, just because of the size of its economy. Ireland seems to be viewed as having the best potential to get its house in order, but they all became severely overleveraged for various reasons, and without fixing underlying problems, they will be the Euro's undoing, with knock on effects for everyone.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Nov 2011)

Ireland has the means and, it appears, the will to dig itself out of trouble. None of Greece, Portugal, Spain or, worst of all, Italy appear to have any will at all and the first three, at least, probably lack the means, too.

I think a Greek default is a forgone conclusion: the bailout, itself, with a 50-60% _haircut_ for bond holders, is more than half a default. I doubt Portugal or Spain can avoid asking for similar treatment and I guess their bondholders will take similar haircuts.


----------



## The Bread Guy (2 Nov 2011)

Interesting (related?) development in Greece:


> In a surprise development, Panos Beglitis, Defence Minister, a close confidante of Mr Papandreou, summoned the chiefs of the army, navy and air-force and announced that they were being replaced by other senior officers.
> 
> Neither the minister nor any government spokesman offered an explanation for the sudden, sweeping changes, which were scheduled to be considered on November 7 as part of a regular annual review of military leadership retirements and promotions. Usually the annual changes do not affect the entire leadership.
> 
> ...


The Telegraph (UK), 1 Nov 11


----------



## Old Sweat (2 Nov 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> Interesting (related?) development in Greece:The Telegraph (UK), 1 Nov 11


There was a comment on Sun News this afternoon that rumours of a coup are flying all around in Greece.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Nov 2011)

Here is something to tie back to the OWS movement's characterization of education; see how children respond to _real_ instruction. They can get away with that in a school perhaps, but real world employers tend to ask questions, have employees work in teams and be prepared for their tasks....

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2011/11/prof-denied.html



> *Prof Denied Tenure for Using Socratic Method*
> Inside Higher Ed, Socratic Backfire?:
> 
> Some students didn't take well to Steven Maranville's teaching style at Utah Valley University. They complained that in the professor’s “capstone” business course, he asked them questions in class even when they didn't raise their hands. They also didn't like it when he made them work in teams.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (2 Nov 2011)

:rofl:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/02/nyc-arrest-records-many-occupy-wall-street-protesters-live-in-luxury/



> *NYC arrest records: Many Occupy Wall Street protesters live in luxury*
> Published: 12:45 AM 11/02/2011 | Updated: 12:21 PM 11/02/2011
> By Will Rahn
> Bio | Archive | Email Will Rahn  Follow Will Rahn
> ...


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Nov 2011)

>In the US, like pretty much every where else, recession hit the whole country (to one degree or another). Gov't responded by "encouraging" banks to loan more money to, in essence, add to the already considerable funds they (the gov't) had already provided in order to "stimulate" the economy.

No, the US government policies aimed at broadening home ownership among people who ordinarily would not qualify for a mortgage started long before the recession (decades, in fact).  That contributed to the real estate "bubble": more money chasing the available real estate.  But while government was happy to pressure lenders and government agencies (ie. FNMA=Fannie Mae, FMLHC=Freddie Mac) to take more risks, non-governmental institutions were not content to just suck up the risk.  They set their minds to the problem and figured out how to launder that risk by packaging up mortgages and selling them to third parties, and also by taking out "insurance" (credit default swaps), and God knows what other schemes.  All within the rules, and predictable: there are more bright young people working longer hours to figure out ways to protect their employers' investments than there are politicians and mandarins in government (who are less motivated, and for the most part not as bright).  Think Germans versus French, 1940, with "government" in the role of the French: hopelessly outclassed with outmoded plans and a glacial decision cycle.  Plus, as soon as government enacts regulations it tends to move on to something else, whereas the private sector tends to focus attention more diligently than my husky looking for a way out of the yard.

The ratings assigned to the mortgage bundles containing shitty mortgages were in no way accurate.  When the bubble popped and people started defaulting, it was hard to measure losses.  Not knowing how far their necks were stuck out, lenders stopped lending and hung onto their cash in case they had to make good on various payments.  People saw the trend, and worried people tend to spend less and try to pay down their debt.  Add it all up, and there was a massive reduction in the number of transactions (in rough terms, the amount of money changing hands).  That means less tax revenue for government (fewer sales taxes, less sales volume meaning layoffs and salary reductions meaning less incomes taxes, etc).  (And the Obama administration has spared almost no effort to pursue policies which tend to hinder rather than encourage economic activity.)  So the government response is to go to the Keynesian playbook which suggests increased government spending to pave over potholes (recessions) by taking on government debt.

There are a couple of reasons "stimulus" was doomed from the get go:
1) The recession has to be brief, which a bubble deflation is not.  The hole is too big (a cliff, in fact; there is no far side).
2) Most of the stimulus was used to prop up public service payroll to forestall layoffs and cutbacks, rather than infrastructure investment which might have prompted economic growth.

So now the feds, states, and many municipalities are right back to where they were in 2008: they need to make cuts they should have made immediately, but they are deeper in debt so even more money gets flushed out in debt charges.  A colossal and critical failure on their part.

The loss in Canada was not as severe because there simply wasn't the same government-backed money pump pushing funds into real estate; we had rapid growth in real estate prices (low interest rates) but it was more moderated, and property values haven't fallen much.  I doubt my own home is much below what I paid for it just before the recession.

Overseas as well as here, the fundamental problem is too much spending.  The years 1997-2007 were very healthy years for revenue in most countries, and most countries got accustomed to spending at those abnormally high levels.  In fact, most were spending not only all their income in their "best earning years", but going into debt to spend more.

Think what would happen to you if you had salary "X". Suddenly this year, there is a lot of opportunity for overtime, and you gross 20% more (1.2 times "X").  You change your spending habits to spend it all.

Next year arrives, and the economy is bad, so your employer cuts back hours.  Now you are at 0.9 times "X" income, but still at 1.2 times "X" spending.  You can use your credit to cover the gap, but once your credit runs out you still have 0.9 times "X" income, 1.2 times "X" expenses, plus some amount of interest on your debt.  You're screwed.

Bottom line: for many years, most governments have spent every dime they took in, plus many of the expected future dimes.  The proper solution is to simply abrogate most of the stupid promises (overgenerous public compensation packages and entitlement and other benefit payouts).   People have pointed out for years that these things were unsustainable; there is no excuse for anyone not knowing it.   Those who demanded something undeliverable - especially making commitments on behalf of people not yet born or old enough to vote - have no reasonable right to expect it to be delivered.


----------



## Wookilar (3 Nov 2011)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Think Germans versus French, 1940, with "government" in the role of the French: hopelessly outclassed with outmoded plans and a glacial decision cycle.



Brilliant, thank you. Exactly what I needed.



			
				Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> Think what would happen to you if you had salary "X". Suddenly this year, there is a lot of opportunity for overtime, and you gross 20% more (1.2 times "X").  You change your spending habits to spend it all.
> 
> Next year arrives, and the economy is bad, so your employer cuts back hours.  Now you are at 0.9 times "X" income, but still at 1.2 times "X" spending.  You can use your credit to cover the gap, but once your credit runs out you still have 0.9 times "X" income, 1.2 times "X" expenses, plus some amount of interest on your debt.  You're screwed.



So...like someone thinking LDA (for example) is part of their salary and crying wolf when they are posted to a school?

Wook


----------



## Jungle (3 Nov 2011)

Sweet irony:

Occupy Wall Street kitchen staff protesting fixing food for freeloaders

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/zuccotti_hell_kitchen_i5biNyYYhpa8MSYIL9xSDL#ixzz1cdIOBfyX



> The Occupy Wall Street volunteer kitchen staff launched a “counter” revolution yesterday -- because they’re angry about working 18-hour days to provide food for “professional homeless” people and ex-cons masquerading as protesters.
> 
> For three days beginning tomorrow, the cooks will serve only brown rice and other spartan grub instead of the usual menu of organic chicken and vegetables, spaghetti bolognese, and roasted beet and sheep’s-milk-cheese salad.
> 
> ...



I guess the homeless are not part of the "99%"...  :


----------



## Infanteer (3 Nov 2011)

Oh the irony.  We're here to protest the system and support the downtrodden, but we don't want to feed homeless people....


----------



## vonGarvin (3 Nov 2011)

They don't seem to understand it, but they have become a microcosm of human society, complete with servants, security, leeches and providers.  But since they _think_ they are better different than the rest of us, they don't have leaders.  In the end, they are no different, really.  But in the larger society, they are the leeches.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Nov 2011)

From the _Halifax Chronicle-Herald_ and other papers this week.....


----------



## IBM (3 Nov 2011)

:remembrance:


----------



## Journeyman (3 Nov 2011)

IBM said:
			
		

> :remembrance:


Oh those PsyOps guys are such jokesters


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Nov 2011)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is a column with which I (mostly) agree:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/gary_mason/this-occupy-protests-in-danger-of-fizzling-out/article2223220/


> This Occupy protest’s in danger of fizzling out
> 
> GARY MASON
> From Thursday's Globe and Mail
> ...




I do think that the original intent of _Occupy Wall Street_ was to highlight the problem - a problem I think is real - of inequality. The inequality is not that between the to 1% and the bottom, say, 5% - that will always exist and will never be anything except HUGE. The inequality that is a problem is between then top 15% and the middle 60%. At its extreme that inequality might be, sensibly, as high as about 40:1; the problem is that the inequality now exceeds 100:1, maybe it is even higher. The simple fact is that the top 15% are not "worth" 100 times the middle class, they don't "earn" 100 times the middle class but they are getting paid 100 times what the middle class earns.

But the greater "occupy" movement is not about inequality. In fact it's not about anything. There may be some violence before the "occupy" whatever it is fizzles and dies, but not much and it, like the movement itself, will be pointless.


----------



## The Bread Guy (3 Nov 2011)

Guys, guys, guys, you're forgetting the big picture.  What about the plight of those indebted to the tune of $35K from getting a degree in puppetry?:





> A few years ago, Joe Therrien, a graduate of the NYC Teaching Fellows program, was working as a full-time drama teacher at a public elementary school in New York City. Frustrated by huge class sizes, sparse resources and a disorganized bureaucracy, he set off to the University of Connecticut to get an MFA in his passion—puppetry. Three years and $35,000 in student loans later, he emerged with degree in hand, and because puppeteers aren’t exactly in high demand, he went looking for work at his old school. The intervening years had been brutal to the city’s school budgets—down about 14 percent on average since 2007. A virtual hiring freeze has been in place since 2009 in most subject areas, arts included, and spending on art supplies in elementary schools crashed by 73 percent between 2006 and 2009. So even though Joe’s old principal was excited to have him back, she just couldn’t afford to hire a new full-time teacher. Instead, he’s working at his old school as a full-time “substitute”; he writes his own curriculum, holds regular classes and does everything a normal teacher does. “But sub pay is about 50 percent of a full-time salaried position,” he says, “so I’m working for half as much as I did four years ago, before grad school, and I don’t have health insurance…. It’s the best-paying job I could find." ....


The humanity!  When will his oppression end?!?!?!?!?!?
:sarcasm:


----------



## Journeyman (3 Nov 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> ....he writes his own curriculum....


Interesting concept, and if true, speaks volumes about the current generation's level of education.


----------



## cupper (3 Nov 2011)

Wook:

Brad gives a good summary of the real estate bubble and the financial crisis.

For a "Dummies" version, NPR's Planet Money in cooperation with RPI's This American Life did an excellent hour long radio broadcast going into detail on how the whole thing worked, who was doing what, and how they gamed the system.

Best thing about it is they do it in a manner that anyone can understand, even if you have no clue how what a credit default swap is, or even operate an ATM.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/355/the-giant-pool-of-money

There were several follow-up shows and stories that cover other aspects of the meltdown and subsequent recession also.  Check out the archives on teh Planet Money site:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/


----------



## a_majoor (3 Nov 2011)

Well, now we all know which President to blame for the inequality mess, and what political party supports economic policies that increase inequality. Funny what happens when facts are introduced to the debate... >:

http://news.investors.com/Article/590383/201111030805/Income-Inequality-Rose-Under-Clinton-Obama.htm



> *Income Inequality Rose Most Under President Clinton*
> By JOHN MERLINE, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
> Posted 08:05 AM ET
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (3 Nov 2011)

Perhaps the best possible answer to the OWS supporters:

http://searchingforliberty.blogspot.com/2011/11/ultimate-irony-99-have-created-monster.html



> *The Ultimate Irony: The 99% Have Created the Monster*
> 
> Capitalism is the ultimate democracy.
> 
> ...


----------



## Jungle (4 Nov 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Perhaps the best possible answer to the OWS supporters:
> 
> http://searchingforliberty.blogspot.com/2011/11/ultimate-irony-99-have-created-monster.html



I really like the conclusion of the comment below the article:



> Stop buying the d*mn stuff from these corporations and then maybe I will listen to a few of them. Stop going to the store and purchasing things that only arrived there via big trucking companies and I might listen. Stop trying to force us all to hate the rich people while being employed by them, directly or indirectly, and I might listen. Stop clapping for the sickeningly rich celebs that show up at Occupy protests to show their 'support' before jumping in their hundred thousand dollar vehicles to drive back to their private jet and return to their multi-million dollar homes, and I might listen.
> 
> But that's just not going to happen, is it?


----------



## PMedMoe (4 Nov 2011)

Oakland protests turn violent, 80 arrests


----------



## Haletown (4 Nov 2011)

Occupy Whatever, explained.


http://sortofpolitical.blogspot.com/2011/11/occupy-whatever-snivelers-shredded-this.html


----------



## a_majoor (4 Nov 2011)

"Spontanious and Leaderless" indeed:

http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/03/acorn-officials-scramble-firing-workers-and-shredding-documents-after-exposed/



> *ACORN Officials Scramble, Firing Workers and Shredding Documents, After Exposed as Players Behind Occupy Wall Street Protests*
> By Jana Winter
> 
> Published November 03, 2011
> ...


----------



## ballz (4 Nov 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Well, now we all know which President to blame for the inequality mess, and what political party supports economic policies that increase inequality. Funny what happens when facts are introduced to the debate... >:
> 
> http://news.investors.com/Article/590383/201111030805/Income-Inequality-Rose-Under-Clinton-Obama.htm
> 
> ...



That is seriously one of the poorest arguments I've ever seen and I'm absolutely disappointed that you of all people tried to use it to support your claim.

How does measuring the growth of the top 5% show anything about the growth of inequality? All it shows is the economic growth. It's not measuring the top 5%'s *SHARE* of the wealth. I guarantee you the average income of the bottom 95% went up under Clinton as well.

Your article also contradicts itself. First it tries to argue (poorly) that Clinton, from 1993-2001 created more inequality than anybody else. Then it argues "while the income gap has grown since 1979, almost the entire increase occurred before the mid-1990s: 'There is absolutely no statistical support for the commonly held view that income inequality has been rising recently.'"

Before the mid-1990s eh? The "before the mid-1990s" period that Clinton wasn't the President? Could this author please make up his damn mind what his point is?

Below is the kind of graph that actually measure inequality, the ratios of wealthy : not wealthy. S80/S20 is the most common but I can't find one for the US that measures it over a timespan. This one is S80 (top 20%) / S50 (median income). As you can see, the only time it didn't rise dramatically was Clinton's presidency. http://www.bsos.umd.edu/socy/vanneman/socy441/trends/ratio35.html


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Nov 2011)

I cannot recall where I found the data but I made this chart a couple of years ago (so the 2008/09/10 data was, almost certainly, extrapolated) but I offer it for my GUESS about the "progress" of inequality over the decades.

The fact is that almost everyone, except the poorest of the poor, those who we have with us always in biblical terms, have "advanced" up the prosperity ladder. The problem is not the super rich, it is groups 7 and 8 (the Working Class and the Working Poor) versus groups 2 and 3 (the Rich and the Wealthy). The rates at which they have improved their lots in live are too different - but, if my data is in any way accurate - not as bad as I think I expected when I analyzed it. One of the reasons that the data does not show greater inequality is because, I suspect it is global: inequality in America is greater than in Europe by about a 3:1 factor. The growth of the Working and Middle classes in China "raises all boats" because of sheer numbers.

But, all that being said, I think my perception is right: the top 3 groups have badly outpaced the bottom three, but the middle three groups have little about which to complain - not enough, anyway, to occupy city parks.


----------



## ballz (4 Nov 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I cannot recall where I found the data but I made this chart a couple of years ago (so the 2008/09/10 data was, almost certainly, extrapolated) but I offer it for my GUESS about the "progress" of inequality over the decades.
> 
> The fact is that almost everyone, except the poorest of the poor, those who we have with us always in biblical terms, have "advanced" up the prosperity ladder. The problem is not the super rich, it is groups 7 and 8 (the Working Class and the Working Poor) versus groups 2 and 3 (the Rich and the Wealthy). The rates at which they have improved their lots in live are too different - but, if my data is in any way accurate - not as bad as I think I expected when I analyzed it. One of the reasons that the data does not show greater inequality is because, I suspect it is global: inequality in America is greater than in Europe by about a 3:1 factor. The growth of the Working and Middle classes in China "raises all boats" because of sheer numbers.
> 
> But, all that being said, I think my perception is right: the top 3 groups have badly outpaced the bottom three, but the middle three groups have little about which to complain - not enough, anyway, to occupy city parks.



While your graph looks a lot like many of the ones I've seen, I'd need your definitions of "Super Rich," etc, to make any use of it. What is the unit on the Y-axis? Percent?

It looks pretty similar to the ones that have been published
http://www.cbpp.org/images/cms//6-25-10inc-f1.jpg (not adjusted for inflation, which is _sort of_ irrelevant)




> inequality in America is greater than in Europe by about a 3:1 factor.



That's what I've been noticing too, maybe a little more. Average Euro countries have an S80/S20 ratio of around 4-5. The US is at 14.9 I think.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Nov 2011)

I can recall, I'm pretty sure, that the Y axis is ratio of "senior executive" to "shop floor" salary which was about 40:1 for many decades and the _circa_ 1960 began to grow.

I found the chart in a file and I while can recall making it, I cannot find the source data, nor can I recall why I made it.


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Nov 2011)

I wonder if they'll block fire, ambulance and police once people start dying?

*Occupy Vancouver protest defies fire safety order
Fire officials say they still expect compliance with order*
CBC News
Posted: Nov 4, 2011 8:04 AM PT
Last Updated: Nov 4, 2011 1:05 PM PT 

Occupy Vancouver protesters say they will remove some tarps they consider unsafe but don't plan to comply with all the demands from the Vancouver Fire Department to clean up the camp.

A camp spokeswoman, who only gave her name as Kiki, said the protesters don't recognize the authority of police, firefighters or other city officials in the camp, and they would resist any attempts by armed police to enter the camp on the lawn of the Vancouver Art Gallery.

More at link: CBC.ca


An "interesting" list of their demands: http://www.cbc.ca/bc/news/bc-111104-occupy-vancouver-demands.pdf


----------



## jollyjacktar (4 Nov 2011)

For those who loved him the last time, he's back...   ;D

Wall Street Wankers - An Irishman Abroad  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aVlNZ3SIPbo

and the original rant.  Irish Wanker Bankers  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SKvcbA5oFFo


----------



## a_majoor (4 Nov 2011)

Ballz argument about the *share* of the wealth is about as silly as a previous poster's rant that the "rich" are *hoarding* the wealth; both are based on the premise that somehow this money and property is *yours* to dispose of as you see fit. Sorry folks, property and wealth belongs to the owners *by right*; they are the ones who earned it and now they are the ones who will decide what to do with it.

Don't agree with how they earned it? Support someone else; this is a free market society, no one is forcing you to buy goods and services from Wal-Mart or GE (although your money _was_ expropriated to support GM and Chrysler regardless of your wish to purchase thier products). Similarly, there is nothing to stop you from buying shares or other financial products (bonds etc.) from companies you support, or selling shares in companies you don't; you can also check your mutual fund portfolio and "clean out" your investment product mix to support your goals.

"Unearned wealth" is a bit of a non sequiter. If you inherit the wealth or win the lottery, you personally are rich but it will be your work ethic and choices that determine if the wealth will be a living force (i.e. you invest it productively and continue to make it grow) or simply a dead body being consumed until it is gone. Looking at the real numbers (which demonstrate that even a 100% confiscation of the wealth of the "rich", however defined will not make more than a small dent in the global debt crisis), it is vary apparent that greater income mobility is the key to wealth creation and the ultimate resolution of the crisis (which will also require ruthless cost cutting, dismantling of non productive economic structures and programs and debt defaults in the form of "haircuts" to investors who purchased securities underfalse pretenses due to stupidity or greed).

In the mean time, the Chicago Board of Trade (which is also the home of the person who sparked the TEA Party movement) has its own answr to the OWS movement:

http://www.mediaite.com/online/traders-from-chicago-board-of-trade-dump-mcdonalds-applications-on-occupy-chicago-protesters/



> *Traders From Chicago Board Of Trade Dump McDonald’s Applications On Occupy Chicago Protesters*
> by James Crugnale | 12:03 pm, November 4th, 2011
> » 118 comments
> 
> ...


----------



## Teeps74 (4 Nov 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> I wonder if they'll block fire, ambulance and police once people start dying?
> 
> *Occupy Vancouver protest defies fire safety order
> Fire officials say they still expect compliance with order*
> ...



I can sum up that list.

"We demand that we all get stoned, and be like Greece."

Their list of demands are completely bereft of reality.


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Nov 2011)

"...Kiki, said the protesters don't recognize the authority of police, firefighters or other city officials in the camp, and they would resist any attempts by armed police to enter the camp on the lawn of the Vancouver Art Gallery."

:rofl:


----------



## ModlrMike (4 Nov 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> "...Kiki, said the protesters don't recognize the authority of police, firefighters or other city officials in the camp, and they would resist any attempts by armed police to enter the camp on the lawn of the Vancouver Art Gallery."
> 
> :rofl:



The cynic in me reads between the lines: "We're itching for a fight, we just have to get you sufficiently painted as the bad guys."


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Nov 2011)

Love their political demands:

"We demand the electoral playing field be levelled by limiting each political party to equal small amounts of taxpayer money.  We demand the elimination of campaign contributions entirely"
Let me translate:
"The Greens will never elect more than Elizabeth May because too many people contribute to the "big three", especially the CONservatives.  This isn't fair.  IT'S NOT FAIR!!!!!!  :crybaby:"

"We demand the installation of a porportional representation system in all municipal, provincial and federal elections.  We demand the adoption of Swiss-style direct democracy and Nunavut-style consensus-decision-making into all political processes".

Again, translation:

"The Greens will never electre more than Elizabeth May because the electorate are too smart to vote for them otherwise, so we need to ignore the very constitution behind which we claim to hide and just 'wing it' when it comes to making decisions"


"We demand that the science minister be replaced with an MP who recognizes the realities of evolution and global human-caused climate change"

Translation:

"Think what we think or you're opinion will not count and you'll be shipped out"

"We demand an independent investigation into 9/11 which will examine all evidence including that which support a false-flag explanation"

Translation:

"Bush did it"

"We demand that 'none of the above' be an option on all electoral ballots"

Translation:

"Just staying home and not voting isn't an option, and yes, we realise that if we go to consensus style decision making, this flies in the face of that. "

"We demand that post-secondary education be free with no hidden user fees.  We damand that most oustanding student loans should be forgiven based upon income"

I haven't a clue what to say about this one.  It's free, but loans (?) are forgiven, unless you're rich, I guess...?

"We demand the release of all non-violent prisoners"

Does this include thieves?  White collar ciminals?

39. "We demand public universities and colleges stop taking money from the corporate sector"
and 
41. "We demand an end to the corporate funding and control of collages (sic) and universities."

I was confused until I read the following:
32.  "We demand that all botanical drugs be distributed like coffee beans.  Human medial autonomy must now be respected by all."

 ;D


Oh, to be a hippy!!!! 

eace:


----------



## a_majoor (4 Nov 2011)

Day by Day cartoon:


----------



## ballz (4 Nov 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Ballz argument about the *share* of the wealth is about as silly as a previous poster's rant that the "rich" are *hoarding* the wealth; both are based on the premise that somehow this money and property is *yours* to dispose of as you see fit. Sorry folks, property and wealth belongs to the owners *by right*; they are the ones who earned it and now they are the ones who will decide what to do with it.



Stop trying to twist what I said. You are trying to demonstrate that wealth inequality rose during the Clinton years. You are wrong and you are beyond arrogant if you think you can convince everybody else otherwise on such a simple concept. The only way to measure "inequality" is to measure the "share" (as in the DISTRIBUTION) of money that each class has. You know the difference, take your biased mask off on and stop pretending like you don't, and stop trying to pick out one of my words and twist its meaning. I'm not going to entertain that kind of tactic.

Stop pretending that I'm sitting here complaining that the rich should be taxed more so that we can distribute their wealth to the poor. I'm advocating someone apply a bit of practical knowledge to the economic theory that you're having an affair with, instead of just throwing tax cuts around willy nilly and expecting the magic beans to grow the economy, jobs, and higher tax revenues.

The only thing silly is saying "The top 5% got richer under Clinton" and expecting that anybody here can't see that that statistic alone proves nothing if it's not compared to the other 95%. It's downright offensive that you think the members of this site are that dull. What if the the top 5% got 10% richer, and the bottom 95% got 20% richer? Hmmm, then income inequality was lessoned. So try and explain that to... actually forget it, don't.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Nov 2011)

The tax cuts argument was definitively proven multiple times, I invite you and everyone else to read here and then tell mewhat a $20 billion dollar increase in tax revenues during the period demonstrates.

As for the share of the wealth, if incomes are rising in general due to economic expansion, then virtually every grouping is also rising. If some groups are rising more, the answer is to see how you can move upwards to achieve this sort of growth. In a democratic, free market economy this isn't stealing or anything else, despite what the rhetoric of class warfare claims.

The point of the article was to (once again) expose the hypocrisy of the OWS movement and its suporters and fellow travellers; the economic expansion of the Clinton era was *more* unequal than the economic expansion during the Bush era, but somehow that never seems to enter their world view. Neither does the general increase in everyone's living conditions over the entire time period; the idea of iPhone waving protesters was simply not possible at the start of the Clinton era (cellular telephones and even personal computers were still luxury items for the most part when President Clinton was elected).


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Nov 2011)

Guys...guys...it's all about the pot, remember?  eace:


;D


----------



## a_majoor (4 Nov 2011)

Well, maybe a soothing pot of tea (or perhaps a nice single malt...Hmm, what to choose?)

The OWS is annoying because they are not only detached from reality inside their encampments, but the legacy media outside the encampments isn't doing the real job of investigating and reporting, hence the silly memes like the CTV reporters claiming the movement is "spontanious and leaderless" while standing in front of a huge CUPE baner...

From PJM reporter "Zombie" (who does real iinvestigative reporting) is an article naming the groups which have openly supported the OWS movement, incuding links in the article to the source documents:

http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2011/10/31/the-99-official-list-of-ows/



> *The 99%: Official list of Occupy Wall Street’s supporters, sponsors and sympathizers*
> Posted By Zombie On October 31, 2011 @ 10:48 am In Uncategorized | 624 Comments
> 
> The Occupy Wall Street movement has received so much media coverage in recent weeks that it’s nearly impossible to keep abreast of all the developments. So many endorsements and criticisms coming from all directions enter the news cycle in such rapid succession that even the most dedicated news junkies may have missed out on many of the pronouncements. Supporters and detractors of OWS both might find it useful to have a handy all-inclusive list of who has endorsed or embraced the protest.
> ...


----------



## ballz (5 Nov 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The tax cuts argument was definitively proven multiple times, I invite you and everyone else to read here and then tell mewhat a $20 billion dollar increase in tax revenues during the period demonstrates.



I read it when you first posted it. I ignored it since you had resulted to name-calling.

The economic environment from 1995-2002 (exiting a recession) was quite different than 2008-present (stuck in / entering a new recession). Mike Harris took over when the economy was just beginning to expand. He was absolutely correct in cleaning up Bob Rae's mess when he assessed that the tax rates in Ontario at the time were way too high to enable economic expansion. He probably could have expanded it a lot more if he had applied the tax cuts with some reasoning (aka focussing on small businesses, etc), instead of just blanket tax cuts all across the board.

Clinton, during the same time period, did not have the luxury of crazy high tax rates that could be cut. He raised taxes on the wealthiest 1.2% and cut them for low-income families and small businesses (see what I said about "tax cuts combined with reasoning skills") and yielded just as good or better results, and he didn't have to cut social-assistance by 22% to do so either.... So while Harris is probably the best example for your argument, it still doesn't prove a whole lot.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> As for the share of the wealth, if incomes are rising in general due to economic expansion, then virtually every grouping is also rising. If some groups are rising more, the answer is to see how you can move upwards to achieve this sort of growth. In a democratic, free market economy this isn't stealing or anything else, despite what the rhetoric of class warfare claims.



How is that even relevant to OWS or anything I said? Incomes are not "rising in general" due to economic expansion... Income distribution is changing, the higher percentiles are getting more of the pie, the lower percentiles are getting less of the pie. No one said it was stealing, what it *is* is bad for society as whole. A certain level of inequality is desirable, but out-of-control inequality (aka the industrial revolution) is not. Like it or not, pure-laissez faire is a system that eats itself from the inside out.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> The point of the article was to (once again) expose the hypocrisy of the OWS movement and its suporters and fellow travellers; _*the economic expansion of the Clinton era was more unequal than the economic expansion during the Bush era*_, but somehow that never seems to enter their world view.



No, it wasn't. That is the problem with the article. It's whole point is based on a stupid statistic that has nothing to do with inequality levels.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Neither does the general increase in everyone's living conditions over the entire time period; the idea of iPhone waving protesters was simply not possible at the start of the Clinton era (cellular telephones and even personal computers were still luxury items for the most part when President Clinton was elected).



Are you trying to argue that this has anything to do with economic policies?

Say hello to Moore's Law = Computing power doubles roughly every 18 months. This results in technology becoming cheaper and cheaper.



You want tax cuts. I get it. 

I want tax cuts aimed where they're going to be productive. Small businesses, new corporations (for the first 5 years, 0% on the first 100,000 of profit), low-income families that will *gladly* spend that money (because they have to) instead of taking it out of the economy. Why is that so hard to agree to?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Nov 2011)

I don't see the problem as 'inequality'.

If I take the time, spend the money, have the foresight to pick something marketable and get that high(er) paying job. That's not inequality. That's called survival.

If you want to sit in the mud chanting shit, waiting to take my money to support your lazy ass, you'll deteriorate into that same dirt before you get a cent from me. You're free to die cold and hungry. That's not my fault. You are not entitled to a single thing from me that I worked for.

You may benefit, because I choose to pay taxes, but I owe you nothing.

As to all these stats you guys rave about, the old saw holds true, here more than anywhere else. "There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."


----------



## ballz (5 Nov 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I don't see the problem as 'inequality'



The problem is not inequality, like I said, some level of inequality is necessary. If inequality didn't exist what would motivate a person? If there was no "top percentile of wealth" to try and get into, why would anybody be an entrepreneur?

The problem is when inequality becomes so great, like it was during the industrial revolution, that there is no way out of the bottom. I'm about "equal opportunity," not "equal wealth." When inequality becomes so great that people can't reach the bottom rung of the ladder in order to start climbing it, then society has a problem. I don't live in the US, I don't know how much of a problem this is for them. I *do* know that however big or small the problem is, it is growing.

And no, I don't consider people who get a 30k degree in basket-weaving to have not had an opportunity to climb the ladder


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Nov 2011)

Actually, ballz is right: the _inequality_ problem is, really, a _mobility_ of wealth problem. People must be able to move up (and down) the wealth ladder based on their own skills, knowledge and efforts.

But, and there's always a 'but,' never in all of recorded history has wealth been so mobile, never has effort counted for so much and 'status' for so little.

But nothing is enough for the "occupiers" because - I know I am repeating myself - they are children throwing a tantrum ... and they need to be treated as such.






The "occupy" movement ~ every single person
involved, including e.g. Jeffrey Sachs who is a supporter


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Nov 2011)

So...we ought to threaten them with something akin to the end of the world, but end up doing nothing and giving in to them?  /sarcasm


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Nov 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> So...we ought to threaten them with something akin to the end of the world, but end up doing nothing and giving in to them?  /sarcasm




_Sarcasm noted, but I'll answer anyway_: Nope, they ought to be made to stand in the corner, but not a public park 'corner,' and do a "time out." Mayors and other assorted elected and appointed public officials* are derelict in their duties; it's time they did what civic responsibility requires: bring in the water cannons, billy-clubs and bulldozers. If the children will not move then beat them into submission.







_____
* You would laugh, well maybe cry, at watching the City of Ottawa (politicians and police) saying "It (the park being occupied) is National Capital Commission property so we will not act to enforce any laws, not even public health regulations, until the property owner, the NCC (which is an agency of the federal government) asks or demands. We will not give the "occupiers" the boot just because they are breaking laws and breaching all manner of quite important (fire and health) regulations." This was immediately followed by a NCC "spokeperson" who said, "Oh, no! This is a _demonstration_, not an event for which a permit was issued, and demonstrations are the city's responsibility. We will not kick out the "occupiers" just because they are fouling our park and breaching most of our permitted use regulations." We, Canadians, elect and then the elected appoint craven cowards.


----------



## ballz (5 Nov 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Actually, ballz is right: the _inequality_ problem is, really, a _mobility_ of wealth problem. People must be able to move up (and down) the wealth ladder based on their own skills, knowledge and efforts.
> 
> But, and there's always a 'but,' never in all of recorded history has wealth been so mobile, never has effort counted for so much and 'status' for so little.
> 
> ...



Like I said, I was unaware of what the "wealth mobility" picture looked like, so after your comment of it being more mobile now than ever, I had to do a quick double check. This graph says quite the opposite. It says wealth mobility has been on the downward trend since the 40s. I know you posted some info about wealth mobility earlier in this thread though, and I will definitely look back to compare.

http://gecon.blogspot.com/2010/04/15-charts-on-wealth-and-income.html


----------



## mariomike (5 Nov 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Mayors and other assorted elected and appointed public officials* are derelict in their duties; it's time they did what civic responsibility requires: bring in the water cannons, billy-clubs and bulldozers. If the children will not move then beat them into submission.



But, if history is any indication...
Rochdale was bad, and it was allowed to drag on a long time. 
More recently - less than ten years ago - there was Tent City, "twenty-seven lawless acres where the largest hobo town on the continent squats". It was Toronto’s first major squatter settlement in recent history. They illegally tapped into the city power grid. Many were drug addicts and prostitutes. Metro Police "would not usually enter it unless a major crime was committed." There was illegal garbage dumping. All sorts of health and fire violations. I saw rats in there. There were suicides and emergency childbirths.
Tent City lasted a little over four years before they were evicted.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Nov 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> Like I said, I was unaware of what the "wealth mobility" picture looked like, so after your comment of it being more mobile now than ever, I had to do a quick double check. This graph says quite the opposite. It says wealth mobility has been on the downward trend since the 40s. I know you posted some info about wealth mobility earlier in this thread though, and I will definitely look back to compare.
> 
> http://gecon.blogspot.com/2010/04/15-charts-on-wealth-and-income.html




Sorry, I should have been more clear. I'm looking at the broad, historical trend, all over the world, for the past 4,500 years. A short term (50 years) 'blip' in America doesn't really count and, on a global basis, it is more than offset by India and China anyway.


----------



## ballz (5 Nov 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Sorry, I should have been more clear. I'm looking at the broad, historical trend, all over the world, for the past 4,500 years. A short term (50 years) 'blip' in America doesn't really count and, on a global basis, it is more than offset by India and China anyway.



Ah, I see. Well, I think it's kind of a dangerous precedent to hold ourselves to the standards of 4500 years ago, or India and China. If we're going to compare ourselves to that standard then we will always be satisfied and never progress. The "American dream" wasn't coined on those standards. 

That said, I'm confident that the dream is still alive and well here in Canada, so I am pretty satisfied (although avoiding having global recessions that affect Canada is pretty important). It's honestly the Occupy movement in Canada that makes me think of spoiled children throwing a tantrum.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Nov 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> ... It's honestly the Occupy movement in Canada that makes me think of spoiled children throwing a tantrum.




You and me both.


----------



## GAP (5 Nov 2011)

:+1: and the list of supporters provided by Thucydides in 





> Re: Occupy Wall Street
> « Reply #296 on: Yesterday at 17:57:11 »


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Nov 2011)

And the "occupations" have costs, direct and indirect costs, which are, apparently, lost on the dimwit "occupiers."

This disconnected .001% will have its bills paid by the 99% because, I assure you, the top 1% don't even notice and their wealthy, suburban enclaves are not being "occupied." Have you heard of "Occupy Loudoun County, Va" (America's richest county - outside Washington, DC - where the real plutocrats live) or "Occupy Nassau County, N.Y." (where the Wall Streeters live)? Of course you haven't and nor will you because:

1. The "occupiers," 100% of them, are too stupid to take their battle to the 1%'s homes. They "occupy" areas in which the real 99% works; and

2. The civic officials in Loudoun and Nasseau counties would have the water cannons, billy-sticks and bulldozers at the ready and the first sign of an "occupier," and they, the county officials would use 'em, too. They know who pays their salaries.


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Nov 2011)

And here is a _perfect_ explanation of how the media treats the problems about which the "occupiers" complain:





Courtesy the Ottawa Citizen


----------



## Jungle (5 Nov 2011)

Things are brewing up in Québec City; Mayor Labeaume wants them gone... friday PM the fire dept and police went in and confiscated anything that can cause a fire. MTF !!


----------



## Edward Campbell (5 Nov 2011)

Jungle said:
			
		

> Things are brewing up in Québec City; Mayor Labeaume wants them gone... friday PM the fire dept and police went in and confiscated anything that can cause a fire. MTF !!




Good, a responsible civic leader! BZ!





Le maire de Québec,
Régis Labeaume


----------



## larry Strong (5 Nov 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Good, a responsible civic *leader*! BZ!



And that is THE key componet that is missing.....we (Canada) have no real "Leaders" anymore.


----------



## ModlrMike (5 Nov 2011)

My response to the Occupy crowd:

Over the last half century I've spent time in many countries. Some of the best, and some of the worst. I've seen things that would make your hair fall out. I've been shot at and blown up. With all of that experience I've discovered three truths in life that I will now share with you:

1. Your life is hard? So is everyone else's.
2. Your life is not fair? Neither is anyone elses'.
3. Nobody cares.

All of life's outcomes can be tested against these truths. Either in isolation or taken together.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (5 Nov 2011)

OOOOOH, I am so stealing that for my Facebook status...


----------



## FlyingDutchman (6 Nov 2011)

I just thought that was common knowledge.


----------



## Jungle (6 Nov 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> My response to the Occupy crowd:
> 
> Over the last half century I've spent time in many countries. Some of the best, and some of the worst. I've seen things that would make your hair fall out. I've been shot at and blown up. With all of that experience I've discovered three truths in life that I will now share with you:
> 
> ...



Good post !!

Yeah, life is unfair; the ultimate unfairness is that they were born in Canada, while others are born in Afghanistan, Haiti or North Korea, for example. But they don't realize they are on the good side of that deal.


----------



## Snaketnk (6 Nov 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> My response to the Occupy crowd:
> 
> Over the last half century I've spent time in many countries. Some of the best, and some of the worst. I've seen things that would make your hair fall out. I've been shot at and blown up. With all of that experience I've discovered three truths in life that I will now share with you:
> 
> ...



You're absolutely right, as long as we're better off than someone we should never seek improvement, right?


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Nov 2011)

Snaketnk said:
			
		

> You're absolutely right, as long as we're better off than someone we should never seek improvement, right?




Of course not, but that (trying to improve their lot) is not what the "occupiers" are doing, is it? They are demanding that you and I improve their lot.


----------



## aesop081 (6 Nov 2011)

Snaketnk said:
			
		

> You're absolutely right, as long as we're better off than someone we should never seek improvement, right?



No but it should put things into perspective. We have it pretty damned good here. We are not just "better of than someone else". We are considerably better off than most. The hypocrisy of the occupiers just makes what they are saying even more laughable.


----------



## FlyingDutchman (6 Nov 2011)

Shared under Copyright Act



> http://www.calgaryherald.com/touch/story.html?id=5665035
> 
> BY MIKE HAGER, POSTMEDIA NEWS NOVEMBER 6, 2011 Vancouver's mayor reiterated the need to close down the Occupy Vancouver protest site after a woman, believed to be in her 20s, died at the encampment Saturday afternoon.
> 
> ...


----------



## Haletown (6 Nov 2011)

So the band called DOA - Dead on Arrival, shows up at the Vancouver Squat and a women dies.

Just a coincidence for sure but strange nonetheless. 

People are now calling it Gregor's Squat, to go along with Gregor's riot after he invited all the yobs & hooligans downtown to his Stanley Cup "Party".


----------



## vonGarvin (6 Nov 2011)

One less junkie.  I'm glad they have money to shoot in their veins.  If it weren't for those rotten corporations, she could have afforded to have a nurse with her so that she could have avoided overdosing.


[/sarcasm]


----------



## Nemo888 (6 Nov 2011)

Bwahahaha. 

Traders From Chicago Board Of Trade Dump McDonald’s Applications On Occupy Chicago Protesters
http://www.mediaite.com/online/traders-from-chicago-board-of-trade-dump-mcdonalds-applications-on-occupy-chicago-protesters/

though I will add this.
Historically, a story about people inside impressive buildings ignoring or even taunting people standing outside shouting at them turns out to be a story with an unhappy ending. -Lemony Snicket


----------



## FlyingDutchman (6 Nov 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Bwahahaha.
> 
> Traders From Chicago Board Of Trade Dump McDonald’s Applications On Occupy Chicago Protesters
> http://www.mediaite.com/online/traders-from-chicago-board-of-trade-dump-mcdonalds-applications-on-occupy-chicago-protesters/
> ...


McDonalds?  Now some of them may be free loaders, but they probably have more class than that and want to work at A&W.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Nov 2011)

Mark Steyn nails it as usual:

http://www.nationalreview.com/articles/print/282280



> *Corporate Collaborators *
> Standing with “the 99%” means supporting the destruction of civilized society.
> 
> Way back in 1968, after the riots at the Democratic Convention in Chicago, Mayor Daley declared that his forces were there to “preserve disorder.” I believe that was one of Hizzoner’s famous malapropisms. Forty-three years later Jean Quan, mayor of Oakland, and the Oakland city council have made “preserving disorder” the official municipal policy. On Wednesday, the “Occupy Oakland” occupiers rampaged through the city, shutting down the nation’s fifth-busiest port, forcing stores to close, terrorizing those residents foolish enough to commit the reactionary crime of “shopping,” destroying ATMs, spraying the Christ the Light Cathedral with the insightful observation “F**k,” etc. And how did the Oakland city council react? The following day they considered a resolution to express their support for “Occupy Oakland” and to call on the city administration to “collaborate with protesters.”
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (6 Nov 2011)

The OWS movement stands ready to sieze the wealth:

http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27479



> On Sunday, October 23, a meeting was held at 60 Wall Street. Six leaders discussed what to do with the half-million dollars that had been donated to their organization, since, in their estimation, the organization was incapable of making sound financial decisions. The proposed solution was not to spend the money educating their co-workers or stimulating more active participation by improving the organization’s structures and tactics. Instead, those present discussed how they could commandeer the $500,000 for their new, more exclusive organization. No, this was not the meeting of any traditional influence on Wall Street. These were six of the leaders of Occupy Wall Street (OWS).
> 
> Occupy Wall Street’s Structure Working Group (WG) has created a new organization called the Spokes Council. “Teach-ins” were held to workshop and promote the Spokes Council throughout the week of October 22-28. I attended the teach-in on Sunday the 23rd.
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Nov 2011)

FlyingDutchman said:
			
		

> I just thought that was common knowledge.



Spend some time with me at work, you'll think different.


----------



## Celticgirl (6 Nov 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The OWS movement stands ready to sieze the wealth:
> 
> http://globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=27479



Lord of the Flies (William Golding) comes to mind as I read this blog.  Suddenly, the leaderless movement has leaders, and guess  what...they aren't sharing the wealth with the rest of the "99%".  Priceless.   8)


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Nov 2011)

Celticgirl said:
			
		

> Lord of the Flies (William Golding) comes to mind as I read this blog.  Suddenly, the leaderless movement has leaders, and guess  what...they aren't sharing the wealth with the rest of the "99%".  Priceless.   8)



More like "Lord of the Flies" meets "Animal Farm"


----------



## Celticgirl (7 Nov 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> More like "Lord of the Flies" meets "Animal Farm"



Good one!  ;D


 :remembrance:


----------



## Sapplicant (8 Nov 2011)

This is EXACTLY what happens when you give kids trophies for doing sweet frig all. All of a sudden, we grow up and see that there are bigger and better "trophies" that you actually have to do something for. All of a sudden, it's unfair. I want one too!  :'( 

What these people fail to realize is that in their chemically altered state, they're unable to come up with any good IDEAS that could vault them upward into that 1% they're so jealous of.

I've taken the time to read their website, and so many of its ideas are ripped from Michael Moore-esque films (Especially from Capitalism:A Love Hate Story). They accuse other "99%ers", like myself and many of the people who frequent this site, of being "sheep". I just don't understand how y'all elders screwed up my generation of (sub)urban kids so horribly that we can't even see our own self-contradictions. We are completely unable to think FOR ourselves. Only ABOUT ourselves. 

Yes, they do have a _few_ good points. But this movement, much like the vast majority of its participants, is lacking severely in motivation, proper guidance, credible and suitable leaders, and clear goals. It is doomed to failure. Just how badly its failure affects the rest of us who actually take pride in busting our asses to earn a proper place in this world, well, we're just going to have to wait and see.

I will say, however, I find it rather refreshing that a big headline in Ottawa a couple of months leading up to the "occupation" of Confederation Park, was about a rat infestation in that very park. It's good to know that at least the protesters have a food source for the winter, so they won't starve to death during the winter and cause even more wasteful gov't spending, or burden to society (body removal, coroner investigations, lost wages). 

Wait a tick, they're mostly unemployed vegans, who are 'shooting' to join the 27 club anyways. Well f**k me. Hey, at least the rats will be fat and slow, so they'll be easier to catch in the spring! Who knows, maybe the few 'occupiers' who actually survive the "Canadian Winter" can convince the city to pay them to take care of the rat problem. I hear there's money to be made in the extermination business...  ;D


----------



## Sapplicant (8 Nov 2011)

Also, I suggest that this thread be renamed "The Occupy Movement", since it _is_ the proper name for what this has become.





edited to add a missing verb.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Nov 2011)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> Also, I suggest that this thread be renamed "The Occupy Movement", since it the proper name for what this has become.


Makes sense, especially since it's not JUST Wall Street being discussed.

*Milnet.ca Staff*


----------



## OldSolduer (8 Nov 2011)

Occupy Winnipeg will start to fritter away in the next few weeks, now that it's starting to get cold. Not only that, the Legislature has now stated that the use of its washrooms by the "occupiers" is no longer welcome.

Why move them when the weather eventually will?


----------



## aesop081 (8 Nov 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Why move them when the weather eventually will?



Exactly. Theres no need to expend money and effort and allot of bad press by sending in police. Most cities have told them to move and declared conditions unsafe. If they refuse to move out, let winter take care of it. A few illnesses and the odd death by freezing will move things along at less cost to the 99% ( the taxpayer who thinks the occupiers are notjubs).


----------



## Journeyman (8 Nov 2011)

An interesting video on the requirement for gratitude as one of the core issues here.

Shame that the people who would likely benefit the most from seeing this, don't have the requisite 5 1/2 minute attention span to watch it.


----------



## The Bread Guy (8 Nov 2011)

And a little insight into the thought process of at least one of the "protesters", via someone sharing via Twitter:


> OccupyWallStreet 'protestor' during interview: "I wouldn’t give a f*ck if 9/11 happened 911 more times" http://tinyurl.com/7dxjxz7


That quote is about 30 seconds into the YouTube video.

Niiiiiiiiiiiiiiice....

The "Occupy Movement" should be careful about painting the many because of the actions of the few if they have this kind of sentiment out there.


----------



## FlyingDutchman (8 Nov 2011)

> OccupyWallStreet 'protestor' during interview: "I wouldn’t give a **** if 9/11 happened 911 more times"



And he says bye to them with "God bless you." Huh.

EDIT: Other thoughts I have on that person are not fit to be shared right now.


----------



## a_majoor (8 Nov 2011)

WRT Confederation Park, I suspect the rats will solve the occupation problem by eating the occupiers...

Looking at the massive contradictions of the Occupy movement, it seems fair to post this: who are the 1% and why are they getting a pass?

http://communities.washingtontimes.com/neighborhood/tygrrrr-express/2011/nov/7/occupy-wall-street-jon-corzine-and-other-failed-hu/



> *Occupy Wall Street, Jon Corzine, and other failed human beings*
> 
> November 8, 2011—Wall Street corruption and greed does exist, and leftists are sanctioning it, engaging in it, and blaming conservatives for it.
> 
> ...


----------



## PMedMoe (9 Nov 2011)

Cops swoop in on Occupy London, Ont. protest

Police moved in early Wednesday and removed Occupy protesters from a city park. 

Dozens of officers surrounded the park about 12:30 a..m., as Day 18 of the protest began, ordering the occupiers to vacate or risk trespassing charges. 

The city had ordered the protesters to vacate the park by 6 p.m. Tuesday, and were told they'd be charged after 10 p.m. 

But as police stood by as both deadlines passed, up to 150 occupiers remained. 

As it looked like police were standing down, protester Neil Hamell said he wasn't surprised city officials didn't follow through on the threat. 

"There's too many people here," Hamell said. "It shows the strength in the movement."  
  
But all that changed after a groundswell of supporters and onlookers dissipated and protesters settled in for the night. 

That's when police swooped in, becoming the first authorities in Canada to move against one of the many U.S.-inspired Occupy Movement camps that have sprung up across the country. 

More at link

I think Mr. Hamell spoke too soon.

Good for the city of London.   :nod:


----------



## Nemo888 (9 Nov 2011)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0pX9LeE-g8&feature=player_embedded


----------



## Sapplicant (9 Nov 2011)

Make sure you watch the chant beginning at 13:30, as well as the torture the police and firemen had to endure from these "defenders of the 99%" at the beginning.

I present for your amusement, The Snuffing of the Sacred Garbage Can Fire @ Occupy Vancouver.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Nov 2011)

The really scary thing is these people actually believe they are entitled to be the future leaders of our civilization and run the redistribution of wealth racket:

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/11/08/occupiers-in-san-diego-show-gratitude-for-free-food-just-kidding-they-vandalize-the-carts-threaten-owners/?print=1



> *Occupiers in San Diego Show Gratitude for Free Food. Just Kidding—They Vandalize the Carts, Threaten Owners*
> Posted By Bryan Preston On November 8, 2011 @ 6:46 am In Politics | 35 Comments
> 
> The sense of entitlement is strong with San Diego's occupiers. God bless ‘em.
> ...



Perhaps luckily for us, we are living at the end of the progressive project, and _their_ future lives in a post progressive world will probably be a form of indentured servitude (history tells us that the chaotic conditions at the end of crisis periods like the French Revolution or Weirmar Germany will be ended with the arrival of "the man on the white horse" who promises to end the chaos, usually not through the application of liberal democracy).


----------



## Haletown (11 Nov 2011)

Occupy Whatever meets Nov 11th . . .


----------



## Stoker (11 Nov 2011)

They all got evicted today in Halifax by police with arrests made. They apparently worn out their welcome.


----------



## jollyjacktar (11 Nov 2011)

Chief Stoker said:
			
		

> They all got evicted today in Halifax by police with arrests made. They apparently worn out their welcome.


If the comments section is any gauge to go by.  The well done's seem to outweigh the been badly done by's.  Doing them a favour anyhow, who would want to sit in a tent in this weather.


----------



## Sapplicant (12 Nov 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> If the comments section is any gauge to go by.  The well done's seem to outweigh the been badly done by's.  Doing them a favour anyhow, who would want to sit in a tent in this weather.



Someone who is fully committed to their own life and belief system, for better or worse. Other than that, most of the "occupiers" will 'regroup' over the winter.  Should be interesting to see what the spring brings.


----------



## Sapplicant (12 Nov 2011)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> Someone who is fully committed to their own life and belief system, for better or worse. Other than that, most of the "occupiers" will 'regroup' over the winter.  Should be interesting to see what the spring brings.



BTW, their "one demand" is an overall end to greed. I really don't understand why in the blue sacre they haven't been able to just come out and say it so bluntly (no pun intended). I guess, when you think about the 7 deadly sins, it is completely contradictory to their belief in no higher power. 

As nice as a world where everyone genuinely cares about the well-being of every other person around him would be, they're right in assuming that it won't exist so long as we give into our own personal greediness.

I'm pretty sure that it'll stay the same, so long as we keep calling for "changes"


----------



## Hawk (12 Nov 2011)

Over the last 2 days I've read all the news reports on Occupy NS. There's a Your View on CBC site. One of the tweeters wishes the military had defended Occupy NS! Thought you guys should know, someone doesn't think you're doing your duty!! 

Hawk


----------



## Celticgirl (12 Nov 2011)

Hawk said:
			
		

> Over the last 2 days I've read all the news reports on Occupy NS. There's a Your View on CBC site. One of the tweeters wishes the military had defended Occupy NS! Thought you guys should know, someone doesn't think you're doing your duty!!
> 
> Hawk



I saw that comment.  It actually made me wonder if they were trying to draw an analogy between the Taliban torturing innocent Afghans and Canadian police ousting "innocent" protesters - i.e. the CF should step in to help them the same way we did for Afghan people.  I don't know if that's what they were getting at with the whole 'why didn't the military defend us' BS, but the fact that they even think the military and the police in our country are not or would not be on the same side shows the level of intellect we are dealing with here.   :blotto:


----------



## Journeyman (12 Nov 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> ...who would want to sit in a tent in this weather.


Infantry. Staying in the tent is warm/dry.   ;D


...but that's not what Infantry does.


----------



## OldSolduer (12 Nov 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Infantry. Staying in the tent is warm/dry.   ;D
> 
> 
> ...but that's not what Infantry does.



Maybe the infantry in WInnipeg should do their winter indoc in the park with the protestors??

Just a thought.... >


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Nov 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Infantry. Staying in the tent is warm/dry.   ;D
> ...but that's not what Infantry does.


I wholeheartedly concur.  I do remember many shitty days outside in Wainwright/Suffield and don't miss it.  I've become accustomed to the "soft" Navy lifestyle of three hots and a cot.


----------



## blacktriangle (12 Nov 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Remember when 80k was a lot of money? With a mortgage in a neighborhood  that you can raise kids in 80k is a few pay checks away from disaster. Maybe they should just rent till the kids are older.



Maybe they shouldn't have kids then?


----------



## a_majoor (12 Nov 2011)

The future on display:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/the-five-most-infantile-beliefs-on-display-at-the-occupy-tantrums/?print=1



> *The Five Most Infantile Beliefs on Display at the ‘Occupy’ Tantrums*
> 
> Posted By Kyle-Anne Shiver On November 10, 2011 @ 10:00 am In PJ Culture,PJ Steel Magnolia | 69 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## jollyjacktar (12 Nov 2011)

The squatters have migrated back to the Grand Parade in Halifax.  Some members have confronted Police as expected.  The CBC commenter types are having a field day.


----------



## Hawk (12 Nov 2011)

I've been watching news on tv and reading the CBC posts online - I'd intended to go down town today, but was afraid there'd be trouble, so I stayed home. The protesters now seem to think Mayor Kelly was wrong to enforce a city by-law, and that their freedoms were trampled on because they were evicted from Victoria Park. CTV is claiming the protest today at the Grand Parade was to call for Mayor Kelly's resignation! Have they lost whatever direction they had? Global asked Mayor Kelly 4 times if there was anyplace in HRM they could protest, and 4 times he told them they could protest wherever they wished on public land, as long as they didn't erect tents. Other things I've read: they were wading in the fountain in the Public Gardens and taking change, they were going to the bathroom under the bushes in Victoria Park, and the 14 or whatever number were arrested were in prison for 10 hours in wet clothes, and told it wasn't a hotel when they demanded blankets and the heat turned up. I'm hoping this will just die and go away!! On the other hand, Halifax is usually pretty quiet once the tourists go home!


----------



## Danjanou (12 Nov 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Maybe the infantry in WInnipeg should do their winter indoc in the park with the protestors??
> 
> Just a thought.... >



now that I'd pay to see  >


----------



## Fishbone Jones (12 Nov 2011)




----------



## cupper (13 Nov 2011)

That's gonna make the whole human megaphone thing a little difficult.

"I BELIEVE...." 

"WOOF WOOFWOOF...."


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Nov 2011)

We had about 50 people occupy my house on November 11th - a well behaved crowd they were. 
 ;D


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Nov 2011)

And I'll bet they all smelled good and most if not all were gainfully employed.


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Nov 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> And I'll bet they all smelled good and most if not all were gainfully employed.



Yes that is true of everyone of them. For the life of me I can't remember what we were protesting against.......


----------



## jollyjacktar (13 Nov 2011)

The high cost of alcohol?


----------



## OldSolduer (13 Nov 2011)

jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> The high cost of alcohol?



That's how it started but after a few drinks that all went away -


----------



## mariomike (14 Nov 2011)

EMT Assaulted at Occupy Wall Street:  

MYFOXNY.COM - A wild scuffle at Zuccotti Park early Thursday morning ended with an Occupy Wall Street protester under arrest for assault and an FDNY EMT in the hospital. 

Officers and EMTs were called to the park for a report of a disturbed person. While trying to approach 20-year-old Joshua Ehrenberg, sources tell Fox 5 that other protesters locked their arms and legs to stop Ehrenberg from being loaded into an ambulance.:
http://www.myfoxny.com/dpp/news/ows-incident-sends-emt-to-hospital-20111110-lgf


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Nov 2011)

Here is good "connect the dots" summary, by Gwyn Morgan,* reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/gwyn-morgan/why-big-spending-governments-are-on-the-brink/article2234985/


> Why big-spending governments are on the brink
> 
> GWYN MORGAN
> From Monday's Globe and Mail
> ...




The thing that surprises me least is the reaction of the university 'communities' which, in my (limited) experience are filled with people who are disconnected from the reality of the world off campus. That's one of the reasons so many Canadian universities are so poor - I mean money poor. The top tier are from the _great and the good_ and they are, by and large, poor fundraisers.

For the rest, Morgan is right: "decades-long economic stagnation, ravaged social programs and civil unrest" are in our collective future. The social unrest will, I fear lead to the rise of populist movements in America and Europe and populist movements, which includes the _Tea Party_, most often turn to violence and either fascism or communism, which are just two sides of the same coin.


__________
*






*Bio:*

A nationally recognized business leader, an ardent community champion, a lover of the great outdoors, and a wellness enthusiast, Gwyn Morgan devoted three decades to building Canada’s largest energy company. EnCana is one of North America’s leading oil and natural gas production companies, with an enterprise value of approximately $50-billion (U.S.). He led the creation of EnCana Corporation through a merger which is widely viewed as the most significant transaction in Canadian energy sector history. He stepped down as founding CEO at the end of 2005.

Gwyn has been recognized as Canada’s Outstanding CEO of the YearTM and also as Canada’s Most Respected CEO. He has a strong belief that a corporation should be a positive social, community and environmental force.

Gwyn serves as a non-executive Chairman of Montreal based SNC-Lavalin Group Inc., and he is a director of London based HSBC Holdings plc. He is an Honourary Colonel (retired) of the 410 Tactical Fighter Squadron, Canadian Air Force. He has received leadership awards from several Canadian Business Schools, two honourary degrees and has been appointed Fellow of the Canadian Academy of Engineering. He was also recently inducted as a member of the Order of Canada.

Discipline, ethics and integrity are the key values driving his endeavors. Working to improve public policy in wellness and education characterizes Gwyn’s public service record.


----------



## Haletown (14 Nov 2011)

Occupy this, dude.

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/take_out_the_trasher_TuMpvuv7PYzeL0vKMOjS4H#.TsE8GF53jQN.facebook


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Nov 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> Occupy this, dude.
> 
> http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/queens/take_out_the_trasher_TuMpvuv7PYzeL0vKMOjS4H#.TsE8GF53jQN.facebook



We need a few of those guys in Vancouver, adn I'm pretty sure there are a few in Winnipeg as well.

Personally I'd like to occupy a seat in the MTS Centre tonight to watch an NHL game.

The "occupiers" here are upset with the decision to close the Legislature to the "occupiers". 

Maybe we could supply them with the porta potties from the tent groups........ >


----------



## Fishbone Jones (14 Nov 2011)

:nod:


----------



## a_majoor (14 Nov 2011)

#occupy seen as battlespace preparation:

http://www.dailypundit.com/2011/11/13/counterforce-and-countermeasure-preparing-the-election-battlespace/



> *Counterforce and Countermeasure: Preparing the Election Battlespace*
> Posted on November 13, 2011 8:30 pm by Bill Quick
> » They Are the One Percent… and We Should Be Worried – Big Government
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (14 Nov 2011)

#occupyfail:

http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/sacramento-state-professor-leaves-class-because-no-one-brought-snacks/38068



> *Sacramento State Professor Leaves Class Because No One Brought Snacks*
> November 13, 2011, 1:47 pm
> 
> A psychology professor at Sacramento State University walked out of an undergraduate class last week because the student responsible for bringing snacks that day had not done so, The Sacramento Bee reports. The professor, George Parrott, defends the snack requirement as a way of encouraging students to work collectively. A handout they receive on the first day of class makes the requirement clear, offers examples of acceptable snacks, and suggests that two people take responsibility for each day’s snack, in case one forgets. Still, students are crying foul, saying they were denied an opportunity to review material for a midterm examination. University officials say they will investigate.
> ...



Ever wonder about the intellectual foundation of the Occupy movement? This is probably as good of an example as any in a nutshell...(heh)


----------



## OldSolduer (14 Nov 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> #occupyfail:
> 
> http://chronicle.com/blogs/ticker/sacramento-state-professor-leaves-class-because-no-one-brought-snacks/38068
> 
> Ever wonder about the intellectual foundation of the Occupy movement? This is probably as good of an example as any in a nutshell...(heh)


Is this university or f&c*ing day care?


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Nov 2011)

The way they are whining here in Halifax, one would think it was a second "Kent State".     I am shaking me head at it all.


----------



## RangerRay (14 Nov 2011)

I thought the whole point of "civil disobedience" was to face the consequences of breaking the law?  Or am I missing something?


----------



## FlyingDutchman (14 Nov 2011)

RangerRay said:
			
		

> I thought the whole point of "civil disobedience" was to face the consequences of breaking the law?  Or am I missing something?


Some of them may not be able to afford it, financially.


----------



## Edward Campbell (14 Nov 2011)

I well recall the very real physical and moral courage that the civil rights workers of the 1950s had to display - some of them displayed it as they were killed for daring to speak the truth, freely, to power.





On June 21, 1964, three young civil rights workers—a 21-year-old black Mississippian,
James Chaney, and two white New Yorkers, Andrew Goodman, 20, and
Michael Schwerner, 24—were murdered near Philadelphia, in Nashoba County,
Mississippi. They had been working to register black voters in Mississippi during
Freedom Summer and had gone to investigate the burning of a black church.


We were, rightly, in awe of these young men and women, black and white, but disproportionately, amongst the whites, Jews. They risked everything - life, liberty and their futures - to secure basic civil rights for others.





In 1963, civil rights demonstrator were attacked by police dogs during
protests in Birmingham, Ala.

I have nothing but the greatest *contempt* for the "occupiers" and for all of their supporters and apologists. They, and their dupes and fellow travelers, disgrace the memories of real protesters.


----------



## jollyjacktar (14 Nov 2011)

Hear, hear ER.


----------



## ModlrMike (14 Nov 2011)

My opinion:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=unkIVvjZc9Y


WARNING: Not Safe For Work


----------



## PMedMoe (15 Nov 2011)

Police clear out N.Y.C. Occupy protesters

Police wearing helmets and carrying shields evicted protesters with the Occupy Wall Street movement early Tuesday from the park in New York City’s financial district where they have camped since September. 

Police spokesman Paul Browne said that about 70 protesters were arrested in Zuccotti Park during the nighttime operation for defying orders to leave and several more were arrested nearby, although most left voluntarily. 

Authorities declared that the continued occupation of Zuccotti Park — which had become a sea of tents, tarps and protest signs with hundreds of demonstrators sleeping there — posed a health and safety threat. 

About a dozen protesters had chained themselves together and another two had chained themselves to trees before being cut loose and removed, Browne added. 

The office of New York City Mayor Michael Bloomberg said the protesters were ordered to “temporarily leave” the park and remove their tents and tarps. Police said protesters would be allowed to return once the park was cleaned, but would have to abide by rules banning items like tents, tarps and the storage of belongings. 

The protesters had set up camp in Zuccotti Park on Sept. 17 to protest a financial system they say mostly benefits corporations and the wealthy. Their movement has inspired similar protests against economic inequality in other cities, and in some cases have led to violent clashes with police.

Police barricaded streets around the park, which had been lit up with spotlights, and were keeping people about a block away. The operation began at around 1 a.m. and the last protesters had been evicted by about 4:15 a.m.. Authorities continued to sweep up and remove mounds of debris. 

Police used a loudspeaker to tell protesters they would be arrested if they did not leave. *“They gave us about 20 minutes to get our things together,” protester Sam Wood said as the eviction was taking place. “It’s a painful process to watch, they are sweeping through the park.”* 

Browne said the city and the owners of the park, commercial real estate corporation Brookfield Office Properties, issued fliers to the protesters saying the park would be cleared for cleaning shortly after 1 a.m. 

More at link

Really, Sam Wood?  Painful?  I'm sure there are things far more painful to watch.   :


----------



## PMedMoe (15 Nov 2011)

Cancel my last.

Court order to let N.Y. protesters bring tents back

The Occupy Wall Street protesters who were kicked out of a New York park overnight will likely be able to return with their tents, after a court order was obtained by the National Lawyers Guild. 

Hundreds of police officers showed up at New York's Zuccotti Park at about 1 a.m. Tuesday, when they informed the Occupy protesters that they had to leave so that sanitation workers could clean the park grounds. 

The notices given to protesters on Tuesday said the Zuccotti Park encampment "poses an increasing health and fire safety hazard to those camped in the park, the city's first responders and the surrounding community." 

The protesters were told that they would be able to return within hours, but would not be permitted to bring sleeping bags, tents or tarps with them when they did. 

But the National Lawyers Guild said Tuesday that it had obtained a court order allowing the Occupy Wall Street protesters to return with their tents. 

Mayor Michael Bloomberg held a press conference Tuesday morning, telling reporters that it was necessary to clear the protesters from the park because their encampment was prohibiting others from accessing and enjoying a public space. 

Bloomberg said the people who have spent the past two months in the park have a right to air their views in public. But they don't have the right to keep others from doing the same. 

"No right is absolute and with every right comes responsibility," Bloomberg said Tuesday morning. 

"The First Amendment gives every New Yorker the right to speak out. But it does not give anyone the right to sleep in a park, or otherwise take it over, to the exclusion of others. Nor does it permit anyone in our society to live outside the law." 

Bloomberg said there were also health and safety concerns at the protest site, which prompted the need for a clean-up. 

The mayor did not have knowledge of the contents of the court order when he spoke to the media Tuesday morning, but he said the city plans to go to court immediately. 

More at link


----------



## a_majoor (16 Nov 2011)

Well said:

http://freedomnation.blogspot.com/2011/11/occupy-toronto-has-no-right-to-st-james.html



> *Occupy Toronto has no right to St. James Park*
> 
> On Tuesday the City of Toronto issued eviction notices to the Occupiers at St. James Park, I am sure in response to my post on Monday. A group of the Occupiers went to a judge for an injunction claiming that the eviction would violate their charter rights. The judge put a stay on the enforcement of the eviction notices until he had heard the arguments on Friday. This puzzles me.
> 
> ...


----------



## Hammer Sandwich (16 Nov 2011)

Let us Pray:


----------



## Jungle (16 Nov 2011)

Hammer Sandwich said:
			
		

> Let us Pray:



And the Police special prayer: Let Us Spray:


----------



## Retired AF Guy (16 Nov 2011)

Hammer Sandwich said:
			
		

> Let us Pray:



That's a keeper.  :nod:


----------



## PMedMoe (17 Nov 2011)

Winter's here.   :nod:

Occupy Regina camp torn down by police

All that remained of the Occupy Regina camp Wednesday was an iPod laying in the snow and circles of green grass showing where the tents once sat in snow-covered Victoria Park.

Members of the Regina Police Service and City of Regina bylaw enforcement took down the remaining nine tents in the park at 5 a.m. Wednesday. The tents were taken down under the authority of the Regina Parks and Open Spaces bylaw that does not permit an established camp in any city park. No resistance was met because the camp was already abandoned.

Glen Davies, the city manager, said that by 5:40 a.m., everything was cleaned up and he was not surprised to find the tents empty.

“(It was) an indication, I think, that people have been co-operating in terms of slowly removing themselves from the site,” said Davies.

Protesters were given eviction notices on Thursday and told they had until Saturday to exit the park. Several Occupiers left over the course of the weekend, leaving only a handful at the camp by Monday. Police handed out seven tickets after 11 p.m. Monday for violating a city bylaw that forbids anyone from remaining in a city park between 11 p.m. and 6 a.m.

Police discovered two people in the park at 11:30 p.m. Tuesday and both were issued tickets.

More at link


Comment from the story on CBC:



> The fact that there was an overnight low of -14, with a windchill of -23, is presumably just a coincidence.



I saw a news clip last night and one of the protesters stated, "We'll be back in the spring, stronger than ever."  Translation:  "It's too cold to protest."   :


----------



## jasonf6 (17 Nov 2011)

@Recce Guy

Great picture.  I think that says it all.


----------



## a_majoor (17 Nov 2011)

#occupyfail

Here is a perfect example of the "1%" receiving fantastic bonus money at the expense of everyone else. Occupy response? Crickets....

http://hotair.com/archives/2011/11/16/video-the-stunning-silence-from-the-white-house/



> *The stunning silence from the White House on GSE bonuses*
> posted at 12:10 pm on November 16, 2011 by Ed Morrissey
> 
> Barack Obama has exhorted supporters to object to large bonus payouts at financial institutions that took TARP bailout money. The House Oversight Committee and its chair, Rep. Darrell Issa, want to know why Obama hasn’t objected to the ridiculous levels of compensation at the two largest bailout recipients — Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac. In a new report (embedded below) titled “Government-Sponsored Moguls: Executive Compensation at Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac,” Issa and the Oversight Committee detail executive compensation at the two GSEs, who — unlike their private-sector counterparts who have either fully repaid or are in the process of repaying their bailout funds — still demand more bailout money from Congress. They also have a new ad pointing out the hypocrisy of Obama’s class-warfare rhetoric:
> ...



Since the Democrats openly support the #occupy movement and provide the class warfare rhetoric that drives it, the silence from the Administration and the Legacy Media on the subject is also telling.


----------



## The Bread Guy (17 Nov 2011)

I wonder if the protesters are taking measures to protect the privacy of those caught in these videos?  Interesting _Danger Room_ blog post on the implications of this:


> The proliferation of drones throughout the military — and into civilian law enforcement — can make it feel like we’re living in an airborne panopticon. But flying robots are agnostic about who they train their gaze upon, and can spy on cops as easily as they can spy on civilians, shared with the usual caveats.
> 
> In the video above, protesters in Warsaw got a drone’s eye view of a phalanx of police in riot gear during a heated Saturday demonstration. The drone — spotted by Wired editor-in-chief and drone-builder Chris Anderson — was a tiny Polish RoboKopter equipped with a videocamera.
> 
> ...


----------



## OldSolduer (17 Nov 2011)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Winter's here.   :nod:
> 
> Occupy Regina camp torn down by police
> 
> ...




Like I said  - the weather will do the work.

Fair weather protestors = WIMPs


----------



## aesop081 (17 Nov 2011)

http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/story/2011/11/16/f-rfa-macdonald-occupy-wall-street.html



> ANALYSIS: How the Occupy Wall Streeters threw it all away
> 
> Only a first-year journalism student or my most thick-headed colleagues would deny that we reporters are a largely bourgeois bunch who have trouble dealing with the unconventional.
> 
> ...


----------



## ballz (17 Nov 2011)

Here's an interesting one from the 1% who agrees with the 99%... shared with the usual caveats...

http://www.cbc.ca/strombo/social-issues/some-of-the-one-percent-attempt-to-occupy-congress.html



> *Some of the One Percent Attempt to Occupy Congress*
> 
> November 17, 2011
> Members of the Occupy movement are marching to the New York City financial district today to commemorate the two-month anniversary of their protest against Wall Street and the so-called One Percent. But yesterday, a very different group marched on Capitol Hill in Washington, D.C. - actual representatives of the One Percent. They're called 'Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength', and they're demanding higher taxes on themselves and other, similarly wealthy Americans.
> ...


----------



## Privateer (17 Nov 2011)

Retired Philadelphia police captain joins Occupy Wall Street in uniform, and is arrested.  Not just for "hippies", apparently...

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5l0F-pe78&feature=share


----------



## ArmyRick (17 Nov 2011)

I am going to throw some thoughts in here, and I will p*ss people off, but I really don't care. I have my opions and you have yours.

1. A lot of army guys chime in about "protestors this and hippies that...". Has anybody not noticed in the last few years that there have been alot of economic/wealth based protest? When you step back and look at the big picture, there is a few things that bother me.

2. Some of the people who come out and protest are useless thugs looking to cause damage or young dirt bags that have never worked an honest day in their life, I have no time for them.

3. Some of the people protesting are respectable and hard working or formerly hard working decent citizens as part of occupy movements. That should ring some alarm bells with people.

4. Its too easy for people who have had a decent paying job for the last 3 or 5 or 20 years to pass comments about these protest. Imagine if you had a job and suddenly lost it, No, there are not jobs growing on trees these days. Its very, very hard on people who lose their living. People get desperate.

5. I don't think corporate greed is a myth, I think its a stinking reality. Pharmaceutical based, oil or petrol based, agricultural chemical based, food processing based corporations have lobbied to change laws, rules and regulations to ensure profits stay in their pockets and smaller companies can't even think of competing. They will use horse sh*t arguments like safety or market fairness. I have seen some examples of this and even talked to (In the case of agricultural) people with inside info. Its truly sickening.

6. I learned a ton of info about debt and loans in Canada when some relatives got into trouble. I was not aware of the dirty tactics that some financial companies would use. 

I think people in the army need to realize their are TWO sides to this argument. Many Canadians are living a very sh*tty life and have no secure or reliable future except (if lucky) minimum wage jobs.

I don't excuse civil disobedience but I don't think large corporations should be allowed to bend, influence or sick an army of attack lawyers and lobbyist on our law makers for their own profit purse.


----------



## jollyjacktar (17 Nov 2011)

No, I cannot fault you with your points, however, it's mostly optics.  What most of us may see ( and I am guilty of it ) is the dirty smelly hippies, the it's Woodstock still hippies or the young trouble makers.  Maybe they are the most vocal and attention grabbing of the lot.  But when I see them, I tune out.  Period.  They are always bitching about every friggin thing and I am sick to death of hearing/seeing their yelps as they love to demonstrate at the drop of the hat ala "The boy who cried Wolf".

I agree the world is not fair.  The rich keep getting richer and the poor poorer.  This has I suspect always been the trend overall (with maybe the exception for the Black Plague years when things were evened out mostly for the survivors) and I don't see this changing frankly.  I don't like the corporate greed out there either, but they hold the cards and have the standing as the house or city hall.  The house usually wins, and you rarely successfully fight city hall.

Until the "occupy" folks get their collective shit together, have some coherent points to make to the rest of us by respectable looking folks I fear most of us will continue to tune out.


----------



## Edward Campbell (17 Nov 2011)

Rick: your points 3, 4, 5 and 6 are well taken and I had some hope that OWS _might_ highlight what I see as a real _inequality_ problem - but OWS failed; it is incoherent. Yes there are decent, hard working people who have been/are being/will be badly served by "Wall Street" (and all those two words imply) but they have failed to enunciate a clear, comprehensible case for (or even against) anything. They let the "campers" take over and those "campers," the "children" are ill informed, to be charitable.


----------



## Privateer (17 Nov 2011)

Having actually gone to the Occupy Vancouver site a few times, I can say that a number of the people there are intelligent, with coherent concerns about wealth disparity, corporate influence on government, affordability of life essentials, etc.  Some of them might be every-day radicals, but some are not.  The "are nots" are feeling pushed towards public displays of anger and frustration because they see the system as fixed in favour of the existing power/money holders.  The "camp" also attracts wingnuts (9/11 truthers, etc.), but these seem to be peripheral.  The "campers" are not all "children".  I think that this movement, ill-defined as it may be, has exposed real anger that exists in many lower and middle class Canadians who feel that the system is rolling over them, and that there is no mechanism in the system to let them fix it.


----------



## ArmyRick (17 Nov 2011)

I was in a seminar (not for profit organization) and I have been learning about the current economic trends of today and the past, including the difference in generations and what drove the economies. Its really good to learn this stuff, especially for myself as a fairly new class A reservist who has just joined a PRes unit a few months ago.

One of my opinions I have formed based on all of this is that the economy must always be fluent as technology and demands change. Basically what worked in 1970, doesn't work in 2011. Anyways I am rather new at this game so I will not venture too far outside my lanes (narrow at this point).

One goal I wanted to make was for people (especially those in uniform who have a steady and decent pay cheque) to look at the other side of the story. One sided stories don't work out too well. Again, I do not excuse civil disobedience.

For people who simply say "That's the way it is..." or something similar, I again, ask you. What would you do today if the CF released you completely and you had no means to support yourself?


----------



## ballz (17 Nov 2011)

Good post Rick. I definitely think you're right when you say people with full-time employment for 3-25 years don't understand. I could be guilty of that having lived in Fort McMurray, but I've also lived in Newfoundland during it's shittiest years.



			
				jollyjacktar said:
			
		

> No, I cannot fault you with your points, however, it's mostly optics.  What most of us may see ( and I am guilty of it ) is the dirty smelly hippies, the it's Woodstock still hippies or the young trouble makers.  Maybe they are the most vocal and attention grabbing of the lot.  But when I see them, I tune out.  Period.  They are always bitching about every friggin thing and I am sick to death of hearing/seeing their yelps as they love to demonstrate at the drop of the hat ala "The boy who cried Wolf".
> 
> I agree the world is not fair.  The rich keep getting richer and the poor poorer.  This has I suspect always been the trend overall (with maybe the exception for the Black Plague years when things were evened out mostly for the survivors) and I don't see this changing frankly.  I don't like the corporate greed out there either, *but they hold the cards and have the standing as the house or city hall.*  The house usually wins, and you rarely successfully fight city hall.
> 
> Until the "occupy" folks get their collective crap together, have some coherent points to make to the rest of us by respectable looking folks I fear most of us will continue to tune out.



That's a pretty depressing viewpoint. I am glad you're fairly alone in your disenchantment. Canada and the US are still two democratic society's after all.

The growing disparity of wealth has not always been the trend. If you look at the difference at the start of the industrial revolution, basically the birth of capitalism, the disparity was much worse. It improved drastically through the power of the people (formation of unions and collective bargaining, etc). More importantly (for the US), the mobility of wealth was always there when they became a country. Anybody could go from broke to riches in America (unless you were black and living in the south :-\). That is quickly becoming obsolete. 

Fortunately, for us in Canada, it's not even near obsolete. I've seen a lot of broke Newfies, my dad being one of them, move to Alberta and become rich. Everybody in Canada has these opportunities. I'm not so sure they do in the US, and those opportunities are certainly disappearing quickly.



			
				Privateer said:
			
		

> Having actually gone to the Occupy Vancouver site a few times, I can say that a number of the people there are intelligent, with coherent concerns about wealth disparity, corporate influence on government, affordability of life essentials, etc.



If they're so intelligent, why are they having these problems in Canada and occupying Vancouver? We don't have any of those problems. Quite frankly, I just don't buy the Occupy movement in Canada at all. I really do think it is a bunch of people jumping on a bandwagon.



I heard an interesting point raised on Bill Maher last Friday between Bill and this conservative dude. Bill was commenting on the crazy proportion of people doing arts programs in the US, and the conservative dude said (and I assume he's not pulling it out of his rear) "There is a growing number of job vacancies in certain parts of the US, but no one with the right skills or education to fill them, so they're not considered jobs being 'created' since no one is being hired."


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Nov 2011)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> For people who simply say "That's the way it is..." or something similar, I again, ask you. What would you do today if the CF released you completely and you had no means to support yourself?



The same thing I did years ago when I foolishly released. I scrabbled at low paying jobs and scraped my way into a higher education. I then spent lots of time going from one job to another slightly better job, til 20 years later I'm doing something that can now, finally, afford me some disposable income.

Disposable income that 'I' worked for. For use by 'ME'. For what 'I' want.

Not for something some self entitled little puke, too lazy to do menial labour, wants me to give him, at 'MY' expense. 

There's lots of work out there. I see it daily in my rounds. But it's being done by Mexicans, Taiwanese and Jamaican workers because little Johnny thinks it's demeaning to do it and he'd rather sit back while we all kvetch and stare at our navels feeling sorry for him.

Not me. Not one red cent.

Go to your local 'Occupy' camp and give them your money if you want. 

The needy people I know, that get a hand from me, are home in bed because they have to get up and walk to work before the sun is up tomorrow.


----------



## Journeyman (17 Nov 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> Anybody could go from broke to riches in America...


 :nod:  Michael Jackson was born a poor black boy, and died a rich white woman.


----------



## ArmyRick (17 Nov 2011)

No, there is NOT lots of jobs out there. Leave any large Ontario City belt and look for a job. Even a part time job. In my town Collingwood, for every menial job that becomes available on average about 200 people apply (my sources are from employment Ontario, can't find the exact reference) and the ages between 25-40. For unionized, decent paying jobs in this end of Simcoe county, about 5,000 people apply. 

I would not be so quick to paint everybody that's not employed as just a lazy welfare collecting bum. Thats a pretty quick assessment your making there, recceguy.

We are just finally hitting a point now (according to services Canada) where employment available is slightly higher than people seeking jobs. However that does not include seasonal jobs, temporary jobs, contract work, etc.

My main point is don't be so damn quick to label everybody at these protest as grass smoking lazy bums.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Nov 2011)

Six of one, half dozen of the other. Your stats and opinions are no better than mine.

Ergo, don't be so quick to label all those out of work as someone that really wants a job but can't find it. Pretty broad brush yourself.

Your opinion has no more lock on the conversation than mine.

There may not be lots of overpaid, union jobs out there for uneducated assembly workers, but there is lots of work out there none the less. I don't use statistics and numbers on paper. I don't go on what some journalist says or what some gov't stats say. Remember 'Lies, damn lies and statistics'

I visit employers every day. I know their concerns, I know their problems getting help. I see their new offshore workers every day because they can't get Canadians to do the work.

I have personal experience with the problem. I can afford to give an informed opinion on the subject.

But your mind is made up. We'll just agree to disagree.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Nov 2011)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> In my town Collingwood



But doesn't that go back to what Edward said a while ago,...people used to move for jobs, now they want the Govt. to bring the jobs to them.


----------



## Nemo888 (17 Nov 2011)

I t would have been nice not to have been screwed by the New Veterans Charter in 2005. Many soldiers got swept under the rug by an uncaring and penny pinching bureaucracy. They were not "lazy hippies".  Many Canadians have similar stories in this new millenia. That is why the occupy movement resonates. People feel that the work hard and get ahead myth is a lie corporations tell people to keep them in line. Canada is not the land of opportunity it was 40 years ago. Most of my good fortune is just that, luck.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Nov 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I t would have been nice not to have been screwed by the New Veterans Charter in 2005. Many soldiers got swept under the rug by an uncaring and penny pinching bureaucracy. They were not "lazy hippies".  Many Canadians have similar stories in this new millenia. That is why the occupy movement resonates. People feel that the work hard and get ahead myth is a lie corporations tell people to keep them in line. Canada is not the land of opportunity it was 40 years ago. Most of my good fortune is just that, luck.



Thanks for towing your party line.

Not everyone is saying all involved out there are just lazy hippies. Unlike your side, most of us are just more grounded in fact than that.

It doesn't resonate with a majority, no matter what the Occupiers state about their 99%. If it did, we'd have thousands out there, everywhere. Including people that would give up their jobs to participate. Your blanket statements are neither true or effective when looked at.

Working hard, saving and LIVING WITHIN YOUR MEANS is what gets you ahead.

I prefer to make my own luck, and have, thank you very much. And my luck is to costly too give it away to someone who refuses to even try make some of his own. 

Basing anything of signifigance on luck is ludicrous anyway as it doesn't exist in a real world. Circumstances are what you make them.

But again, given your track record, we won't change each others minds, so I'll leave you to fight the revolution within yours.


----------



## ArmyRick (17 Nov 2011)

recceguy, 

You didn't really read my post, end story. I did not say I was was pro or anti occupy movement. I made up my mind did I? What exactly was my mind? I ASKED people to weigh both sides of the story. Both sides. I am glad your not a judge!!!

Some points to consider. There is a huge concern for Canada's economy. Industry will probably continue to shrink and service jobs will likely grow. Yes there are lazy people out there but there are also people very much willing to work hard.

Just pick and move, huh? Its that easy? Take a 30 something Canadian with wife and kids and tell him to find the money to pack up and move. That is expensive and with so many jobs not being that stable, a risky move. In case your wondering, the unemployed range from 20s to 60s in age. 

Here is what I am guessing (rubbing my crystal ball), these protest (today occupy) will probably not go away anytime soon. What extremes will it go to in the future? 

I applaud Nemo888 for saying it right, Canada is not the land it was 40 years ago. 

Again, I ask people to weigh in both sides of the story. 

What would happen if next year the Federal Government said in three years the Armed Forces must be reduced to 30,000 Reg from what is today? About 68,000? Put the shoe on your foot and imagine the scenario that way. It would be frightening to many, most certainly upsetting to most or all in the CF and it would compound into other problems. However imagine if this did happen and then some politician standing there beaming about how he saved XX Billions of tax payer money in defence spending. I guarantee you some of those unemployed former CF members would protest some how, some where.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Nov 2011)

AR,

I have looked at both sides. I've just given my perspective. That's all it is. I can't help if it doesn't fit into your nice little box of what you want to hear.

Thousands and thousands of people and families have pulled up stakes from everywhere in Canada, in the last ten years and moved west to, successfully, I might add, gain good paying employment. My daughter went from $9.00\ hr, in Ontario, as a machinist to $33\ hr doing the same in Edmonton. She's been there 3 years. And people are still going there and being employed today. The work is there, they need to get out of their comfort zone and go get it.

Unless you can base your CF scenario on some sort of past decision or fact, it's nothing more than sensationalistic hyperbole and the dictionary version of a straw man. It only serves to pull the conversation off on a meaningless tangent. Perhaps you can find a true, real and meaningful example. Besides, I guess you didn't really read my post either, as I explained your scenario, from my real and personal experience. Only difference is I released on my own as opposed to getting terminated from the military.

Anyway, I don't think I have much more to say than I have and find no need to further defend what I've put in black and white. I won't lose sleep if people disagree with me.


----------



## Brad Sallows (17 Nov 2011)

It is difficult to judge unemployment unless you have experienced it or been imminently threatened by it.

For my part, I think entirely too much of the economy is soaked up to provide good middle class incomes to bureaucrats.  Not enough of the money in circulation is being freely used by people to buy exactly what they want, with the result that the "velocity" of money is reduced.


----------



## Hammer Sandwich (17 Nov 2011)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> ...snip...Just pick and move, huh? Its that easy? Take a 30 something Canadian with wife and kids and tell him to find the money to pack up and move. That is expensive and with so many jobs not being that stable, a risky move...snip...



This I agree with, and understand.
I'm a "_30 something Canadian with wife and kids _".

I have a job thay pays alright...(_somewhere around Cpl II pay, for reference_), but it's a nowhere job.

I have the smarts to go into University, and get a degree....enabling me to progress even further.
I know it's one of the only investments that will ever pay, but there ain't no cash to get there.

I have a mortgage.....one car to pay for, (the other one's paid) private school for the kid, (because the wife works there, and tuition's cheaper than before and after school care).....and a wife that nets a $700 paycheque.....

I could get a massive student loan to go to school, sure.....but what about providing for my family for that four years?

WHERE THE FUCK IS THE MONEY SUPPOSED TO COME FROM?!?!?!?


This is why I think the "*just go to school*" argument is such a ridiculous, bullshit line.


----------



## ballz (17 Nov 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> Unless you can base your CF scenario on some sort of past decision or fact, it's nothing more than sensationalistic hyperbole and the dictionary version of a straw man.



I was going to comment earlier on what you were staying about statistics, because it bothers me quite a bit that you would state that AR's stats aren't worth more than yours, yet in the same post mention you refuse to provide any. I find that extremely rich that you ask that (historical evidence or facts) of someone, yet refuse to provide any statistics or even consider the ones put in front you.


----------



## Hammer Sandwich (17 Nov 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> But doesn't that go back to what Edward said a while ago,...people used to move for jobs, now they want the Govt. to bring the jobs to them.



Or, maybe, people are wondering why their respective Provincial Governments have told them to "hold on....we'll get some jobs for ya.....Don't go to Alberta just yet".

_Just sayin'_


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (17 Nov 2011)

ballz,........I know what RG does for a living and just let me say that he visits worksites, sometimes more than a couple, every single day.

I've even called him to visit mine when there was a problem but alas, he works in a different region. If he says he knows what employers are saying than I, for one, put stock in what he is saying.

My 2 cents.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Nov 2011)

Hammer Sandwich said:
			
		

> This I agree with, and understand.
> I'm a "_30 something Canadian with wife and kids _".
> 
> I have a job that pays alright...(_somewhere around Cpl II pay, for reference_), but it's a nowhere job.
> ...



I'm not going to fault your judgments. Those are yours.

You set your priorities and how you would handle them. You placed family and other possessions ahead of your education.

That was your conscious decision(s).

You now have to decide how you are going to hit the reset button, how important that new education fits into your future and what you need to sacrifice to get there.

Sitting there, yelling 'Show me the money' ain't going to do it for you. No one is beholden to give you a penny. You have to sit down with your wife and decide where you want to be in ten years, what you are willing to sacrifice and how you're going to get there. 

Everything is finite. Very few people on the face of the earth can have everything they want. The rest of us just decide what will make us sleep comfortably having what we can get within our means.


----------



## ballz (17 Nov 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> ballz,........I know what RG does for a living and just let me say that he visits worksites, sometimes more than a couple, every single day.
> 
> I've even called him to visit mine when there was a problem but alas, he works in a different region. If he says he knows what employers are saying than I, for one, put stock in what he is saying.
> 
> My 2 cents.



On this particular issue, I am not disagreeing with him. But I am disagreeing with the way he's debating, and this is not an isolated event. I don't think it's in good faith to just brush off other people's evidence/statistics as "lies" and consider your own perspective to trump facts.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (17 Nov 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> I was going to comment earlier on what you were staying about statistics, because it bothers me quite a bit that you would state that AR's stats aren't worth more than yours, yet in the same post mention you refuse to provide any. I find that extremely rich that you ask that (historical evidence or facts) of someone, yet refuse to provide any statistics or even consider the ones put in front you.



My facts come from an intimate daily interaction with Canadian employers. From mom and pop gas stations that employ a couple of people to multi national conglomerates that employ many thousands in one complex. I'm in them every day and I deal with the people both at the very top in the corner offices to the new hire on the floor.

I know of what I speak. I really don't care if you believe what I say or not, but my info isn't put together by some disconnected statistician thousands of miles away, that makes a report garnered from selective questions based on the answer they want to give. My information is topical, timely and right from the horse's mouth(s).


----------



## Hammer Sandwich (18 Nov 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm not going to fault your judgments. Those are yours.
> 
> You set your priorities and how you would handle them. You placed family and other possessions ahead of your education.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Nov 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> On this particular issue, I am not disagreeing with him. But I am disagreeing with the way he's debating, and this is not an isolated event. I don't think it's in good faith to just brush off other people's evidence/statistics as "lies" and consider your own perspective to trump facts.



Your not a lawyer yet, so don't try act like one. I never called Rick's stats 'lies'. I simply stated that well worn shoe that has been stated about stats forever.

You know, the one popularized by Mark Twain and attributed to PM Benjamin Disraeli? Where MT said _"Figures often beguile me, particularly when I have the arranging of them myself; in which case the remark attributed to Disraeli would often apply with justice and force: 'There are three kinds of lies: lies, damned lies, and statistics."_

Try to purposely misconstrue a post and troll it to raise shit again and I'll hit the Report to Mod button for you.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Nov 2011)

HM,

I'm sure your doing the best you can and are to be applauded for it.

I've given the best advise I can, as I see it.

Perhaps a financial planner could help you out. Most banks are willing to help.

Good luck.


----------



## ballz (18 Nov 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> My facts come from an intimate daily interaction with Canadian employers. From mom and pop gas stations that employ a couple of people to multi national conglomerates that employ many thousands in one complex. I'm in them every day and I deal with the people both at the very top in the corner offices to the new hire on the floor.
> 
> I know of what I speak. I really don't care if you believe what I say or not, but my info isn't put together by some disconnected statistician thousands of miles away, that makes a report garnered from selective questions based on the answer they want to give. My information is topical, timely and right from the horse's mouth(s).



Which horse? As AR has pointed out, there's two sides to this story. You only speak to one of them, and you don't want to hear from the other.

More importantly, again, I am not specifically talking about this topic. As I already said, I don't disagree with your point of view on this topic, so whether your are "in the know" on this topic is irrelevant to me. 

You don't have first-hand information or perspective on every topic, but this is far from the first time you've used your "lies and statistics" quote. Quite frankly, I think you just pull that out whenever you don't like what you hear. It must be nice to be able to pick and choose between which facts are factual just by waving your magic wand and making it so. I know it's a well-used analogy, but you simply use it to brush off whatever you don't like to hear. That's not debating/discussing in good faith. It's childish.



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> I simply stated that well worn shoe that has been stated about stats forever.



That's not how I saw it, you used it to brush off his statistics without actually having to answer to them. And what's worse is you then asked him to present you with "facts" afterwards. Just calling it as I see it. 



			
				recceguy said:
			
		

> Try to purposely misconstrue a post and troll it to raise crap again and I'll hit the Report to Mod button for you.



I'm not trying to troll or raise crap for the sake of raising crap. I take issue with the way you debate things (dismissing other people's facts/evidence on a whim) and I'm addressing it. Hit the "Report the Mod" button if you want.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Nov 2011)

And given our track record, what you think is totally irrelevant to me.

Perhaps now that you've had your hissy fit, we can get back to what this thread is about and you can quit taking it off course.


----------



## Hammer Sandwich (18 Nov 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> HM,
> 
> I'm sure your doing the best you can and are to be applauded for it.
> 
> ...



I've gone through the thread, and don't see any HM....so I'm assuming (perhaps wrongly) that your post applies to me.

I appreciate the advice, and condescension.

As an anecdote: 
-I used to be super-fuckin-fat.....like 310 lbs on 6' 3" ....fat as a motherfucker.

That's fat.

So I got healthy....it was friggin' easy.
(no donuts/fast food/mr. noodle).
Then...I ran the rest of that shit out....(TOO EASY).

As a former fatty....I have no sympathy for current fatties.
(I lost weight, why can't you?)

It's an easy thing to hate on, and an easy thing to change, (just don't eat).


For poor-ass folks.....you can't just say, "get rich".
It's not the same kettle of fish.

A change in lifestyle is easy if the change in question won't make your family homeless.

It's all well and good to say, "Perhaps a financial planner could help you out."

With what?
He's going to hire us?........We barely get by, but we do it by working hard, and not wanting "handouts".


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Nov 2011)

Hey, sorry I tried to help and I was serious not condescending.

Like I said, good luck anyway.

We're done.


----------



## Hammer Sandwich (18 Nov 2011)

Magnanimous.

Neat.


----------



## Infanteer (18 Nov 2011)

Skinny.

Neat.


----------



## George Wallace (18 Nov 2011)

Hammer Sandwich said:
			
		

> This I agree with, and understand.
> I'm a "_30 something Canadian with wife and kids _".
> 
> I have a job thay pays alright...(_somewhere around Cpl II pay, for reference_), but it's a nowhere job.
> ...



Not to be to incompassionate, but this post bothers me.  My Grandfather travelled the "rails" in the 1930's looking for work all across Canada.  He was a Master Carpenter and went where there was work.  He and my Grandmother raised a family of four children in the meantime.  Times were rough, but he managed.  Today we have people of the "Mcdonald's Generation" who want to get everything handed to them on a platter, no work necessary.  By that I mean that they are not willing to put the effort into finding the work that will sustain them.  If you are in a job that is not satisfying and/or not providing you with the necessary income; find a job that will, or get a second or third job.  Sitting back and crying that life isn't providing you with the income that can support you does nothing to improve your situation and garners no sympathy from 99% of the population.  

Having been in the CF for some time, and travelling around the country, I have witnessed the cases of the "Single Moms looking for a young Army guy" and the "Professional Welfare cases" of third generation Welfare recipients.  These people have preyed on the System for the last four or five decades and are a drain on our Socialist Systems.  As one who has worked for a living to earn what I have, I see no reason my meager earnings/Taxes should go to support these people and I have no sympathy for leeches of the System.  Many of these "Occupy" movement fit into that category.  

Yes, there are others, however, who are honest victims and fit into the category of "should be institutionalized" as they are suffering from mental problems.   These fill in the masses, but don't have the capacity of the Leeches to organize.


----------



## Hammer Sandwich (18 Nov 2011)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Not to be to incompassionate, but this post bothers me.  My Grandfather travelled the "rails" in the 1930's looking for work all across Canada.  He was a Master Carpenter and went where there was work.  He and my Grandmother raised a family of four children in the meantime.  Times were rough, but he managed.  Today we have people of the "Mcdonald's Generation" who want to get everything handed to them on a platter, no work necessary.  *That sure as hell isn't me. I've moved from a crappy-paying job I Loved, to a horrible job that pays...(because I have a family to provide for)*.  By that I mean that they are not willing to put the effort into finding the work that will sustain them.  If you are in a job that is not satisfying and/or not providing you with the necessary income; find a job that will, or get a second or third job.  *I had a shitty-paying job, and decided to get a second one, I joined the Reserves, and didn't get paid by them often enough that I had to stop going.....and then I went the hell out there and found a better paying job. So please stop trying to color me as some sort of hippy-occupy-welfare-bum. I earn my living. *
> 
> Sitting back and crying that life isn't providing you with the income that can support you does nothing to improve your situation and garners no sympathy from 99% of the population.
> *I sure as hell am not doing that....and if you think I am, you are sorely mistaken. I have a job that allows me to pay my bills. My point was, a normal, working-class person DOES NOT HAVE THE MEANS to just "drop everything", and go to university.
> ...





			
				Infanteer said:
			
		

> Skinny.
> 
> Neat.



*I was trying to provide an example of "just pulling up the bootstraps", and getting something done.
I don't see the point of the snide comment.
Congrats, though.*


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Nov 2011)

The problem with individual stories is that the 99% (and there is a such a thing) is simply too large and too diverse to allow for any consideration of any individual situation. Every single individual, even one who is like 1,000,000 others is, effectively, _sui geneis_ when measured against the other 6.99 Billion.

When measured on a *global, historical* scale we can see that never, not in all of human history, have we been more equal and more _upwardly mobile_ than in the 21st century. A billion Chinese and a billion Indians, most of whom are on the economic _rise_, simply make the global data swamp the Americans' situation, where I agree that _inequality_ is problematical, and even the Canadians, where it is less of a problem. And the billions of Asians matter more than the few million Americans because their _rise_ gives us new markets for our resources, for our services and for our _creativity_, our _inventiveness_.

Consider, please, that the first _industrial revolution_, the British one in the 18th and early 19th centuries, was based, solidly on wool and then, later, cotton - the _traditional_ sources of British wealth, Then, in the 19th century, the Germans upset the British apple-cart by producing what people wanted (chemicals) rather than what the British though they should want (textiles). The British did respond to the challenge by selling "services" (banks and insurance, the famous "invisible exports") but the "good" high paying, low skill, (eventually unionized) factory jobs migrated away from Britain and to the continent and to America. In due course the continental European coal mines closed because the steel mills went to Korea, along with the sip building jobs ... ditto for America. But Germany, especially, and America did respond: Germany captured and secured (by protectionist trade policies enacted by the EU) the (large) European market for itself and it joined America in inventing and in selling more and better services. But the size and, more important _shape_ of the American, British and German and now Japanese labour markets are much different than they were 200, 100 and even 50 years ago.

The fact, and I believe it is an indisputable fact, is that _inequality_ is a problem in America - not the biggest problem not the worst problem, just *a* problem - but it is NOT a global problem and the people who are doing more and more to run the global system are shaking their heads at the "occupiers."


----------



## a_majoor (18 Nov 2011)

There are a wide variety of on line and part time educational opportunities now, which can be fit in to limited time/budgets. There may also be various forms of financial support available (loans/grants/bursaries)

Never say never


----------



## Hammer Sandwich (18 Nov 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> There are a wide variety of on line and part time educational opportunities now, which can be fit in to limited time/budgets. There may also be various forms of financial support available (loans/grants/bursaries)
> 
> Never say never



That is an excellent point.
That's how, (_if I should ever pull my head out of my ass_), I would proceed with getting an education, and yet be able to provide for my family at the same time.


----------



## Journeyman (18 Nov 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Never say never


Or, _at the very least_, avoid going on and on about it here; repetition doesn't make a point any more convincing -- especially to an audience that clearly holds a differing point of view. 

Maybe now, take a look at the video posted a few days back. 


While it's playing, viewers are still free to wring their hands and gnash their teeth at the unfairness of it all.


----------



## Hammer Sandwich (18 Nov 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Or, _at the very least_, avoid going on and on about it here; repetition doesn't make a point any more convincing -- especially to an audience that clearly holds a differing point of view.....



Actually, I hold the same point of view as most in this thread.
I do not paint myself with any sort of "99%" brush. 
I  hate the hippy-occupy-"gimme gimme gimme" idiots as much as anyone else......and do not identify with them at all.

So do not lump me in with them.


----------



## Journeyman (18 Nov 2011)

Hammer Sandwich said:
			
		

> So do not lump me in with them.


Rest assured, it was not aimed solely at you.





If it was, I would have mentioned opportunity costs of time on Army.ca/making beer belts versus improving education/seeking better employment, but that would be personal and sarcastic -- and that's just not me.


----------



## Hammer Sandwich (18 Nov 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> If it was, I would have mentioned opportunity costs of time on Army.ca/making beer belts versus improving education/seeking better employment, but that would be personal and sarcastic -- and that's just not me.



As always, a _spectacular_ contribution,  but I already wound my neck back in after reading, agreeing with, and replying to this post;



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> There are a wide variety of on line and part time educational opportunities now, which can be fit in to limited time/budgets. There may also be various forms of financial support available (loans/grants/bursaries)



Thanks though.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (18 Nov 2011)

Is this thread going anywhere??


----------



## Hammer Sandwich (18 Nov 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Is this thread going anywhere??



I thought it was, until I pissed in everyone's cornflakes, and participated in a derail.

Sorry, my bad.


----------



## Danjanou (18 Nov 2011)

Bruce Monkhouse said:
			
		

> Is this thread going anywhere??



Not really, but then again that seems appropriate because neither is the occupy movement itself.  8)


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Nov 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> That's a pretty depressing viewpoint. I am glad you're fairly alone in your disenchantment. Canada and the US are still two democratic society's after all.
> Reality, as one see's it is not always rose coloured glasses.  For example, Nova Scotia Power.  These greedy bastards are always sitting with their hands in our pockets for a bigger and bigger chuck of money on a yearly basis.  Until I am able to be self sufficient and harvest my own power from the elements I am at the mercy of these fuckers.
> 
> The growing disparity of wealth has not always been the trend. If you look at the difference at the start of the industrial revolution, basically the birth of capitalism, the disparity was much worse. It improved drastically through the power of the people (formation of unions and collective bargaining, etc). More importantly (for the US), the mobility of wealth was always there when they became a country. Anybody could go from broke to riches in America (unless you were black and living in the south :-\). That is quickly becoming obsolete. Until someone proves it different to me, I'll stick to my guns that the rich types that the Occupiers are so pissed at are getting richer all the time whilst the worker bees get SFA by comparison)
> ...



When I was a young buck, I was willing to go anywhere in Canada and looked overseas to some extent as well without much success for my line of work in the 80's.  I did have to compromise, change my expectations and start on a different track after a period of several years.  When I started college there were 6 jobs/Grad.  By the time I finished it was the reverse.  C'est la vie.  
AR, I hear what you say re: if I was to lose my job tomorrow.  Yes, I would be in a world of hurt and could easily find myself amongst your relations.  But as I've said, they are not the folks who are getting face time with these Occupiers media wise.  It's the usual suspects whom are career demonstrators so it would seem and they are the one's I diss.


----------



## ballz (18 Nov 2011)

Not "the right trade, with the right experience, at the right time" at all. I was 19 with no training, a high school diploma, on pace to make 100k a year working "on probation" as a sheet metal apprentice (but I hated sheet metal so much I joined the Army ;D). I am not the exception to the rule in this case. I have friends that I graduated with, with only a high school diploma and whatever random safety courses the company's paid for that are on contracts making 120k a year. Skilled work is in such high demand that companies will take anybody and pay them *well* while they obtain their trade / training (which is always paid for).

But suppose it *was* the "right trade" that mattered. Perhaps people getting the "wrong" trade or the "wrong" degree should consider that.



You suggested that growing disparity was always the trend. I did prove otherwise to you by using the IR example but let me expand on it further. The IR: when 6 yr olds had to go to work at factory's to help pay the bills, when families used to live in one room, and sewage used to run down the street and into the rivers which were used for drinking water, causing cholera and the like. This is how unions and collective bargaining and the like came around. Factory workers were oppressed by factory owners. People came together and fought for things like a "minimum" wage, and for standards on working conditions, etc, they did not always exist. You're right, growing disparity is the trend _now_, but it hasn't always been.

And if you think Nova Scotia Power is raping your bank account now, just imagine what they would be doing if the government (in our democratic society, an extension of the people) didn't pass legislation so that they can monitor, control, and regulate "natural" monopolies. You wouldn't be typing on your computer right now, you'd be lighting a fire in your wood stove, and probably lighting candles since I'm guessing it's starting to get dark in Nova Scotia right now.



People in this country are not oppressed by the wealthy or by the government or by both. People in this country have opportunities galore, and they have influence on their democratically elected government, as opposed to it being "ruled" by corporations. If that weren't the case, I wouldn't have signed up for the CF, I'd be out with the hippies protesting.


----------



## jollyjacktar (18 Nov 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> Not "the right trade, with the right experience, at the right time" at all. I was 19 with no training, a high school diploma, on pace to make 100k a year working "on probation" as a sheet metal apprentice (but I hated sheet metal so much I joined the Army ;D). I am not the exception to the rule in this case. I have friends that I graduated with, with only a high school diploma and whatever random safety courses the company's paid for that are on contracts making 120k a year. Skilled work is in such high demand that companies will take anybody and pay them *well* while they obtain their trade / training (which is always paid for).  I was bloody lucky to finally land a job which was in the patch for the grand sum of $1200/month.  That's right, $1200.  There were no grand paying jobs at that time in my working life.
> 
> But suppose it *was* the "right trade" that mattered. Perhaps people getting the "wrong" trade or the "wrong" degree should consider that.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Nov 2011)

Lots of 'what if's' coming out.

What if, we stay in the here and now and talk about actual things?

Going off on fantasy tangents will only water down the discussion and make it, eventually, unrecognizable.

 :2c:


----------



## mariomike (18 Nov 2011)

Privateer said:
			
		

> Retired Philadelphia police captain joins Occupy Wall Street in uniform, and is arrested.  Not just for "hippies", apparently...
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Yw5l0F-pe78&feature=share



I don't know what Philadelphia's departmental policy is regarding police pensioners wearing uniforms to out of town protests. But, in my opinion, he disgraced the uniform by getting himself arrested in it. They said he retired in 2004. He no longer represents Philly P.D.. He should have worn civvies. 
It's a priviledge that he was allowed to keep his uniform when he retired. He took advantage of that, in my opnion.
My  :2c:


----------



## Sythen (18 Nov 2011)

STRAIGHT TALK: Ezra debunks Occupy Toronto

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/opinions/archives/2011/11/20111118-174059.html

Kinda funny video when Ezra Levant goes to visit the Occupy Toronto camp... Close to 90% of the tents are unoccupied.


----------



## Nemo888 (18 Nov 2011)

I think their may simply not be enough jobs anymore. Without manufacturing what is the working class suppsed to do?  Retail and food service? Try raising a family on 30k a year. I can barely do it on many times that. We need to screw over China and make them pay their emplyees more than 90 cents an hour for making iPhones. People need jobs real jobs, not slogans.


----------



## aesop081 (18 Nov 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Try raising a family on 30k a year.



Quite a few people do. I did it myself as a Private with a wife and kid and a second kid on the way. That was on much less that 30k.



> I can barely do it on many times that



Then you are doing something seriously wrong. "may times" 30k is far from abject poverty and far from "barely do it".




> not slogans.



So you throw one around yourself. Nice.



> People need jobs real jobs,


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Nov 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I think their may simply not be enough jobs anymore. Without manufacturing what is the working class suppsed to do?  Retail and food service? Try raising a family on 30k a year. I can barely do it on many times that. We need to screw over China and make them pay their emplyees more than 90 cents an hour for making iPhones. People need jobs real jobs, not slogans.




How many _iPhones_ will be sold when the price, with a three year contract, is about $1,200.00 (rather than < $300.00)?


----------



## lethalLemon (18 Nov 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I think their may simply not be enough jobs anymore. Without manufacturing what is the working class suppsed to do?  Retail and food service? Try raising a family on 30k a year. I can barely do it on many times that. We need to screw over China and make them pay their emplyees more than 90 cents an hour for making iPhones. People need jobs real jobs, not slogans.



My brother and his family is quite comfortable on $64k/annum as a junior Constable in the RCMP, so by saying it was even difficult on "many times that" seems hardly believable. Maybe it's time to stop buying the iPhones and Louis Vuitton and Prada...? I think that you will find "many times that" is not just doable but also quite comfortable.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (18 Nov 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I think their may simply not be enough jobs anymore. Without manufacturing what is the working class suppsed to do?  Retail and food service? Try raising a family on 30k a year. I can barely do it on many times that. We need to screw over China and make them pay their emplyees more than 90 cents an hour for making iPhones. People need jobs real jobs, not slogans.



So what is your solution? Just want to phone up China and let them know they can't abuse their own people? That's the problem with this whole movement... a whole lot of whining, not showering, and doing drugs, and not a whole lot of real intellectual discussion or solutions, aside from taking all the money from the rich.  Social mobility is still possible, and perhaps even more so... with technology driving things, the youth have more an advantage than the older generation... look at a guy like Mark Zuckerberg (or whatever his face is)... he created facebook and is a mega-millionaire.  The people in the parks are just jealous that they lack the creativity, drive, or intellectual stimulus to be really successful.


----------



## tomahawk6 (18 Nov 2011)

In our society too many people dont want to have to work to get ahead. If you want to be a 1%er then you need to hustle and make things happen.The college kids today dont have that drive.They blame their lack of success on the system,rather than looking into the mirror.I saw yesterday that there are mining jobs that lack bodies to do the work at $100-200,000 a year.Sure its dirty and dangerous,thats why they are paying big bucks.


----------



## aesop081 (18 Nov 2011)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> he created facebook and is a mega-millionaire.



Great example. He is not hoarding wealth........he created it.


----------



## McG (18 Nov 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I think their may simply not be enough jobs anymore. Without manufacturing what is the working class suppsed to do?  Retail and food service? Try raising a family on 30k a year. I can barely do it on many times that. We need to screw over China and make them pay their emplyees more than 90 cents an hour for making iPhones. People need jobs real jobs, not slogans.


Interesting.  The "Occupy" Movement has made "the 99%" its poster child.  We've now recently gone through a conversation that suggests the lack of North American (US & Canadian) jobs is a point of legitimacy for the movement.  Now we are a point of suggesting we need to "screw-over" the "95%" in order to bring back jobs for 96th to 98th percentile.

It has been suggested in other parts of the thread already.  There are plenty of off-shore workers coming to do jobs that Canadians won't do.  Maybe picking up a whole family and moving is not financially viable, but most of the off-shore workers that I am aware of live in employer provided accomodations for several months of seasonal work.  It may not be the most desirable option - but it beats living in the Indian slum that some are now suggesting we need to steal jobs away from.


----------



## lethalLemon (18 Nov 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> Interesting.  The "Occupy" Movement has made "the 99%" its poster child.  We've now recently gone through a conversation that suggests the lack of North American (US & Canadian) jobs is a point of legitimacy for the movement.  Now we are a point of suggesting we need to "screw-over" the "95%" in order to bring back jobs for 96th to 98th percentile.
> 
> It has been suggested in other parts of the thread already.  There are plenty of off-shore workings coming to do jobs that Canadians won't do.  Maybe picking up a whole family and moving is not financially viable, but most of the off-shore workers that I am aware of live in employer provided accomodations for several months of seasonal work. It may not be the most desirable option - but it beats living in the Indian slum that some are now suggesting we need to steal jobs away from.



Take a look at http://www.riotinto.com/

They're a HUGE internationally operating corporation that focuses on Mining and Processing... but with that comes Security workers, miners, drivers (although they boast the worlds largest fleet of driverless trucks), researchers, lift operators, labourers, engineers of all kinds, marketers, and much much more... and they're offering BIG DOLLARS. I imagine that like many other international mining and oil companies, they fly you out and house you on company dime WHILE paying you to work for months at a time. All you have to do is be determined, and work hard. A friend of mine (no pun intended) works as a Drilling Tech (Technical Diploma required) and he makes way more money than most of us thought was possible as a manual labourer, he goes on 2 week vacations to the south riviera in France twice a year lol.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (18 Nov 2011)

Sythen said:
			
		

> STRAIGHT TALK: Ezra debunks Occupy Toronto
> 
> http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/opinions/archives/2011/11/20111118-174059.html
> 
> Kinda funny video when Ezra Levant goes to visit the Occupy Toronto camp... Close to 90% of the tents are unoccupied.



Maybe the owners are out looking for jobs


----------



## jasonf6 (19 Nov 2011)

Sythen said:
			
		

> STRAIGHT TALK: Ezra debunks Occupy Toronto
> 
> http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/sunnews/opinions/archives/2011/11/20111118-174059.html
> 
> Kinda funny video when Ezra Levant goes to visit the Occupy Toronto camp... Close to 90% of the tents are unoccupied.


Makes you think huh?  It was hilarious listening to those "occupiers" try and convince Ezra that he and his film crew were in the wrong.  

And Ezra is right in that the greater majority of them are hypocrites in that they use Blackberries, iPhones, call on cops even though they supposedly hate them, cry about assault all the while snatching glasses off of Ezra's face.  Move in, remove all the tents save the occupied ones (at 4 am) and let the city see just what is up.


----------



## jollyjacktar (19 Nov 2011)

Love the video.  Nice to see Ezra owning the crockcupiers like that.  And that is why that kind of protester is not going to get my attention.  Losers and squatters.


----------



## Hawk (19 Nov 2011)

Now the Law Union of Ontario has filed a complaint with the High Commissioner of Human Rights at the UN!

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2011/11/18/occupy-canada-un-complaint.html

Hawk


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Nov 2011)

Hawk said:
			
		

> Now the Law Union of Ontario has filed a complaint with the High Commissioner of Human Rights at the UN!
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/nova-scotia/story/2011/11/18/occupy-canada-un-complaint.html
> 
> Hawk



 :rofl:    :blah:   :nevermind:   :ignore:


----------



## Journeyman (19 Nov 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> :rofl:    :blah:   :nevermind:   :ignore:



You've always had a way with words   ;D


----------



## Nemo888 (19 Nov 2011)

Chris Hedges said it better than I could.

"The liberal class plays a vital role in a democracy. It gives moral legitimacy to the state. It makes limited forms of dissent and incremental change possible. The liberal class posits itself as the conscience of the nation. It permits us, through its appeal to public virtues and the public good, to define ourselves as a good and noble people. Most importantly, on behalf of the power elite the liberal class serves as bulwarks against radical movements by offering a safety valve for popular frustrations and discontentment by discrediting those who talk of profound structural change. Once this class loses its social and political role then the delicate fabric of a democracy breaks down and the liberal class, along with the values it espouses, becomes an object of ridicule and hatred. The door that has been opened to proto-fascists has been opened by a bankrupt liberalism"


----------



## Edward Campbell (19 Nov 2011)

The fact (and I suggest it is a fact) that the "occupiers" are wrong does not mean the "forces of order" are always right. See here. Shades of Jean Chrétien's G20.


----------



## GAP (19 Nov 2011)

The occupy movement is no longer....they had an opportunity to put forth a message, they did nothing but whine, and the world (at least that tiny little part that were not struggling to survive) dismissed them and moved on.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (20 Nov 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Chris Hedges said it better than I could.
> 
> "The liberal class plays a vital role in a democracy. It gives moral legitimacy to the state. It makes limited forms of dissent and incremental change possible. The liberal class posits itself as the conscience of the nation. It permits us, through its appeal to public virtues and the public good, to define ourselves as a good and noble people. Most importantly, on behalf of the power elite the liberal class serves as bulwarks against radical movements by offering a safety valve for popular frustrations and discontentment by discrediting those who talk of profound structural change. Once this class loses its social and political role then the delicate fabric of a democracy breaks down and the liberal class, along with the values it espouses, becomes an object of ridicule and hatred. The door that has been opened to proto-fascists has been opened by a bankrupt liberalism"



That's the biggest load of bilge water I've read in some time.

The liberal class posits itself as the conscience of the nation? Really? By who's authority?

That statement alone shows the inbred, self serving and sanctimonious bearing of these self proclaimed socialists. It also nullifies the rest of the position as stated.

You need to find someone else that can say things for you better than you can say for yourself. Your spokesperson just said you're an idiot.


----------



## Journeyman (20 Nov 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You need to find someone else that can say things for you better than you can say for yourself. Your spokesperson just said you're an idiot.



                 :rofl:


----------



## Jarnhamar (20 Nov 2011)

I really enjoyed Ezra Levant's thank you for posting that. Never heard him before but he sounds pretty funny/
.

Too funny watching all those empty tents and the few paid camp security guys. It's funny how quickly they started talking about the law and the police and everyone's rights.  Reminds me of what a cop was talking about once how big bad ass bikers were the first to run crying and screaming to the police anytime something happens.

That camp seems like a less glorious version of that division in ww2 that made fake positions with plastic tents and wood tanks.
I wouldn't mind creeping around and nabbing some of that camping gear though, some of those tents look pretty sweet. I noticed a snugpak bunker in one video.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (20 Nov 2011)

Grimaldus said:
			
		

> Reminds me of what a cop was talking about once how big bad ass bikers were the first to run crying and screaming to the police anytime something happens.



Yup, and the first ones to rat thier buddies out in jail............


----------



## Celticgirl (20 Nov 2011)




----------



## jollyjacktar (20 Nov 2011)

Nice.   :cheers:


----------



## a_majoor (21 Nov 2011)

George Orwell must be smiling...

http://bigjournalism.com/jjmnolte/2011/11/18/panicked-ap-attempts-to-memory-hole-democrats-occupy-endorsements/



> *Panicked AP Attempts to Memory-Hole Democrats’ #Occupy Endorsements*
> Posted by John Nolte Nov 18th 2011 at 3:55 pm in Occupy Wall Street, elections 2012 | Comments (54)
> 
> Occupy Wall Street’s imploding, Obama and the Democrats own the chaos, and now the AP is panicking.
> ...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (21 Nov 2011)

Judge has ruled the "Occupiers" in Toronto must go. Glad to hear some common sense out of our judiciary.


----------



## jasonf6 (21 Nov 2011)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Judge has ruled the "Occupiers" in Toronto must go. Glad to hear some common sense out of our judiciary.


Next to go, Ottawa?  Please let it be so.


----------



## Sythen (21 Nov 2011)

Daily Show pwns the Occupy movement.



> When you've lost the liberal hipsters at Comedy Central...The game is pretty much over.



http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/82022216/


----------



## Nemo888 (21 Nov 2011)

Sythen said:
			
		

> Daily Show pwns the Occupy movement.
> 
> http://www.ebaumsworld.com/video/watch/82022216/



Awesome.


----------



## estoguy (21 Nov 2011)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Judge has ruled the "Occupiers" in Toronto must go. Glad to hear some common sense out of our judiciary.



About time.  The judge made some very good points in his judgement.  He had to balance their rights with the rights of the public at large.  He got it right.

Rex Murphy wrote a good column over the weekend too... http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2011/11/19/capitalisms-spoiled-children/


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Nov 2011)

A good friend of mine was in Ottawa over the weekend with some friends.  After dining (and drinking) at D'Arcy Magee's (or however it's called), they headed down to the Occupy site, "for the lulz".  In conversation with one occupier, they got her to say the following on her own (and using Socratic Dialectic, I suppose):

(She):  "Everyone should, like, grow their own food and stuff, etc"
(They):  "Fair enough.  What if someone's plot is struck by lightning?"
(She):  "Then we help them and give them some of ours."
(They):  "What if someone won't work because they realise that they can get stuff without putting any effort into it?"
(She):  "Then we don't give them any"

...

(True story)


----------



## Hawk (21 Nov 2011)

They sure hate Rex, don't they? I don't think I've ever read such hatred anywhere. I don't always agree with Rex, sometime I think he's wrong-headed, too (not in this case!), but I'd never put a diatribe like some of those out for public consumption!!

Hawk


----------



## ModlrMike (21 Nov 2011)

Hawk said:
			
		

> They sure hate Rex, don't they? I don't think I've ever read such hatred anywhere. I don't always agree with Rex, sometime I think he's wrong-headed, too (not in this case!), but I'd never put a diatribe like some of those out for public consumption!!
> 
> Hawk



Such is the way of the fringe zealot, left or right; makes no difference.


----------



## Hawk (21 Nov 2011)

Too true! 

I'm sure I'm not the only one who yells at their computer, TV, and radio at times when we disagree, but most thinking people clean it up before going public! I've even yelled some things here, and had to edit it before I responded, or didn't respond at all - I enjoy my time here, and don't want to be banned!

Hawk


----------



## Robert0288 (21 Nov 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> A good friend of mine was in Ottawa over the weekend with some friends.  After dining (and drinking) at D'Arcy Magee's (or however it's called), they headed down to the Occupy site, "for the lulz".  In conversation with one occupier, they got her to say the following on her own (and using Socratic Dialectic, I suppose):
> 
> (She):  "Everyone should, like, grow their own food and stuff, etc"
> (They):  "Fair enough.  What if someone's plot is struck by lightning?"
> ...



That sounds about right.



			
				jasonf6 said:
			
		

> Next to go, Ottawa?  Please let it be so.



*edited, miss read intend due to lack of sleep, comment no longer relevant*


----------



## HavokFour (21 Nov 2011)

jasonf6 said:
			
		

> Next to go, Ottawa?  Please let it be so.



Wish _granted_.  ;D

NCC to evict Occupy Ottawa from Confederation Park


----------



## jasonf6 (21 Nov 2011)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> Wish _granted_.  ;D
> 
> NCC to evict Occupy Ottawa from Confederation Park


Sweet.  It got to the point where I couldn't tell homeless people from the "occupiers" anymore.  And judging by post by Technoviking most of them don't have a clue.


----------



## HavokFour (21 Nov 2011)

"Progressive Stack"


----------



## vonGarvin (21 Nov 2011)

Fucking racists.  I cannot believe that anyone would take that shit seriously, and with a straight face.


----------



## observor 69 (21 Nov 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> A good friend of mine was in Ottawa over the weekend with some friends.  After dining (and drinking) at D'Arcy Magee's (or however it's called), they headed down to the Occupy site, "for the lulz".  In conversation with one occupier, they got her to say the following on her own  (and using Socratic Dialectic, I suppose):




From what I have seen in the media the "Occupiers" started with and have since drawn a large number of idiots. It would appear the media take pains to find these idiots to ask them to verbalize what the movement is about.  :

And on the other hand I have listened to interviews with Occupiers, from various locations,who are obviously educated, thoughtful and able to articulate the basic points they are trying to present to the public.

Your choice which one you want to listen too.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (21 Nov 2011)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Your choice which one you want to listen too.



How about "None of the above for 100, Alex"?


----------



## observor 69 (21 Nov 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> How about "None of the above for 100, Alex"?



 :rofl:


----------



## a_majoor (21 Nov 2011)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> From what I have seen in the media the "Occupiers" started with and have since drawn a large number of idiots. It would appear the media take pains to find these idiots to ask them to verbalize what the movement is about.  :
> 
> And on the other hand I have listened to interviews with Occupiers, from various locations,who are obviously educated, thoughtful and able to articulate the basic points they are trying to present to the public.
> 
> Your choice which one you want to listen too.



The media is also populated by idiots, from the CTV reporter standing in front of a CUPE banner while saying the Occupy movement is "leaderless and spontaneous", to AP trying desperately to put Democrat party endorsements of the #occupy movement down the memory hole.

And another #occupyfail

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/11/20/berkeley-woman-assaulted-for-not-joining-ows-protest/



> *Berkeley woman assaulted for NOT joining OWS protest*
> 
> Looks like the “Join us or else!” mentality is growing violent at Occupy Cal in Berkeley, where an (apparent) OWS protester assaulted a female student when she gave the wrong answer about going to the Occupation protest:
> 
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (22 Nov 2011)

Baden  Guy said:
			
		

> Your choice which one you want to listen too.


How about that video, in which people will be allowed to speak according to skin color or gender?  Bigots and hypocrites is what they are.

And for what it's worth, my friend isn't part of the media.  He is an average Joe who spoke with someone who was apparently answering questions.


----------



## Jungle (22 Nov 2011)

jasonf6 said:
			
		

> Next to go, Ottawa?  Please let it be so.



Police and city employees are on scene this morning in Québec City; they told the occupiers to evacuate the site, and began tearing down the installations.


----------



## lethalLemon (22 Nov 2011)

In Vancouver, Occupy protesters were served an Eviction injunction by the City Of Vancouver and the municipal courts at approximately 2:00pm, Monday 21 November 2011.

Within the same day, protesters cleaned up a majority of their initial base camp at the Vancouver Art Gallery (which will now need leveling, and re-seed for grass among other things) and immediately moved to the Provincially owned Robson Square, a site which UBC has a Graduate Campus and is actually a Cornerstone Investor for the Robson Square site. Premier Christy Clark and BC Legislature will be filing an injunction first thing in the morning, to the Provincial Courts when they open, to serve the protesters yet another Eviction notice.

Each of the protesters that are found at Robson Square should be billed for all the tax dollars that was wasted (and they're the ones AGAINST wasted tax dollars! idiots!) due to their "occupation" of both the original Vancouver Art Gallery site, and Robson Square, as well as all the overtime for the Vancouver Police officers that were required to standby.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Nov 2011)

lethalLemon said:
			
		

> Each of the protesters that are found at Robson Square should be billed for all the tax dollars that was wasted (and they're the ones AGAINST wasted tax dollars! idiots!) due to their "occupation" of both the original Vancouver Art Gallery site, and Robson Square, as well as all the overtime for the Vancouver Police officers that were required to standby.



Agreed. They should get an eviction notice and at the same time - the local tax collector, escorted by police, should be handing out the detailed bill for each protestor.
You probably won't get a nickle of revenue, but you could tie it in with renewal of drivers licenses, receipt of welfare etc.


----------



## 57Chevy (22 Nov 2011)

I wonder what affect all these protest sites had on the local ecomomy like the coffee shops and eateries.


----------



## Jungle (22 Nov 2011)

The Québec City municipal Police found a grand total of... six "occupiers" who spent the night in the tents. That includes "some" homeless, according to local news. 

Buh-bye !!


----------



## a_majoor (22 Nov 2011)

Well maybe he can "redistribute" the $800 million in tax breaks CSL got, if he isn't going to reach for his ATM card first:

http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/11/18/paul-martin-occupy-wall-street_n_1101886.html?ref=tw



> *Paul Martin: Former PM Comes Out In Favour Of Occupy Wall Street And 'Redistribution Programs'*
> 
> The Huffington Post Canada   Joshua Ostroff   First Posted: 11/18/11 02:45 PM ET Updated: 11/21/11 11:27 A
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (22 Nov 2011)

Paul Martin is a has been. No one cares what he thinks anymore.

He can go back to playing with his foreign bought, foreign registered Canada Steamship Lines.

He and his bosses at Power Corp are exactly the ones the Occupiers are whining about. 

Not that I really care.


----------



## OldSolduer (22 Nov 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Well maybe he can "redistribute" the $800 million in tax breaks CSL got, if he isn't going to reach for his ATM card first:
> 
> http://www.huffingtonpost.ca/2011/11/18/paul-martin-occupy-wall-street_n_1101886.html?ref=tw



KAZING!!! Well said.....of course it won't apply to him or CSL will it?


----------



## Danjanou (22 Nov 2011)

So the latest from camp loser here in the centre of the known universe is that one of the unwashed has now unchained himself from one of the yurts claiming the Unions are betraying them and want their property back. :

Anyway the wife wants a new shed for the backyard and as it appears my union dues paid for said yurt and it now needs a new home, I took a straw poll around the office  here and five other people ( all union members) said I could have it. Now that's probably quorum in my union based on our last strike vote so I guess it's mine.

Two questions. Do you think it's big enough to hold the patio furniture, lawn mower, and the snow blower? Also anyone available to give me a hand getting it home after work tonight? I really don't think I can get it on the subway.  8)


----------



## a_majoor (23 Nov 2011)

More mockery: More Cowbell!

http://www.powerlineblog.com/archives/2011/11/ows-needs-more-cowbell.php


----------



## Sapplicant (23 Nov 2011)

Danjanou said:
			
		

> Also anyone available to give me a hand getting it home after work tonight? I really don't think I can get it on the subway.  8)



Pretty sure there's a couple hundred unemployed able bodies near where you're going to pick it up. I'm sure you could find a couple who'd be more than willing to help you if you give them a couple balls of wax and tell'em it's crack.  

Also, this.


----------



## Sapplicant (23 Nov 2011)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> Also, this.



Oops, I meant THIS.


----------



## PMedMoe (23 Nov 2011)

Comment from a CBC article about the Toronto eviction:



> Why are the Occupy Toronto guys treated like criminals and kicked out after a few weeks, when the Occupy Kandahar crowd are given food, a living wage, and weaponry and allowed to camp for a decade?



Reply:



> because the "campers" in kandahar are there for a reason, and have a known goal.


----------



## Danjanou (23 Nov 2011)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> Pretty sure there's a couple hundred unemployed able bodies near where you're going to pick it up. I'm sure you could find a couple who'd be more than willing to help you if you give them a couple balls of wax and tell'em it's crack.
> 
> Also, this.



Thanks but I'll pass, like I want them anywhere near my back yard. :

Besides the wife said she'd rather not have the yurt after what they've been doing in it and with it, even to store fertilizer in. Smart woman. 8)


----------



## jollyjacktar (23 Nov 2011)

Yert not kidding eh.


----------



## Sythen (23 Nov 2011)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> Oops, I meant THIS.



Wow.. I really don't envy those police at all..


----------



## Edward Campbell (23 Nov 2011)

As usual, the _Good Grey Globe's_ Jeffrey Simpson manages to get economic issues wrong, in this colmn which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/who-wants-to-talk-about-income-inequality/article2245133/


> Who wants to talk about income inequality?
> 
> JEFFREY SIMPSON | Columnist profile | E-mail
> From Wednesday's Globe and Mail
> ...




The _problematic_ inequality is very narrowly focused: mainly on the celebrity CEOs. There is not significant problem with, for example, super-rich entrepreneurs like Bill Gates or with super-rich inherited wealth holders like the Rockeffelers - both are super rich but both are productive.

About 50 years the ratio of CEO salary (and bonuses) to unionized factory worker salary was _about_ 40:1; that was not a problem, nor was 50:1 or 70:1. A ratio of 100:1 is a bit hard to justify by 60,000:1 (Disney's Michael Eisner _circa_ 1995) is impossible to reconcile with any sane definition of "value." The Eisners and the Blankfeins (Goldman sachs) and the Fulds (Lehman Bros.) of this world are the face of the real inequality problem.

*Jeffrey Simpson gets it all wrong when he suggests that we need income redistribution. That's monumentally f*cking stupid.* Income redistribution is, at best, a short term band-aid that cures nothing, it just covers the wound for a while and allows the focus to shift away from productivity and value. What does need redistributing is opportunity and that is, in large measure, a function of public education. Too many people in too many places struggle with inadequate education system - here in Canada and, especially, in the USA. When we tolerate second rate schools we are, _de facto_, throwing away our most valuable resources: human brains. We can start with simple things like not mollycoddling "minority" children because they are black or brown - rather we can put food in their bellies (a teacher I know fairly well, who works in an inner city school, guesstimates that the easiest and cheapest way to improve the academic performance of about 1/3 of her students is to give them a half decent breakfast and a lunch; "kids don't need psychologists or even more, better computers to learn," she says, "they need full bellies - they cannot learn when they are hungry") and books in their school libraries.


----------



## a_majoor (24 Nov 2011)

History inverted:


----------



## 57Chevy (24 Nov 2011)

City officials used a sterner tone with Occupy Montreal protesters Thursday:


----------



## ballz (24 Nov 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> As usual, the _Good Grey Globe's_ Jeffrey Simpson manages to get economic issues wrong, in this colmn which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/who-wants-to-talk-about-income-inequality/article2245133/
> 
> ...



 :goodpost: Especially the ratios and the point that nobody cares that Bill Gates or Mark Zuckerburg or other self-made entrepreneurs are filthy rich.


----------



## OldSolduer (24 Nov 2011)

I've been hearing about the 99% and I've thought about it for a bit and come to this conclusion:

Of the 100% of the people - about 1 or 2 % are fit to lead the other 98 or 99%
Of the 98 or 99% left - about 1 or 2 % need permanent care from cradle to grave.

about 95%, I figure - are average - some may be fit to lead, but not many.


----------



## a_majoor (25 Nov 2011)

Useful tools indeed (part 1):

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/anarchy-usa_609222.html?nopager=1



> *Anarchy in the U.S.A.*
> The roots of American disorder.
> NOV 28, 2011, VOL. 17, NO. 11
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (25 Nov 2011)

Part 2:

http://www.weeklystandard.com/articles/anarchy-usa_609222.html?nopager=1



> Children were the clay from which Fourier would sculpt new men. “The phalanx containing an exceedingly great variety of occupations,” he wrote, “it is impossible that the child in passing from one to the other should not find opportunities of satisfying several of his dominant instincts.” There would be no resentment in Fourier’s ideal community, no envy of others. The passions would flow freely. Every want would be fulfilled. It would be, indeed, paradise.
> 
> When he looks at the world, the utopian is repelled by two things in particular. One is private property. “The civilized order,” Fourier wrote, “is incapable of making a just distribution except in the case of capital,” where your return on investment is a function of what you put in. Other than that, the market system is unjust. Economics is a zero-sum game. One man holds possessions at the expense of another. For another nineteenth-century French utopian, Pierre-Joseph Proudhon, property was theft.
> 
> ...


----------



## Foxhound (25 Nov 2011)

An anthropological viewpoint:

Occupy Wall Street plagued by the hierarchy it seeks to destroy National Post article.



> “We have no leader — we work autonomously, and most of us are unaffiliated with any particular group,” according to the website for New York’s General Assembly, the “participatory decision-making body” behind Occupy Wall Street.





> Research shows primates naturally form hierarchies, and a 2008 National Institute of Mental Health study found our brains are hard-wired for it.


----------



## a_majoor (27 Nov 2011)

Adbusters is surprised by the sort of people who turned out for "occupy"?

http://diogenesborealis.blogspot.com/2011/11/brains-behind-occupy-wall-street-is.html



> *Brains behind Occupy Wall Street disappointed by the "loony left"*
> 
> Last week, Kalle Lasn, editor of Adbusters magazine and the man behind the campaign that launched the Occupy Wall Street movement, expressed his disappointment in the quality of the protesters who showed up at Occupy camps in Canada and the US. In an interview with CJME radio, he said:
> 
> ...


----------



## ModlrMike (28 Nov 2011)

Mike Rowe understands:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3h_pp8CHEQ0&feature=player_embedded

Perhaps the movement away from making and fixing things has greatly contributed to today's situation. Terms like "yankee ingenuity" and "frontier self sufficiency" have either slipped completely from our lexicon or have become derogatory epithets used to describe trades and professions deemed less worthy by the educated elites. Canadians once viewed being hewers of wood and drawers of water as things to be proud of; no longer I fear. Manufacturers have realized that there's more profit to be made in planned obsolescence, that products can be made to be replaced rather than repaired, so there's no need for repairmen or women. When was the last time you saw a real television repair shop? 

I think Mr Rowe sums it up precisely:

"We talk about creating millions of shovel ready jobs for a society that doesn't really encourage people to pick up a shovel."


----------



## ballz (28 Nov 2011)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> "We talk about creating millions of shovel ready jobs for a society that doesn't really encourage people to pick up a shovel."



That is absolutely perfect.

On the article that Thucyclides posted, speaking of these protests mostly being filled with young people, it makes me wonder... where are all these young people who apparently care so much and are so politically engaged every time we have an election.... it's not like we haven't had many opportunities to vote in Canada in the last decade....

EDIT: Mike that clip was spot-on. Mike Rowe has nailed it. Thanks for sharing it, I will be showing it to a few people.


----------



## Rogo (28 Nov 2011)

Oh us young people....we don't like democracy during elections....we just like to complain about it after.


----------



## estoguy (29 Nov 2011)

Rogo said:
			
		

> Oh us young people....we don't like democracy during elections....we just like to complain about it after.



I hate how people do that.  Couldn't stand all the belly aching from the Liberal supporters post election.  But if it had been opposite, they'd have been telling Conservative supporters to suck it up.   Poor little babies.  Your own fault for choosing two lame duck leaders in a row who couldn't inspire a crowd if their life depended on it.

Liberals love democracy... when it works in their favor.


----------



## Redeye (29 Nov 2011)

Simpson is right and it would seem in agreement with you, Mr. Campbell, about the ends required. Improving things like education systems, especially in the US where they seem to be in a particularly dire state, would accomplish income redistribution by enabling a larger segment of the population to increase their earning power, rather then to find themselves left behind in an economy that will, as always, demand knowledge and innovation as the means to fueling growth.

To an extent, I have to agree with the "Occupy" set's detesting the 1% - or rather, those in that subset who seem to want to preserve their massive slice of the pie by continuing to undermine education. Who is it that the evidently self-loathing morons who support the Tea Party seem to want to pay for these policies? Public sector workers, teachers, and so on. The very people whose job it is to make the systems work - whose efforts set the stage for building the wealth that built our society. Disincentivizing becoming a teacher by underpaying them and underfunding schools is not helping anything. As Mr. Campbell correctly highlights, things like school breakfast and lunch programs have huge potential to improve academic performance for a pretty small investment, and in particular, I'd wager that the biggest bang for the buck would come in neighbourhoods which tend to have higher poverty levels, because those kids are at a great risk of being caught up in a poverty trap - lacking the education necessary to get themselves out of poverty into success.

The second problem, that the Tea Party-paralyzed US Congress continues to fail to deal with is simple - persistent unemployment has sapped consumer demand, and that in aggregate is preventing any sort of economic recovery. How, exactly, does expanding unaffordable tax cuts which are not spent back into the economy support the creation of demand that will in turn create further jobs? Simply put, the multiplier effect should be much more significant if funds find their way not to the 1% but to the 99%. Engineers, for example, say that some $3 Trillion worth of infrastructure work is needed in the US. Things like critical bridges need replacement urgently, for example. Investing in those things would put a lot of money into the economy into the hands of those people who need it most, and much of that work is labour, which the US isn't really importing. Even a small slice of that, invested into necessary long term projects, could do wonders.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> As usual, the _Good Grey Globe's_ Jeffrey Simpson manages to get economic issues wrong, in this colmn which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/who-wants-to-talk-about-income-inequality/article2245133/
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (30 Nov 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Simpson is right and it would seem in agreement with you, Mr. Campbell, about the ends required. Improving things like education systems, especially in the US where they seem to be in a particularly dire state, would accomplish income redistribution by enabling a larger segment of the population to increase their earning power, rather then to find themselves left behind in an economy that will, as always, demand knowledge and innovation as the means to fueling growth.
> 
> To an extent, I have to agree with the "Occupy" set's detesting the 1% - or rather, those in that subset who seem to want to preserve their massive slice of the pie by continuing to undermine education. Who is it that the evidently self-loathing morons who support the Tea Party  seem to want to pay for these policies? Public sector workers, teachers, and so on. The very people whose job it is to make the systems work - whose efforts set the stage for building the wealth that built our society. Disincentivizing becoming a teacher by underpaying them and underfunding schools is not helping anything. As Mr. Campbell correctly highlights, things like school breakfast and lunch programs have huge potential to improve academic performance for a pretty small investment, and in particular, I'd wager that the biggest bang for the buck would come in neighbourhoods which tend to have higher poverty levels, because those kids are at a great risk of being caught up in a poverty trap - lacking the education necessary to get themselves out of poverty into success.



You've been warned before, more than once. 

You know, from past experience that there are Tea Party supporters and members here. 

You have been told to stop vilifying and denigrating them, but you just can't seem to grow up.

Welcome to the Warning System.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## a_majoor (30 Nov 2011)

Milton Friedman owns #occupy (and reaching forward in time to do so as well; ignorance of basic economics is a long standing problem):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi-D24oCa10&feature=player_embedded


----------



## Redeye (30 Nov 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> You've been warned before, more than once.
> 
> You know, from past experience that there are Tea Party supporters and members here.
> 
> ...



Pardon me, and I submit this with all  due respect... but this is nonsense. I was reproved for using a particular slur against members of the Tea Party, which I stopped. Members of this board frequently make comments of this nature against political parties as they see fit. Why is one movement exempt, exactly? Because some people support it? Well, I'm pretty sure that there are people who support the Liberal Party, which your own signature for quite a while attacked. I'm pretty sure we have NDP supporters who happen to serve as well. There are members of the CF who've been quite supportive of the Occupy movement in various forms, and members of army.ca as well obviously.

My position on the Tea Party is that an organization whose membership seems to be beneficiaries of social programs like Medicare and Social Security in the United States, and is well documented to be heavily funded and astroturfed by the very "crony capitalists" that some claim they oppose, and whose policies are bent on dismantling those programs that these people so rely on are essentially self-loathing. That's my opinion. If it offends people, fine. However, last time I checked, we didn't have laws against that, nor does this board prevent people from doing so with respect to a myriad of groups. I find myself offended by many of the remarks made about members of movements to which I don't belong to, but whose rights to express themselves I support. I expect that's part and parcel of such exchanges. Why should Tea Partiers be any different, exactly?

I'll refrain from any such comments in the future, however, I don't think it's reasonable that some sort of double standard is being applied.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (30 Nov 2011)

Redeye, What you're not getting is, just like calling the by-law offcers, once someone complains and it is brought to the staffs attention, then it becomes an issue.

 A complaint was made about something that would normally slip by us as just "stuff" but then we asked you several times to knock it off, both on site and via PM's, and then you still come back and call folks "morons, etc".........

Exactly what part of those messages did you think we weren't serious about?


----------



## ballz (30 Nov 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Milton Friedman owns #occupy (and reaching forward in time to do so as well; ignorance of basic economics is a long standing problem):
> 
> http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wi-D24oCa10&feature=player_embedded



I could probably take my grandmother to school on economics too, it wouldn't be much of a feat.

He sounds like another Kevin O'Leary to me, applying basic supply-side theory without any reasoning skills whatsoever, to support his own agenda. His minimum wage argument is humorous in a sad way, especially considering the Occupy's complaint is already that top 1% is getting paid too much. They could make counter his argument by saying there should be a "maximum" wage, that way CEOs making 4 million a year would have to go down to 1 million a year (oh the poor CEO... ) and then the 3 million saved per year could be used to hire more people at the minimum wage.

It has little, if anything, to do with minimum (or maximum) wages since inflation would occur anyway and nullify the effect. If, in his example, McDonald's really wanted to increase the amount of business they're doing by "hiring more young people but they can't afford to," McDonald's has could just trim some of that fat from top in order to afford for hiring more workers.

His argument for lowering minimum wage basically equates to the 1% keeping all their wealth, and the 99% being the ones that redistribute to the poor. So please, explain to me why the low wages earners should all take a cut in their pay so that more people can earn low wages, and the high-wage earners shouldn't have to as well? 

It's foolish, and embarrassing if you can't see through it.


----------



## Redeye (30 Nov 2011)

Milton Friedman was the main proponent of supply side economics, the head of the "Chicago School". I used to be quite an adherent of their ideas, until I realized that they don't really work, and the Chicago School's work, while interesting, isn't what I'd call an answer to anything.

Your assessment strikes me a generally correct, though - without addressing the increasingly larger share of the pie held by the so-called 1% while the middle class watches their lifestyle slip away we're not fixing anything. The status quo strikes me as not good, and there's no reason it cannot be addressed in some form.

What I hope, of course, comes out of the Occupy concept is an increased engagement - more people talking about more ideas and ultimately casting more votes, because voter apathy, especially among youth who see no reason to be involved, is what's enabling the problem.



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I could probably take my grandmother to school on economics too, it wouldn't be much of a feat.
> 
> He sounds like another Kevin O'Leary to me, applying basic supply-side theory without any reasoning skills whatsoever, to support his own agenda. His minimum wage argument is humorous in a sad way, especially considering the Occupy's complaint is already that top 1% is getting paid too much. They could make counter his argument by saying there should be a "maximum" wage, that way CEOs making 4 million a year would have to go down to 1 million a year (oh the poor CEO... ) and then the 3 million saved per year could be used to hire more people at the minimum wage.
> 
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (30 Nov 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> His argument for lowering minimum wage basically equates to the 1% keeping all their wealth, and the 99% being the ones that redistribute to the poor. So please, explain to me why the low wages earners should all take a cut in their pay so that more people can earn low wages, and the high-wage earners shouldn't have to as well?



Sigh

The minimum wage argument has nothing at all to do with the wages of the remainder of the corporation (or the economy as a whole), it is entirely predicted on the value of unskilled labour. If I try to sell you something for more than you think it is worth, you will either forgo the purchase or go to another vendor who offers the item at the price _you_ are willing to pay. Since minimum wages are set *by law*, you don't have the option to find an alternative provider (hiring someone for less money), so the solution becomes forgoing the purchase of unskilled labour, which leaves a large number of young, unskilled workers without the ability to get the work experience that makes their labour more valuable (i.e. becoming able to perform higher paying jobs).

You yourself are to "blame" for CEO's making large amounts of money; you patronize their establishments and buy their goods and services because they are offered more cheaply and efficiently than anyone else can; their market worth is determined by _your_ buying patterns. You probably applaud their efforts too every time you look at your mutual funds. As for inflation eating your and their gains, blame the politicians for devaluing money and causing inflation in the first place.

As for the efficiency of the Chicago School, the US jumped out of a deep recession and Keynesian "Stagflation" in less than two years and the economy grew by 33% in seven years (the net growth was the equivalent to the _entire_ economic output of West Germany at the time, so unless you want to argue that West Gemany was some sort of economic basket case...), demonstrating beyand any doubt that Supply Side economics works. First checksum argument is to compare the unemployment and economic growth during the first three year of the Reagan administration with the results of the "stimulus" spending during the first three years of this administration (note: to calculate the true unemployment rate you need to add back all the millions of people who are no longer actively seeking work, the true unemployment rate is much higher than 9%). Trend analysis during these three year periods will also be instructive. Second checksum argument is the "Common Sense Revolution" in Ontario; despite rather heavy cutbacks in Federal transfers and Federal tax hikes, Ontario was netting $20 billion _more_ in tax receipts by the end of the Harris years. If the tax cuts had been matched by corresponding spending cuts, the current financial crisis would be either moot or far milder as it is entirely caused by excessive debt and can only be resolved by deleveraging or eliminating debt. Get ready for the sort of "haircuts" that bondholders of sovereign debt have been threatened with in the Eurozone.


----------



## vonGarvin (30 Nov 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> voter apathy, especially among youth who see no reason to be involved, is what's enabling the problem.


^^^^^
This is so true (edit by me).  Voter apathy at all age groups (but yes, especially among younger Canadians of voting age) is *the* problem


----------



## ballz (30 Nov 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> The minimum wage argument has nothing at all to do with the wages of the remainder of the corporation (or the economy as a whole), it is entirely predicted on the value of unskilled labour.



Yes, it does. The "value" of unskilled labour is determined by your demand for it and the supply available. If you want it to expand your business, you will pay more for it. You will therefore find ways to pay for it, such as cutting your salary expenses in other places.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> If I try to sell you something for more than you think it is worth, you will either forgo the purchase or go to another vendor who offers the item at the price _you_ are willing to pay. Since minimum wages are set *by law*, you don't have the option to find an alternative provider (hiring someone for less money), so the solution becomes forgoing the purchase of unskilled labour, which leaves a large number of young, unskilled workers without the ability to get the work experience that makes their labour more valuable (i.e. becoming able to perform higher paying jobs).



Thanks, I got that the first time when Milton said it, I don't need you to repeat it. Like I said, it's wrong. The "solution" your coming to is a garbage and if you were working for me and came to me with that solution, I'd fire you. Any business, small or large, that is serious about growth and making a profit is not going to "forego the purchase" of unskilled labour that they need in order to expand, they're going to find a way of paying for it.

The solution for a small business-owner is to say "I'm paying myself 150k a year a turning a 50k a year profit... if I pay myself 100k a year, I can hire two workers at minimum wage and take on more business, which will give me the ability to take on more work and eventually being able to pay myself 175k and turn a 100k profit instead."

That solution for a large corporation (that is serious about expansion/profts... which the large corporations in the US are not), is no different. "We're paying the CEO and the CFO 60x what we're paying the average employee. If we just pay them each 50x what we're paying the average employer, we can hire 20 more "average" employees, take on more work, and..."



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> You yourself are to "blame" for CEO's making large amounts of money; you patronize their establishments and buy their goods and services because they are offered more cheaply and efficiently than anyone else can; their market worth is determined by _your_ buying patterns.



Actually no I am not to blame, poor decision-making by Boards of Directors (not unlike the poor solution you came to) is to blame for those CEO's making more money than they should be making, and those poor decisions would have, and *should* have, led to the failure of those companies... if it weren't for taxpayer's money bailing them out. Very unfortunate that we did that.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> As for inflation eating your and their gains, blame the politicians for devaluing money and causing inflation in the first place.



If you had any clue of the economics that you say are so "basic," you would release my inflation comment has absolutely nothing to do with "eating" gains. Raising a minimum wage causes inflation and putting a "max" wage would cause deflation. That is simple, first-year university level economic theory. If you raise minimum wage, companies will charge a higher price for their product in order to afford for it. That's inflation. The whole point to that comment being that his assessment that "companies can't afford to hire new workers at the minimum wage because it's too high" is complete BS, since inflation would take affect and it does not change how much a company can or cannot afford.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Nov 2011)

But, ballz inflation is a much, much worse problem than minimum wages. Inflation sucks the money away from the bottom 20% at a much more onerous rate than it does for any other group. While I am not an absolute opponent of minimum wages - they do have a role - they do, in fact, price the unskilled out of the job market.

Here, in Texas, indeed throughout the USA and even in Eastern China, too, we have a "safety valve:" illegal migrants who will do the low skill, dirty jobs for wages that are appropriate to the task at hand, which is to say 50%, 35%, even 20% of the minimum wage. In China even the governments get in on the act. The streets in Shanghai are immaculate, compared to, say, Ottawa, because there are legions of street sweepers working 24/7 - employed by the city at about 15% of the lawful minmum wage (yes, China has minimum wage laws but they apply only to people with the right _visa_ in their internal passport). Clean streets matter when you are selling your city as the financial centre of Asia but, given the minimum wage in Shanghai (the highest in China, I think), the streets would either be less tidy or there would be more machines doing the work.


----------



## ballz (30 Nov 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But, ballz inflation is a much, much worse problem than minimum wages.



Yes, rampant inflation is a big problem. Inflation is caused by a variety of things, minimum wage a fairly small factor (and not a factor at all if minimum wage doesn't *change*). Inflation and inflation-control and all the things that come with it is sort of a whole different discussion that i don't think relates much to Milton's suggestion that the low-wage earners should take a cut in pay so that other people can earn low-wages as well, or to Thucyclides suggestion that a CEO making gross amounts more than an average worker doesn't stop a company from being able to hire more average or low-income workers.

I simply wanted to point out that if minimum wage is "too high" that a companies will simply raise their prices, and the effect of that inflation will make neither the minimum-wage earner any better/worse off or the company any better/worse off. People would then be making more money, but paying more money for goods.


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Nov 2011)

I read your earlier response as suggesting that in the face of rising minimum wages, and they have risen, steadily, over the years, in North America, in Europe and even in China, then employers could still hire more minimum wage workers and let inflation take care of the problem. The cure, inflation, is worse than the disease, chronically high unemployment amongst unskilled young people. Plus, of course, what we see in the face of higher and higher minimum wages is increased mechanization and automation - machines don't get hourly wages and a few skilled, high cost but high value workers can maintain a lot of machines.

But, I suspect that we are agreed that inflation need not result if minimum wages do not increase; it's just that I have seen static minimum wages in my 70 years on the planet.


----------



## ballz (30 Nov 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But, I suspect that we are agreed that inflation need not result if minimum wages do not increase



We are agreed on that for sure. I don't / am not advocating raising minimum wages, but I am sure you understand that.

You read my earlier response slightly incorrectly. I didn't mean to say "let inflation sort it out," I just meant that inevitably (for better, for worse, or for net zero) the employer would raise prices in response to higher minimum wages. I am certainly experiencing that here in Newfoundland as we speak... and it's pissing me off >


----------



## cupper (30 Nov 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> But, I suspect that we are agreed that inflation need not result if minimum wages do not increase;



Please clarify, are you saying that if we don't raise minimum wages we won't have inflation?


----------



## Edward Campbell (30 Nov 2011)

No, But a 'static' minimum wage will not further fuel inflation. It is, as stated, the increases - which have been relentless since 1920 - that are inflationary.


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Dec 2011)

If these occupiers want to help, tell them to go the the Reserve that the Red Cross flew into and help them out.

And the Liberal/CBC shill on Newsworld this morning is making my BP rise.


----------



## aesop081 (1 Dec 2011)

Occupy......who ?


----------



## a_majoor (1 Dec 2011)

It seems you are arguing points which are demolished in economics 101.

1. Supply and demand are the determining factors in any economic pricing decisions, including wages. I have no "demand" for unskilled labour (most business don't, they need experienced, skilled workers to function) while the supply is fairly high. The true wage set by the market is therefore low. If I want to grow and be profitable I cannot and will not hire inexperienced and unskilled workers (they cost the business money), I will look to ways to make my existing work force more productive, or find low cost labour elsewhere, like China or India. As a very small business owner to be; I have worked the business plan and cannot hire unskilled labour for _any price_ without risking the premature failure of the business due to high training costs and the potential for shoddy products killing sales and reputation. (I'm not going to be making very much money as CEO either...)

2. Inflation is always a monetary  problem, caused by increasing the money supply relative to the size of the economy. As more money enters circulation, the prices of the available goods and services are bid upwards; THAT is the cause of inflation. (It is a sad commentary that I actually was taught this in High School; today's University educated students don't seem to learn this until late in their studies, if at all). The Spanish discovered this in the 1500's by importing tons of silver from the New World; by the time of the Battle of Lepanto (7 October 1571) inflation had risen to the point that the Spanish fleet was rowed by convicts and slaves since they could no longer afford to pay for free rowers. The _Serenìsima Repùblica Vèneta_ could still afford to pay its rowing crews, since Venice had control of its money supply. Spain's economy was eventually ruined by inflation, starving it of resources and ending it's dominance as a global empire by the 1600's. 

3. If you want CEO's to make less money, don't purchase goods and services from their companies. It was clearly explained that the supply and demand equations that determine the wages of unskilled workers also applies to the highly skilled or talented; there is a very high demand for quality goods and services that are delivered quickly, cheaply and efficiently, but a limited supply of people who are actually able to create the organizations to do so. This is totally disconnected from the supply and demand for unskilled labour. Like I said, _you_ are the cause of CEO's receiving high wages. About the only thing you have said which was correct is if boards overpay underperforming CEO's, the business deserves to fail (true) and only crony capitalism has saved companies like GM (also true).


----------



## ballz (1 Dec 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> 1. Supply and demand are the determining factors in any economic pricing decisions, including wages. I have no "demand" for unskilled labour (most business don't, they need experienced, skilled workers to function) while the supply is fairly high.



If you have no demand for unskilled labour, then that means you're able to meet the demand for your product/service. If minimum wage was cut in half, and you doubled the amount of minimum wage workers you were employing, your business would not expand since you were already meeting the demand for your customers. You'd just be increasing the supply of your product, and having to lower the price (as I said, lowering minimum wage causes deflation) in order to sell it all.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> 2. Inflation is always a monetary  problem, caused by increasing the money supply relative to the size of the economy. As more money enters circulation, the prices of the available goods and services are bid upwards; THAT is the cause of inflation. (It is a sad commentary that I actually was taught this in High School; today's University educated students don't seem to learn this until late in their studies, if at all).



You're actually trying to argue with me that raising minimum wages doesn't cause inflation? That's my cue to never bother getting engaged with you again.

Inflation is the devaluing of money, or in other words a general rise in prices (so that you can buy less with $1 today than you could yesterday aka "devaluing" the dollar). Anything that increases prices is a "cause" of inflation. Yes, increasing money supply will increase demand for product which will result in higher prices (and therefore inflation), thanks, I don't need you to point out the things you learned in your economics 101, I've been taught it too. Increasing minimum wage increases productions costs which must be absorbed by the economy. It's called "cost-push" inflation, and it's been proven to happen time and time again. I would expect someone who's as laissez-faire as yourself to know all about the cost-push theory since it is an important argument against increasing minimum wage.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> 3. If you want CEO's to make less money, don't purchase goods and services from their companies. It was clearly explained that the supply and demand equations that determine the wages of unskilled workers also applies to the highly skilled or talented; there is a very high demand for quality goods and services that are delivered quickly, cheaply and efficiently, but a limited supply of people who are actually able to create the organizations to do so. This is totally disconnected from the supply and demand for unskilled labour. Like I said, _you_ are the cause of CEO's receiving high wages. About the only thing you have said which was correct is if boards overpay underperforming CEO's, the business deserves to fail (true) and only crony capitalism has saved companies like GM (also true).



It is not disconnected from the supply and demand for unskilled labour, and celebrity CEOs are getting paid very far above the equilibrium point of their supply and demand (this is where I have the problem... not that I care about a CEO making the most money, but they're getting _overpaid_ what they're actually worth, and the proof is in the pudding).

And you're wrong thinking if I don't purchase goods from a company the CEO will get a wage cut.... as we have already seen, that won't happen. A bunch of people getting paid low-wages will get laid off, and the skilled workers will get a pay-cut and/or laid off. The CEO will not be affected. We just saw that happen. The fact that the governments had to bail them all out is proof of my claim that the CEOs, CFOs, etc were all being overpaid, since they weren't being paid all that money to make the company fail.

Anyway, I'm not engaging in this with you any more. I obviously gave you too much credit for far too long if you're going to argue with me that increasing minimum wages isn't a (note I said "a" not "the") cause of inflation.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Dec 2011)

If all the people giving "the answers" to the worlds economic troubles here are that good then why aren't you running the world right now? :blah:


----------



## Haletown (1 Dec 2011)

OWS . .   white middle/upper class children of the Me Generation devolve into the Gimme Generation.

Maybe a good dose of cold, hunger, filth and desperation will cure them of their desire, their belief to have someone else pay for the lifestyle they feel entitled to.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Dec 2011)

We seem to be, very quickly, coming back to Page One of this discussion.

The clock is ticking.

Milnet.ca Staff


----------



## Nemo888 (1 Dec 2011)

It is complicated now. We have become so efficient we no longer need the working class for manufacturing or agriculture. I could make hundreds of headlights a day at the auto parts factory I worked at. One area I worked we had to compete with a robot. If we fell behind quota we would be replaced. This made the job rather dangerous as corners needed to be cut and chemical exposure was quite high. Chinese workers make 90c and hour at good manufacturing jobs. What do we do with those who used to do those jobs?  Some are smart and can get retrained, but what about the rest?


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Dec 2011)

The "Occupy" _movement_ is dead; it was, in fact, stillborn - there was some post-natal thrashing about but the thing was brain dead at birth.

The _issues_ that _Adbusters_ raised remain important - mainly inequality (although _Adbusters_ got the numbers wrong) amongst e.g. the "celebrity CEOs" and their stock trading kin (rather than all the rich and successful) and the productive workers (not the unproductive poor, who don't, really, matter all that much).

This thread can die, too, because we can have these useful debates in e.g. Making Canada Relevant ~, etc.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Dec 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> It is complicated now. We have become so efficient we no longer need the working class for manufacturing or agriculture. I could make hundreds of headlights a day at the auto parts factory I worked at. One area I worked we had to compete with a robot. If we fell behind quota we would be replaced. This made the job rather dangerous as corners needed to be cut and chemical exposure was quite high. Chinese workers make 90c and hour at good manufacturing jobs. What do we do with those who used to do those jobs?  some are smart and can get retrained, but what about the rest?



In Canada, every worker has the right to refuse unsafe work.

And before the argument comes that they'd just be fired, or laid off, if a worker follows the legislated process and the employer is found wanting, orders would be laid and it becomes incumbent on the employer to solve the problem with an engineered solution. All other avenues have to be exhausted before it comes down to the worker status. Firing or otherwise dismissing a worker for a safety problem is a reprisal. Reprisals aren't allowed under the law.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Dec 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> It is complicated now. We have become so efficient we no longer need the working class for manufacturing or agriculture. I could make hundreds of headlights a day at the auto parts factory I worked at. One area I worked we had to compete with a robot. If we fell behind quota we would be replaced. This made the job rather dangerous as corners needed to be cut and chemical exposure was quite high. Chinese workers make 90c and hour at good manufacturing jobs. What do we do with those who used to do those jobs?  Some are smart and can get retrained, but what about the rest?




Those Chinese workers now get about $1.95/hour and their low-skill jobs are moving to really poor places in Indonesia and the Philippines.

The answer, as I have said (maybe too often) before is not _equality_ of outcomes, what Obama and the NDP want to dictate, but, rather, _equality_ of opportunity which really means better schools for all even, maybe especially, in poor neighbourhoods and it also, in my opinion means school meal programmes for many, many kids because they have poor, stupid or neglectful parents and it seems clear to me that hungry kids do not learn well. My guess is that 10 half decent meals a week would do more for public education than all the Education faculties of all North American universities combined.


----------



## OldSolduer (1 Dec 2011)

Haletown said:
			
		

> OWS . .   white middle/upper class children of the Me Generation devolve into the Gimme Generation.
> 
> Maybe a good dose of cold, hunger, filth and desperation will cure them of their desire, their belief to have someone else pay for the lifestyle they feel entitled to.



I have asked for the book "The Great Depression" by Pierre Berton for Christmas.

I was raised by parents who lived through that. 

I agree with you.


----------



## ballz (1 Dec 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> My guess is that 10 half decent meals a week would do more for public education than all the Education faculties of all North American universities combined.



But providing meals for impoverished children is an "investment," (is apparently a socialist term) that the ideologically hard right-wing won't accept no matter how much the pay-off is... :-\ 

You would have a hard time getting a meal program in Canada for this reason, my guess is it's a dream to get it in the US where the equality of opportunity (which I agree, is the problem) is a serious issue (I don't think it's that big of an issue in Canada... things can always improve of course).


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Dec 2011)

ballz said:
			
		

> But providing meals for impoverished children is an "investment," (is apparently a socialist term) that the ideologically hard right-wing won't accept no matter how much the pay-off is... :-\
> 
> You would have a hard time getting a meal program in Canada for this reason, my guess is it's a dream to get it in the US where the equality of opportunity (which I agree, is the problem) is a serious issue (I don't think it's that big of an issue in Canada... things can always improve of course).




I agree - the _extremes_ of the political spectrum hard left and hard right are equally impervious to reason. There are socio-cultural problems in public education, just as there are economic problems and technology (use of same) problems but all of those systemic problems have a way of working themselves out. Hungry children are a problem for the education "front lines" and for society at large. If I'm right, if hungry children do not learn as well as adequately fed children, then we who decline to feed them about 10 inexpensive, nutritious meals a week are guilty of wasting our most valuable natural resource. We might as well all punch holes in our gas tanks and let the stuff drain into the sewers - that would be only slightly less wasteful than throwing away our future workers and leaders.


----------



## Sapplicant (1 Dec 2011)

re: Meal Program

I remember distinctly the breakfast program which every school I attended, from elementary school in NB right through to high school in Ontario. Milk, toast/bagel, some fruit, orange juice, granola. It was available for every student who wanted it, "rich or poor". Granted, that only accounts for 5 of the 10 meals a week required for the "investment" to pay off the greatest possible dividends. It should still be available, unless they scrapped sometime in the past 10 years (which would be a profoundly retarded decision, so I wouldn't put it past them). Interestingly enough, I managed to get my cafeteria lunch for free in 7th and 8th grade because I was the kid who spent his lunch break washing the plates and cutlery in the cafeteria dishpit. 

Fastfoward to my adult years, and fall christmas tree harvest. This is a job that requires the company that runs the farm to take on an extra 60-70 workers than they normally employ throughout the growing season. Too many of the employees were too stupid to bring a real lunch, instead opting for a pack of smokes, bottle of water, and thermos of coffee. Possibly a joint or 2 as well. Anyhow, the owners found that productivity between 1 and 5 pm dipped signifigantly, and decided to try something new. They built a couple of break shacks out of old 53' trailers and hired caterers to feed everyone hot lunches. They also extended lunch (and the work day) by a half hour. Their afternoon productivity skyrocketed. However, there was much bickering amongst the owners before they implemented this. Point is, they found a way to look past their differences, stopped insulting each other, and recognized that they all had something to bring to the table. Once they did those 3 simple things, shit got done, and done right.


----------



## mariomike (1 Dec 2011)

Children's breakfast clubs can be started - at least in a modest way - without the politics. 

Rick reached out to the community he served:
"The Rick Boustead Breakfast Club is funded and operated by Toronto EMS. This was the first such club in Toronto, started in 1984 and is located at 30 Falstaff Road. There are now over 20 clubs in Toronto. The Toronto Breakfast Club’s philosophy is that every child is entitled to a nutritious breakfast which helps them prepare for a day of learning. After they eat the children are given a craft or special guests come to speak with the 45-55 children, ages 3-12, who pass through every day.":
http://breakfastclubs.ca/club-Falstaff.php
"All other programs were modeled after Falstaff."


----------



## Sapplicant (1 Dec 2011)

A quick look into the stats yielded that 1/9 children in Canada live below the poverty line. It's a given that they ought to be afforded the opportunity to be fed. How much would it cost to give each of them a lunch every school day, and where to we find this money? Would 1/9 even truly represent the number of kids who go lunchless? Odds are the cost isn't something so monumental that it can't be met. I'm willing to bet it would be very easy to "trim some fat" in other departments and instead do something productive with those funds.


----------



## GAP (1 Dec 2011)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> A quick look into the stats yielded that 1/9 children in Canada live below the poverty line. It's a given that they ought to be afforded the opportunity to be fed. How much would it cost to give each of them a lunch every school day, and where to we find this money? Would 1/9 even truly represent the number of kids who go lunchless? Odds are the cost isn't something so monumental that it can't be met. I'm willing to bet it would be very easy to "trim some fat" in other departments and instead do something productive with those funds.



That's easy to say, until you realize a huge chunk of those kids are concentrated in specific areas. 

In most cases breadfast/lunch programs have been developed through cooperation between parent groups/schools/etc. where those needs are being met.


----------



## Sapplicant (1 Dec 2011)

GAP said:
			
		

> That's easy to say, until you realize a huge chunk of those kids are concentrated in specific areas.
> 
> In most cases breadfast/lunch programs have been developed through cooperation between parent groups/schools/etc. where those needs are being met.



Well then, since we only have a small chunck to worry about now, I guess it would be even less expensive to implement, n'est pas?


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Dec 2011)

Instead of determining which of the 1/9 kids are below the poverty line, and how to ensure that they are, and how to administer a program that caters only to the 1 of 9, why not make is universal?  Sure, some rich kids will get two free* meals a day, but don't for get that mommy and daddy pay much more in taxes anyway, so, no big deal.

How much would it actually cost to provide breakfast and lunch for every pupil in Canada?


----------



## Sapplicant (1 Dec 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Instead of determining which of the 1/9 kids are below the poverty line, and how to ensure that they are, and how to administer a program that caters only to the 1 of 9, why not make is universal?  Sure, some rich kids will get two free* meals a day, but don't for get that mommy and daddy pay much more in taxes anyway, so, no big deal.
> 
> How much would it actually cost to provide breakfast and lunch for every pupil in Canada?



Also keep in mind, just because mom and dad can afford to send little jonny to school with a full lunchbucket, doesn't mean that they actually do. Nor does having a lunch necessitate that the kid will actually eat it.


----------



## a_majoor (1 Dec 2011)

Since economic education seesm to be in short supply, lets try one more time:

1. Any business will only hire the amount of labour it needs (demands) at the lowest possible price. The price is dependent on the overall demand for that type of labour and how many of those workers actualy exist. Plumbers and other skilled tradesmen are in short supply these days, hence the pretty good living skilled trades make.

2. As a businessman, why would I hire more labour than I need regardless of the price? how is that price dependent on what I make? (there is a very real potential that my "draw from my startup will be $0 for the first year or so; that will  ot affect how many people I need to hire or the skillsets I need)

3. Non inflationary wage increases are possible. IF there is an increasing demand a particular type of labour, or labour in general, then wages will rise to attract workers, as we see in Alberta and North Dakota these days in the resource industry. Skilled trades are making more money since the relative supply is less than the overall demand. The other way to get non inflationary wage increases is to eliminate the supply of labour, the Black Death in Europe cut the population by @ 30%, and wages increased accordingly since there were fewer people to do anything at all (much less skilled trades). The two generations of high wages is thought to be one of the key drivers of the Reniassance. 

4. Rising wages due to inflation is an effect, not the primary cause of inflation. Since the money supply is expanding rapidly and prices are being bid up, workers will also demand their wages increase to match. Now they have more money to bid up prices of finished products (they rarely buy raw comodity goods), which increases inflation even more. 

5. School meal programs are a comon feature in many schools, but empirical evidence in the form of increased average marks etc. does not seem to correlate directly with these programs. Indeed, the amount of money spent on schools in general has increased by an astonishing amount, yet students learn far less than previous generations. I have seen old textbooks for high school which resemble modern university texts, and there have been anecdotes floated on the Internet of tests from the 1950's being administered to modern students, which todays student simply could not do. Basd on my observations of officer and junior leadership candidates under my instruction over the years, I have no difficulty believing this. School boards with limited budgets have outperformed school boards with lavish budgets (and comparing provinces and states is also instructive). This would suggest the _real_issue isn't money or what sorts of programs and support are being offered but pedagology; how the children are being taught. As for how meal programs can be delivered, there are many options including private charities, vouchers and volunteerism as well as bureaucratic school programs (the one in my area throws away a huge amount of food since "everyone" is entitled, but the students who don't need it don't eat it).

6. About the only correct statement is that some boards pay their CEO's far too much compared to the productivity/market share, and those companies deserve to fail (some do). Crony capitalists have rigged the game to get bailouts from their political connections, thus freeing them from the discipline of the market for greater or lesser periods of time. Solendra went broke shortly after receiving $550 million in loan garuntees, while the CBC can blunder along with a miniscule market share and even the inability to meet basic technical requirements (converting transmitters from analogue to digital) since they get a $1.6 billion dollar handout every year.


----------



## Edward Campbell (1 Dec 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Instead of determining which of the 1/9 kids are below the poverty line, and how to ensure that they are, and how to administer a program that caters only to the 1 of 9, why not make is universal?  Sure, some rich kids will get two free* meals a day, but don't for get that mommy and daddy pay much more in taxes anyway, so, no big deal.
> 
> How much would it actually cost to provide breakfast and lunch for every pupil in Canada?




I honestly have no idea, but:

1. The cost of food is, probably, the least amount;

2. There are "hardware" and infrastructure costs - kitchens, transportation of "hay boxes" to schools without kitchens, etc, etc, etc; and

3. Above all there would be high, unionized, labour costs for cooking, serving, transporting, cleaning, planning and managing.

Still, despite the costs that I expect would be high, I believe the benefits would outweigh them. I am inclined to the view that the best crime prevention programme is a half decent education, that the best cure for our drug use problem is education, that the key to productivity and prosperity is education, and I am persuaded that hungry kids do not learn very well.

And yes, I write a letter about this to my provincial MPP and to the premier every year, cc: my local school board folks and even my federal MP.


----------



## Sapplicant (1 Dec 2011)

It's easy to point out the symptoms, and reasons for the symptoms. It's also easy to point out that yes, that gash on my arm that has been bleeding for almost 4 hours, but I put a bandaid on it 3 hours ago so it'll be just fine.

Here are some symptoms:

Parents sends kid to school with lunch, kid won't eat it. Kid goes hungry.

Parents lets kid pack own lunch, kid eats a chocolate bar, bag of chips, pudding, and a can of pop. Kid goes off the wall for an hour, then goes hungry.

Parents sends kid to school with money to buy what kid wants from cafeteria for lunch, kid secretly saves up money to buy latest tech-toy. Kid goes hungry.

Parents buys kid everything they could possibly want, sends kid to school with money to buy what kid wants from cafeteria for lunch. Kid spends money on weed, and goes VERY hungry.

Trying to give the kid everything they want has bankrupted parents, kid now has to rely on "meal program for poor kids" at school, but turns it down for fear of what others might think. Kid STILL goes hungry!!

We have a problem here. We need REAL solutions, ideas which haven't been yet brought forth, or that possibly have but were deemed crazy, but might have been just crazy enough to actually work.

And this, the issue of kids not getting the nutrition (among other things) they need to perform properly at school, is just one of the many problems that need solving in order for the world to ccontinue to prosper.


----------



## Sapplicant (1 Dec 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> I have seen old textbooks for high school which resemble modern university texts, and there have been anecdotes floated on the Internet of tests from the 1950's being administered to modern students, which todays student simply could not do.



This may come off as disrespectful toward my elders given my age, but I'm saying it anyways.

I've met and worked with many, MANY people who were around when those 'original' tests were being give who couldn't do them either. Believe me, there's a great number of people my age who have the ability to pass those tests. 

Of course, back then you didn't give amphetamines to smart kids who were bored in the hopes of shutting them up for 12 years, you actually fostered their minds and abilities.  ;D


----------



## Nemo888 (1 Dec 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> In Canada, every worker has the right to refuse unsafe work.
> 
> And before the argument comes that they'd just be fired, or laid off, if a worker follows the legislated process and the employer is found wanting, orders would be laid and it becomes incumbent on the employer to solve the problem with an engineered solution. All other avenues have to be exhausted before it comes down to the worker status. Firing or otherwise dismissing a worker for a safety problem is a reprisal. Reprisals aren't allowed under the law.



Actually is was straight numbers. We all had traing and equipment for proper safety precautions. The problem was that if you followed them all you could not keep up with the robot. Which means an additional robot would be purchased and the job would be gone. This place was a sweatshop. It motivated me to go back to school.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Those Chinese workers now get about $1.95/hour and their low-skill jobs are moving to really poor places in Indonesia and the Philippines.
> 
> The answer, as I have said (maybe too often) before is not _equality_ of outcomes, what Obama and the NDP want to dictate, but, rather, _equality_ of opportunity which really means better schools for all even, maybe especially, in poor neighbourhoods and it also, in my opinion means school meal programmes for many, many kids because they have poor, stupid or neglectful parents and it seems clear to me that hungry kids do not learn well. My guess is that 10 half decent meals a week would do more for public education than all the Education faculties of all North American universities combined.



It  bugs me when education and infrasctructure get cut. Where I work we can easiliy spend 40k on a 98 year old woman to keep her alive for an extra 9 months. Most of our patients are retired.  I like that we are so generous with healthcare. But the money spent on the 98 year old with dementia could have paid for two post secondary educations. Priorities I suppose.


----------



## aesop081 (1 Dec 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> This place was a sweatshop.



A worker muscled out of his job by technology ? Say it ain't so. Must be the first time in history.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Dec 2011)

Sapplicant:
I'm talking about two meals a day, every day, cost-free, for every student, from kindergarten to grade 12, inclusive.  Not a cafeteria where you pay for your food, or just for the poor kids, but for all kids, irrespective of background.  Thus, equal opportunity for all.


----------



## GAP (1 Dec 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> A worker muscled out of his job by technology ? Say it ain't so. Must be the first time in history.



and the CF is going to be next.....ex CF member created this http://technology.canoe.ca/2011/11/30/19040961.html .


----------



## Sapplicant (1 Dec 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Sapplicant:
> I'm talking about two meals a day, every day, cost-free, for every student, from kindergarten to grade 12, inclusive.  Not a cafeteria where you pay for your food, or just for the poor kids, but for all kids, irrespective of background.  Thus, equal opportunity for all.



If it were to be done without some of the unnecessary costs mentions by Mr. Campbell, I'd highball it at 7$/day/student. Lowball it at 4$. Find the number of k-12 students in canada, then multiply that by 5, then by the number of actual school days in a school year.


----------



## GAP (1 Dec 2011)

> number of actual school days in a school year.



200


----------



## mariomike (1 Dec 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Where I work we can easiliy spend 40k on a 98 year old woman to keep her alive for an extra 9 months. Most of our patients are retired.



It is going to get worse. From what I read, 14 per cent of Canada's population is 65 or older. Those 14 per cent consume about 44 per cent of total health care spending.  
By 2036 seniors are expected to make up nearly a quarter of the population.


----------



## Sapplicant (1 Dec 2011)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> If it were to be done without some of the unnecessary costs mentions by Mr. Campbell, I'd highball it at 7$/day/student. Lowball it at 4$. Find the number of k-12 students in canada, then multiply that by 5, then by the number of actual school days in a school year.



Just under 5.1 million students enrolled in publicly funded schools in 08/09 was what I could find. Keep in mind, my prices are completely arbitrary. It could probably be done a lot chraper in reality. Still, looking at at least a billion. Probably more.


----------



## Sapplicant (1 Dec 2011)

4x5100000x200=4.08B$ per year.


----------



## ballz (1 Dec 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Still, despite the costs that I expect would be high, I believe the benefits would outweigh them. I am inclined to the view that the best crime prevention programme is a half decent education, that the best cure for our drug use problem is education, that the key to productivity and prosperity is education, and I am persuaded that hungry kids do not learn very well.



Nope, no good. What we really need to do is lower the minimum working age to 5 years old, and allow them to work for $1.00/hr, so by the time they are 18 they have acquired way more skills than someone that wasted their time getting an education... those with a high school diploma will be behind the 8-ball, and will have to start working $5.00/hr while all those who had been working for dirt cheap for so many years will be in high demand and will get $15.00/hr.

The world would be a better place, the invisible hand would make it so.

[/sarcasm]



			
				Technoviking said:
			
		

> Sapplicant:
> I'm talking about two meals a day, every day, cost-free, for every student, from kindergarten to grade 12, inclusive.  Not a cafeteria where you pay for your food, or just for the poor kids, but for all kids, irrespective of background.  Thus, equal opportunity for all.



I agree it would have to be universal... Kids, especially adolescents, would rather starve than feel embarrassed amongst their peers.

I remember when they had a snack program at my school when I was in grades 4-6 on Tuesdays and Thursdays. It might just be a bunch of celery with cheese whiz or cheese & crackers or hot dogs or something with a juice box or milk carton, but they would bring it up, stop class for 15-20 minutes, and everybody was welcome to it... I remember myself and my classmates loving it and everybody taking part.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Dec 2011)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> 4x5100000x200=4.08B$ per year.


You did the math for me.  Thanks 

(I found that the school year was generally 190 days/year, and 180 days/year in Quebec)  It puts it just under 4 Billion/year.


So, my non-trolling question is: would it be worth it?


----------



## Sapplicant (1 Dec 2011)

If it worked, then absolutely. But, there's another honest, non-trolling question. Would it actually work?


----------



## Sapplicant (1 Dec 2011)

Another thing to keep in mind is, if "we" are the ones feeding them, then "we" know what they're eating, and can ensure that they get the proper nutrition they need. This could be one step (of the many required) towards erasing the "obesity epidemic". Fuel their bodies, and minds.


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Dec 2011)

Just imagine, the older kids helping with picking out the menus as part of their education, learning about the benefits of this and the nutrition of that.  And the social aspect.   Younger kids helping with clearing their plates.  Of course, there would be vegetarian, halal, kosher and whatever meals available.  
For those of you who know me, I didn't suddenly turn hippy overnight and promise to "feed the children", but the increased taxation that would sure to follow would be offset by the reduced grocery costs.  For this to work, this would have to be a federally funded program (which means it's doomed!  LOL)  But, no, seriously, it would have to be in order to keep it even across the country.  And no, it wouldn't be getting into education, but rather into whatever other department.  But overall, I see this as an investment in our future.  As Mr. Campbell stated previously, well-fed kids learn better than hungry kids.  And hungry kids fail out of school.  And kids who fail out of school go to low end jobs, typically.  This wouldn't eliminate drop outs, but if nothing else, it would give equal opportunity to all.


----------



## Jed (1 Dec 2011)

But who would actually enforce that the food would actually go into the child's mouth? You know, kind of like telling our soldiers to rehydrate. My old man isn't around any more to push my face into the mashed potatoes to make me lick the plate clean. ;D

/tongue in cheek smiley


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Dec 2011)

Jed said:
			
		

> But who would actually enforce that the food would actually go into the child's mouth? You know, kind of like telling our soldiers to rehydrate. My old man isn't around any more to push my face into the mashed potatoes to make me lick the plate clean. ;D
> 
> /tongue in cheek smiley



As stated, it's about opportunity, not force feeding.  The food is there.  If they don't eat.....


----------



## Sapplicant (1 Dec 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> If they don't eat.....



Then there's complimentary lunch in the teacher's lounge, complete with doggy bags for leftovers. They save money that can be put towards their own personal entertainment/betterment. More and more people are winning here...


----------



## Retired AF Guy (1 Dec 2011)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> Another thing to keep in mind is, if "we" are the ones feeding them, then "we" know what they're eating, and can ensure that they get the proper nutrition they need. This could be one step (of the many required) towards erasing the "obesity epidemic". Fuel their bodies, and minds.



The Kingston Whig-Standard had a write-up the other day about the new Ontario policy of only serving healthy food in school cafeterias: what the reporters found was that attendance in some cafeterias had actually gone down because the students were actually going to local fast food joints for lunch. Something that I've seen personally; I've stopped a MAC's/Subway store near a local school at lunch time and the place is packed with kids buying sub sandwiches. Reminds me of the old saying: _*You can take the horse to the water, but you can't make the horse drink the water.*_


----------



## vonGarvin (1 Dec 2011)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> Reminds me of the old saying: _*You can take the horse to the water, but you can't make the horse drink the water.*_


Agreed.  But if the water is there, nobody can complain about being thirsty...

Just providing an opportunity.


----------



## Nemo888 (1 Dec 2011)

If hard choices need to be made 5714 days/ 2 meals a day for students(28.5 school years) does seem like a better way to spend my tax money than rebuilding the brittle sponge bones of a 98 year old with dementia. Spending on one can change the world for underprivileged kids and open up a world of opportunity. It can  also return that investment hundreds of times over. The other only creates additional burdens on an already overtaxed system.


----------



## Jed (1 Dec 2011)

I hope you are not a proponent of the "Soylent Green" option, there Nemo.


----------



## cupper (1 Dec 2011)

Jed said:
			
		

> I hope you are not a proponent of the "Soylent Green" option, there Nemo.



That the one that has the punchline Corporations are People? ;D


----------



## Jed (1 Dec 2011)

I think so. Charleton Heston at his finest.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Dec 2011)

TV's point about older kids using a lunch program to learn is a common part of Montessori education (My children partook for a number of years), but the combined environment of the school created by parents, teachers and students also made sure the food went downrange and not into the dumpster.

The current models of public education does not provide such an environment, so while providing the opportunity is great in theory, the practical results will end up being more and more coercive, as the choices are restricted to whatever sort of diet is deemed healthy, then efforts are made to ensure the meals are actually consumed and costs minimized. I can see everything from attempting to close variety stores and fast food joints withing radius "x" of any school to literally locking the children inside for the duration of lunch hour. (And if you think that idea is over the top, just look at the sorts of restrictions schools attempt to put on the lunches children do bring, including what sort of packaging the food can come in. I'm not talking about common sense things like reducing or eliminating foods which can cause allergies, although this seems to be the opening which allowed the current control frenzy to enter).

I'd be all for changing the pedagogical model and school environments; Edmonton's system of charter schools is a jumping off point if you are not interested in looking at alternative models like Montessori, Waldorf and so on. Probably get far more bang for the buck (and comparing the cost/student at the Montessori school to the advertized spending/pupil in the current Ontario public school system, it would actually be much more cost effective as well...)


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Dec 2011)

I'm trying to figure out, how we went from a bunch of people that think we owe them a living, raping each other, doing drugs and assaulting one another in tent cities, to kids getting enough to eat to make them smart.

I agree with a poster who previously espoused (paraphrase) If you have the answers, why aren't you initiating them? Why aren't you working for the UN? Where are your outraged morales?

Put them to work, instead of whining and discussing them here. Think of all the wasted energy you've spent arguing your points here while the socialist classes live in decay and children grow stupid because they aren't being fed.

Sorry, needed to get that off my chest, simply, because this thread has gone beyond the sublime to the ridiculous.

Just MHO and :2c:


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Dec 2011)

Update from the Peg aka Winterpeg.

The "Occupy Winnipeg: movement wanted to bring in straw bales for a windbreak and a trailer - and were told "NO".

http://www.winnipegfreepress.com/local/occupiers-ok-hay-bales-not-134896663.html

Poor muffins..... :'(

 >


----------



## a_majoor (2 Dec 2011)

Recceguy

The evolution of the thread makes sense to me, after having our fun mocking the #occupy movement *we* (being generally practical people) start looking at the issue to see if there really is anything to it, and extracting the small crumbs of truth from the dross, see if there are any real solutions (political, economic, practical etc.)

I suspect far more people on this board are doing *something*, even if it is local volunteerism or advocacy for something of practical worth from local politicians (even writing letters to the editor counts in its own small way) than is generally known or suspected. After all, most people join the military because they want to do and experience things, as we get older and more experienced then our horizons expand as well.

WRT the "real solutions", they will obviously not resemble anything the #occupiers or their enablers will come up with...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (2 Dec 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Recceguy
> 
> The evolution of the thread makes sense to me, after having our fun mocking the #occupy movement *we* (being generally practical people) start looking at the issue to see if there really is anything to it, and extracting the small crumbs of truth from the dross, see if there are any real solutions (political, economic, practical etc.)
> 
> ...



Fair enough


----------



## OldSolduer (2 Dec 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> WRT the "real solutions", they will obviously not resemble anything the #occupiers or their enablers  will come up with...



We used to call them dirty rotten Russian Commies!


----------



## ModlrMike (2 Dec 2011)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> Update from the Peg aka Winterpeg.
> 
> The "Occupy Winnipeg: movement wanted to bring in straw bales for a windbreak and a trailer - and were told "NO".
> 
> ...



I can't wait until it actually gets cold here.


----------



## muskrat89 (2 Dec 2011)

> 1. Any business will only hire the amount of labour it needs (demands) at the lowest possible price. The price is dependent on the overall demand for that type of labour and how many of those workers actualy exist. Plumbers and other skilled tradesmen are in short supply these days, hence the pretty good living skilled trades make.



http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/12/02/on-job-hunt-manufacturing-jobs-readily-available-with-no-skilled-workers-to/

Anyone who tells you the jobs just aren’t out there, has not spoken with the employers at Excel Foundry and machine in Pekin, Illinois. That company is trying to expand but is having difficulty.

Excel says the reason for this is because recruiters cannot fill the job vacancies. Yes, you read that right, they can not fill the vacancies. 

“We’re absolutely frustrated, we’re doing everything we can to attract employees we desperately need right now,” says Doug Parsons with Excel.

The catch is that Excel, like many U.S. manufacturers, is looking to hire skilled workers. That means tradesmen with training like welders, pipe fitters and machinists. That is where the problem lies.

For most Americans while in their high school years, the pressure was on to go to college and get a degree. Trade schools were looked at as a back up plan for those who did not excel. 

Larry Sarff with Morton Industries says, “One of the problems in finding people is the perception that manufacturing is a dying art and that jobs are not going to be there because they're being sent overseas.”



Read more: http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/12/02/on-job-hunt-manufacturing-jobs-readily-available-with-no-skilled-workers-to/#ixzz1fPeUhY5U


----------



## Redeye (2 Dec 2011)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> Then there's complimentary lunch in the teacher's lounge, complete with doggy bags for leftovers. They save money that can be put towards their own personal entertainment/betterment. More and more people are winning here...



It sounds like a brilliant idea - and as long as the contracting is done right, the quantity ordered can always be adjusted to match demand once a good estimate of what the demand is - the problem being the potential stigma. However, from what I gather, things like breakfast programs are well-utilized, not so much an issue.

When I was a course officer, I was constantly frustrated by how much food we threw out form hayboxes. One of the candidates solved that by being the first person to show up with TupperWare to take the leftovers home. And most of the course followed suit. I thought it was great, since it would go to waste otherwise.


----------



## Hammer Sandwich (2 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> ... the first person to show up with TupperWare to take the leftovers home. And most of the course followed suit. I thought it was great, since it would go to waste otherwise.



I didn't know that it was allowed in my neck of the woods...(we thought we were outlaws.....pie outlaws)....but my kid got to eat a lotta great pies/cakes before I got out.

God bless the NS foods......


----------



## vonGarvin (2 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> When I was a course officer, I was constantly frustrated by how much food we threw out form hayboxes.


Unless grade 5 PRBs kids at the rate I do on DP 1.1, this won't be a problem.  The problem is that for us, we order food for "x" candidates, and then the candidates let us down by failing.  But the food is already ordered.


For the kids, even if there is overage, it's better than being under.  My  :2c:


----------



## Retired AF Guy (2 Dec 2011)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/12/02/on-job-hunt-manufacturing-jobs-readily-available-with-no-skilled-workers-to/
> 
> Excel says the reason for this is because recruiters cannot fill the job vacancies. Yes, you read that right, they can not fill the vacancies.
> 
> ...



It not just an American problem, its also a Canadian problem. I remember reading a newspaper writeup (not sure *G & M*, *National Post* or *Kingston Whig*) about the problem companies were having not only in hiring people for blue collar jobs, but when they did get someone, they had no clue how to handle the equipment. I remember one guy saying that some guys didn't even know how to hold a hammer properly. The other problem was that many of them had no work ethic (e.g.) showing up at work on time.


----------



## Bass ackwards (2 Dec 2011)

Retired AF Guy said:
			
		

> The other problem was that many of them had no work ethic (e.g.) showing up at work on time.



I was 33 years old before I ever heard the term "blow a shift" (for those not in the know, this refers to not showing up for work and not calling in to advise your supervisor about it).
I was used to places where "blowing a shift" would either get you charged (the military) or fired (any non-unionized place in the known world).

Fourteen years later, I'm an oddity in that I don't "blow shifts". I'm certainly not the only one, but it _is_ a common thing in today's workforce.


----------



## mariomike (2 Dec 2011)

Bass ackwards said:
			
		

> I was 33 years old before I ever heard the term "blow a shift" (for those not in the know, this refers to not showing up for work and not calling in to advise your supervisor about it).



We called it Fail To Report FTR,  aka "a quiet shift" for the partner who _did _show up.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Dec 2011)

#occupyfail. This is the sort of thing they should have been protesting; millions of taxpayer dollars to rich hollywood diretor to produce pro administration propaganda. Even if One Economy were able to hire Leni Riefenstahl or Sergei Eizenshtein this is still wrong...

http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/12/02/how-did-obamas-stimulus-end-up-paying-a-rich-hollywood-director-to-produce-a-web-video-show/?print=1



> *How Did Obama’s Stimulus End Up Paying a Rich Hollywood Director to Produce a Web Video Show?*
> 
> Posted By Bryan Preston On December 2, 2011 @ 9:12 am In Culture,Economy,media,Politics | 5 Comments
> 
> ...


----------



## Spanky (3 Dec 2011)

I guess I should have checked in to read the whole "feed the student" conversion.  Having properly fed students does make it easier for them to learn and decreases some negative behaviour.  We are running a snack program here at my school of 430 kids.  They have daily access to fresh fruit and veggies, cheese and crackers a couple of times a week (cheese is expensive)  and bag lunches of juice boxes, granola bars, fruit cups and cheese and cracker packages.  The lunches are for those who request it, and we issue 5/6 a day.  We have parent and student volunteers that do the preparation and cleanup.  This year we'll spend close to $8,000.  
If it were to be a national program that involves all students, it should be funded by lottery and bingo proceeds, as well as cigarette and booze taxes, since that's where a lot of the money for proper breakfasts and lunches goes to in the first place.


----------



## PMedMoe (3 Dec 2011)

Spanky said:
			
		

> If it were to be a national program that involves all students, it should be funded by lottery and bingo proceeds, as well as cigarette and booze taxes, since that's where a lot of the money for proper breakfasts and lunches goes to in the first place.



Got stats for that?


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Dec 2011)

I suspect a _universal_ (every kid in the province is entitled to a free breakfast and lunch every school day) programme could be easily funded through taxes - making the lunch a taxable benefit for every taxpayer with school age kids. It becomes a _progressive_ tax: those with annual family gross incomes of, say, $45,000 (two minimum wage jobs) pay nothing, even if they have a half dozen kids in school, while those with gross family incomes of, say, $120,000.00 (many, many CF families) pay enough to feed their own two and two or three others) while those with gross family incomes of $200,000 (still several CF families) pay for about six or seven kids, even though they have only one in school.


----------



## Redeye (3 Dec 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> #occupyfail. This is the sort of thing they should have been protesting; millions of taxpayer dollars to rich hollywood diretor to produce pro administration propaganda. Even if One Economy were able to hire Leni Riefenstahl or Sergei Eizenshtein this is still wrong...
> 
> http://pjmedia.com/tatler/2011/12/02/how-did-obamas-stimulus-end-up-paying-a-rich-hollywood-director-to-produce-a-web-video-show/?print=1



More poutrage over basically nothing. The amount of money involved is basically nothing, for a start, and yes, governments hire media folks to produce messaging. How much money do you suspect the Harper Government spends on signs, ads, and so on to tell us what a great job of running the country. And more importantly, what on earth does this have to do with the Occupy movement?!


----------



## Spanky (3 Dec 2011)

PMedMoe said:
			
		

> Got stats for that?


Just anecdotal caused cynicism based on what I've seen over the past 30+ years.


----------



## ballz (3 Dec 2011)

I thought it was widely known, but there are plenty of statistics to show that smoking and alcoholism is more prevalent amongst those living in poverty.

Smoking 
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2006/oct/09/smoking.socialexclusion 
http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/health/355372.stm


> The maps, available online, show how even relatively small areas of deprivation coincide with areas of heavy smoking. In the Princess ward of Knowsley, Merseyside, said to be the most deprived area of England, 52% of the population smoke, compared with a national average of 26%. Three of the other four most deprived wards are in Liverpool and the last is in Manchester. Smoking rates there are between 42% and 46%.




Alcohol
http://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/S0306460301001812


> Results indicate that (a) increased poverty causes increased alcohol use and alcohol problems, and (b) recent unemployment decreases alcohol use while longer unemployment increases it.



EDIT to add quotes


----------



## Nemo888 (3 Dec 2011)

Spanky said:
			
		

> If it were to be a national program that involves all students, it should be funded by lottery and bingo proceeds, as well as cigarette and booze taxes, since that's where a lot of the money for proper breakfasts and lunches goes to in the first place.


Bwahahaha It's funny because it's true.



			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I suspect a _universal_ (every kid in the province is entitled to a free breakfast and lunch every school day) programme could be easily funded through taxes - making the lunch a taxable benefit for every taxpayer with school age kids. It becomes a _progressive_ tax: those with annual family gross incomes of, say, $45,000 (two minimum wage jobs) pay nothing, even if they have a half dozen kids in school, while those with gross family incomes of, say, $120,000.00 (many, many CF families) pay enough to feed their own two and two or three others) while those with gross family incomes of $200,000 (still several CF families) pay for about six or seven kids, even though they have only one in school.



Maybe poor/broken home high schoolers would find a reason to go to school everyday. It could even make a dent in the drop out rate. I would consider such a program a long term investment. That is why it will never happen. Our politicians have chosen to try to escape their middle class life by doing enough favours that they get well rewarded once they leave office. We are the ones to blame for this of course. People try for the best paying jobs they think they can get. Perhaps making politics a little less profitable would be a step in the right direction.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Dec 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Our politicians have chosen to try to escape their middle class life by doing enough favours that they get well rewarded once they leave office. We are the ones to blame for this of course. People try for the best paying jobs they think they can get. Perhaps making politics a little less profitable would be a step in the right direction.



Which is really the whole point of the TEA Party movement and the Libertarian world view. By cutting away huge chunks of government and retrenching on the essentials (in this POV protection from internal and external threats, protection of property rights, free speech and association and a neutral arbitrator of disputes) politics would be much less "profitable" and crony capitalism would have a far more limited area to grow and prosper. After all, if you have no favours to offer, then there will be no corresponding handouts to you in return...


----------



## Redeye (4 Dec 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Which is really the whole point of the TEA Party movement and the Libertarian world view. By cutting away huge chunks of government and retrenching on the essentials (in this POV protection from internal and external threats, protection of property rights, free speech and association and a neutral arbitrator of disputes) politics would be much less "profitable" and crony capitalism would have a far more limited area to grow and prosper. After all, if you have no favours to offer, then there will be no corresponding handouts to you in return...



That sounds great in principle, but the reason the Tea Party movement is the bought-and-paid-for darling of those crony capitalists - the energy industry, the banks, etc, is that those policy moves will only make them stronger, and more able to exploit what's left of the middle class, while they continue to get richer and stronger. Things like scrapping environmental regulations are what they want. What good is private property when it's been scorched by the actions of industry and you can't enjoy it? What recourse will you have without government enforcing standards for emissions etc? At what cost prosperity? What about their desire to thrash public education? How does one realize any semblance of the American dream without an education? How does America (or anyone else) complete with places like India and China churning out highly educated people who will bring forth great innovation, when their education standards keep eroding, and fewer people have access to advanced education unless they happen to be the product of "lucky sperm"?

The most intelligent description of the goals of "Occupiers", among those who actually have intelligent things to say which surely isn't all of them, is this: "The idea is to provoke a discussion about society - have we created the society we really want, or could we do something better?" I tend to think we could, and the means and end state are worth discussing in some form.


----------



## Edward Campbell (4 Dec 2011)

Even though I do it, as illustrative _shorthand_, I think it is wrong to try to make the Tea Party into one, big amorphous mass. It is true that several Republican congressmen were elected by trumpeting some Tea Party principles but, in my view, the Tea Party _movement_ is more complex than that. I think that most Tea Party adherents want smaller governments which are more firmly grounded in the US Constitution; such governments will, perforce, spend less, too, and should, therefore, also tax less. But beyond that desire for smaller, _Constitutionally_ adherent, less _intrusive_ government, I don't think there is too much that unites the Tea Party.

That doesn't mean they are not a force with which American politics must reckon - in fact, I suspect the Tea Party may make itself seen in several state houses and legislatures next year, as well as in the US Congress. But it means that it is not, yet, a third party, although it may split the Republicans in the next few years.


----------



## Redeye (4 Dec 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> Even though I do it, as illustrative _shorthand_, I think it is wrong to try to make the Tea Party into one, big amorphous mass. It is true that several Republican congressmen were elected by trumpeting some Tea Party principles but, in my view, the Tea Party _movement_ is more complex than that. I think that most Tea Party adherents want smaller governments which are more firmly grounded in the US Constitution; such governments will, perforce, spend less, too, and should, therefore, also tax less. But beyond that desire for smaller, _Constitutionally_ adherent, less _intrusive_ government, I don't think there is too much that unites the Tea Party.
> 
> That doesn't mean they are not a force with which American politics must reckon - in fact, I suspect the Tea Party may make itself seen in several state houses and legislatures next year, as well as in the US Congress. But it means that it is not, yet, a third party, although it may split the Republicans in the next few years.



Some of my American friends have looked with interest to the emergence of the Reform Party in Canada and the subsequent fracturing of the right as a model for what they hope the Tea Party might cause. It's interesting that it seems like as much as having a good platform is important, there's also a lot to be said for hoping that certain voting blocks stay home. The GOP would like to keep minorities from getting out to vote, and the Democrats hope for candidates that the religious right/social conservatives don't like so they have a shot. It's a very, very strange game.

What the 2012 election season will bring will be interesting. On the Presidential front, the GOP seems to have a mix of joke candidates, and people that while possibly electable don't have much of a shot in the primary. On the state level, there's lots of backlash against "Tea Party" successes, like in Ohio and Wisconsin, and how that translates into votes will be interesting to watch as well. More specific to the "Occupy" set, I'm interested in seeing who if anyone emerges as a voice for it, and how it impacts voting. At the end of the day, it has a potential fracturing effect too, which isn't really in the interest of the Democrats in the long run.


----------



## vonGarvin (4 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> Some of my American friends have looked with interest to the emergence of the Reform Party in Canada and the subsequent fracturing of the right as a model for what they hope the Tea Party might cause.


And of course, they are really happy when they look at the next step, when the "Unite the Right" movement happens as the "consequence after next".


----------



## Redeye (4 Dec 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> And of course, they are really happy when they look at the next step, when the "Unite the Right" movement happens as the "consequence after next".



Except, anecdotally, it seems like "uniting the right" drove a lot of Red Tories out of the party and into voting more pragmatically - fortunately for the Conservatives, the other two parties failed to seize on that.


----------



## Journeyman (4 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> The most intelligent description of the goals of "Occupiers", among those who actually have intelligent things to say which surely isn't all of them, is this: "The idea is to provoke a discussion about society - have we created the society we really want, or could we do something better?"


Ah yes, the joys of informal fallacies -- in this case _cum hoc ergo propter hoc_. 

We can't say that it was predominantly the unions seeking more power, or the 'rebel without a clue' crowd wanting to protest _anything _ simply because it's what they do. Apparently now, months after the fact, this whole movement was intentionally designed to cause societal discussion? 

Sorry, but evidence of causation is sorely lacking; I believe the term you're looking for is "clutching at straws."


----------



## Redeye (4 Dec 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Ah yes, the joys of informal fallacies -- in this case _cum hoc ergo propter hoc_.
> 
> We can't say that it was predominantly the unions seeking more power, or the 'rebel without a clue' crowd wanting to protest _anything _ simply because it's what they do. Apparently now, months after the fact, this whole movement was intentionally designed to cause societal discussion?
> 
> Sorry, but evidence of causation is sorely lacking; I believe the term you're looking for is "clutching at straws."



I wasn't making an argument as to the relative weight of that POV - unions certainly got in on the concept, and so did a lot of those "rebels" - but there was in a few forums some more interesting conversation. However, it was drowned out by the lack of any sort of order, prioritization, or clear message.


----------



## Journeyman (4 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> I wasn't making an argument as to the relative weight of that POV - unions certainly got in on the concept, and so did a lot of those "rebels" - but there was in a few forums some more interesting conversation. However, it was drowned out by the lack of any sort of order, prioritization, or clear message.


And I'm saying that claiming this cause now is just as logically sound as the guy saying the protest was about big business oppression denying his Masters' degree in Puppetry suitable employment.


----------



## jasonf6 (4 Dec 2011)

Ya, I've never done that myself or even been late for work (that wasn;t weather/traffic related as i take the bus).


----------



## HavokFour (4 Dec 2011)

UC Davis Pepper Spray - What Really Happened

Sorry if this has been posted before.


----------



## Journeyman (4 Dec 2011)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> ]UC Davis Pepper Spray - What Really Happened


Shame the video is 16 minutes long; most of the people who would benefit from seeing it lack that kind of attention span.   :not-again:


----------



## Redeye (4 Dec 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> Shame the video is 16 minutes long; most of the people who would benefit from seeing it lack that kind of attention span.   :not-again:



It's downloading very slowly on my shitty connection, I've watched about the first 7 minutes so far, I'm hoping there's something shocking that justifies the use of OC on passively resisting individuals. You'll have to forgive my skepticism.


----------



## Journeyman (4 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> You'll have to forgive my pre-determined  skepticism.


I suppose the police and their detainees _could_ have just sat down and waited for the protesters to clear an exit route for them...however many days it took.


----------



## ballz (4 Dec 2011)

I was on edge about the police officer's actions before I saw this video, but I gave him the benefit of being on the scene in the heat of the moment and making the best decision he could from where he was standing at the time, not from my chair and in hindsight.

After watching that video, I am glad I afforded him that benefit.

Those protesters stopped being "passive" the minute a few hundred of them they marched over, surrounded (detained) the handful of police, and started bargaining with them if they wanted to be "let go." Now I'm glad they got a face full of pepper spray.

EDIT: And I think what makes it more than fair is the police announced that what they were doing was no longer considered passive, and gave them fair warning that force would be used, and lots of time and opportunities to leave. He even spoke to each individual and told them what would happen.


----------



## Redeye (4 Dec 2011)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I suppose the police and their detainees _could_ have just sat down and waited for the protesters to clear an exit route for them...however many days it took.



And I am trying to watch it to see if there's more to the story, which I wouldn't be surprised by particularly.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Dec 2011)

In most of the word, these people would have been met with deadly force should they try to surround police or security forces, so they should really be counting themselves lucky they only got pepper sprayed (tasered in some jurisdictions).

This should be something to consider for people who advocate for eliminating the ability of the police to respond with less than deadly force.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Dec 2011)

Circling back a bit to the State serving breakfast, here is an example of why this sort of thing isn't an "investment", it is an invitation:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/politics/quebecs-7-a-day-daycare-program-faces-corruption-probe/article2257235/



> '*Quebec's corruption squad adds daycare to its list of probes*
> The Canadian Press
> Published Thursday, Dec. 01, 2011 5:38PM EST
> Last updated Thursday, Dec. 01, 2011 9:41PM EST
> ...


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Dec 2011)

Any "thing" involving humans willl see corruption at some level.  I doubt that a national feeding program would be inherently corrupt, but rather some would try to take advantage of it.  


As for the video of the police and the use of OCS, it's fairly simple what happened.
The police go to an "occupy" camp and announce that they are going to dismantle it (as had been announced the day or so previous)
They warned that anyone who opposed or resisted them would be detained.
They clear the camp, and there are a few detained.
They move the detainees to a central area, awaiting the arrival of the Paddy Wagons
The crowd forms a circle around the police taunting them, effectively telling the police that they will "let them go" if they release the detainees.
At one point a number of the crowd block the route of the police (the "sit in")
The officer tells each person there, individually, that the use of force will be employed if they don't open a path.
It's clear what the police are going to do, and then OCS is used.

I found it ironic that the crowd would see the police as the "enemy".  They tell them to leave and never come back.  I wonder if that would apply if a thug were to break the law on campus and the sheep would once again need protection?

I'm sorry, but if a police officer tells you to do "x", he's saying so with good reason.  It's best to comply.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Dec 2011)

Chris Rock said it best in his vodeo "How to not get you ass beat by police"

*#1: Obey the law*


----------



## Container (5 Dec 2011)

Police are mistaken in their authorities on a daily basis somewhere. 

I can tell you what I would do If I was subject to a cop ******* up- Id let him arrest me. "Yes sir" "no sir" and then followup after I was released. Police forces load up the money cannon on a regular basis- the mild inconvenience of the Canadian legal system isnt worth getting into a dick measuring contest at the height of adrenaline- Thats a fools errand. 

To each his own I suppose. Ive been told to leave places before and Ive never been peppery for refusing.


----------



## vonGarvin (5 Dec 2011)

Container said:
			
		

> *Police are mistaken in their authorities on a daily basis somewhere*.
> 
> I can tell you what I would do If I was subject to a cop ******* up- Id let him arrest me. "Yes sir" "no sir" and then followup after I was released. Police forces load up the money cannon on a regular basis- the mild inconvenience of the Canadian legal system isnt worth getting into a dick measuring contest at the height of adrenaline- Thats a fools errand.
> 
> To each his own I suppose. Ive been told to leave places before and Ive never been peppery for refusing.


And I take it that you've often been mistaken in what you are trying to say?  I'm trying to de-cipher your post, but I'm failing.


----------



## OldSolduer (5 Dec 2011)

Update from Winterpeg:

Its -23 C here this morning with a windchill of -30 C. A tent was burned down in the camp. There's not many of the"occupiers" left.

When an occupier goes into severe hypothermia - who will they ask for help?


----------



## jasonf6 (5 Dec 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> Any "thing" involving humans willl see corruption at some level.  I doubt that a national feeding program would be inherently corrupt, but rather some would try to take advantage of it.
> 
> 
> As for the video of the police and the use of OCS, it's fairly simple what happened.
> ...



Agreed with all of the above.  But what I found hilarious was when they went from being "protesters" to "students".  Which is it?  Are you occupying to "protest" Wall Street and/or High Tuition or are you students blocking the path of police effectively detaining them.  Not a bright move if you ask me.

And like mentioned above, if this happened in say Syria what do you think the outcome would have been?


----------



## Container (5 Dec 2011)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> And I take it that you've often been mistaken in what you are trying to say?  I'm trying to de-cipher your post, but I'm failing.



I cant see whats difficult to understand. With the way law and rules around authority drifts police often commit errors when it comes to their authority. "Often" being one of the tens of thousands of police officers is mistaken somewhere at somepoint and makes case law or a group of officers are operating under a mistaken belief.

The point is that the side of the road is not the time to educate the officer. If he is operating under a mistaken belief it can be remedied in court or through the complaints process. Not when he believes he is in the right and you are wrong. Because when he acts in good faith and drags you in to jail generally speaking he's covered and youre not.


----------



## Robert0288 (5 Dec 2011)

Container said:
			
		

> The point is that the side of the road is not the time to educate the officer. If he is operating under a mistaken belief it can be remedied in court or through the complaints process. Not when he believes he is in the right and you are wrong. Because when he acts in good faith and drags you in to jail generally speaking he's covered and youre not.



Exactly, if you believe that you are right, go get yourself arrested peacefully and fight it out in the court system and/or file complaints.  Jumping up and down and yelling about how what their doing is against the law and resisting arrest is a good way to get yourself tasered or pepper sprayed.


----------



## CountDC (5 Dec 2011)

LOL Sorry but reading this for some reason made me think of the police strike in Halifax.  People went hog wild downtown....until the RCMP entered the scene.  Nothing like a bunch of RCMP walking up the street telling everyone to get their butts out of there and if you were one of the ones that didn't move quick enough a smack with the billy club sure got the message through.   Didn't take long for downtown to be clear and calm again.

Sorry folks but in my books cases like this one needs more of that action vice the pepper spray.  To me you take police prisoner then they can use whatever force they have available to protect and free themselves.  Problem is everyone "knows" they can do what they want and the police hands are tied as far as action goes.  I am surprised that this entire video made it out instead of edited to make the police look bad.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (6 Dec 2011)

Redeye said:
			
		

> It's downloading very slowly on my shitty connection, I've watched about the first 7 minutes so far, I'm hoping there's something shocking that justifies the use of OC on passively resisting individuals. You'll have to forgive my skepticism.



No I won't.  Maybe I'll just sit at the foot of your bed tonight and watch you and the Missus go at it, obviously you won't mind that, since you don't think that when it's legally time to go then it's legally time to go.......and maybe I'll just urinate in your dresser drawers also and I know you won't mind that either cause "I got something to say, I'm not sure what it is, but when I find out........"

They got OCed because its the most humane way of "persuading" folks that its time to do something different today.  If you had even bothered to do a little research before opening your yob you might have read this.....

[and just curious, how would you remove me from your room?]


----------



## a_majoor (6 Dec 2011)

A curious paradox here

The Police are agents of the State, and exercise power on behalf of the State (enforceing laws and protecting people from criminal activity)

#occupy wants the power of the State to rapidly expand to include the "equitable" distribution of pay and benefits according to whatever formula they deem "equitable" (i.e. renumeration would be set by law and not the market)

#occupy would need to dramatically increase the powers of the police in order to track down "hoarders and wreakers" who are unequally taking the division of the spoils. (i.e. people working the black and grey markets, "under the table" payments, concientious objectors to the redistribution program and people who have "gone Galt" and refuse to contribute to the pool).

Yet #occupy disputes the right of the police to enforce the laws and protests when the police do so....

Hmmm.


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Dec 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> #occupy wants the power of the State to rapidly expand to include the "equitable" distribution of pay and benefits according to whatever formula they deem "equitable" (i.e. renumeration would be set by law and not the market)
> 
> #occupy would need to dramatically increase the powers of the police in order to track down "hoarders and wreakers" who are unequally taking the division of the spoils. (i.e. people working the black and grey markets, "under the table" payments, concientious objectors to the redistribution program and people who have "gone Galt" and refuse to contribute to the pool).
> 
> Hmmm.



So - it sounds a lot like Communism here - except as about 300 million or so Eastern Europeans found out it don't work all that well.


----------



## The Bread Guy (6 Dec 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> A curious paradox here
> 
> The Police are agents of the State, and exercise power on behalf of the State (enforceing laws and protecting people from criminal activity)
> 
> ...


 :goodpost:

And when the worst perps are rounded up, the next to go (based on how revolutions past have worked) will be those without _quite_ enough #occupy zeal to take the steps needed to crush the "hoarders and wreakers"....


----------



## OldSolduer (6 Dec 2011)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> :goodpost:
> 
> And when the worst perps are rounded up, the next to go (based on how revolutions past have worked) will be those without _quite_ enough #occupy zeal to take the steps needed to crush the "hoarders and wreakers"....



Don't forget the _intelligentsia_ who don't TOE (not tow) the line.


----------



## jollyjacktar (6 Dec 2011)

I am amazed that we still are talking about these losers.  They're like Julian Assange.  Narcissistic leeches that don't seem to get it when their 15 minutes of fame has flamed out.


----------



## McG (6 Dec 2011)

As the monetary minimum wage has been thoroughly discussed now ...


			
				E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The _problematic_ inequality is very narrowly focused: mainly on the celebrity CEOs. There is not significant problem with, for example, super-rich entrepreneurs like Bill Gates or with super-rich inherited wealth holders like the Rockeffelers - both are super rich but both are productive.
> 
> About 50 years the ratio of CEO salary (and bonuses) to unionized factory worker salary was _about_ 40:1; that was not a problem, nor was 50:1 or 70:1. A ratio of 100:1 is a bit hard to justify by 60,000:1 (Disney's Michael Eisner _circa_ 1995) is impossible to reconcile with any sane definition of "value." The Eisners and the Blankfeins (Goldman sachs) and the Fulds (Lehman Bros.) of this world are the face of the real inequality problem.


What if minimum wage were instead a percentage of any given company's CEO's salary & bonuses?  Small businesses/backyard businesses with modestly paid CEOs would have access to low paid unskilled labour.  The celebrity CEOs would disappear as the resultant cost across a company's workforce would be unaffordable (thus the face of wage inequity would disappear).  

... but, I'm sure it wouldn't take long for someone to find a way around whatever legal mechanisms that create such a system and then reestablish celebrity CEOs.


----------



## tomahawk6 (6 Dec 2011)

The minimum wage is an entry level.Once job experience is earned you move up the ladder.The minimum wage for a Private may be $1000 as he gains experience and time in service his pay increases.CEO pay doesnt go to someone out of college,its usually the apex of one's career,read the result of experience.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Dec 2011)

The simple work around is for the CEO to move and reestablish his company in some location that does not have rules and regulations fixing rates of compensation. He presumably has the knowledge and drive to recreate the company, while all the line workers and corporate staff weenies do not. Real life examples of how eliminating a Celebrity CEO's can negatively affect a company is the history of Apple Inc after Steve Jobs was ousted the first time. Apple declined and was in grave danger of going bankrupt, while Jobs himself was creating new opportunities and wealth at Pixar. John Sculley's tenure as Apple CEO demonstrated that Apple really was personality driven (which is a bit worrisome today). The result of Job's energy, initiative and drive is that as of September 2011, Apple has recently been the largest publicly traded company in the world by market capitalization, and the largest technology company in the world by revenue and profit. (reference Wikipedia).

As was pointed out before, wages for various positions are determined independently of each other (Apple, for example, would have no minimum wage entry level jobs since the company has 0 use for unskilled labour. Apple might hire subcontractors who do use unskilled labour to do gardening on the company grounds, but the subcontractor would set wages based on the supply of workers and demand for gardeners). OTOH, Jobs compensation depended vitally on his delivering unique products that millions of customers around the world were eager to buy.


----------



## Sythen (6 Dec 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> As the monetary minimum wage has been thoroughly discussed now ...What if minimum wage were instead a percentage of any given company's CEO's salary & bonuses?  Small businesses/backyard businesses with modestly paid CEOs would have access to low paid unskilled labour.  The celebrity CEOs would disappear as the resultant cost across a company's workforce would be unaffordable (thus the face of wage inequity would disappear).
> 
> ... but, I'm sure it wouldn't take long for someone to find a way around whatever legal mechanisms that create such a system and then reestablish celebrity CEOs.



A job does not exist because you need work. A job exists because a business requires a service performed. Why should they pay 10 people a percentage of the CEO's money when there is 100 others willing to work for less and earn their way up? Under no circumstances should laws be passed that tell a business what they can and can't pay their employees, with the exception of a standardized minimum wage.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Dec 2011)

Sythen said:
			
		

> A job does not exist because you need work. A job exists because a business requires a service performed. Why should they pay 10 people a percentage of the CEO's money when there is 100 others willing to work for less and earn their way up? Under no circumstances should laws be passed that tell a business what they can and can't pay their employees, with the exception of a standardized minimum wage.



I hope you notice the two statements contradict each other. This is the argument _against_ minimum wages.


----------



## Sythen (6 Dec 2011)

I am a very big supporter of smaller government, but I do realize that there are things that must be regulated. Minimum wage is one of those things. It must be standardized though, and the same for all businesses not based on some % of the CEO's salary... Think about it this way; Google CEO's used to earn $1 a year. (they still might, not really sure and too lazy to look it up)


----------



## a_majoor (6 Dec 2011)

Why "must" wages be regulated at all? Prices are set by the market, and wages are simply the price of labour. 

To see how this distorts the market, consider the effect of price controls on consumer items like food. Milk and milk products are far more expensive in Canada because they are regulated (a minimum wage analogue), which ultimately limits the ability of consumers to purchase milk and milk products and also leads to work arounds (consider the amount of milk and cheese that comes across the border in Windsor as Canadians go grocery shopping in Detroit...). Milk production is also "brittle" in Canada since the number of milk producers and the amount of milk they produce are artificially constrained; there would be no ready way to meet increased demand, and a sudden drop in demand would leave large amounts of milk to be dumped or otherwise destroyed.

Should the government eliminate marketing boards, look for consumer prices to drop and for the production of food become more efficient (and eficient farmers becoming well rewarded for their work).


----------



## McG (6 Dec 2011)

Sythen said:
			
		

> A job exists because a business requires a service performed. Why should they pay 10 people a percentage of the CEO's money when there is 100 others willing to work for less and earn their way up? Under no circumstances should laws be passed that tell a business what they can and can't pay their employees, with the exception of a standardized minimum wage.


?  What I have suggested is an alternate mechanism of setting a minimum wage.  Instead of a flat standard across all companies, the minimum wage could be proportional to the CEO's salary.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Why "must" wages be regulated at all? Prices are set by the market, and wages are simply the price of labour.


... and this is the source of my idea to de-link minimum wage from a universal standard and tie it to something internal to a company.  If the minimum wage is linked as a percentage to the CEO (or alternately the highest company earner to avoid the $1 CEO worries), then market forces are still able to act on how highly a company is prepared to spend on its workforce.


----------



## ballz (6 Dec 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Why "must" wages be regulated at all? Prices are set by the market, and wages are simply the price of labour.



It's been explained already, but I'll get away from the armchair economics.

There needs to be regulation of various sorts because I don't want to live like they did in the industrial revolution, you know, back when you were either a factory owner or a factory worker, back when factory owners lived in excess while the other 99% often died of cholera because their sewage was running through their streets and into their water supply, back when 5 and 6 year olds were worked 12-14 hour days for almost nothing... and guess what, it didn't improve as they "gained skills and experience" like you were advocating, it improved through oppressed people forming unions and bargaining collectively for things like a minimum wage.

That whole invisible hand thing... yeah, non-existent things usually are hard to see.

EDIT to add


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Dec 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Why "must" wages be regulated at all? Prices are set by the market, and wages are simply the price of labour.
> 
> To see how this distorts the market, consider the effect of price controls on consumer items like food. Milk and milk products are far more expensive in Canada because they are regulated (a minimum wage analogue), which ultimately limits the ability of consumers to purchase milk and milk products and also leads to work arounds (consider the amount of milk and cheese that comes across the border in Windsor as Canadians go grocery shopping in Detroit...). Milk production is also "brittle" in Canada since the number of milk producers and the amount of milk they produce are artificially constrained; there would be no ready way to meet increased demand, and a sudden drop in demand would leave large amounts of milk to be dumped or otherwise destroyed.
> 
> Should the government eliminate marketing boards, look for consumer prices to drop and for the production of food become more efficient (and eficient farmers becoming well rewarded for their work).




The answer to the first question is that "we are humans and, therefore, very imperfect." We know from centuries of brutal experience - and I have seen it with my own eyes in 2011 in China - that the "price" of labour can always be driven down, often, indeed usually below its fair market value. We put a (low) floor in place (minimum wage) to deny ourselves (employers and potential employees) the opportunity to let our base instincts and our desperation manage everything.

Here in Texas, where I spend the winter, we could not afford to have someone clean our house and mow our lawn and so on and so forth if we did not have access to (illegal immigrant) workers who happily work for way less than the legal minimum wage - nor would many big businesses have such rosy bottom lines if they had to pay minimum wages for a whole host of jobs in most of the 50 states.

We, Americans and Canadians alike, "protect" various producers - the entire biofuels business, 100% of it, even in Brazil, is a scam - a huge farm subsidy programme that would, under any fair reading of international trade law, be illegal if the biomass was sold for food. We also try to "protect" our domestic labour force by using minimum wages. Successive and criminally weak American administrations, however, have made their borders and their wage policies a bad joke.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Dec 2011)

Edward cuts to the chase as usual. 

McG; while a company may decide on its own to link wages to a percentage of the highest earner's, any company which used market wages would immediately receive a huge advantage in that they could afford to hire whatever labour they needed at the going rate. The company which is overpaying its line workers via the % rate method would have to shed costs somewhere, and that somewhere would be the line workers. Soon, there would no longer be enough workers to do the job, or the company would institute other labour saving methods like outsourcing or investing heavily in robotics and other automation.

Only a % based company which arranged to pay sub market wages by artificially lowering the highest wage earner's wages could gain an advantage, but since the highest wage earners would now be disgruntled, what is to stop _them_ from going to the company that is offering a market wage? Once again, the compay which is not shopping carefully and paying the market rate of wages for _each_ job category will discover it is no longer competitive; they cannot hire enough unskilled labour or they cannot retain their skilled workers. If they say "the hell with it" and pay more than the going rate they will loose their shareholders and investors, since the ROI is no longer in line with the rest of the industry; shareholders and investors want the profits and dividends to accrue to _them_.

Markets have worked since the dawn of human civilization (and possibly long before, flint has been discovered in Neolithic sites that was quarried hundreds or thousands of kilometers away, probably brought as a trading good), they provide accurate information and powerful incentives to move prices and resources (including labour) to wherever the highest rates of return can be found. Distortions caused by manipulating the markets always come with a high price as resources are poorly allocated due to the perverse incentives being created, and this also includes labour.


----------



## McG (7 Dec 2011)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> ... while a company may decide on its own to link wages to a percentage of the highest earner's, any company which used market wages would immediately receive a huge advantage in that they could afford to hire whatever labour they needed at the going rate.  ...


If a % highest-paid min-wage were implemented as an agreed national standard (as opposed to traditional state/provincially set min-wage standards), then that would be the market rate.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> ... while a company may decide on its own to link wages to a percentage of the highest earner's, any company which used market wages would immediately receive a huge advantage in that they could afford to hire whatever labour they needed at the going rate.  ...



If minimum wage were switched from a standard provincially set rate to a % highest-paid rate, it would have to be set such that the majority of companies would already be in-line (Edward suggested that 100:1 was a little outlandish but not unheard of, so maybe that could be the benchmark).  There would be a few companies making difficult balancing decisions between raising the lowest pay rates and/or lowering the highest pay rate(s).  And for a few more companies ...  I predict the celebrity CEO companies would choose to cut that top earner's pay before significantly raising the lowest pay rate - and if a % highest-paid min-wage were implemented as an agreed national standard then the celebrity CEOs' only option for a better wage is to leave country.  Some might, but I predict many more would not because they are in fact already overcompensated and would they would be challenged to find that overcompensation anywhere else.

Where one of the OWS concerns was increasing income gaps, a % highest-paid min-wage would constrain that gap growth.

Edward has nicely laid out why minimum wages are necessary, but you have presented a good illustration of minimum wage negative impacts on small business.  A % highest-paid min-wage would allow small businesses to hire cheaper to stay within their means - though many may choose to pay a higher lower wage to be competitive with larger companies. 

There would be a few years of adjustment, but eventually a market steady-state would take place.   There would be a typical wage range for the unskilled small business labourer.  There would be typical wage ranges for the semiskilled, skilled, various professionals, management and executives of medium to large businesses.  I suspect the steady-state would see companies learning to live within the 100:1 ratio (or whatever becomes set) with lowest paid rates floating somewhere above the min-wage threshold so that flexibility exists to adjust pay at either end of the hierarchy without requiring immediate adjustments across the whole.


----------



## cupper (7 Dec 2011)

They would just simply argue that compensation / remuneration by other means (stock options, bonuses, profit sharing) is not a salary, and would adjust their "salary" downwards, while adjusting all other forms of compensation upwards.

No wait. That's what they do now.

 :nevermind:


----------



## Nemo888 (7 Dec 2011)

Christmas toys are made in China by workers who make 27¢ an hour("illegals" without city permits). Only Santa's elves make less. The workers who make 1.20$ making iPods are lucky. Communism? How about some trade unions for China. It's hard to compete with a country where trade unions are illegal and their are no environmental controls.

Disney Toys
http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=yF8jUDzz5bE#!
Blue Jeans (This documentary was great.)
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x55Rtq5JaUg


----------



## aesop081 (7 Dec 2011)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> How about some trade unions for China.



The work will just shift somewhere else. Stuff at Walmart will just be made in (insert shithole country) instead so the price stays the same, because people will not pay more.



> It's hard to compete with a country where trade unions are illegal and their are no environmental controls.



No. Its hard to compete because unions back here have blackmailed their way into pay, pensions and benefits that are outrageously out of proportion to the work being done.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Dec 2011)

MCG said:
			
		

> If a % highest-paid min-wage were implemented as an agreed national standard (as opposed to traditional state/provincially set min-wage standards), then that would be the market rate.



A mandated wage is _not_ the market wage, which is exactly why low skill, low wage jobs go to China and India (and Chinese low wage, low skill jobs are being outsourced by the Chinese to places like Viet Nam). Markets always adjust to distortions, either by following perverse incentives or shifting resources away from areas where extra cost burdens are imposed.


----------



## a_majoor (7 Dec 2011)

And the end of Occupy LA is a nice piece of police work:

http://pjmedia.com/blog/occupy-l-a-ends-with-a-whimper-not-a-bang/?print=1



> *Occupy L.A. Ends with a Whimper, Not a Bang*
> Posted By Jack Dunphy On December 7, 2011 @ 12:00 am In Crime,Media,Politics,US News | 7 Comments
> 
> When the end finally came, they went with a whimper.
> ...


----------



## Nemo888 (7 Dec 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The work will just shift somewhere else. Stuff at Walmart will just be made in (insert ******* country) instead so the price stays the same, because people will not pay more.
> 
> No. Its hard to compete because unions back here have blackmailed their way into pay, pensions and benefits that are outrageously out of proportion to the work being done.



What you are describing is the destruction of the middle class. Something I am quite fond of. Are you suggesting we prepare for this eventuality?

The occupy movement is not over anymore than the tea party. The media only has two settings it seems. Ignore and frenzy. The feeling that the social contract has been broken is not going away. Until there is some reasoned debate about our future and the pretense that the status quo is the only possible way to do things is dropped there will be more protests. Only the 1% are happy with things as they are now. Wait till they start cutting our pensions. Which is almost inevitable if we don't change course.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Dec 2011)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> The work will just shift somewhere else. Stuff at Walmart will just be made in (insert shithole country) instead so the price stays the same, because people will not pay more.
> 
> No. Its hard to compete because unions back here have blackmailed their way into pay, pensions and benefits that are outrageously out of proportion to the work being done.




It's already happening. The Chinese are attempting to "open" the central and Western provinces to industry - building highways and even more rail lines and expropriating land for (cheap) resale to industrial developers - because too many of those East coast factory jobs are moving to Indonesia and the Philippines where wages are even lower.


----------



## vonGarvin (7 Dec 2011)

OK, I have to ask, after seeing this post:



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> And the end of Occupy LA is a nice piece of police work:
> 
> 
> > Occupy L.A. Ends with a Whimper, Not a Bang
> ...



Are you on a drive to Occupy Army.ca with the longest meanderings posts ever?  

(There ought to be a posting-percentage based upon the top poster's length.  Or stuff)


----------



## ballz (7 Dec 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> It's already happening. The Chinese are attempting to "open" the central and Western provinces to industry - building highways and even more rail lines and expropriating land for (cheap) resale to industrial developers - because too many of those East coast factory jobs are moving to Indonesia and the Philippines where wages are even lower.



Of course, supply and demand theory says that eventually, as globalization occurs more and more and more, wages across the world will reach an equilibrium. That of course, is a long ways off, and barriers such as the Chinese laws against collective bargaining, and censoring the internet, certainly don't aid that process. There is evidence to suggest that this "global standard" is on it's way though. Unfortunately I can't find the YouTube video right now, but I'm sure a lot of us have seen it. That graph with various sized and coloured circles on it that represent different country's, their population, etc, and it shows the standard of living increasing over time.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Dec 2011)

This is where to find hans Rosling's excellent graphs.'

By the way, Chinese labour laws and the roles, rights and _duties_ of trade unions is more complex than most of us realize - especially if we rely upon ignorant American journalists for our "news."


----------



## Nemo888 (7 Dec 2011)

I see more likely a version of the British East India Company. The guys who addicted Chinese to opium so the could get the silver to buy local porcelain. The ones who drove armies around to subvert countries so they could rape them for profits. Globalization being beneficial is not a given. It can go in any direction.


----------



## ballz (7 Dec 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> This is where to find hans Rosling's excellent graphs.'
> 
> By the way, Chinese labour laws and the roles, rights and _duties_ of trade unions is more complex than most of us realize - especially if we rely upon ignorant American journalists for our "news."



Thanks for the link. Could you elaborate on that Chinese stuff? I'll admit to being ignorant about China's way of doing things.


----------



## Edward Campbell (7 Dec 2011)

Trade unions exist in China, but not _independent_ ones; they are all affiliated with this organization which is, de facto, an arm of the CCP. The _main_ role of the Chinese unions is to force employers to pay the legislated (province by province) minimum wage and obey the hours of work laws. This (slightly outdated) article provides a pretty good overview.

Strikes do happen, but rarely and, usually, with the government's approval. It is fairly important to understand that the Central Committee is not monolithic. Post Deng Xiaoping the leadership has switched between two factions:

1. The fairly _right wing_, tooth and claw capitalist _Shanghai Gang_ led by Jiang Zemin; and

2. The _new left_, more socially conscious group led by Hu Jintao.

The role and rights of trade unions contracted under Jiang and have expanded, somewhat, under Hu who uses labour unrest as a prod to encourage better social services.

It is not clear, not to me, anyway, just where on the political spectrum the Party's (apparent) next leader, Xi Jinping, will operate. He is reported to have not been Hu's candiate but he appears not not be a Jiang favourite either. No matter how he governs, the Chinese social safety net is expanding and labour laws are a cornerstone - the welfare state, as we see it, clashes with Confucian values but Zhou Enlai's social reforms, primarily in education, health care and women's rights, are too firmly entrenched to allow much, if any _backsliding_.

The big issue, as far as I have seen, over the past few years for the All-China Federation of Trade Unions, at the government's behest, has been workplace health and safety - a much needed focus, to which anyone who has seen inside a Chinese factory or building site (as I have) will attest. Other issues, including wages for migrants are way down the priority list.

Just for interest: the minimum wage in China ranges up from about $(US)50.00 to $(US)200.00. $(US)80.00 per month is, probably, fair general figure. The standard work week, in most provinces, is 40 to 44 hours before time and half kicks in. None of that, of course, applies to the many tens of millions of migrant workers in China.



Edit: typo


----------



## ballz (7 Dec 2011)

What a perfect video for our talks of China and the US

http://www.gapminder.org/videos/hans-rosling-on-cnn-us-in-a-converging-world/

Very interesting how the best parts of China are already basically on PAR with income and life expectancy as the US. 

As I said, eventually, through globalization, wages _should_ hit equilibrium and everybody in the world _should_ end up living in the upper right corner. Africa of course will probably be last to catch up, eventually when all the cheap places to produce in Asia have run out, factories _should_ start springing up in Africa there to take advantage of the only place left to find cheap labour. I won't live to see it but hey...

Of course, the problem with the supply & demand theory is that the environment often changes much too rapidly for equilibriums to ever be met before another change occurs.


----------



## Nemo888 (8 Dec 2011)

Interesting that extremes always sink the economy. The recession in the 70's  was largely produced by excessive power in the hands of labour. Greedy unions stifling competition. So labour was crushed. Then the financial sector got all the power. Real wages started dropping. Dropping to the point that there was insufficient capital being spent in the economy to keep the system going. So the financial sector stepped in with credit. But this was like deploying flaps to increase lift. Eventually the debt became too large and things came crashing down.

The way out would seem to be increasing wages which get SPENT not invested.  This would feed industry and provide real nutrition to our economy. If we rely on financiers they will try to make another bubble. The equivalent of taking amphetamines when you are hungry. This will only make the system more brittle. The next bubble is already well under way with commodity prices going nuts the last few years. Globalization means labour will keep getting screwed and the buying power of wages will continue to drop. The real economy will continue to wither. This looks like it will get worse not better. 

What do you plan for your kids future when things are so screwed?


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Dec 2011)

I can't believe this is still going.

There seems only two trains of thought here and they are both diametrically opposed.

You're either for the corporate world and everyone else is full of shit, or;

You're a unionist and everyone else is full of shit.

There seems no in between.

So, for the sake of everyone else here that doesn't give a rat's ass or has totally given up on the discussion and with the exception of the very, very, very few posting, that absolutely refuse to budge on their stance..........

Can we give if a friggin' rest!

 :trainwreck:


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Dec 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I can't believe this is still going.
> 
> There seems only two trains of thought here and they are both diametrically opposed.
> 
> ...




RG: if as a member of the staff you think this thread is wasting bandwidth or detracting from the board's aims, etc, then, by all means, lock it. If, on the other hand, as an ordinary member you just don't like then discussion then ...  :ignore:


----------



## Nemo888 (8 Dec 2011)

Ironically my answer was in between. I indicated that either extreme was ruinous to the economy.  The shenanigans they are up to in Europe with fractional reserve banking are going to cause another crisis. We might as well start dealing with it now. I can't believe CIBC is neck deep in that mess with 72 billion in investor assets. So much for our bullet proof banks.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Dec 2011)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> RG: if as a member of the staff you think this thread is wasting bandwidth or detracting from the board's aims, etc, then, by all means, lock it. If, on the other hand, as an ordinary member you just don't like then discussion then ...  :ignore:



As a member of the Staff I would sign my post off as Milnet.ca Staff. If that is not there, I'm posting as a member.

We also attempt, through our own devices, not by rules, to not moderate threads we might be engaged in.

As a member, I have as much right to vent my spleen as any other member.

While I do try to ignore threads like this, I still have to look and read them (somewhat), as Staff, to ensure that posters are complying with the rules.

It's not as simple as  :ignore: as much as I wish it were.


----------



## cupper (8 Dec 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> There seems only two trains of thought here and they are both diametrically opposed.
> 
> You're either for the corporate world and everyone else is full of shit, or;
> 
> You're a unionist and everyone else is full of shit.



I'm on the third train: Everyone is full of shit! :nod:


----------



## observor 69 (8 Dec 2011)

recceguy said:
			
		

> So, for the sake of everyone else here that doesn't give a rat's *** or has totally given up on the discussion and with the exception of the very, very, very few posting, that absolutely refuse to budge on their stance..........



Twice in two days I love this stuff. Am I changing, what's happening?   ???


----------



## HavokFour (9 Dec 2011)

*New York University to offer classes on Occupy Wall Street movement*​
Source



> New York University plans to offer two classes covering the Occupy Wall Street movement next semester, according to a report in The Wall Street Journal.
> 
> A for-credit undergraduate class, offered through the university’s Department of Social and Cultural Analysis, will examine economy and culture and will be called “Why Occupy Wall Street? The History and Politics of Debt and Finance,” according to the Journal. Another graduate-level seminar on the demonstration will also be offered next semester, the report said.
> 
> ...


----------



## Robert0288 (9 Dec 2011)

They now have classes studying the lazy student who do nothing?  Oh wow, I think I have to go back to school  :


----------



## camouflauge (10 Dec 2011)

Will they be offering degrees in occupying? occupation?


----------



## ArmyRick (11 Dec 2011)

I am very competent at occupying.....



......occupying defensive positions!  >


----------



## OldSolduer (11 Dec 2011)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I am very competent at occupying.....
> 
> 
> 
> ......occupying defensive positions!  >



Yes, I think I remember something about that.....hey didn't I teach you that at one point?


I can occupy my time....and others time as well!


----------



## FlyingDutchman (12 Dec 2011)

So, with a degree in occupying, what kind of job would one get?


I think my irony alarm just exploded.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Dec 2011)

More on the "spontaneous" nature of #occupy:

http://datechguyblog.com/2011/12/12/is-conservative-new-media-worth-as-much-as-the-occupods/



> *Is conservative new media worth as much as the occupods?*
> 
> I must admit I’m a bit jealous of the occupods in one respect when I see this post at Don Surber’s blog.
> 
> ...



Second sidebar; Cora's restaurant is accepting donations for a school breakfast program. We don't need to wait for a government program....


----------



## camouflauge (13 Dec 2011)

Look at how well the lefts investments have done in radio. Air America anyone? It’s easy to criticize right leaning funders when the left already dominates the news.


----------



## a_majoor (13 Dec 2011)

A better understanding of the issue. The countervailing position would be to sharply reduce the reach of the State so these concentrated pockets of 1% would not be able to access taxpayer money or use the armed power of the state to enforce their desires on the "99%". 

http://www.forbes.com/sites/realspin/2011/12/12/occupy-wall-street-and-the-myth-of-the-99



> *Occupy Wall Street And The Myth Of The 99%*
> Todd Henderson is a professor at the University of Chicago Law School.
> 
> The ‘Occupy’ movement will never succeed against its “one percent” adversaries until it begins to understand that there is not a single one percent, but rather many.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (13 Dec 2011)

Professor Henderson is right and it is the stupid conceit of the "occupiers" to think ... no, wrong word, there was precious little thinking done during the "occupations" ... to believe that they spoke for anything but a collection of tiny minorities. Maybe if ALL the "occupiers" and all the hangers on could believe in one single element they might be a fairly large minority, maybe 25% of Americans or Canadians, but still a minority who want to impose their will on all the other minorities.

It was a silly movement "done," such as it was, by silly, childish people - even the 50 something university professors were spoiled children ... it was "_a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing_."


----------



## a_majoor (18 Dec 2011)

Much hilarity as #occupy now wants to seize a church (and another church's response):

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/12/17/nyregion/church-that-aided-wall-st-protesters-is-now-their-target.html?_r=1



> *Occupy Group Faults Church, a Onetime Ally*
> By MATT FLEGENHEIMER
> 
> For months, they were the best of neighbors: the slapdash champions of economic equality, putting down stakes in an outdoor plaza, and the venerable Episcopal parish next door, whose munificence helped sustain the growing protest.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (22 Dec 2011)

More to do with the idea of school meal programs. This is a horrifying example of the law of unintended consequences, students moving from pizza to cheetos rather than accept the (substandard) "healthy" offerings.

The lesson I draw from this is it may be far cheaper and more effective to support voluntary programs and charity initiatives (like the one Cora's is offering), or for that matter, starting your own rather than getting an expensive and counterproductive program like the one outlined here:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2011/12/why-pilot-projects-fail/250364/



> *Why Pilot Projects Fail*
> By Megan McArdle
> 
> Dec 21 2011, 2:22 PM ET 430
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (27 Dec 2011)

But wasn't the TEA Party movement supposed to be the violent movement?

http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/2011/12/occupy-eugene-protester-choked-and-beaten-to-death-at-camp-occupy-death-toll-at-9/



> *#Occupy Eugene Protester Choked and Beaten to Death at Camp – #Occupy Death Toll at 9*
> Posted by Jim Hoft on Sunday, December 25, 2011, 11:29 AM
> 
> #Occupy Eugene protester Rich Youngblood was choked and beaten to death at the camp this week.
> ...



"The System" beat and choaked a man to death? Pathetic evasion of responsibility. The fact the city council waited until now is also a pathetic evasion of responsibility as well...


----------



## muskrat89 (28 Dec 2011)

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-wilson/2011/12/28/99-percent-top-25-occupy-wall-street-backers-worth-over-4-billion#ixzz1hqMZ2AOC


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 Dec 2011)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> http://newsbusters.org/blogs/paul-wilson/2011/12/28/99-percent-top-25-occupy-wall-street-backers-worth-over-4-billion#ixzz1hqMZ2AOC




.......and most of the 'support' that these 1%ers gave was moral : The big money came from Unions and other communist front groups. Of course no one can account for that money, who spent it or who banked it. Couldn't have been the 'organizers'. There weren't any, right? 


Arrrggghhh. I let myself get dragged back here :blotto:

OK, gone again


----------



## Edward Campbell (3 Jan 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> As usual, the _Good Grey Globe's_ Jeffrey Simpson manages to get economic issues wrong, in this colmn which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:
> 
> http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/opinions/opinion/who-wants-to-talk-about-income-inequality/article2245133/
> 
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (4 Jan 2012)

From the _New Yorker_ on a book the movement published about the movement - highlights mine:


> .... Robinson describes OR Books’ business plan as more “nimble” and less “stupid” than the standard publishing model. “We don’t have warehouses,” he said. “We only do print-on-demand and e-books, and we sell directly from our Web site.” This allows OR to work quickly. All the chapters of “Occupying Wall Street” were in by Tuesday, November 29th, mere hours behind schedule. Robinson and a few other editors spent three days cobbling together a draft, which they sent to a copy editor that Friday night. On Monday, *Robinson e-mailed a Word file to a typesetting company in Chennai, India.* Four days later, he approved the final proof, and sent a PDF to a digital printing company in Minneapolis. On December 16th, the book was mailed to more than a thousand people who had preordered it. Its cover was Robinson’s handwriting on a beer-stained cardboard box.


Helping grow the 99% by foreign outsourcing?  @#$%^&*('ing hypocrites....


----------



## ballz (4 Jan 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> As I said I have no trouble with 40:1, 50:1 and I could even, just, swallow 100:1 (e.g. CEOs earning $4 Million per year would not horrify me). But I cannot fathom how a CEO, any CEO except maybe RIM _circa_ 2005, is worth 189:1.
> 
> I had no problem with Frank Stronach making two digit millions when he owned _Magna_, now that he is an _employee_ of a publicly traded company sharholders ought to be up in arms - he's just not that good; his contribution to shareholder value this year is not worth what he's being paid. (See here: _"*Magna International Inc. (MGA)* posted a decrease in profit to $272 million or $1.11 per share in the second quarter of the year from $315 million or $1.39 per share in the prior-year quarter (all excluding unusual items). With this, the company has missed the Zacks Consensus Estimate of $1.36 per share."_) (I know he's gone, now - or going, but he ought have left or leave $60 million behind.)



I was watching BBN on the plane last night and they were talking about this report. Apparently, those 100 CEOs also have an average of 20 million in stock options available.

But don't worry Mr. Campbell, all this wealth is going to "trickle down" right?


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jan 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> I was watching BBN on the plane last night and they were talking about this report. Apparently, those 100 CEOs also have an average of 20 million in stock options available.
> 
> But don't worry Mr. Campbell, all this wealth is going to "trickle down" right



So lets imagine a world where these evil CEO's did not exist.

Subtract the amount of economic activity their companies add to Canada's GDP both directly and also eliminate the tax receipts the various levels of government receive from them.
Eliminate the jobs of all the people employed by their companies and add that number to the unemployment rate.
Calculate the second and third order effects of these companies no longer existing and ordering raw material and finished products and sub assemblies, buying energy or hiring advertizing agencies, transport companies to deliver finished goods, buying support services ranging from janitorial jobs to running the company cafeteria, etc.
Remove the economic activity and employment of these supporting companies from the national totals since their main source of income has been eliminated.

Since the CEO's don't exist in your world, the chances of their companies existing in anything like their present form is also non existent. Thinking there will be "substitute" companies is problematic, to say the least (based as they are on individual talents and interests). If there are active measures to curb executive incomes, the chances of equally talented people exerting themselves to create such "substitute" companies is correspondingly less.

Congratulations. We are now in a much poorer nation with fewer opportunities and outlets for _all_ Canadians.

If you don't like the CEO's pay, you do have options:
Don't patronize these companies or purchase their products, goods or services.
Divest your investment portfolio, mutiual funds etc. of all shares and investments in these companies.
Become an active shareholder and make your objections known at the annual meeting.


----------



## ballz (5 Jan 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> So lets imagine a world where these evil CEO's did not exist.



We don't have to imagine, just go look at the country that's occupied the #1 spot of the UN Human Development Index for 9 of the last 11 years.



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Subtract the amount of economic activity their companies add to Canada's GDP both directly and also eliminate the tax receipts the various levels of government receive from them.
> Eliminate the jobs of all the people employed by their companies and add that number to the unemployment rate.
> Calculate the second and third order effects of these companies no longer existing and ordering raw material and finished products and sub assemblies, buying energy or hiring advertizing agencies, transport companies to deliver finished goods, buying support services ranging from janitorial jobs to running the company cafeteria, etc.
> Remove the economic activity and employment of these supporting companies from the national totals since their main source of income has been eliminated.
> ...



I'll let everyone else use their own common sense to realize how realistic or not this claim is.... 



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> Congratulations. We are now in a much poorer nation with fewer opportunities and outlets for _all_ Canadians.



Kind of like Norway? As opposed to a world where Canadians see absolutely no increase in their average wage, despite a ton of economic growth? Because all that wealth isn't trickling down like your flawless supply-side theory claims it will?



			
				Thucydides said:
			
		

> So lets imagine a world where these evil CEO's did not exist.



As per usual, you're trying to pretend that I am a complete left-winger. I never said CEOs were evil, I never said they shouldn't exist. I just don't believe in your ridiculous absolutes. I believe every country has it's own problems, and it's own solutions... which conflicts with your train of thought, where every country's problem's can be solved with the exact same solution.


----------



## ballz (5 Jan 2012)

And no, I'm not going to ever call CEOs "job-creators." While they usually do create jobs, it's purely out of inconvenience to them. If they could build a product/company by themselves to increase their wealth, they would. And if transferring those jobs to China increases their wealth, they will.

I'm not blaming them. There's nothing wrong with wanting to increase your personal wealth.

But for the same reason, there is nothing noble about paying someone a wage only because it will make you more money, either.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Jan 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> there is nothing noble about paying someone a wage only because it will make you more money, either.



It may not be noble but there's nothing wrong with it either.


----------



## Journeyman (5 Jan 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> As per usual, you're trying to pretend that I am a complete left-winger.


 A downside of the internet is that people are judged merely upon their words. 

It's not simply a matter of losing inflection and nuance, it's the reality that if it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, people are pre-disposed to believe....


----------



## Nemo888 (5 Jan 2012)

Thucydides thinks Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan are left wingers. To him 98% of the population is too left wing. Don't be ashamed of liberal and pragmatic values that deal with reality. An ideologue that openly supports the ridiculous tenets of Ayn Rand's objectivism cannot be taken seriously.


----------



## aesop081 (5 Jan 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> liberal......values.......reality



LMFAO !!


----------



## Journeyman (5 Jan 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Thucydides thinks ...


Just as well I was commenting on ballz then, and not Thucycides...   :


----------



## GAP (5 Jan 2012)

owned  :rofl:


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 Jan 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Thucydides thinks Margaret Thatcher and Ronald Reagan are left wingers. To him 98% of the population is too left wing. *Don't be ashamed of liberal and pragmatic values that deal with reality.* An ideologue that openly supports the ridiculous tenets of Ayn Rand's objectivism cannot be taken seriously.



Like the gun registry? :


----------



## ballz (5 Jan 2012)

CDN Aviator said:
			
		

> It may not be noble but there's nothing wrong with it either.



No there's not and I certainly never said/meant that there was. It's a mutually-beneficial relationship. A welder does not owe any more thank-you's to his boss than his boss does to him. His boss certainly does not deserve to be held up on some pedestal as the saviour of the unemployed.



			
				Journeyman said:
			
		

> A downside of the internet is that people are judged merely upon their words.
> 
> It's not simply a matter of losing inflection and nuance, it's the reality that if it acts like a duck and quacks like a duck, people are pre-disposed to believe....



I realize and accept that when discussing things with Thucyclides I'm going to look like and quack like a left-winger. That's sort of a given, seeing how far to the right on the spectrum he's coming from.

That said, if anyone were to read my other posts that aren't contesting his points, they should know better. I have said in the Attawapiskat thread that entrepreneurship is ultimately going to be what improves their living conditions, I have suggested that small-businesses should be taxed at 0% for the first five years unless they record a certain level of profit in order to encourage entrepreneurship, and on the provincial level here in NFLD I've gone batshit insane arguing about why we should privatize the liquor industry and snow-removal/road construction, etc. EDIT: Oh yes, and cut the amount people are getting for unemployment and increase the amount of hours they need to get it. The old 10 weeks on / 42 weeks off thing does not ring well with me /EDIT. Those are clearly not left-wing arguments.

And other than pointing at Norway, I haven't even hinted that Canada should take state-control of it's natural resources, and I certainly don't think that we should. I was just pointing out that Thucyclides's frequent arguments that suggest that it's as simple as the further left you go the shittier everybody's life gets, and the further right you go the better everybody's life gets, are simply not as "absolute" as he tries to make it seem.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jan 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> That said, if anyone were to read my other posts that aren't contesting his points, they should know better. I have said in the Attawapiskat thread that entrepreneurship is ultimately going to be what improves their living conditions, I have suggested that small-businesses should be taxed at 0% for the first five years unless they record a certain level of profit in order to encourage entrepreneurship, and on the provincial level here in NFLD I've gone batshit insane arguing about why we should privatize the liquor industry and snow-removal/road construction, etc. EDIT: Oh yes, and cut the amount people are getting for unemployment and increase the amount of hours they need to get it. The old 10 weeks on / 42 weeks off thing does not ring well with me /EDIT. Those are clearly not left-wing arguments.



So in other words you are arguing for _exactly the same sorts of reforms_ that I would like to see.

Glad you cleared that up then....


----------



## ballz (6 Jan 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> So in other words you are arguing for _exactly the same sorts of reforms_ that I would like to see.
> 
> Glad you cleared that up then....



Yes (to some extent), like I said before about supply-side economics many times, I just want to see it applied with some sense of reason/logic. I've admitted that in the past it's been successful, based on certain circumstances it was the right move. It's also been unsuccessful, because it was applied in the wrong circumstances. I don't want to see mutli-billion dollar corporations receive a tax break, because they will not reinvest the money, they have no reason (competition) not to just keep it and pay themselves. If they wanted the money, they'd get it from a bank.

I want to see that money instead put in the hands of people who actually need/want the money to compete, who want that money to grow their business, because they're not rich but they want to be rich, and can't get that money from the banks. In other words, small businesses.

I don't want to see blanket tax-cuts, I want to see tax-cuts applied where it's going to have the most impact. The driver of the Canadian economy are it's natural resources and small-time entrepreneurs. Aim the money at the right places, don't just hand it out without aim (aka cut the corporate tax-rate).

We all usually agree that "throwing money willy-nilly" doesn't solve problems, that's what I think blanket tax-cuts are. That is where you and I  disagree (from what I can see anyway).


----------



## ModlrMike (6 Jan 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> Aim the money at the right places, don't just hand it out without aim (aka cut the corporate tax-rate).



You do realize that something on the order of 90% of Canadian corporations have fewer than 50 employees, and of that most have fewer than 10? Small-time entrepreneurs do benefit from across the board tax cuts.


----------



## ballz (6 Jan 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> You do realize that something on the order of 90% of Canadian corporations have fewer than 50 employees, and of that most have fewer than 10?



Yes, I do, it's why I said "small business is the driver of the Canadian economy."

Those small corporations with fewer than 50 employees are generally private corporations, and have quite a different tax system from the larger public corporations that are generally talked about in elections. When they talk about cutting the corporate tax rate by 2%, it applies to both public and private corporations.

That said, the biggest advantage is the small-business tax-break, which applies for those recording revenue of $500,000 or less. The tax-break is 11% off of the corporate tax rate. Cutting the corporate tax rate by 2% saves those small corps waaaay less than $10,000 per year (it's less because 1. it's only for revenue, not profit and 2. they lose 2% off of their expenses as well... so the only way it saves a $500,000 business the full $10,000 is if they don't have any expenses that year... which is impossible...) which is dick-all and is not going to go very far...

That 2% cut to the corporate tax rate really only benefits the bigger companies, who are making much, much more revenue.



			
				ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Small-time entrepreneurs do benefit from across the board tax cuts.



Barely, as described above.

EDIT: A little background info on corporate taxes for private corps in Canada... 

http://sbinfocanada.about.com/od/corporatetax/a/ccpcadvantages.htm


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jan 2012)

A very nice summary:

http://inspiringyoutothink.blogspot.com/2012/01/in-defence-of-free-market.html



> *In Defence Of The Free Market*
> 
> I made a comment on CEO pay being just fine.  I had a thoughtful individual make some points (bold), with my responses below:
> 
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (6 Jan 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> A very nice summary:
> 
> http://inspiringyoutothink.blogspot.com/2012/01/in-defence-of-free-market.html




Nice enough but wrong in two key points:

1. Most CEOs who are paid more than, say, 75:1 are not *earning* what we, the owners (shareholders), are paying them; and

2. Ethics is never a nice to have and it does not depend upon making a profit. One is either ethical or one is a crook, or, at least, a bum. And crooks and bums are not good CEOs.


----------



## GAP (6 Jan 2012)

Excellent article...kinda makes the occupy movement's argument look like a collander....


----------



## ballz (6 Jan 2012)

It's a good article, and it really does point out that people are the problem, which is true. But there is only one way to prevent the "human" element from ruining the entire beauty of supply & demand... and that's through legislation and regulation. As Mr. Campbell stated earlier, the problem is "people aren't perfect."

Here's a few places where the "theory" meets "reality"

"If performance violates profits, do we still keep the CEO and violate our 'rule for profit'?  If yes, we are not just 'out for profit'.  If no, then the sole reason for hiring/paying CEO is not solely place in company…can't have it both ways." 

It is, unfortunately, the "yes." These Boards, CEOs, CFOs, etc do not solely act in the best interest of the company's "profit." They also act for their own best interest and their own profit. CEOs frequently sit on the Board of Directors for other CEOs, for example, and pay each other accordingly.... This inflates the cost of a CEO or CFO or some other executive, and well... brings us to where the US is, and to where Canada is apparently headed...

' "If a zombie were to have 'made his way up' to CEO (to the shocking surprise of every person watching), does the board keep him there after they learn he is a certified zombie? Do they say, "well, he is now our CEO and is therefore entitled to earn wages of huge proportions."?  NO!  They say, "he is a zombie, failing to do his job, he's fired. '

Actually, they quite frequently do. Look what happened in 2008 when all that bailout money was paid, and the CEOs, who had clearly failed, did not just get to keep their job, they received bonuses from that bailout money.



I love entrepreneurship and I love supply & demand... but it's not perfect and it never will be, but good legislation and regulation can help bring it closer to perfect, without completely destroying the "free market."


----------



## a_majoor (8 Jan 2012)

Wow, for one of the organs that was cheerleading the #occupy movement they sure are acting like the 1%. But its ok because they are not eeeeeevil Republicans or capitalists, so it does not have to be reported....

http://www.forbes.com/sites/kylesmith/2012/01/05/the-new-york-times-goes-all-in-with-the-1-percenters/



> *The New York Times Goes All In With The "1 Percenters"*
> 
> It’s a classic American saga of top hats against hard hats, lions versus sheep, the one percenters and the forgotten 99. It’s a story about fundamental unfairness, corporate excess, and naked greed. There are exploited workers seething in revolt and spoiled plutocrats floating along on clouds of happy oblivion.
> 
> ...


----------



## McG (8 Jan 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> So lets imagine a world where these evil CEOs [making more than 100:11] did not exist.
> 
> ...
> 
> Congratulations. We are now in a much poorer nation with fewer opportunities and outlets for _all_ Canadians.


Your arguments are as irrational as those of your opposition.  We would all be impoverished if it were not for the existence of _superstar_ CEOs making greater than 100:1?  At best that is an exaggeration, though more likely it is a complete fallacy.

A funny characteristic of supply & demand in free markets is that (at a certain point) prices exponentially increase for linear increases of capability/performance/quality/etc and/or status.  You can see this in the magnitudes greater than teenages will pay for a pair of relatively equal jeans just for the label of a specific brand name.  You can see it again in the thousands more required to have a single small screen and a DVD player in a new car purchase.  One gets the most milage from one's money by not climbing past that point of exponential cost growth for linear capability return.  PWGSC has whole procurement selection methods designed to get the best possible product without climbing up (or at least without climbing far up) the the exponential cost curve.

I would hypothesize that the majority of companies with superstar CEOs could have been magnitudes more profitable had they hired CEOs at 75:1 to 100:1 (still well up on the exponential cost curve) and reinvested what would have gone to CEO salary in order to make their middle labour wages more competitive.  In other words, the companies would have done far better investing in an increase of ability across the hundreds of middle management, professions and skilled trades as opposed to the same investment for one guy and whatever status his image brings.


Note 1: Quote corrected for author's strawman embellishment.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jan 2012)

:goodpost:


----------



## Infanteer (8 Jan 2012)

Agreed.

In defence of the 1%, the was an interesting article in Macleans a little while ago (written by Coyne I believe) that pointed to the fact that the 1% pay 25% of all income tax revenue in Canada.  I thought it interesting that so few provided so much.


----------



## GAP (8 Jan 2012)

This one?

http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/10/24/a-phony-class-war/


----------



## muskrat89 (8 Jan 2012)

> In other words, the companies would have done far better investing in an increase of ability across the hundreds of middle management, professions and skilled trades as opposed to the same investment for one guy and whatever status his image brings.



So, why didn't they? Not being argumentative, your post actually made sense to me. But assuming profit is the motive of most of these big companies, and they are being run mostly by Boards, or at least more than one person I'm curious as to why they didn't do what you just suggested. Surely they are not all monopolized by powerful personalities building their respective CEO empires.


----------



## ballz (8 Jan 2012)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> So, why didn't they? Not being argumentative, your post actually made sense to me. But assuming profit is the motive of most of these big companies, and they are being run mostly by Boards, or at least more than one person I'm curious as to why they didn't do what you just suggested. Surely they are not all monopolized by powerful personalities building their respective CEO empires.



That ("investing in an increase of ability across the hundreds of middle management, professions and skilled trades") would be the responsibility of officers that the Board of Director's hires. The corps aren't being run by the Board, they are being run by the officers, and yes, from day-to-day, being run by one person, the CEO. The Board just hires/fires the officers (and decides their compensation).

And many times these are Board's are made up of "powerful personalities" and they do keep each other in mind, since the person who they are voting on today will likely be voting on them in the future... Assuming that profit is the "only" motive for corporations as big as the ones we are talking about is, well, the first mistake.

I agree entirely with MCG, that paying a CEO 75:1 instead of 150:1 and using the other money to invest in good personnel would benefit the companies a hell of a lot more. I took an "organization theory" class with a key theme being the more a company expands, the more it has to decentralize (I, too, am surprised that something I learned in university was bang on the money). 

*Trying to stay in my lane here*
Most people familiar with the military's "Mission Command" style wouldn't argue with that. It's been taught to me over and over again (and I certainly believe it to be true) that "WOs and Sgts are the back-bone of the army," and then there is another article on this website that includes seasoned Captains in that sort of light... While having strong senior leadership is great, I'm guessing we don't need a "superstar" CDS as long as we have good, strong crops of Sgts/WOs/Capts/Majors, and I doubt it would be any different in a large corp.


----------



## vonGarvin (8 Jan 2012)

ballz said:
			
		

> While having strong senior leadership is great, I'm guessing we don't need a "superstar" CDS as long as we have good, strong crops of Sgts/WOs/Capts/Majors, and I doubt it would be any different in a large corp.


I'm not so sure about the first part.  I agree that we need a good, strong crop of Sr NCOs and WOs along with Junior and Sr Officers.  I would offer, however, that the CDS need to be part General, part politician, part snake-oil salesman, part poster child, and so on.  But most of all, the CDS needs to be very good at "being" CDS: we've had very weak people in that position in the past, and though they may have been good General/Flag officers in their element, they were rotten at "being" CDS and the entire CF suffered as a result (my opinion, anyway).


----------



## ballz (8 Jan 2012)

Technoviking said:
			
		

> I'm not so sure about the first part.  I agree that we need a good, strong crop of Sr NCOs and WOs along with Junior and Sr Officers.  I would offer, however, that the CDS need to be part General, part politician, part snake-oil salesman, part poster child, and so on.  But most of all, the CDS needs to be very good at "being" CDS: we've had very weak people in that position in the past, and though they may have been good General/Flag officers in their element, they were rotten at "being" CDS and the entire CF suffered as a result (my opinion, anyway).



Well, I will have to leave it up to you folks with the experience of various CDS's, and the benefit of hindsight, and all the good stuff to determine if I'm out to lunch on that or not. I obviously have either slim or no experience in the matter, and slim left town.

But (and this may be semantics I suppose) you did say "they were rotten at 'being' CDS" where as all I meant by "we don't need a 'superstar' CDS" is that we don't need the equivalent of a "celebrity" CEO. They (a CDS and a CEO) still need to be, at least, quite a ways above the average (which is why they make the big bucks, and is why I can stomach a CEO getting paid 50:1 or 75:1, etc).

"the CDS need to be part General, part politician, part snake-oil salesman, part poster child, and so on." Something I wasn't considering when I drew the parallel (although I should have), the CDS has a harder job than most CEOs.


----------



## muskrat89 (8 Jan 2012)

ballz - I think you missed the thrust of my question.  Knowing human greed as we all do, it is not surprising that many CEO's and associated cronies build their empires at the expense of the good of the company. What is curious to me though is that happens so frequently we can generalize that is usually the case. CEO's and Boards are still beholden to share-holders and other stake-holders so I am surprised it is as prevalent as McG seems to indicate.

By the way, I'm not sure of your experience working in private industry but when I ask these questions, I ask them with some experience under my belt. I have worked for over 25 years in the private sector, from working in huge companies (Emerson, Proctor and Gamble) to small two-man shops. I have been a union member. I have worked in a variety of manufacturing sectors. I have also worked in the service industry (electrical egineering) and the public sector (State of Arizona for a large University). For over half of those 25 years, I worked in various levels of management. I am also finishing up my management degree from NAU, so I have some book-learnin' when it comes to management and organizational theory as well.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Jan 2012)

I'm not taking any side or view on this one. However, I do have a question. We've been going on for a few pages and will probably go on for a few more about how much CEO's make and whether it's fair or not.

To that end, really, how can you force ANY non government, private or publicly traded, organization to pay what you think is fair? What legal mechanism do you have for going to 'ABC General Industries' and saying "You will only pay your CEO 50 times more than your lowest paid worker" or "CEO's in this country will have their salaries and options pegged at no more than $300,000\ year"?

Semantics aside, you can rail for\ against the machine all you wish, but in the end, if you can't force them legally and they slam the door in your face, it's a fart in a windstorm.


----------



## tomahawk6 (8 Jan 2012)

You dont get to be a flag officer without being a politician. The CDS like our Chairman JCS spends alot of time with the civilians that direct and fund the military.The US Army's Chief of Staff is so involved with Congress that the Vice Chief handles the actual day to day operations.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jan 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'm not taking any side or view on this one. However, I do have a question. We've been going on for a few pages and will probably go on for a few more about how much CEO's make and whether it's fair or not.
> 
> To that end, really, how can you force ANY non government, private or publicly traded, organization to pay what you think is fair? What legal mechanism do you have for going to 'ABC General Industries' and saying "You will only pay your CEO 50 times more than your lowest paid worker" or "CEO's in this country will have their salaries and options pegged at no more than $300,000\ year"?
> 
> Semantics aside, you can rail for\ against the machine all you wish, but in the end, if you can't force them legally and they slam the door in your face, it's a fart in a windstorm.




The power to address this lies with large shareholders.

Some, like this fellow, (a former Army officer (1960s/70s) by the way) have taken a role in demanding lower executive compensation when (as is too often the case) business results, return on shareholders' investments, are not good.


----------



## ballz (8 Jan 2012)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> ballz - I think you missed the thrust of my question.



Yes, it seems that way. I certainly have no answer to how it can be so frequent. You're right, the CEO's and Boards are still at the mercy of the share-holders. I can only _guess_ that it usually has something to do with the fact that minority of shareholders hold the majority of shares and they are usually on the board, and so the other shareholders hold a small amount, if any, real influence.



			
				muskrat89 said:
			
		

> By the way, I'm not sure of your experience working in private industry but when I ask these questions, I ask them with some experience under my belt. I have worked for over 25 years in the private sector, from working in huge companies (Emerson, Proctor and Gamble) to small two-man shops. I have been a union member. I have worked in a variety of manufacturing sectors. I have also worked in the service industry (electrical egineering) and the public sector (State of Arizona for a large University). For over half of those 25 years, I worked in various levels of management. I am also finishing up my management degree from NAU, so I have some book-learnin' when it comes to management and organizational theory as well.



Sorry, the stuff where I started saying "I agree entirely with MCG..." and so on wasn't meant to be directed at you. It was just some general thinkin' outloud. I've got a small amount of private sector experience, and I don't consider my book-learnin' very valuable to be honest  In other words, I certainly don't mean to come across as an authority on the subject. Just another arm-chair entrepreneur with his two cents worth


----------



## muskrat89 (8 Jan 2012)

And I wasn't trying to wave my resume around - just framing my questions with some context and trying to demonstrate that I am not firmly in anybody's camp, necessarily.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (8 Jan 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> The power to address this lies with large shareholders.
> 
> Some, like this fellow, (a former Army officer (1960s/70s) by the way) have taken a role in demanding lower executive compensation when (as is too often the case) business results, return on shareholders' investments, are not good.



I'll not disagree Edward, however, I have to think if they were serious about it (major shareholders) I'm sure they would have done something about it by now.

I think what I was trying to say was that no 'outsider' is going to tell anyone (big corporation) what they can, or can't, do without legal recourse (none), especially when it comes to upper management salaries.


----------



## Edward Campbell (8 Jan 2012)

recceguy said:
			
		

> I'll not disagree Edward, however, I have to think if they were serious about it (major shareholders) I'm sure they would have done something about it by now.
> 
> I think what I was trying to say was that no 'outsider' is going to tell anyone (big corporation) what they can, or can't, do without legal recourse (none), especially when it comes to upper management salaries.




It is, I think, a long, laborious process ... and not all CEOs of e.g. pension funds and insurance funds, probably not even many of them, are convinced, yet, that anything needs to be done. But, I think that some, a few, are strarting to take some action now.


----------



## McG (8 Jan 2012)

muskrat89 said:
			
		

> So, why didn't they? Not being argumentative, your post actually made sense to me. But assuming profit is the motive of most of these big companies, and they are being run mostly by Boards, or at least more than one person I'm curious as to why they didn't do what you just suggested. ...


Good question, and one for which I do not believe there is a single unifying answer.  Why will some sports teams pay exponentially more for a single superstar player who does not deliver the corresponding exponential increase in chance to win "the cup"?  As ballz points out, there is a vested interest in board members to not rock the system as they are typically amongst the elite group who do (stand t)o benefit from the exponentially high CEO salaries.  There is also a possibility that boards are motivated by a tendency for the stock market to provide short term rewards as "the pigs" rush to buy into a company for the status of its new celebrity CEO. 

Another factor may be the decision making process that boards are using to select a new CEO.  I recall once having been presented with the idea that most decision making (including strategic decisions) within organizations is done through intuitive decision making models even where other financial or statistical models might have been available.  I did a quick dig through my little library and couldn't find the reference  ... so lets demote this idea to being just a theory.  Even as a theory, this is a fairly compelling explanation.  I am sure we have all seen examples where someone identified the "silver bullet" to all their problems and, costs be damned, the organization was going to get it ... the First World War even provides a huge shopping list of such examples in which the currency was human lives.  As a more current example, many of the Army's current major capital initiatives are based on an intuitive decision of "I must have X."  In many cases, organizations resort to intuitive decisions because they lack either the information (or the ability pull together the information) to apply more rigorous methods - as recently as three years ago (and probably still), the Army was completely unable to look at existing fleets of fighting vehicles and conduct accurate life-cycle cost analysis (LCCA) or replacement analysis (I am given to understanding the RCAF and RCN do a better job with their fleets).  When you consider the challenge of devising a financial model to contrast investing in one CEO vs investing in hundreds of employees, it is not unimaginable to think boards would avoid miring themselves in the work.  And as a final step in this, lets consider Donald Trump's Apprentice - sure it is built for entertainment, but he used it as an interview process to actually hire new executives and he rewarded quick intuitive decision making.  Donald Trump is reflective of the decision makers on these boards.

So, we very well likely have boards using intuitive decision making models and comprised of members who personally stand to benefit from the superstar CEO paradigm.  Intuitive decision making models will bias decision makers in favour of what has been seen to work before, and from the perspective of these decision makers the exponentially higher paid CEO has been seen to benefit their social circle.

Why no push-back from share holders?  Maybe the initial stock-jump when "the pigs" rush in keeps them placated until the hiring is no longer a fresh memory.


----------



## Infanteer (8 Jan 2012)

I can't recall it, but there was another good article in Macleans about the process most boards use to hire CEOs and other Chief Execs.  Most use consulting firms which come up with their estimate based upon what other corporations are doing.  I recall saying that by taking a hands off approach, most boards allowed the inflationary process to take over when compensation and benefits are considered.

Basically, it isn't a matter of what the guy is worth or what is reasonable, but more along the lines of "well they are paying X".


----------



## tomahawk6 (9 Jan 2012)

Alot of envy with this mob. Even in a dictatorship there are the haves and have nots. Protest against a dictator and you risk death or imprisonment. Its a fact of life the bosses are paid more than the help.The General or Colonel make more than the Private or Sergeant. The Union President makes more than the rank and file.


----------



## a_majoor (9 Jan 2012)

#occupyfail

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post_now/post/city-rat-population-has-exploded-around-occupy-dc-camps/2012/01/09/gIQA6AoylP_blog.html?tid=sm_twitter_washingtonpost



> *City: Rat population has ‘exploded’ around Occupy D.C. camps*
> By Annie Gowen
> 
> The rat population around the two Occupy D.C. camps at McPherson Square and Freedom Plaza has “exploded”since protesters began their vigil in October, according to Mohammad N. Akhter, the director of the District’s Department of Health.
> ...


----------



## Edward Campbell (16 Jan 2012)

More, related to what think is the core issue and an issue that matters - income and opportunity inequality, in this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/commentary/barrie-mckenna/in-canada-unlike-the-us-the-american-dream-lives-on/article2303230/


> In Canada, unlike the U.S., the American dream lives on
> 
> BARRIE MCKENNA
> 
> ...




The last bits are important: we still have pretty good _equality of opportunity_ but we must maintain a strong economy to keep the "dream" (of doing better than one's parents did) alive and "living the dream" will help keep the economy healthy. The 'right' answer, for the 99%, is to use the equality that exists to improve their own lot in life, and that of their children. The 'right' answer for the 1% is to protect their children's (and grandchlidren's) wealth by making and implementing policies - in business and governments - that protect and promote equality of opportunity (but *not* equality of outcomes - a silly and destructive goal).


----------



## kstart (17 Jan 2012)

*Democracy Watch* has some interesting suggestions re: cleaning up of government corruption, conflict of interests which can affect how our taxdollars are allocated, whether that's for unconditional bank bailouts and subsidies (e.g. 2009, we gave 70 Billion to CHMC, and together with other subsidies to the amount of over $200 Billion), or in how we award lucrative contracts re: energy, infrastructure, etc. or how corporate lobbying can affect the very laws we pass and don't pass re: e.g. public safety, health and environment regulations, policies, etc.   It's a legistlative approach, vs. radical revolution and it's aimed at more fairness, more truly open-competition among bidders for goverment tax dollar investments (not just who has the most $ and power to influence).

(Figure for Bank Bailout, source: http://cancrc.org/english/relOct1811en.html )

*Government Ethics Campaign*:

*"19 Recommendations for to Clean Up Canada's Lobbying and Ethics Rules Enforcement System"*
http://dwatch.ca/camp/ethicscoal.html#19%20Recommendations%20to%20Clean%20Up%20Canada%27s%20Lobbying%20and%20Ethics%20Rules%20Enforcement%20System

Also of Interest, *The Corporate Responsibility Campaign*:
http://dwatch.ca/camp/corpinvite.html#15%20Recommendations%20to%20Make%20Canada%27s%20Corporations%20Responsible


----------



## a_majoor (17 Jan 2012)

I think this is a good thread for this article, since it demonstrates the polar opposite of the #occupy movement's call for greater State intervention and control. Note that the society being documented here had a far smaller capital base and a far greater disparity in wealth than exists today:

http://www.forbes.com/sites/objectivist/2011/11/18/america-before-the-entitlement-state/



> *America Before The Entitlement State*
> Yaron Brook and Don Watkins Yaron Brook and Don Watkins, Contributor
> 
> Reacting to calls for cuts in entitlement programs, House Democrat Henry Waxman fumed: “The Republicans want us to repeal the twentieth century.” Sound bites don’t get much better than that. After all, the world before the twentieth century–before the New Deal, the New Frontier, the Great Society–was a dark, dangerous, heartless place where hordes of Americans starved in the streets.
> ...



This is the phenomina that Alexis de Tocqueville reported on in "Democracy in America", of Americans being a nation of associations, and this is one of the models that will be revived in a post progressive society where there is no longer any money for "entitlements".


----------



## kstart (17 Jan 2012)

I think the Canadian Occupy movement dropped the ball, got sideswept even with special interest groups, whatever.  I do support the democratic right to peaceful protest, but it is important to be clear on what one is protesting about and on what sorts of changes one would like to see.  

A shared concern among the Occupy movement, abroad are the actions of the government with the banks and taxpayer money spent on the bailouts (without conditions imposed-- and why do CEOs get awarded by taxpayer money, by failures, huge compensation $s and continue to gouge, and lay off employees etc.) and the ramifications for our futures, our economy, our democracy, our sovereignty (re: payback).  Taxes are part of the "social contract" we pay in for services, social safety net to weather contingencies of job loss, health conditions, old age/pensions, education, protection (army, police, ambulance), infrastructure, etc.

http://cancrc.org/english/relOct1811en.html



> After the federal Conservatives weakened lending rules and created a dangerous sub-prime mortgage lending bubble in Canada, the Conservatives then used the "Extraordinary Financing Framework" in their so-called "Economic Action Plan" in 2009 to offer huge, publicly funded subsidies to Canada's big banks and other financial institutions of more than $200 billion (including up to $125 billion of mortgage-buying by the Canadian Mortgage Housing Corporation, of which $70 billion was used, incredibly with the details kept secret still today).



$200 Billion seems big, beyond my comprehension (but smaller vs. Trillions stateside).  We can say "oh well, mistakes were made" and they were "somewhat costly", but also do we have enough guarantees to protect ourselves from further gouging and on-the-hook?  Is it right to keep this a secret from the Canadian people?  Did this have anything to do with the fillabusting re: budget release and releasing details to the PBO/Kevin Page dramas which occured pre-election?  Who do we owe that money to and who is actually calling the shots?  Does this affect other issues, e.g. deregulation of health and safety standards from food safety to pipeline development (rules by more foreign powers vs. coming from our democracy, framework of protections for "public safety/public good"?)  No need to bite my head off, I'm just curious and would be interested in hearing other perspectives.  Is it not a big deal?  That kind of money would protect Veteran pensions and compensations better and for their families. . .


----------



## Edward Campbell (18 Jan 2012)

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, is a report on the outcome of the "occupy movement's" efforts - fiscal irresponsibility:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/toronto/dont-be-so-quick-to-celebrate-torontos-budget-win/article2306575/


> Don’t be so quick to celebrate Toronto’s budget ‘win’
> 
> MARCUS GEE
> 
> ...




Make no mistake, an overwhelming majority of Torontonians support the fiscal vandalism perpetrated Councillor Josh Colle; an overwhelming majority of Ontarians want something similar from Dalton McGuinty _et al_ in Queen's Park and a similar majority want Stephen Harper and Jim Flaherty to leave federal waste in place. They, the majority, may not be all of the 99% but they are a majority, they are *stupid* (and yes, I am choosing that word with care and I am sorry, but not concerned if I am offending you)  and they are wasting good, productive money.


----------



## GAP (18 Jan 2012)

But they're entitled..... :


----------



## Brad Sallows (18 Jan 2012)

By referring to the Government of Canada's offer to purchase CMHC-backed mortgage securities as a "bailout", the CCRC has essentially abrogated any claim to participate in the debate as an informed party and everything they write is suspect.

For anyone else wishing to make asinine claims about "bank bailouts" in Canada, please RTFM.

Pay particular attention to the "technical aspects of the transaction" and the "IMPP-related risks".

CCRC=partisan idiots to a man.


----------



## a_majoor (18 Jan 2012)

An interesting view of how those eeeeevil investment bankers worked out in NYC (and by extension New York State):

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/what-would-new-york-look-like-with-a-smaller-financial-sector/251523/



> *What Would New York Look Like With a Smaller Financial Sector?*
> By Megan McArdle
> 
> After a disappointing year, the big banks are pulling back on their bonus pools.  A lot.  This is going to be hard on bankers whose salaries are usually a very small part of their overall compensation--and yes, yes, before you drag out the world's smallest violin, let me agree that they have no entitlement to anything more.  Nonetheless, people tend to build their life around their expected salaries, and in New York, this choice is particularly important.  You not only acquire a large mortgage that's often difficult to unload quickly (closings in New York take months at minimum, longer if it's a co-op), but also things like enormous school fees, higher food costs, and so forth.
> ...


----------



## cupper (18 Jan 2012)

Anybody know where you can find a breakdown of the percentiles for income to determine where one would fall? I'm not sure I want to fit into the 99%. I know I'm not part of the 1% either. :dunno:


----------



## ModlrMike (18 Jan 2012)

cupper said:
			
		

> Anybody know where you can find a breakdown of the percentiles for income to determine where one would fall? I'm not sure I want to fit into the 99%. I know I'm not part of the 1% either. :dunno:



Try this: http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/10/25/rank-your-income-where-do-you-stand-compared-to-the-rest-of-canada/

It doesn't do a direct comparison, but certainly gives you a good idea.


----------



## cupper (18 Jan 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Try this: http://www2.macleans.ca/2011/10/25/rank-your-income-where-do-you-stand-compared-to-the-rest-of-canada/
> 
> It doesn't do a direct comparison, but certainly gives you a good idea.



Thanks for the link. Unfortunately it's only for Canadian income, mine's US. Just for shits and giggles I plugged my US income in (which would be slightly less than $CDN with exchange rate) and I fall into the top 7.5%. 

But when you read the text below, the threshold for top 1% in Canada is $169,000, but in the US is $400,000. I have a ways to go before I can even dream of being in the 1%. Even the 7.5% ain't happening any time soon.


----------



## mariomike (21 Jan 2012)

Re: "Don’t be so quick to celebrate Toronto’s budget ‘win’ "
Reply #737 

Among other "gravy", they deferred the hiring of 36 paramedics.  
Yet, year after year, people ask why,  "EMS workers top list of overtime paid by City of Toronto":
http://www.680news.com/news/local/article/281525--ems-workers-top-list-of-overtime-paid-by-city-of-toronto


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (21 Jan 2012)

Because its cheaper to pay time and a half than time plus benefits....


----------



## a_majoor (28 Jan 2012)

A snapshot of blogs by people who's educational choices are....questionable. This is the intellectual horespower of tomorrow?

Once they are in the real world carrying huge amounts of debt to be credentialed they may discover their choices were less than inspired. They will be angry, but who will they blame?:

http://captaincapitalism.blogspot.com/2012/01/god-please-make-it-stop.html


----------



## Sapplicant (31 Jan 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> This is the intellectual horespower of tomorrow?



No. Those are the people who, in 20-30 years from now, will be cooking my food, or tending to your fecal impactions. The intellectual horsepower of tomorrow are too busy filling their brains to shoot their mouths off in a blog every day. Fact.


----------



## OldSolduer (31 Jan 2012)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> No. Those are the people who, in 20-30 years from now, will be cooking my food, or tending to your fecal impactions. The intellectual horsepower of tomorrow are too busy filling their brains to shoot their mouths off in a blog every day. Fact.



Good one!

I am going to "occupy" a chair for a few hours and learn stuff.


----------



## cupper (31 Jan 2012)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> No. Those are the people who, in 20-30 years from now, will be cooking my food, or tending to your fecal impactions.



You have to love ambition. ;D


----------



## a_majoor (31 Jan 2012)

Wearing out their welcome:

http://hotair.com/archives/2012/01/31/occupy-support-drops-more-than-20-points-in-san-francisco/



> *Occupy support drops more than 20 points in … San Francisco?*
> posted at 8:40 am on January 31, 2012 by Ed Morrissey
> 
> One would think that the Occupy movement and San Francisco were made for each other.  Perhaps at one time they were, but a new Survey USA poll shows that even the City by the Bay has its limits.  The poll of 500 adults in the San Francisco area — surely the most progressive-friendly poll sample ever taken — shows that almost half of those who supported the Occupy movement in general now have changed their minds.
> ...



Of course their rhetoric is the same as the President of the United States, but Glenn Reynolds (Instapundit) has pointed out how things are playing in the press:



> You can tell that the movement has lost popular support because the press suddenly stopped the breathless coverage. As I predicted, once it became clear the movement was hurting the Democrats, the coverage dried up.


----------



## Haletown (5 Feb 2012)

They could revive their welcome by signing up these hockey playing wannbe's

http://cryptome.org/2012-info/femen-zurich/femen-zurich.htm


 * * *   NSFW * * *


----------



## a_majoor (27 Feb 2012)

An interesting summary of OWS like movements around the world. There are some interesting common denominators, including similar organization, theoretical underpinnings and outcomes:

http://www.city-journal.org/2012/22_1_tech-empowered-protesters.html



> *The New Rebellions*
> 
> Across the globe, technology-empowered protesters seek to disrupt the political and economic order.
> 
> ...


----------



## Fishbone Jones (27 Feb 2012)

.


----------



## cupper (28 Feb 2012)

Too many big words too. ;D


----------



## a_majoor (28 Feb 2012)

Sorry, I'll post in crayon next time


----------



## a_majoor (7 Mar 2012)

This could equally go into the election 2012 thread, since class warfare is the ruling meme with the Democrats, but since it is also the key "message" of the occupy movement, it deserves a place here under #occupyfail:

http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/03/no-democrats-income-inequality-didnt-cause-the-financial-crisis/254057/



> *No, Democrats: Income Inequality Didn't Cause the Financial Crisis*
> MAR 6 2012, 12:42 PM ET 59
> 
> The theory makes perfect sense. But new data says it isn't true.
> ...


----------



## Sapplicant (9 Apr 2012)

Well, another university year is in the books. Finals are in full swing, and soon the students will have a LOT more free time on their hands. Like the TLDR article alluded to at points, these things are largely spearheaded, and misled, by the "youth". 

They seemed to lead the way over here, then all the dropouts/grads/unemployed/underemployed came to join them in their chest poundings, photo-ops, and demands for, well, everything. 

Last year, they started far too late due to the fact that they had to figure out what colour to paint their band-wagon. Way to go, Adbusters. 

Once the winter of their discontent began, their spirits plunged lower than the mercury, and it all fell apart like a paper bag moistened with liquid nitrogen being dropped on the floor.

Should be interesting to see how the "re-occupation" goes, and if they can get their heads out of their asses before the true bottomfeeders of society completely sully their ranks and the whole thing turns into another disgraceful clustercoital bedstain, this time one which will call for the complete incineration of the mattress. 

Difference is, this year they'll start gaining their momentum in the spring (I'm guessing it'll really begin to be noticed by around May) and have time to dig in and (maybe) continue to be noticed throughout the winter of 2012/2013. Let's hope for the best everyone, while holding hands and singing "God Save the Queen".


----------



## Sapplicant (9 Apr 2012)

And yes, two of the signs actually read "Powor is for 99% of the PEOPlE" and "Do Not Conseed to Greed! Occupy Wall St".

Absolutely stunning.


----------



## PMedMoe (9 Apr 2012)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> And yes, two of the signs actually read "Powor is for 99% of the PEOPlE" and "Do Not Conseed to Greed! Occupy Wall St".
> 
> Absolutely stunning.



Personally, I wouldn't have expected different.


----------



## OldSolduer (10 Apr 2012)

Sapplicant said:
			
		

> Should be interesting to see how the "re-occupation" goes, and if they can get their heads out of their asses before the true bottomfeeders of society completely sully their ranks and the whole thing turns into another disgraceful clustercoital bedstain, this time one which will call for the complete incineration of the mattress.



 :rofl:

Good one....well said.

No sign of the re-occupiers in the Peg thus far.


----------



## RangerRay (10 Apr 2012)

Jim Seggie said:
			
		

> No sign of the re-occupiers in the Peg thus far.



They will probably show up when it warms up, and before the mosquitoes come out...


----------



## PMedMoe (22 Apr 2012)

:nod:


----------



## a_majoor (29 Apr 2012)

Circular logic: the Occupy movement occupies a farm in order to turn it into a farm. The attached photo essay is pretty illuminating as well.

http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2012/04/29/meet-the-new-farm-same-as-the-old-farm/

BTW the actual owners of the farm are pissed, and since this is a research farm the science has been ruined for this season


----------



## Jed (30 Apr 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Circular logic: the Occupy movement occupies a farm in order to turn it into a farm. The attached photo essay is pretty illuminating as well.
> 
> http://pjmedia.com/zombie/2012/04/29/meet-the-new-farm-same-as-the-old-farm/
> 
> BTW the actual owners of the farm are pissed, and since this is a research farm the science has been ruined for this season



Reminds me of the book "Animal Farm". A very appropriate observation on life.


----------



## Sythen (1 May 2012)

http://money.cnn.com/2012/04/30/news/economy/occupy-may-day/index.htm?hpt=hp_t2



> NEW YORK (CNNMoney) -- The Occupy movement is organizing a nationwide protest on Tuesday, asking Americans not to attend work or school on a day that's already a progressive holiday overseas.
> 
> In what Occupy organizers are calling "a day without the 99%," protesters are planning to participate in a "general strike" on Tuesday: no work, no shopping, no banking.



For some strange reason I don't think it will be hard for most of these guys to not "attend work or school". Guess they're trying a reverse Atlas Shrugged?


----------



## Rifleman62 (4 May 2012)

http://www.mediaite.com/tv/hannity-destroys-occupy-wall-st-organizer-in-fiery-segment-about-movements-violence/
*
Hannity Destroys Occupy Organizer In Fiery Segment About Movement’s Violence*

Watch video embedded at link.


----------



## larry Strong (4 May 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> http://www.mediaite.com/tv/hannity-destroys-occupy-wall-st-organizer-in-fiery-segment-about-movements-violence/
> *
> Hannity Destroys Occupy Organizer In Fiery Segment About Movement’s Violence*
> 
> Watch video embedded at link.



Amen


----------



## Sythen (4 May 2012)

Rifleman62 said:
			
		

> http://www.mediaite.com/tv/hannity-destroys-occupy-wall-st-organizer-in-fiery-segment-about-movements-violence/
> *
> Hannity Destroys Occupy Organizer In Fiery Segment About Movement’s Violence*
> 
> Watch video embedded at link.



I couldn't even watch the whole thing.. I felt embarrassed for that kid LOL


----------



## larry Strong (4 May 2012)

Personally I thought he showed what a free loader the idiot was.........


----------



## Fishbone Jones (4 May 2012)

Couldn't get it to play on the Man Cave computer.

Redeye must've hacked the system ;D


----------



## Fishbone Jones (5 May 2012)

Worked on my home computer.

Fucking Awsome!!!!

About time someone told these self entitiled assholes that nothing in life is free 8)

Everything has a cost 

Sounds like the push back against the Marxist model has started to take hold.


----------



## a_majoor (15 May 2012)

Occupy people get tossed from the farm, so real farming can get done. I don't suppose any of them considered that farming is hard work (even a small garden...). An interesting link on Instapundit's reporting on the story suggests the Occupy movement isn't either a mass uprising against the 1% or an evil, Soros inspired mob of Brownshirts, but rather the losing side of a "class struggle" within the upper echelons of society:

http://www.washingtonpost.com/national/police-raid-occupy-camp-on-uc-berkeley-land-after-protesters-fail-to-meet-deadlines-to-leave/2012/05/14/gIQAD6lxOU_story.html



> *Police raid Occupy camp on UC Berkeley land after protesters fail to meet deadlines to leave*
> By Associated Press, Published: May 14AP
> 
> ALBANY, Calif. — University of California police raided a four-week Occupy encampment at a college-owned farm used for agriculture research early Monday, arresting nine people after protesters ignored yet another weekend deadline to leave.
> ...



http://volokh.com/2011/10/31/the-fragmenting-of-the-new-class-elites-or-downward-mobility/



> *The Fragmenting of the New Class Elites, or, Downward Mobility*
> Kenneth Anderson • October 31, 2011 11:27 am
> 
> Glenn Reynolds is correct in his weekend post to point to the social theory of the New Class as key to understanding the convulsions in the middle and upper middle class; I’ve written about it myself here at VC and in a 1990s law journal book review essay.  The angst is partly income, of course – but it’s also in considerable part, as Glenn notes, “characterized as much by self-importance as by higher income, and is far more eager to keep the proles in their place than, say, [Anne] Applebaum’s small-town dentist. It’s thus not surprising that as its influence has grown, economic opportunity has increasingly been closed down by government barriers.”
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (16 May 2012)

Quebec has gone to the next level of "Occupy", with brownshirts roaming the universities and disrupting classes (how many of these people are actually students is unclear). As one blogger pointed out:



> So, they "own" an existing institution they didn't pay for in the past, and think they have a right to free tuition in the present and future. What does that make the rest of us, who actually pay for all of this? Slaves. Their slaves.
> 
> Which is entirely consistent with the basic instincts of socialism: my rights at your expense.



http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/05/16/masked-protesters-hunt-for-scabs-in-montreal-university-classes/



> *Masked protesters hunt for ‘scabs’ in Montreal university classes*
> Myles Dolphin, The Canadian Press  May 16, 2012 – 12:19 PM ET | Last Updated: May 16, 2012 4:11 PM ET
> 
> MONTREAL & QUEBEC CITY — Protesters stormed into a university, many of them with their faces covered by masks, moving through the hallways in a hunt for classes to disrupt.
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (28 May 2012)

Since the Quebec "Student Strike" is just a variation of the Occupy theme (maybe with cleaner brown shirts), this seemed an appropriate place to repost this; an occupier in his own words as he goes to the Quebec Young  Liberal AGM:

http://www.konekt.ca/articles/behind-enemy-lines-a-communist-infiltrates-the-young-liberal-agm?fb_comment_id=fbc_10150874836003621_22349811_10150875523993621#f18dc9d05c



> *Behind Enemy Lines- A Communist Infiltrates the Young Liberal AGM*
> 
> I have been involved in a war on the streets of Montreal against the Liberal party and their proposed tuition hikes for a few months. Two weekends ago though, I found myself in the midst of a Young Liberal AGM, behind enemy lines.
> 
> ...


----------



## Journeyman (28 May 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> contributor
> Davide Mastracci is originally from Cambridge, Ontario, but now lives in the moment.


   :   He writes like the 19-year old that he is.....self-important, narcissistic, and in the end, completely irrelevant. 



> He studies at McGill University in Montreal, working towards an impressive sounding BA degree which will probably land him a job at Starbucks.


 I doubt if he could hold a job at Starbucks for a whole week, before getting fired because the 22-year old manager was "oppressing" him.

         :boring:


----------



## GAP (28 May 2012)

Last week my son asked me to pick him up a triple expresso at starbucks on the way home.

The dweeb that served me at the cash register made out just like this guy sounds.....a twit....

then I had to go to the receiving station where another "engineer" made my triple expresso....she handed it to me and I had to ask where the rest of it was....it was less than 1/2 a cup.....and for this I paid 3+ $$?


----------



## MJP (28 May 2012)

GAP said:
			
		

> Last week my son asked me to pick him up a triple expresso at starbucks on the way home.



That son sounds "retarded", you should be indulging your other, and quite frankly better oldest child.  :nod:


----------



## GAP (28 May 2012)

MJP said:
			
		

> That son sounds "retarded", you should be indulging your other, and quite frankly better oldest child.  :nod:



Don't tell me he drinks that crap too!!! perish the thought....2 sons down the drain, thanks to Starbucks....at least the youngest only drinks anything with alcohol in it..... ;D


come to think of it, so do the others....hmmmm .... where did I go wrong......


----------



## Nemo888 (28 May 2012)

Many of the occupy protesters may not be very bright but our current system of capitalism without moral constraints is not ideal by anyone's standards. Income inequality is a real issue. This extraction of wealth by the few has essentially been a tax on the rest of us. The problem being that they do not spend it. Without consumption they are artificially extracting demand from markets. They instead invest in property, positional goods(like art) and speculative financial instruments like hedge funds. Consumption creates jobs, not rich people having money. So governments and families have been borrowing to make up the difference. This is a structural, not cyclical problem.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (28 May 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Many of the occupy protesters may not be very bright but our current system of capitalism without moral constraints is not ideal by anyone's standards. Income inequality is a real issue. This extraction of wealth by the few has essentially been a tax on the rest of us. The problem being that they do not spend it. Without consumption they are artificially extracting demand from markets. They instead invest in property, positional goods(like art) and speculative financial instruments like hedge funds. Consumption creates jobs, not rich people having money. So governments and families have been borrowing to make up the difference. This is a structural, not cyclical problem.



Sweet baby Jesus on a cracker. You want more money, get off your ass and go earn it.

Did you ever, just once, stop and figure out it's not everyone else's fault?

Most times a look in the mirror will reveal the culprit.


----------



## Nemo888 (29 May 2012)

I do fine, but many do not. In the third world it does not matter how hard you work. I don't think anyone disputes that. I have also had business opportunities there that involve basically slave labour making me ridiculous sums. The current 3000% mark up over wholesale is almost criminal. Medical devices is the business to be in right now.

 Did you ever, just once, stop and figure out that you live in a system that has checks and balances and when people are ignorant of that system they get screwed over by those who do.
When I import these cheapo disposable plastic pieces of crap and mark them up 2000% you are telling me I earned that money? I live in a world where the less I do the more I get paid.  There is some weird morality that because I have money I am a better person. Harder working, morally disciplined, worthy of respect etc. I'm a douche who has more money because I have a relative who knows a guy who owns a factory. It's like welfare only better. 

But to the point. I see that system slowly being brought here and many of our institutions being dismantled. Some of us will be smart and jump on board before the opportunities dwindle. But most will not. I want the level of social mobility and opportunity for my kids that I had.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (29 May 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I do fine, but many do not. In the third world it does not matter how hard you work. I don't think anyone disputes that. I have also had business opportunities there that involve basically slave labour making me ridiculous sums. The current 3000% mark up over wholesale is almost criminal. Medical devices is the business to be in right now.
> 
> Did you ever, just once, stop and figure out that you live in a system that has checks and balances and when people are ignorant of that system they get screwed over by those who do.
> When I import these cheapo disposable plastic pieces of crap and mark them up 2000% you are telling me I earned that money? I live in a world where the less I do the more I get paid.  There is some weird morality that because I have money I am a better person. Harder working, morally disciplined, worthy of respect etc. I'm a douche who has more money because I have a relative who knows a guy who owns a factory. It's like welfare only better.
> ...




Then just do the morally right thing, in your mind, and give away all that money you don't think you deserve. 

To all those people that have done nothing for it, including your kids. 

Heck, go to the third world and start a business paying your workers North American wages.

I'm sure everyone will invest your gifts wisely and escalate the world's poor to a better place.

You talk a lot of socialist tripe, but I don't see you practicing any sort of Co-operative lifestyle.

Just quit asking for the money I bust my ass for. It's mine, and I'll do what I want with it.

You can do whatever you want with yours.


----------



## Nemo888 (29 May 2012)

I don't mind playing the game. But I won't piss in your face and tell you it's raining. I'm cheating and getting rewarded for it. I'd prefer to be rewarded for working hard.  

I worry that our system will devolve into theirs. You are born or marry into opportunity. Hard work is meaningless. Connections decide your entire life. I want the old work hard and get ahead days.


----------



## Jungle (29 May 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I don't mind playing the game. But I won't piss in your face and tell you it's raining. I'm cheating and getting rewarded for it. I'd prefer to be rewarded for working hard.
> 
> I worry that our system will devolve into theirs. You are born or marry into opportunity. Hard work is meaningless. Connections decide your entire life. I want the old work hard and get ahead days.



Then be an example to your kids: get a job and work hard.

Ohh... I get it: you want to keep your easy life, but you want the hard work for the others...  :


----------



## GR66 (29 May 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> You are born or marry into opportunity. Hard work is meaningless. Connections decide your entire life. I want the old work hard and get ahead days.



When exactly were these mythical old days where your birthright and connections didn't mean more than the amount of work you did?  Modern, western, capitalist society likely offers the greatest levels of opportunity for changing the situation you were born into than any other period in human history.  Not everyone has the same opportunities, but at least in our society those that have the fortitude to try and seize on the opportunities that do present themselves at least have the chance to make a better life for themselves.


----------



## Journeyman (29 May 2012)

GR66 said:
			
		

> When exactly were these mythical old days.....


_Shhhhhhh_...ideologues, of any persuasion, don't do very well with actual facts. 

It's so much easier to just parrot the buzz-words of your preferred saviour -- whether Marx and Foucault or Limbaugh and Beck -- than to actually think through their ravings prescriptions, and how they'd be applied, within the context of modern reality.


----------



## Nemo888 (29 May 2012)

But those chances are significantly less than when I was a boy. I always hoped things would get better in terms of opportunity and the ability to transcend the class you were born in. Things are going the wrong way in that respect. Being a cheater and making some guy slave for me in a factory on some island 8000 miles away is much more profitable per unit of work than my civilian job. I can make someone poor to make myself rich. 

Yet in my regular hard working job the managers are slowly making plans for outsourcing to save on labour costs and break the union.  Not much opportunity here. So I went overseas to become part of the problem. This is how the game is played.  Not the game I want to play. There are almost no rules in the current system. I've broken no laws. Filled out all the required forms and requested the necessary licenses. I don't plan on throwing my kids future away on an ideal that no one else seems to share.  At least I am willing to admit it.  Too bad for the losers who will have to work their asses off without the opportunities I have.  

I expect a bigger supplier to notice I'm eating his lunch soon. Then he can either buy an exclusive license from the factory for this territory or contract to buy 100% of his production. Unless I can do it first of course. 

Just because this is how the system works doesn't mean there are not alternatives. The myth that we are at the pinnacle of human development is just that, a myth. Can't we have a more fair and equitable system?


----------



## SeaKingTacco (29 May 2012)

> Can't we have a more fair and equitable system?



No.  To pretend otherwise is to be utterly blind to human nature.

You have two fairly stark choices in life: Make your own way and recognize that things will not always work out perfectly or with certainty.  Or you can live in system where someone else tells you what "fair" is and allocates those resources to your needs that "they" deem necessary.  

Take your pick.


----------



## Nemo888 (29 May 2012)

I hope someday you are proved wrong. That honour, fairness and empathy are stronger than our jaded views .  I fear we get the system we deserve.


----------



## GR66 (29 May 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> Being a cheater and making some guy slave for me in a factory on some island 8000 miles away is much more profitable per unit of work than my civilian job. I can make someone poor to make myself rich.



How exactly are you forcing these workers to produce your product?  Are they willingly passing on other, _better _ opportunities to work in the factories that supply you?  No doubt by our standards what they earn is pitifully small and the amount of work that they have to do would be refused by most in our society.  This however is a sign of the vast difference in wealth and development between the country of production and the country of consumption.  Without this differential we wouldn't buy anything from them and they wouldn't even have that meagre income potential. 

You may define this as exploitation, but it can be the primary source of development capital in less developed countries.  Slowly but surely this influx of foreign money DOES have a broad general influence in improving the state of the economy in those countries.  When I was young Japan, Taiwan and South Korea were the low-cost labour pools to produce our disposable items.  Now look at them compared to their neighbours.  China was later, but even now as the standard of living there (very slowly) begins to increase there we are looking at alternative, lower-cost producers (Vietnam, Indonesia, etc).  However, now they have much better opportunities to fulfill their own (increasing) domestic demand with the tools, skills and capital that came to them through the earlier "exploitive" trade.


----------



## Edward Campbell (29 May 2012)

GR66 said:
			
		

> How exactly are you forcing these workers to produce your product?  Are they willingly passing on other, _better _ opportunities to work in the factories that supply you?  No doubt by our standards what they earn is pitifully small and the amount of work that they have to do would be refused by most in our society.  This however is a sign of the vast difference in wealth and development between the country of production and the country of consumption.  Without this differential we wouldn't buy anything from them and they wouldn't even have that meagre income potential.
> 
> You may define this as exploitation, but it can be the primary source of development capital in less developed countries.  Slowly but surely this influx of foreign money DOES have a broad general influence in improving the state of the economy in those countries.  When I was young Japan, Taiwan and South Korea were the low-cost labour pools to produce our disposable items.  Now look at them compared to their neighbours.  China was later, but even now as the standard of living there (very slowly) begins to increase there we are looking at alternative, lower-cost producers (Vietnam, Indonesia, etc).  However, now they have much better opportunities to fulfill their own (increasing) domestic demand with the tools, skills and capital that came to them through the earlier "exploitive" trade.




:ditto: and +300 MilPoints for you.


----------



## Danjanou (29 May 2012)

Jungle said:
			
		

> Then be an example to your kids: get a job and work hard.
> 
> Ohh... I get it: you want to keep your easy life, but you want the hard work for the others...  :



Or in his own words



			
				Nemo888 said:
			
		

> blah ....... blah....blah..... blah..... I'm a douche ......blah ....... blah....blah..... blah..... .


----------



## Journeyman (29 May 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> I fear we get the system we deserve.


I hope you're right. You see, 

- _Some_ people, displaying initiative and a work ethic, seem quite happy with this current system.

- _Some_ people seem predisposed to wringing hands, gnashing teeth, and rocking back and forth in their Eeyore t-shirts bemoaning the state of the world; they seem to maximize their self-flagellation with this system.

- _Some_ people prefer, and others are required, to let the social safety-net/crutch meet their needs, which this system does.


The only people who miss the "workers paradise" are the university professors and their gullible students who've never seen a callus or blister in their life, and don't seem to realize it never existed. I haven't heard the East Europeans clamouring to bring the Soviets back.


----------



## cupper (29 May 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> _Shhhhhhh_...ideologues, of any persuasion, don't do very well with actual facts.
> 
> It's so much easier to just parrot the buzz-words of your preferred saviour -- whether Marx and Foucault or Limbaugh and Beck -- than to actually think through their ravings prescriptions, and how they'd be applied, within the context of modern reality.



Will you stop trying to bring rational thought into this. >


----------



## larry Strong (29 May 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I hope you're right. You see,
> 
> - _Some_ people, displaying initiative and a work ethic, seem quite happy with this current system.
> 
> ...



Amen


----------



## vonGarvin (30 May 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> I haven't heard the East Europeans clamouring to bring the Soviets back.


This reminds me of Christa Wolf, a now-deceased German author, who did most of her works in the former GDR.  She opposed unification with the Federal Republic in 1990, calling instead for a socialist state(read: truly socialist, and not Soviet-puppet).  In other words, this former informant to the state wanted to continue her life in which feeding off the state, much like the parasite that she was.

But, in spite of her calling for a truly socialist paradise, the residents of the German Democratic Republic did the sensible thing and unified with the Federal Republic.  (Good or bad for the former West Germany, it's a much-improved situation for the former East Germany).


----------



## dapaterson (30 May 2012)

Journeyman said:
			
		

> The only people who miss the "workers paradise" are the university professors and their gullible students who've never seen a callus or blister in their life, and don't seem to realize it never existed.



Yes, university profs are completely disconnected from the real world.  Especially those in the social "sciences".  Hint:  If there's no math, it isn't science.


----------



## Brad Sallows (31 May 2012)

Your first mistake might be the assumption that most people want to work hard and plan for their futures instead of being "kept men" living in the moment.


----------



## ArmyRick (1 Jun 2012)

I agree with some of what Nemo888 says. Look at the sickening Wall Street bail outs in 2008. I will not say more, a filthy amount of money to ensure that people at the top of the companies made a larger heap of cash.

Thats just one example.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Jun 2012)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I agree with some of what Nemo888 says. Look at the sickening Wall Street bail outs in 2008. I will not say more, a filthy amount of money to ensure that people at the top of the companies made a larger heap of cash.
> 
> Thats just one example.



Except that's not a product of capitalism, it's a product of cronyism, something that socialists and capitalists both despise. Let's stay on topic, without the strawman, shall we?


----------



## a_majoor (1 Jun 2012)

In a way, it is the topic.

In the US, the Democrat party came out firmly in support of the "Occupy" movement, with even the President expressing sympathy for the movement. This was a very cynical attempt to deflect attention away from the rampant cronyism of this administration; the 1% narrative works so long as you don't stop and see who the 1% are and how they are getting their money.

The incoherent message(s) and the actual activities of the Occupy movement changed a lot of people's minds about supporting them in a real hurry, and as a narrative it backfired, since the right wing blogosphere gleefully started highlighting the crony nature of the 1%. You notice that there is no resurgence of the Occupy movement in most places this year, even with the return of nice "camping" weather...


----------



## ArmyRick (1 Jun 2012)

I don't have the proof but a gut feeling....so take my comments for what it is worth.

There are lots of lazy dirt bags out there who don't want to work and love the occupy movement, it's the modern day "hippy-ism".

But there are lots of people that are skilled/unskilled alike with terrific work ethic that are having a terrible time getting/holding onto a job. We have discussed this before. Please, no ten second emotional replies about "all they have to do...blah, blah, blah..." 

You are not living that in that persons life and don't know all the factors. The reality these days are, is there are more people unemployed than whats been in awhile. Industry in Canada is shrinking and thats partially our own fault. The gap between the "haves" and "have nots" is getting larger. An aging baby boomer population is changing the demograph of the Canadian economy and lifestyle. The future is very cloudy for many people.

I refer to the 2008 wall street bail outs (yes it was in the USA but what happens down here on that scale, influences things up here, Canada is not in a bubble) because it shows an example of disgusting greed and money grabbing by top of the money chain individuals (One dude paid himself 470 million dollars for his performance pay after the bail out, fooking disgusting using american tax money up like that).

I fear that things will get uglier before they get better. Has anybody looked at the "occupy movement" as a warning or a symptom of something bigger happening or about to come?


----------



## Nemo888 (1 Jun 2012)

What good are those skills when I can hire someone with the same skills and a BSc in Asia for 10$ a day. Most of the jobs being created here are service industry and pay close to minimum wage. In the US the number of jobs is rising but the total tax revenue is steadily dropping.(The jobs are crap.)

Our trade deficit is over 10 billion a year now. Think of what that would be without the 50 billion in oil exports per year. Thank God for petro dollars.

I don't see how an economy can work without manufacturing stuff. So occupy/civil unrest is just beginning as things are not going to get any better. When in Asia I was fascinated how my bits of paper from Canada could buy me anything I dreamed of. Eventually they will wake up and not want useless bits of paper. Then we will have to make our workers compete with 10$ a day. Wages need to drop. Things will be a mess during the transition when the majority of the working class have no useful work and no longer have the buying power to drive the economy.

I'm lucky enough to be able to invest in Asia now to escape the failing economy here. It  doesn't feel fair but I can make more money doing that than working. Don't have much choice since where I work has telegraphed that outsourcing plans will be completed in about 3 to 4 years. I should be enjoying my capitalist savvy, but I want the country I grew up in. I want to work for my wages, but that seems to be for suckers in the current system.  In a few years I will be outsourced for a second time in my life. If I was young I would be pissed. What opportunity is there? (Other than joining the army or police to quell the coming civil unrest/domestic terrorists.  > )


----------



## Fishbone Jones (1 Jun 2012)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> What good are those skills when I can hire someone with the same skills and a BSc in Asia for 10$ a day. Most of the jobs being created here are service industry and pay close to minimum wage. In the US the number of jobs is rising but the total tax revenue is steadily dropping.(The jobs are crap.)
> 
> Our trade deficit is over 10 billion a year now. Think of what that would be without the 50 billion in oil exports per year. Thank God for petro dollars.
> 
> ...



Will you please stop with the "I hate the system" "I hate what it's doing to our country" "We have to cut wages" "We are failing" crap, all the while you also say you're milking it for all it's worth.

You don't hate the system, you don't care what it's doing to the country, you're not going to take a $10.00 wage and you're not doing anything to stop the failure.

You're sucking the system dry like a two dollar whore. 

You should really try politics. You know, say one thing to get votes and then do the exact opposite after being elected. The transition should be fairly simple for someone like you.

Some may probably deduce your an opportunistic leech, a weasel and a complete hypocrite.

However, that's for them to decide.

At any rate, your socialistic platitudes ring as hollow as an empty 45 gallon oil drum and you're not worth conversing with anymore.

Flippin' the switch...........now.


----------



## GAP (1 Jun 2012)

:goodpost:


----------



## Sythen (1 Jun 2012)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> I don't have the proof but a gut feeling....so take my comments for what it is worth.
> 
> There are lots of lazy dirt bags out there who don't want to work and love the occupy movement, it's the modern day "hippy-ism".
> 
> ...



You ask for no "10 second emotional replies" but the fact of the matter is if you have a good work ethic and the skills necessary, then you have a job already. I have met dozens of people who claim (Occupy Walts maybe?) they were part of the groups camping out last year.. To a person, they all had either no post secondary or useless degrees in things like women's studies, etc. For those without schooling, I always asked them why they don't work for McDonald's or something to start saving some money for school. They said they wouldn't reduce themselves to that point. This is 100% of the people I've asked replied like this. Although I can't back this up as anything but an anecdote, the problem with the vast majority of Occupiers is that they think they are too good for some jobs. I have yet to meet someone with skills and drive who was at the Occupy movement and doesn't have a job. Until I start meeting those people, the Occupiers will remain in my view a spoiled bunch of children.


----------



## Brad Sallows (1 Jun 2012)

If you truly wish to provide jobs for people with a work ethic but insufficient aptitude and education to participate in the knowledge/management economy, stop transferring wealth to public servants.  Cut public payrolls significantly (~25%) and leave the revenues in the taxpayers' pockets.  Most will likely use it to reduce debt, but some will be spent to employ home renovators, landscapers, recreational company employees, etc - jobs not requiring extensive intelligence or education, which can not be exported overseas.

That should be the basic strategy: free up funds to employ people at jobs that can not be exported (ie. can't be done remotely).  The "25%" (those capable of, and most with, a university education) do not need any help - they, if anyone, are perfectly capable of fending for themselves in a highly competitive environment if only we can create one.  It is a peculiar thing when they are the species most protected by government.


----------



## ArmyRick (1 Jun 2012)

Sythen,

At no point did I say any occupier was good or bad... Each one is there for his/her reason. Some of them as I have said are genuine dirt bags.

I am not here to defend a any occupier. I am that guy that says consider the other guys point of view. So you do not know a single skilled occupier? OK, does that mean they don't exist? 

Ignoring protest like this is in my opinion, similar to ignoring early signs of cancer. If things do not get better, those protest will get worse. 

So if you have job skills and a good work ethic, then you have a job already?

Come on up to Bruce, Grey and Simcoe Counties sometime. There are plenty of people with both that do not/can not find a job be it at McDonalds, Tim Hortons, etc, etc.

Finding a part time job is usually done within 1-3 weeks. But thats the catch, up here where I live, most people find 1-3 part time jobs to get by. 

Here is my thought to counter what most people have to say, stop generalizing.


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (1 Jun 2012)

Brad Sallows said:
			
		

> stop transferring wealth to public servants.



...and yet, somehow, I'm not just rolling in money.

Your pony needs another trick...............


----------



## Sythen (2 Jun 2012)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> Sythen,
> 
> At no point did I say any occupier was good or bad... Each one is there for his/her reason. Some of them as I have said are genuine dirt bags.
> 
> ...



No, if they are ignored they will go away. It might take time, but eventually their funding will dry up and the attention vampires will move on to the next thing. If the people in your area were motivated, they would move to where there is work. I am from NB originally. After 5 years of call center work and nothing else, I moved to Toronto for something better and never looked back. I currently live in Ottawa and there are tons of jobs here. No amount of protesting is going to make unproductive areas economically viable for everyone. To think otherwise is to ignore reality. The Occupiers are a joke and anyone who tries to justify their continued presence needs to open their eyes.


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Jun 2012)

While there are real _equality_ problems in our 21st century societies - not just in the so called West, either - the root causes of the "occupy" movement, the source of the discontent is: _unfilled dreams_. Life, post high school or university, is cold and cruel - few things are _given_. To understand this, consider this story which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _CBC_:

http://www.cbc.ca/news/offbeat/story/2012/05/31/edmonton-teacher-zeros-sheppard.html


> Edmonton teacher suspended for giving 0s
> 
> CBC News
> 
> ...




If you pass through a _system_, one occupying the majority of your _twentysomething_ years on the planet, in which you "succeed" no matter how little work you actually do, if you are "rewarded" for doing nothing then it is not surprising that you have a reasonable, even rational expectation that you will find he same thing when school/university ends: a well paying job that suits your interests and skills, however limited they may be.

The "occupy" movement is just another _children's crusade_, as is the Quebec students' protest, but this time they are being super-conservative: they don't want anything to change ... failure, a zero, is not to be tolerated ... "gimme, *Gimme*, GIMME."


----------



## Bruce Monkhouse (2 Jun 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> ... "gimme, *Gimme*, GIMME."



Yes, but when a kid has a tantrum in the grocery store for one of those chocolate bars conveniently displayed in the checkout aisle and the parent's give in just to keep the kid quiet,....who's fault is it?


----------



## Edward Campbell (2 Jun 2012)

I'm not arguing that "we" have not done this *TO* our kids, Bruce. Last winter I attended a lecture/book promotion by Amy Chua ~ there is a lot to argue about (pro and con) in her recent best-seller Battle Hymn of the Tiger Mother but not with her central thesis point that we, many (most?) Western parents are not doing our kids any favours by feeding their "self-esteem" at the expense of real achievements. There are good arguments that our, Western, education systems are better at producing _creative thinkers_ and _innovators_ but I would suggest that Hong Kong and Singapre have both caught up with us in the _creativity_ area and maintained their established superiority in 'hard' academic achievement, and Shanghai, at least (with a population about the same as Canada's), is learning from them.


----------



## Nemo888 (2 Jun 2012)

That is true. In many Philippine villages and small Chinese towns the most impressive building in the entire area is the school. Asia is nuts about education right now.


----------



## GAP (2 Jun 2012)

Then there is the other end of the spectrum.....................

Man abandons daughter over bad grades
By QMI Agency 
Article Link

A Pennsylvania man pleaded guilty to abandoning his teenage daughter, reportedly because of a bad calculus grade.

Cops were called to an intersection in Cheltenham, Pa., on Feb. 22 by people who said a child was asking strangers for a place to stay, the Ambler Gazette newspaper reported.

Authorities said that, after an argument at home about the 16-year-old girl's grades, her father told her she had an hour to pack and that she couldn't live with her family anymore.

Cops said dad Tuan Huynh drove her 20 km from home and let her out at a street corner near a mall with only her backpack and a small satchel, without provisions, money or a cellphone, the Ambler Gazette reported. 
end


----------



## Brad Sallows (2 Jun 2012)

>...and yet, somehow, I'm not just rolling in money.

I assume you aren't represented by one of the unions that has so impressively pumped the handle of the one-way ratchet for the past four decades.


----------



## a_majoor (2 Jun 2012)

Nemo, if you are reading this, here are some suggestions for you:

1. If you are really that upset about your position in life, PM me. I can probably pony up a syndicate of investors and buy you out. You will also have the satisfaction of seeing a larger number of small investors become a bit better off.

2. Tithe 10% of your income to your Church. Helping the poor through charity work is one of the roles of the Church, and your contribution will be much appreciated.

3. If you don't belong to a church, contribute 10% of your income to a charity of your choice. It can be the Afghan School Project or Save the Spotted Owls, whatever cause you choose to support.

4. Contribute 10% of your income to Junior Achievement. This group teaches valuable life skills to young people and helps prepare them for the real world, so they have a better chance to meet the economic climate once they leave school. Volunteer your time to JA as well.

5. Become an angel investor and help small business start-ups. Most small business fail due to under capitalization, so you would be providing a direct helping hand in creating jobs and new wealth in Canada.

Capitalism isn't about accumulating capital (which is what most socialists seem to believe), it is about the management and use of capital. If you have a large amount of capital (however you get it) then put it to use.


----------



## Scott (2 Jun 2012)

Or you can give Tess, Danjanou and I a few bob and we'll be happy for a while! 

OR, you could throw some money at the very website you're posting on. Hey, what an idea!!! We recently had a drive for some new hardware, you must have missed the call. But I am sure Mike would appreciate the help any time...

Hit Subcribe I know for a fact that you can drop a few more bucks in there if you so please.


----------



## Jarnhamar (2 Jun 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> While there are real _equality_ problems in our 21st century societies - not just in the so called West, either - the root causes of the "occupy" movement, the source of the discontent is: _unfilled dreams_. Life, post high school or university, is cold and cruel - few things are _given_. To understand this, consider this story which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _CBC_:
> 
> http://www.cbc.ca/news/offbeat/story/2012/05/31/edmonton-teacher-zeros-sheppard.html
> 
> ...



This is the problem.

University kids take OSAP go out partying drinking their face off buying $300 jeans bomb exams and whine and bitch about school being too hard. Now when they don't bother to complete an assignment they don't fail it they get graded on what they DID do?   That's totally setting these cry babies up for success in life.

I didn't fix the customers computer like I was supposed to but I DID reinstall a few programs, when can I get paid?


----------



## ArmyRick (2 Jun 2012)

Sythen,

Last time and listen up. Quick answers "Pack up and move" ARE NOT THE ANSWER!!! We discussed this several pages ago. What is everybody in rural Ontario supposed to do? Pack up and move to the city? GET REAL. You think because you found success that everybody else can. Not so. 

Pack up and move to another part of the country is an easy answer for a single person who is willing and able to do it. What about the person with a family? What about someone with a house with mortgage owing on it and can not sell the house? I could go on and on about factors you haven't even considered.

I will stress it, YOUR success formula does not/will not work for everybody else.

BTW, I make a comfortable amount of money working two jobs but I am watching friends go through hell. You can't tell all of rural Ontario to pack up and move, not going to work.

I realize there are lazy welfare collecting bums out there, I am not talking about them. Go beyond the occupy movement and look at the economy as a whole. 

BTW, occupy movements and similar movements (I am not part of any these organizations, nor do I support them) will NOT simply go away. I am saying ask the questions "Why are they existing in the first place?" or "How are these movements as large as they are?".

Here is a comparison. If your car starts making funny engine noises, you could ignore it and hope its not an issue. Or you could look at the problem and figure out whats going on.

I don't want my tax money paying millions in security cost, damage cost from protest, legal proceedings, potential medical cost, etc, etc. These protest will likely only get bigger and more destructive unless you deal with the root of the problem.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (3 Jun 2012)

ArmyRick said:
			
		

> What is everybody in rural Ontario supposed to do? Pack up and move to the city? GET REAL. You think because you found success that everybody else can. Not so.
> 
> 
> BTW, occupy movements and similar movements (I am not part of any these organizations, nor do I support them) will NOT simply go away. I am saying ask the questions "Why are they existing in the first place?" or "How are these movements as large as they are?".



Being from Rural Ontario (Grey-Bruce Counties- about as rural as it gets) I can say that the majority of people left the area at College-University age, with SOME but not most returning owing to lack of opportunities in professional type jobs.  Those that stayed have done well in the agricultural and manufacturing industries remaining, with some of the people who went to college or university trickling back doing some of the professional jobs.  But in all honesty, out of a graduating class of 100ish, I would say that 70-80 left and haven't returned.  So yes, you do have to pack up and move out.  That's just part of life.  However, to be completely fair, people from my home areas also aren't the ones lining up in the OCCUPY protests, and there is little "poverty", though there is poor.

Second Point- The OCCUPY movement exists because pampered, crying university or recently graduated university types haven't managed to find the $60,000-$80,000 job that they expected right out of college.  Laziness and entitlement=Occupy movement.  I would also say that the movements aren't particularly large, with 2000-3000 people taking part in the Occupy Toronto day of movement.  To put that into perspective- that is 1/7 of the people who attend an AVERAGE Blue Jays game, 1/2 the population of Hanover, Ontario, or the average attendance of an OHL game.  Let the Revolution begin!


----------



## Nemo888 (4 Jun 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Nemo, if you are reading this, here are some suggestions for you:
> 
> 1. If you are really that upset about your position in life, PM me. I can probably pony up a syndicate of investors and buy you out. You will also have the satisfaction of seeing a larger number of small investors become a bit better off.
> 
> ...



I don't think anyone would want to buy it. I got the idea when a person at the hospital who works in stores was complaining about the price of a disposable/single use item. Suppliers were screwing the hospital on price. So I brought one of them to Asia with me to find a factory that made them. With some help I found one. The risk is great. The supplier can stop overcharging at any time. I was not exaggerating when I said the price was 3000% above factory wholesale. So I'll eat their lunch for as long as I can. If I get too greedy they will notice sooner. When I get a bigger shipment and actually post a profit I'll donate. That should be within 60 days. I'd like to make enough to go to Asia at least once a year. I have a few other business ideas.


----------



## a_majoor (4 Jun 2012)

I'm sure _lots_ of people will want to buy it. I'm even more sure that some of these people have all kinds of brilliant ideas of where they can go with this (sadly. I'm not one of them). I'm also sure that a fair portion of these people will not have the experience, werewithal or sheer stubborness to actually make a go of it.

I applaud you for finding an opportunity, taking the chance to make it work, and hope that in 60 days you will see your profit (and no this is not sacrasm). You have an opportunity, now go do something with it.


----------



## a_majoor (6 Jun 2012)

Getting to the 1% isn't as hard as the occupiers would have you believe. Just take courses with real value, apply yourself and even if you don't get to the 1%, you can probably make it into the 10% or 15% (or whatever percentile you choose). The important quote is highlighted:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/06/matt-gurney-on-the-occupiers-new-slogan-feed-the-poor-tax-the-veterinarians/#more-80794



> *Matt Gurney on the Occupiers’ new slogan: Feed the poor! Tax the veterinarians!*
> Matt Gurney  Jun 6, 2012 – 10:44 AM ET | Last Updated: Jun 6, 2012 10:46 AM ET
> 
> Comments Email Twitter Researchers at the University of British Columbia have prepared a report examining who exactly constitutes the much-discussed 1% in Canada. The term refers to the top 1% of income earners in the country, who activists in the Occupy movement (and those of like mind) contend are unfairly accumulating too much of society’s wealth, to the detriment of everyone else. And the study did find some support for that theory — the top 1% of Canadian income earners are pulling in 14% of the total earnings of the country. Their average income is $450,000 a year, compared to an average of $36,000 for everyone else. And the study also found worrying signs that sharp recessions, like the one we just endured, are driving the trend toward increased inequality, not necessarily by favouring the 1%, but by eroding the employment opportunities for the middle- and lower-classes.
> ...



And the opposite side of the coin: the "students" don't want free education, just expect us to pay for them. Nice takedown by George Jonas:

http://fullcomment.nationalpost.com/2012/06/06/george-jonas-quebec-students-dont-want-free-tuition-just-someone-else-to-pay-it/#more-80739



> *George Jonas: Quebec students don’t want free tuition, just someone else to pay it*
> George Jonas  Jun 6, 2012 – 9:00 AM ET | Last Updated: Jun 5, 2012 5:38 PM ET
> 
> There’s no free education, only education charged to someone else. If something has any value, a dollar or a million, it cannot be free. It’s logically impossible. Repeat after me, especially if you’re an NDP supporter: If it’s free, it has no value; if it has value, it’s not free.
> ...


----------



## bridges (6 Jun 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Getting to the 1% isn't as hard as the occupiers would have you believe. Just take courses with real value, apply yourself and even if you don't get to the 1%, you can probably make it into the 10% or 15% (or whatever percentile you choose).



Just to expand on the "courses with real value", this isn't necessarily restricted to courses with immediate high-paying jobs either, as it would seem on the surface.  If you take a (for example) liberal arts degree that widens your horizons and opens new opportunities to you, then apply yourself in that direction, success can come that way as well.   

As for the "pack up and move" argument, we do need vibrant rural communities - it's in nobody's best interests, city-dwellers included, if it's impossible to prosper in a rural economy.   In my corner of rural Ontario there's a lot of poverty - the food bank has never been busier.   Ironically, it's a farming community, producing food for the nation along with many other such communities.  I don't know what the answer is but it seems that too many people are being left behind in the current economic system, and I'm not convinced it's just because of their own lack of ambition.  

I haven't read all 33 pages of this thread, so my apologies if I'm restating something.


----------



## a_majoor (11 Jun 2012)

So the people behind the "spontanious and unorganized" Occupy miovement admit that plan "A" has failed, now they have plan "B". This is what you may expect to see this summer:

http://newsbusters.org/blogs/pj-gladnick/2012/06/10/adbusters-admits-ows-flopped-now-promoting-flash-encampments



> *Adbusters Admits OWS Flopped; Now Promoting 'Flash Encampments'*
> By P.J. Gladnick | June 10, 2012 | 19:10
> 
> The Occupy Wall Street movement was first proposed by the leftwing Canadian magazine, Adbusters. However, now even they are forced to admit the obvious about the failure of their creation which you can read in their sad OWS obituary:
> ...


----------



## Occam (11 Jun 2012)

They won't be doing much "Occupying" in Ottawa this summer...

Original link

Top cop warns Occupiers  

Would-be Occupiers won’t even get a chance to hammer in a single tent peg this summer.

At least, not in Ottawa.

Less than 100 days into his first term as chief of police, Charles Bordeleau told the Sun editorial board Friday he’s promising to not only shut down a repeat of the Occupy movement but not even let one get established.

“You want to protest, fill your boots,” said Bordeleau. “But they will not occupy any land here in Ottawa.”

Cops have learned from last November’s 40-day occupation of Confederation Park and have noticed a troubling trend.

“There are more demonstrations and protests around the world,” said Bordeleau. “The number is a concern and we’re monitoring it here in Ottawa.”

He says police respond to nearly 600 protests or demonstrations annually. Last year, only one went “sideways,” according to Bordeleau — the demonstrations outside the Congolese embassy where rocks were thrown at Ottawa cops, who responded with large cans of pepper spray and arrests.

The chief said officers have been developing a plan and methods that see them ready to step in and remove protesters if they begin some sort of occupation.

“There are steps in place,” he said.

Someone who knows about those steps is Insp. Mike Maloney of the Emergency Services Unit — the squad which responds to protests. He said the “strategic vision” they’ve developed is “consistent with the chief’s expectations.”

According to Maloney, officers are gathering intelligence to determine which of the many summer protests could lead to some sort of occupation. He said the main issue this year is anti-austerity.

“That’s a significant change, but it’s all the same people,” he said. “It’s always the same people who show up.”

Maloney wouldn’t call it a war, but rather “a pitched battle,” and wouldn’t be surprised if all the protests in Montreal worked their way to Ottawa for national exposure.

“Our intelligence-driven information indicates there is going to be something taking place here,” he said.

His group, together with London police colleagues, get together for a week of protest and demonstration training at CFB Petawawa in May. Officers were able to use live smoke bombs, pepper spray and tear gas to combat violence and Molotov cocktails on the specialized urban training grounds that simulate an actual village.

Bordeleau said the Occupied movement lends itself to infiltration by anarchists and troublemakers because much of the activity is organized through public social media.


----------



## a_majoor (3 Jul 2012)

Long article in Rolling Stone about the Occupy Movement. Reading it several times, I still cannot make out any coherent idea or strategy behind the movement, and I wonder what the leaders and backers of the movement really had in mind. (If it was to generate an army of Brownshirts as some have hypothesized, it failed miserably). Propagandizing seems to have failed as well, as most occupy memes have failed to catch on in any big way, or have been coopted as figures of fun.

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-battle-for-the-soul-of-occupy-wall-street-20120621?


----------



## exabedtech (4 Jul 2012)

Thucydides said:
			
		

> Long article in Rolling Stone about the Occupy Movement. Reading it several times, I still cannot make out any coherent idea or strategy behind the movement, and I wonder what the leaders and backers of the movement really had in mind. (If it was to generate an army of Brownshirts as some have hypothesized, it failed miserably). Propagandizing seems to have failed as well, as most occupy memes have failed to catch on in any big way, or have been coopted as figures of fun.
> 
> http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-battle-for-the-soul-of-occupy-wall-street-20120621?



We live in interesting times.  Yes, it does seem like spoiled kids complaining about their 1st world problems, but things are different today as compared even to a decade ago.  The middle class has been increasingly pushed out as free trade/globalization allows more and more work to be sourced out to the 3rd world.

I'm no expert, but I do watch as my university educated daughter has a terrible time finding decent paying work in her field (law) and even if she does, how would she ever buy a home?  20 years ago I bought a nice place for 78,000.  Today you'd be fortunate to have something like it for 350,000 and I don't think that it can all be accounted for with simple inflation.

People who are content with how things are going and where their future prospects lie seldom bother to protest much of anything in the streets.  The 'occupy' movement hasn't managed to articulate hardly anything in particular and that in itself should be very troubling to us as it speaks to a very complex problem in our society that isnt easily defined.  

Any of us can think of at least 1 thing that the 'occupy' movement tried to speak about.  Can you think of a solution to that 1 thing?  I'm guessing you can't.  Solve the widening gap between rich and poor?  Good luck with that!

We've built a society in the west on a principle of infinite growth.  What we're finding, however, is that we live on a finite planet.  You really don't need to be a mathematician to see that like any ponzi scheme, an end point will come.  Maybe we are already seeing a taste of it in the European Union or in the continually deadlocked and handcuffed US government.

Maybe the protesters never could tell us what the problem exactly was, but as a group, we should be asking the hard questions about why so much unfocused discontent would exist at all.


----------



## a_majoor (5 Jul 2012)

exabedtech said:
			
		

> Maybe the protesters never could tell us what the problem exactly was, but as a group, we should be asking the hard questions about why so much unfocused discontent would exist at all.



Part of the problem is unmanaged and unrealistic expectations, coupled to an increasingly dysfunctional education system. Students apparently believe they should be able to graduate from University with their Wymns studies degree and jump into an $80,000/year job.

Having some personal experience instructing people with this sort of background in many military courses, I can tell you most are shocked at simple concepts like discipline, many have trouble expressing themselves in clear, coherent sentances or organizing their thoughts on paper (to write an order or estimate, for example), and indeed, often have difficulty in actually organizing their thought processes to take inputs and generate some sort of meaningful output.

Since the Army has had 5000 years to develop these skills and plenty of organizational aids and aid memoires to do so, they can be trained, but how many other organizations have this sort of training program or background to do so? Indeed, one of the reasons business supports public education is it lets them off the hook for training.

As for income inequality, this has also been a feature throughout all societies at all times and all places, so while it mayu not be "fair", at least in our society you can actually work your way into the 1% (see upthread).

Edit to add- And a wonderful addition which shows where it starts (the teacher who defied the "no zero rule is a hero, BTW):

http://news.nationalpost.com/2012/06/02/edmonton-teacher-may-lose-job-for-refusing-to-let-kids-skip-assignments/



> *Edmonton teacher may lose job for refusing to let kids skip assignments*
> Joe O'Connor  Jun 2, 2012 – 4:26 PM ET | Last Updated: Jun 2, 2012 4:34 PM ET
> 
> Rick Macwilliam/Postmedia News
> ...


----------



## a_majoor (21 Aug 2012)

How popular culture spreads memes that support the magical thinking of the Occupy movement and its various supporters (Including politicians who are on record as supporting the movement). More education in _basics_ early on might squash this sort of magical thinking:

http://opinion.financialpost.com/2012/08/20/the-real-hunger-games/



> *The real Hunger Games*
> Philip Cross, Special to Financial Post | Aug 20, 2012 7:44 AM ET
> More from Special to Financial Post
> 
> ...


----------



## cupper (21 Aug 2012)

Is the occupy movement still alive?

Maybe we should check them for the undead virus.


----------



## Sapplicant (11 Sep 2012)

Frosh week's over. Now we see what they'ye made of. I love how I get accused of being brainwashed by these people, when many of them went into debt to be told what to think and what to read.


----------



## Edward Campbell (15 Sep 2012)

They're baaaaack ... according to this article which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/us-business/the-comeback-of-occupy-wall-street/article4546605/


> The comeback of Occupy Wall Street
> 
> JOANNA SLATER
> NEW YORK — The Globe and Mail
> ...




It is important to remember that there is only one significant difernce between these nice young people and Nakoula Basseley Nakoula, the Coptic Christian filmmaker who gave us _Innocence of Muslims_ and, indirectly, an excuse for _innocent Muslims_ to murder diplomats: the difference is that the _Occupiers_ want *exclusive* use of public space, the _peoples' space_, for their own private purpose - they want to deprive me, for example, of my 'right' to the quiet enjoyment of, say, Confederation Park in Ottawa, so that they can have a convenient illegal campground; Nakoula Basseley Nakoula does not intrude into my, your or anyone's _privacy_, there is no _conflict_ of rights, no one was conscripted into watching his trash.


----------



## a_majoor (19 Sep 2012)

The anneversery celebration of the Occupy movement is somewhat less than stellar:

http://blogs.the-american-interest.com/wrm/2012/09/18/ows-pushing-up-daisies-not-pining-for-the-fjords/



> *OWS: Pushing Up Daisies, Not Pining for the Fjords*
> 
> Quick: what important world event happened one year ago yesterday? Give up? Don’t worry. We didn’t get it either.
> 
> ...



And GlennReynolds (Instapundit) opines on what a "real" course on the Occupy movement should teach:

e.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204883304577223020110788672.html



> *A Syllabus for the 'Occupy' Movement*
> Conservatives are wrong to deride college courses on the anti-Wall Street protests. Here's a lesson plan and possible reading list.
> 
> By GLENN HARLAN REYNOLDS
> ...


----------



## mariomike (26 Sep 2012)

HavokFour said:
			
		

> UC Davis Pepper Spray - What Really Happened



Update.

Sun
September 26, 2012 
"University of California settles pepper spray suit for $1 million":
http://www.torontosun.com/2012/09/26/university-of-california-settles-pepper-spray-suit-for-1-million


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2012)

E.R. Campbell said:
			
		

> I have been reading about and watching/listen to report of the "Occupy" _movements_ (I don't think it's one, monolithic 'thing,' yet) with careful albeit not rapt attention. A few observations:
> 
> 1. Inequality, growing inequality, is both real and problematical;
> 
> ...




I have said before that the _Good Grey Globe's_ European correspondent Doug Saunders and I rarely agree but I must admit that he has a knack for clarity. This column, which is reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the _Globe and Mail_, sent me back a year to rethink what I said then:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/commentary/poverty-gives-way-to-inequality-and-the-great-frustration/article4625291/


> Poverty gives way to inequality and the Great Frustration
> 
> DOUG SAUNDERS
> The Globe and Mail
> ...




I agree, fundamentally, with two points: 

1. _"Wealth doesn’t work that way: What the non-rich lack is not a share of the pot but a productive economic situation in which to generate wealth;"_ and

2. _"Countries with strong redistributive systems and free economies are usually both wealthy and equal."_

*But*, before the usual suspect chime in, read what Saunders said: "Countries with strong redistributive systems and free economies are usually both wealthy and equal." 

*Equality* does not mean eliminating poverty; equality ≠ communism; equality means allowing (almost) everyone to have a chance to participate in "_a productive economic situation in which_ [they can] _generate_ [their own]_ wealth_ [through their own use of their own capital and labour]."

I still stick with the nine points I made a year ago, especially 1 through 4, but, as I saw in rural China in 2010, the _difference_ between "poor" and "unequal" is both real and perceived. I visited a region in which real poverty (not enough food, no advanced medical care, backbreaking labour, etc) is, largely, gone, but in which people, who can now see how the (relatively) rich, sophisticated East coast people live, finally understand that, despite having risen out of abject poverty they are, in fact, less _equal_ (with the people in e.g. Beijing or Shanghai) than they were 25 years ago. I do not, in any way, wish to see the Chinese people revert to the poverty which was so depressingly real and widespread in the 1960s, 70s and 80s, but I understand that "happiness" and "equality" are related ~ the really poor, in the 1970s were "happier" because their poverty, which was dreadful, was 'shared' by most people. Now the new lower middle class can see that while they have full bellies, half decent medical care, good education for their kids, etc, they have not "kept up" with much of the country.


----------



## Bird_Gunner45 (20 Oct 2012)

The occupy movement reminds me of a story that I had from my first year of university.  I attended The University of King's College in Halifax, NS for the journalism program, and soon discovered that it was a largely philosophy based school with journalism also, and that a large number of "rich" kids went there (total student population of 800, probably 500 or so had gone to private schools such as upper Canada College, son of the guy who owns Dare cookies, daughter of guy who owns Leon's, etc) and a large difference between them and the rest of us.

Now, skip ahead to April of that year when the annual student protest march occured.  The same private school kids, who often talked about how much cheaper university tuition was for mom and dad than the private school, were the ones out protesting.  The "rest of us" attended the classes.  When the aforementioned son of Dare Cookies asked my friend Dave and I why we were going, we just said, "because we paid for it" and got booed by the kids who weren't paying for it.

The occupiers, to me, are the same species.  They have all the luxuries of life (internet, sattelite TV, Iphones, etc) but feel entitled to MAINTAIN that lifestyle once they leave home, the one that mom and dad had paid for.  The reality of working for it isn't there... just the knowledge that there is a gap.


----------



## ModlrMike (20 Oct 2012)

Bird_Gunner45 said:
			
		

> The occupiers, to me, are the same species.  They have all the luxuries of life (internet, sattelite TV, Iphones, etc) but feel entitled to MAINTAIN that lifestyle once they leave home, the one that mom and dad had paid for.  The reality of working for it isn't there... just the knowledge that there is a gap.




Exactly! They know there's a gap, but they refuse to accept that someone else paid for it. The corollary is that they refuse to pay for it themselves now that the mom/dad money tap has been shut off. It plays into the "everything is someone else's fault" paradigm that developed in the last decade where personal responsibility was cast aside in search of someone else to blame for one's misfortune or bad outcome.


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


Upon reflection, based on the post below I probably should have said century where I said decade.


----------



## Edward Campbell (20 Oct 2012)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> Exactly! They know there's a gap, but they refuse to accept that someone else paid for it. The corollary is that they refuse to pay for it themselves now that the mom/dad money tap has been shut off. It plays into the "everything is someone else's fault" paradigm that developed in the last decade where personal responsibility was cast aside in search of someone else to blame for one's misfortune or bad outcome.




The paradigm of which you speak developed long before the last decade ~ it is rooted in the 1830s when we (Britain, mostly) moved from a primarily _static_, agrarian, family based society with very _Confucian_ values, to a _mobile_, urban, disconnected society with very _liberal_ (individualistic) values. It took wings one hundred years later, during the Great Depression, when literacy and mass communications, especially film and radio, made the propagation of very _conservative_ and even more _illiberal_ (statist) ideas and values easier. In the 1960s and '70s the "greatest generation," the one that lived through the Great Depression and fought World War II decided on their own, domestic version of never again and through the likes of John Kennedy, Lyndon Johnson and Pierre Trudeau created our own culture of entitlement.

Don't blame the kids of the last decade, blame their grandparents.


----------



## a_majoor (12 Dec 2012)

A very succinct and fitting eulogy for the Occupy movement. Last line sums it up perfectly:

http://boingboing.net/2012/12/12/eulogy-for-occupy-beautiful.html?utm_source=dlvr.it&utm_medium=twitter



> *Eulogy for #Occupy: beautiful, brutal postmortem*
> Cory Doctorow at 8:06 am Wed, Dec 12
> 
> Policies
> ...


----------



## The Bread Guy (5 Feb 2013)

Ya think?


> The Mounties compiled a dossier on the Occupy Ottawa movement, scouring social media sites and even quizzing campus security after protesters held planning sessions at a university, newly released documents show.
> 
> Meeting notes show there were also plans to monitor the Confederation Park protest site using a camera mounted to the nearby offices of the National Capital Commission.
> 
> ...


The Canadian Press (via _National Post_), 4 Feb 13


----------



## The Bread Guy (20 Aug 2013)

Maybe THAT'll teach those Quebec student protesters ....


> Marc-Antoine Dumas would show up for each of his history classes after his student association voted to strike in February 2012, and every time he would be turned away by picketing students. After a month of frustration, he gave up and dropped out.
> 
> In a decision that is being called the first of its kind in Quebec, a judge has ordered the Université Laval history students’ association that co-ordinated the blockades to reimburse Mr. Dumas $1,220 in lost tuition and gas money.
> 
> ...


_National Post_, 20 Aug 13


----------



## McG (24 Nov 2013)

It seems a referendum will decide if the Swiss will legislate against the 1%.


> *Swiss vote on proposal to limit top managers' pay*
> Proposal would keep compensation to no more than 12 times salary of lowest-paid
> 24 Nov 2013
> CBC
> ...


http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/swiss-vote-on-proposal-to-limit-top-managers-pay-1.2438366


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Nov 2013)

MCG said:
			
		

> It seems a referendum will decide if the Swiss will legislate against the 1%.http://www.cbc.ca/news/world/swiss-vote-on-proposal-to-limit-top-managers-pay-1.2438366



And here's the response: Don't be daft!



> Swiss voters reject plan to cap executive pay
> Swiss vote down plan to cap salaries of top executives after warning that it could harm the economy


----------



## a_majoor (24 Nov 2013)

The sort of intolerant, entitled and hyper sensitive thinking that is behind the "Occupy" movement is shown in all its glory at one of the Universities that spawned the sort of thinking behind "Occupy". As Instapundit comments: 


> "If you can’t take having your grammar errors corrected, you’re too dumb and immature to be in college, much less graduate school. Unsurprisingly, this was in the school of Education.



http://dailybruin.com/2013/11/20/students-defend-professor-after-sit-in-over-racial-climate/



> *Students defend professor after sit-in over racial climate*
> November 20, 2013
> 12:00 am
> By Sam Hoff
> ...



This could equally go under the "Deconstructing Progressive Thought" or "Education Bubble" threads, it also seems cleat that this is a case of Campus Brownshirts attempting to dictate their will through the use of force, as well as making baffling use of language and claims of representation to confuse the issue and make actual debate impossible.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Nov 2013)

WTF is "micro-aggression"?


----------



## larry Strong (24 Nov 2013)

ModlrMike said:
			
		

> WTF is "micro-aggression"?



Well you asked  :rofl::

According to Chester M. Pierce and Mary Rowe as, “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of color.” :stars:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Microaggression



God help us all......

Larry


----------



## cavalryman (24 Nov 2013)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Well you asked  :rofl::
> 
> According to Chester M. Pierce and Mary Rowe as, “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of color.” :stars:
> 
> ...



So - translated to English, that would therefore mean:

Manufactured indignation trotted out by people seeking to use race as a means to excuse or cover personal failure, or to set low expectations   ;D

Nothing new to see here...


----------



## Jed (24 Nov 2013)

Larry Strong said:
			
		

> Well you asked  :rofl::
> 
> According to Chester M. Pierce and Mary Rowe as, “brief and commonplace daily verbal, behavioral, or environmental indignities, whether intentional or unintentional, that communicate hostile, derogatory, or negative racial slights and insults toward people of color.” :stars:
> 
> ...




As the child says whining: "But mommy, he _looked_ at me!"


----------



## Nemo888 (24 Nov 2013)

Occupy did have some success. New banking disclosure rules for tax havens have scared the rich. Now they are liquidating bank balances and turning them into cash, precious metals, luxury goods and art. Freeports are booming.

http://www.economist.com/news/briefing/21590353-ever-more-wealth-being-parked-fancy-storage-facilities-some-customers-they-are

Über-warehouses for the ultra-rich
Ever more wealth is being parked in fancy storage facilities. For some customers, they are an attractive new breed of tax haven

PASSENGERS at Findel airport in Luxembourg may have noticed a cluster of cranes a few hundred yards from the runway. The structure being erected looks fairly unremarkable (though it will eventually be topped with striking hexagonal skylights). Along its side is a line of loading bays, suggesting it could be intended as a spillover site for the brimming cargo terminal nearby. This new addition to one of Europe’s busiest air-freight hubs will not hold any old goods, however. It will soon be home to billions of dollars’ worth of fine art and other treasures, much of which will have been whisked straight from collectors’ private jets along a dedicated road linking the runway to the warehouse.

The world’s rich are increasingly investing in expensive stuff, and “freeports” such as Luxembourg’s are becoming their repositories of choice. Their attractions are similar to those offered by offshore financial centres: security and confidentiality, not much scrutiny, the ability for owners to hide behind nominees, and an array of tax advantages. This special treatment is possible because goods in freeports are technically in transit, even if in reality the ports are used more and more as permanent homes for accumulated wealth. If anyone knows how to game the rules, it is the super-rich and their advisers.

Because of the confidentiality, the value of goods stashed in freeports is unknowable. It is thought to be in the hundreds of billions of dollars, and rising. Though much of what lies within is perfectly legitimate, the protection offered from prying eyes ensures that they appeal to kleptocrats and tax-dodgers as well as plutocrats. Freeports have been among the beneficiaries as undeclared money has fled offshore bank accounts as a result of tax-evasion crackdowns in America and Europe.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Nov 2013)

How is that a success? If the funds are in banks they're traceable and can be taxed. If they're in hard goods stashed in transit warehouses it's much harder to find them.


----------



## Nemo888 (24 Nov 2013)

It is more difficult now that the wealth has been removed from the banks. Putting an expiry on the length of time goods can be "in transit" and demanding proper disclosure would end the freeport loophole. Now they can be kept in these warehouses of the rich indefinitely. Without occupy I don't think new bank disclosure laws would have made it through Congress or in the EU.  The rich are crafty though. 

Freeports are a rather appealing target. Most of the goods would never even be reported stolen.


----------



## Kirkhill (24 Nov 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> ....Putting an expiry on the length of time goods can be "in transit" ....



Perhaps you really mean to say "the length of time goods can be "owned""?

What business is it of yours if I choose to store my goods in Luxembourg, my local storage lockers, my Aunt Fannie's or on the walls of my living room?  They are mine no matter if they are in storage or "in transit" between stores.


----------



## Nemo888 (24 Nov 2013)

For the same reason we demanded offshore accounts start declaring. Rich people should pay the same rate of taxes as you do and not be able to dodge them. This uber rich class has become a parasite on the real economy. Instead of paying taxes and supporting the economy they are hiding their wealth in positional goods. Things you put in your storage locker went through customs, paid duty and were taxed. They were not purchased with clandestine income and turned into a positional good to evade taxes.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Nov 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> For the same reason we demanded offshore accounts start declaring. Rich people should pay the same rate of taxes as you do and not be able to dodge them. This uber rich class has become a parasite on the real economy. Instead of paying taxes and supporting the economy they are hiding their wealth in positional goods. Things you put in your storage locker went through customs, paid duty and were taxed. They were not purchased with clandestine income and turned into a positional good to evade taxes.



Are you for real/


No wonder so many have you on IGNORE.


----------



## ballz (24 Nov 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Are you for real/
> 
> 
> No wonder so many have you on IGNORE.



Not that I have a dog in these personal spats, but your personal shot via ad populum is pretty childish at best.

It really is not a secret that the bigger corporations and wealthier individuals are able to escape taxes through accounting loopholes that have not been closed and definitely need to be. These are the kind of loopholes that the small business/corporation or common folk cannot exploit and so end up paying these taxes. Both large corporations and very rich people are able to do this, and it *is* unfair.


----------



## George Wallace (24 Nov 2013)

ballz said:
			
		

> Not that I have a dog in these personal spats, but your personal shot via ad populum is pretty childish at best.



Hello Pot.


			
				ballz said:
			
		

> It really is not a secret that the bigger corporations and wealthier individuals are able to escape taxes through accounting loopholes that have not been closed and definitely need to be. These are the kind of loopholes that the small business/corporation or common folk cannot exploit and so end up paying these taxes. Both large corporations and very rich people are able to do this, and it *is* unfair.



Those loopholes are used by people who deem it necessary and beneficial to themselves and take the time and effort to use them.  Because it is predominantly the "rich" who do so, and you do not; whose fault is it?

Another way to look at it, as I have run into in the past with the "Make the Rich Pay" crowd a few decades back goes something like this:

Make the Rich Pay Girl:  "The Rich should pay, and the middle and lower classes should not."
Me:  "So, if you make the Rich pay, and you don't, then they become poor, and you become rich.  Do you expect to then have to pay?"
Make the Rich Pay Girl:  "No.  The Rich should Pay."
Me:  "But you just made the Rich Pay and therefore become Poor.  You now have more money than they do.  You are now the Rich.  Shouldn't you now have to pay?"
Make the Rich Pay Girl:  "No."

She could not grasp the concept that if she became the Rich in this process, that she should be made to pay.  

Next step.  Let's place higher taxes on the Rich and large corporations.  What do you do when they decide to leave the country for good, taking their money, business, etc. with them offshore?  Hundreds of thousands would soon become unemployed and destitute.  What now?

If this were Star Trek The Next Generation, this would not be a problem.  No one would need money.  Unfortunately, reality bites.

Now, really?  Are any of these new name for an old movement, The Occupy Movement, really basing their thesis on reality and logic?  Not at all.


----------



## ModlrMike (24 Nov 2013)

Which takes us back to here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=661pi6K-8WQ


----------



## Retired AF Guy (25 Nov 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Next step.  Let's place higher taxes on the Rich and large corporations.  What do you do when they decide to leave the country for good, taking their money, business, etc. with them offshore?  Hundreds of thousands would soon become unemployed and destitute.  What now?



Which is what happened in the U.K. in the 70's - 80's. The rich took their money and moved to Ireland which had much more lenient tax laws.


----------



## ballz (25 Nov 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Those loopholes are used by people who deem it necessary and beneficial to themselves and take the time and effort to use them.  Because it is predominantly the "rich" who do so, and you do not; whose fault is it?
> 
> Another way to look at it, as I have run into in the past with the "Make the Rich Pay" crowd a few decades back goes something like this:
> 
> ...



Thank you for that very eloquent lesson in the Chicago School of Economics. While I am aware of how that works, I think you are missing the point I am trying to make.

Because of these loopholes, the tax system becomes regressive. Surely you don't think that the rich should pay a LOWER tax rate than the middle class or the poor?

I no longer have my public finance textbook or I would offer the actual chart, but an easy example is that, in Canada, they tracked the taxes actually paid by the folks in the highest tax bracket ($135,054 of taxable income and up). The funny thing was, someone at the lower end of the bracket was actually paying more of their income in taxes than someone at the higher end. The peak was at about $300,000, those folks were paying more of their income than anyone, people making 1 million a year were paying about the same as those making $150,000. 

Unfortunately, those folks making $300,000 a year simply don't have an accountant on salary. This is not a question of "effort," it's the accountant that does the work. It's simply not worth the pay-off for those making $300,000 a year. That doesn't justify in any way the existence of the loopholes that actually make this scenario possible.

My understanding is that in the US, this problem is much, much worse (unless you are one of the rich folk).

So it is not about "make the rich pay," it is about "make the rich pay at least the same tax rate as everyone else."


----------



## SeaKingTacco (25 Nov 2013)

So wouldn't the solution then be to simplify the tax code?

Everybody gets the first (pick your favourite multiple of thousand dollars) for free, and then a flat 10% (or 15, or 20%- pick according to your political bent) on everything after that. No exemptions or write offs, period.

Or would we put too many accounts and CRA employees out of work?


----------



## George Wallace (25 Nov 2013)

You don't have to be "RICH" to hire an accountant to do your taxes.  Don't use that as an excuse.


----------



## ballz (25 Nov 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> You don't have to be "RICH" to hire an accountant to do your taxes.  Don't use that as an excuse.



Hiring an accountant to fill out your income taxes is quite a bit cheaper than having one on salary that's constantly tracking the flow of money, and providing input on how you should go about moving your money around and where you should be putting it to get more tax breaks, to make sure you get every cent you can of it. Stop being unreasonable, you know we are not talking about dropping off your T4s and getting your refund. Do you agree that the rich should have to pay at least the same tax rate as everyone else or not?

Besides that, I say again, that doesn't justify in any way the existence of the loopholes that actually make this scenario possible.



			
				SeaKingTacco said:
			
		

> So wouldn't the solution then be to simplify the tax code?
> 
> Everybody gets the first (pick your favourite multiple of thousand dollars) for free, and then a flat 10% (or 15, or 20%- pick according to your political bent) on everything after that. No exemptions or write offs, period.
> 
> Or would we put too many accounts and CRA employees out of work?



I don't know. That argument has been made before of course, I find it hard to take a side. It is possible to have a much simpler progressive tax system than we have (or the US has).... But I also don't know if it's "fair" to tax the rich at a higher rate than the middle class.


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Nov 2013)

The perception is that the rich are not paying their fair share. I think the reality is that they pay the same amount of tax on some of their money and less on other parts. Case in point: someone who earns 500K in income and another 500K in investments will pay the high rate on the first 500K and a lower rate on the second. The difference is that the second is earned with money that has already been taxed once, so it accrues a smaller tax liability the second time around. One pays about 50% tax rate on taxable income over 135K, while investment income is taxed at about 10%. So if you can increase your income through low tax methods, then you'll get to keep more of it. This is why many CEOs take so many stock options. The salaries are relatively modest, but the stock values are massive.

We're up in arms over multi-million dollar salaries, but the reality is that cash-in-hand makes up a relatively small amount of the total compensation package.


----------



## Jungle (25 Nov 2013)

ballz said:
			
		

> So it is not about "make the rich pay," it is about "make the rich pay at least the same tax rate as everyone else."



There are a few ways to look at this; an article in the french-language media TVA in Québec in 2011 explains that approx 40% of tax-payers do not pay any taxes, while the top 20% of earners pay 70% of the govt's income-tax revenues.

Source: http://tvanouvelles.ca/lcn/economie/archives/2011/04/20110419-190540.html


----------



## Nemo888 (25 Nov 2013)

You can't do this kind of tax avoidance with a simple accountant. You need a tax lawyer. The basic fees for a numbered Cayman account where you could make yourself a trustee of your own property and business was about $12,000 to open and 3000-5000$ a year upkeep. This was the late 80's so now it is likely significantly more. 

On what planet is $135,054 a year rich? That is middle class and barely scraping by if you have kids. Most of the rich make their money off of rents of some kind or another. Many have no employment income to tax. Offshoring allows them to pay less tax then someone making 33,000$ a year.(But pay 5000$ plus in legal and accounting fees per annum) So since at best the rich are only paying capital gains at half the rate of income tax they already have a reduced tax rate. Why not tax capital gains at the same rate as income tax after the first $150,000 and then a progressive tax from there. I don't see how getting tax cheats to declare their income is inflammatory and worthy of ridicule. The rich who hide their profits offshore are moochers and takers. They are not investing in the economy and creating jobs or even paying for the infrastructure that allowed them to make those profits in the first place. Citizens making less than 300,000 a year have no choice but to disclose and pay the tax man. I don't see the benefit of a special loophole for those making more.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Nov 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> You can't do this kind of tax avoidance with a simple accountant. You need a tax lawyer. The basic fees for a numbered Cayman account where you could make yourself a trustee of your own property and business was about $12,000 to open and 3000-5000$ a year upkeep. This was the late 80's so now it is likely significantly more.
> 
> On what planet is $135,054 a year rich? That is middle class and barely scraping by if you have kids. Most of the rich make their money off of rents of some kind or another. Many have no employment income to tax. Offshoring allows them to pay less tax then someone making 33,000$ a year.(But pay 5000$ plus in legal and accounting fees per annum) So since at best the rich are only paying capital gains at half the rate of income tax they already have a reduced tax rate. Why not tax capital gains at the same rate as income tax after the first $150,000 and then a progressive tax from there. I don't see how getting tax cheats to declare their income is inflammatory and worthy of ridicule. The rich who hide their profits offshore are moochers and takers. They are not investing in the economy and creating jobs or even paying for the infrastructure that allowed them to make those profits in the first place. Citizens making less than 300,000 a year have no choice but to disclose and pay the tax man. I don't see the benefit of a special loophole for those making more.




So, if I take it from your muses here, you want to take away any and all incentives in place to encourage innovation and initiative to acquire wealth and make this a society of mediocre and dependant people relying solely on Government support.  You have no wish for members of this society to strive to better their lot, but rather stifle any chance of them doing so.  You figure that all those who have been able to attain their wealth through their labours and initiatives are not deserving of what they attained.  Instead of being complacent and complaining of what others have achieved, why don't you get off your ass and work towards bettering yourself instead of penalizing those who have worked hard to get where they are.


----------



## Nemo888 (25 Nov 2013)

In what way does rent-seeking encourage innovation and initiative to acquire wealth? The two are opposites. Small business and those making employment income would actually see a decreased tax burden while those who inherited their wealth and quite simply didn't earn it would pay more. Most of all criminal tax cheats would finally have to pay the same as everybody else. Why are the super rich entitled not to pay their fair share of taxes?


----------



## George Wallace (25 Nov 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> In what way does rent-seeking encourage innovation and initiative to acquire wealth? The two are opposites. Small business and those making employment income would actually see a decreased tax burden while those who inherited their wealth and quite simply didn't earn it would pay more. Most of all criminal tax cheats would finally have to pay the same as everybody else. Why are the super rich entitled not to pay their fair share of taxes?



As I said, you are advocating the penalizing of those with the initiative to acquire wealth to compensate those who do not have any initiative.  You are advocating a society of mediocrity where no innovation is encouraged.

"Criminal tax cheats"?  "Criminal" means that they have broken a Law and should face prosecution.  This is not what you have been expounding in your complaints so far.  You have been complaining about loopholes.  Loopholes that are available to all who can qualify to use them.  As I said in my previous post, stop complaining, and get off your ass to work towards being able to use those loopholes yourself; not penalizing those who have achieved a position that they are capable of doing so.  

Without initiative and innovation this society will disintegrate upon itself and collapse.  Mediocrity leads to stagnation.  That will mean that your precious "Poor" will become even more so.  

Welfare States collapse eventually.  Socialism is a great concept on paper, as is Communism, but neither have succeeded in the real world.  They are philosophies of Mediocrity with all initiative stifled leading to their collapse.


----------



## Nemo888 (25 Nov 2013)

Having the super rich on welfare has exactly the same outcome as having the poor on welfare. Rent seeking leads to mediocrity. Mediocrity leads to stagnation and a welfare state for the rich collapses just like one for the poor. IMO equality of opportunity and meritocracy were the pillars of our success. Not coddling plutocrats and allowing them to change tax codes so technically they can evade taxes legally. I want the same rules for everyone and no free lunches for millionaires.


----------



## Fishbone Jones (25 Nov 2013)

Time to change the channel.

Both sides have been arguing the same points for some time.

Neither will change their minds.

Move on.

---Staff---


----------



## vonGarvin (25 Nov 2013)

Nemo888 said:
			
		

> For the same reason we demanded offshore accounts start declaring. Rich people should pay the same rate of taxes as you do and not be able to dodge them. This uber rich class has become a parasite on the real economy. Instead of paying taxes and supporting the economy they are hiding their wealth in positional goods. Things you put in your storage locker went through customs, paid duty and were taxed. They were not purchased with clandestine income and turned into a positional good to evade taxes.


Yes, on earnings, just like you and I pay for taxes.  And property taxes.  But i'm not about punishing others for their success in life.  Nor for their good fortune.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Nov 2013)

A bit of a channel change ....

From about this time last year:


> A group of professors, documentary filmmakers, corporate dropouts and others had spent months protesting Americans’ debt burden when a novel idea arose: What if they could just wave a magic wand and make some of it disappear?
> 
> The group, an offshoot of the Occupy Wall Street movement called Strike Debt, is trying to buy some of the debts that people have accrued — which lenders often sell for pennies on the dollar to third parties who either try to collect on it or bundle it up for resale. Strike Debt, however, is not looking to collect on them; instead it plans to give some debtors the surprise of a lifetime.
> 
> “Basically what we’re going to do is exactly the same as what a regular debt buyer would do, with one big difference,” said Thomas Gokey, an artist and teacher. “Rather than collect the debt, we’re just going to abolish it.” ....



From earlier this month:


> An Occupy Wall Street spin-off group has bought up $14.7 million worth of Americans' personal medical debt and forgiven it over the last year as part of its Rolling Jubilee project, the group announced Monday.
> 
> The Rolling Jubilee project, organized by Occupy Wall Street's Strike Debt group, has so far spent $400,000 to buy the debt, in the process relieving 2,693 people of the money they owed for medical services Occupy thinks should be free.
> 
> ...


I hope Professor Ross doesn't teach math - looks more like a 36- or 37-to-1 ratio by my math (14.7M ÷ 400,000) to non-university-professor me.  

That said, an interesing (could be sold as) "Robin Hood" strategy, indeed ....


----------



## ballz (25 Nov 2013)

Jungle said:
			
		

> There are a few ways to look at this; an article in the french-language media TVA in Québec in 2011 explains that approx 40% of tax-payers do not pay any taxes, while the top 20% of earners pay 70% of the govt's income-tax revenues.
> 
> Source: http://tvanouvelles.ca/lcn/economie/archives/2011/04/20110419-190540.html



While I can't read it (XXX language profile here), I have never understood that argument. If one were to apply the argument that the top 20% should only pay the same amount as the bottom 20%, then they are essentially arguing for a lump-sum tax.

While a lump-sum tax is definitely the most efficient income tax, it's pretty easy to see why no one would want to live in a society where a person making $15,000 a year pays $10,000 in taxes, and a person making $1,000,000 a year also pays $10,000 in taxes. And where would society be without a working class?



			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> As I said, you are advocating the penalizing of those with the initiative to acquire wealth to compensate those who do not have any initiative.  You are advocating a society of mediocrity where no innovation is encouraged.
> 
> EDIT to remove non-related drivel



 :

Are you really advocating that paying the same tax rate everyone else pays takes away all incentive to "get ahead?" That someone is just going to hit $300,000/year and say "you know what, the first $300k I made at a 10% tax rate was well worth it, but there's no way I'm going to earn another dollar if they are going to charge me 10% taxes on it!"

EDIT TO ADD: That somehow, having to pay the same rate after $300,000 is a penalty?

You still haven't answered my question, do you think rich people should pay a lower rate of taxes than everyone else or not?


----------



## Kirkhill (25 Nov 2013)

milnews.ca said:
			
		

> A bit of a channel change ....
> 
> From about this time last year:
> From earlier this month:I hope Professor Ross doesn't teach math - looks more like a 36- or 37-to-1 ratio by my math (14.7M ÷ 400,000) to non-university-professor me.
> ...



As a charitable foundation that might be something that I could support.  Not as a government funded entity though.  The difference is the issue of choice.  

I prefer to asked.... as the actress said to the Bishop.


----------



## The Bread Guy (25 Nov 2013)

Kirkhill said:
			
		

> As a charitable foundation that might be something that I could support.   Not as a government funded entity though.  The difference is the issue of choice.


Agree with the yellow bit, too.

On the orange bit, if a case could be made for bailing out huge businesses (who, agreed, hire/employ people), some might be able to make a case for bailing out at the bottom end of the spectrum (who spend the money to keep the economy going).  

That said, thought, pouring all the water out of a leaky bucket only helps a bit if the leak isn't fixed and water keeps pouring back in ....


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Nov 2013)

ballz said:
			
		

> While I can't read it (XXX language profile here), I have never understood that argument. If one were to apply the argument that the top 20% should only pay the same amount as the bottom 20%, then they are essentially arguing for a lump-sum tax.
> 
> While a lump-sum tax is definitely the most efficient income tax, it's pretty easy to see why no one would want to live in a society where a person making $15,000 a year pays $10,000 in taxes, and a person making $1,000,000 a year also pays $10,000 in taxes. And where would society be without a working class?
> 
> ...



The argument for flat tax is one of a flat tax rate, not a lump sum tax. It includes such policies as all income, regardless or origin are taxed at the same rate. Generous personal exemptions which raise the base level at which one begins to pay tax compensate for what would appear to be an increased burden on the less well off.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Nov 2013)

ballz said:
			
		

> :
> 
> Are you really advocating that paying the same tax rate everyone else pays takes away all incentive to "get ahead?" That someone is just going to hit $300,000/year and say "you know what, the first $300k I made at a 10% tax rate was well worth it, but there's no way I'm going to earn another dollar if they are going to charge me 10% taxes on it!"
> 
> ...




 :

Did I say anywhere "that paying the same tax rate everyone else pays takes away all incentive to "get ahead?"   Please pay attention to detail.

Did I say anywhere that "rich people should pay a lower rate of taxes than everyone else"?  Again; pay attention to detail.


----------



## Jungle (25 Nov 2013)

ballz said:
			
		

> While I can't read it (XXX language profile here),



That's a lame excuse... Google translate is your friend: http://translate.google.fr/



			
				ballz said:
			
		

> I have never understood that argument.
> 
> If one were to apply the argument that the top 20% should only pay the same amount as the bottom 20%, then they are essentially arguing for a lump-sum tax.
> 
> While a lump-sum tax is definitely the most efficient income tax, it's pretty easy to see why no one would want to live in a society where a person making $15,000 a year pays $10,000 in taxes, and a person making $1,000,000 a year also pays $10,000 in taxes. And where would society be without a working class?



It's clear you don't understand; as someone explained above, we are talking about a flat rate (a fixed percentage of your income). If you want to tax the top earners, overtax luxury items (restaurants, alcohol, tobacco, jewelry, etc...).


----------



## ballz (25 Nov 2013)

Jungle said:
			
		

> That's a lame excuse... Google translate is your friend: http://translate.google.fr/
> 
> It's clear you don't understand; as someone explained above, we are talking about a flat rate (a fixed percentage of your income). If you want to tax the top earners, overtax luxury items (restaurants, alcohol, tobacco, jewelry, etc...).



No, I do understand, and am maybe on board with a flat tax rate (I know the difference between a flat tax rate and a lump-sum tax) just look at the content of my posts (the rich should pay the same *rate* as everyone else).

However, the argument that "10% of the people pay 90% of the taxes" is not an argument for a flat-rate tax at all, it eventually leads to a lump-sum tax as the (only) solution. The only way to guarantee that the "top 10% pay 10% of the taxes" is with a lump-sum tax. With a flat-rate tax, we would still have "Top X% pay more than X% of the taxes."


With a flat tax rate, the top 10% (or top whatever percent) would still pay more than 10% of the total taxes.
For example, with a flat tax rate of 10% and this completely made up scenario...

2x $1 mil earners = 200,000 paid in taxes
18x $100,000 earners = 180,000 paid in taxes

"Top 10% earners pay over half the total taxes! How unfair!"

vs.

The only way to have a scenario where "Top X% pays X% of taxes" is with a lump-sum tax.
For example, with a lump-sum tax of $10,000 and another completely made up scenario...
2x $1 mil earners = $20,000 paid in taxes
18x $100,000 earners = 180,000 paid in taxes

"The top 10% earners pay 10% of the total taxes."



			
				Jungle said:
			
		

> If you want to tax the top earners, overtax luxury items (restaurants, alcohol, tobacco, jewelry, etc...).



User fees. And I am more than 100% on board with user fees. I think we ought to be using them much more often than we do.


----------



## Nemo888 (25 Nov 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> Did I say anywhere that "rich people should pay a lower rate of taxes than everyone else"?  Again; pay attention to detail.



You kind of did say that. 


			
				George Wallace said:
			
		

> Those loopholes are used by people who deem it necessary and beneficial to themselves and take the time and effort to use them.  Because it is predominantly the "rich" who do so, and you do not; whose fault is it?
> 
> You don't have to be "RICH" to hire an accountant to do your taxes.  Don't use that as an excuse.



The problem is that now that we are forcing disclosure on offshore tax havens the rich are taking the money out of offshore banks and converting them into positional goods and hiding these physical objects in freeports. 

Though it is  technically legal to put items in freeports indefinitely if the money that bought them could be traced the owners would be guilty of tax evasion.

Since people can't generally afford to buy Monet's and gold bars then spend thousands getting lawyers,  assigning nominees and storing them this is a very unique type of tax evasion by people who really don't need the money. The funds the Crown could recoup by even catching a few of these cheats are huge.


----------



## ballz (25 Nov 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :
> 
> Did I say anywhere "that paying the same tax rate everyone else pays takes away all incentive to "get ahead?"   Please pay attention to detail.
> 
> Did I say anywhere that "rich people should pay a lower rate of taxes than everyone else"?  Again; pay attention to detail.



No, you didn't say anything, you just keep dodging the question because you know it would bring merit to the idea that these tax loopholes should be closed.

And then spouting off with rhetoric about how anything that raises taxes on the rich (including closing loopholes) *MUST* be bad for society.


----------



## George Wallace (25 Nov 2013)

ballz said:
			
		

> No, you didn't say anything, you just keep dodging the question because you know it would bring merit to the idea that these tax loopholes should be closed.
> 
> And then spouting off with rhetoric about how anything that raises taxes on the rich (including closing loopholes) *MUST* be bad for society.



 :

You really don't pay attention to detail.  You don't like what I say, calling it drivel or just rhetoric, while not proving anything to the contrary.  All you want is to bitch and complain and be part of the problem, but not provide any solutions.  When you are told anything different than what your beliefs are, you call BS.  Two can play that game.  Prove to me, and the others, that all examples that we have seen with Socialism, Communism and Welfare Starts States in the West have prospered by stifling innovation and initiative of persons wanting to attain wealth.  Tell me how great the world is when you penalize those who attempt to achieve something better for themselves.  As I said, and others have as well, when you take away incentives and stifle industry and the wealthy, they leave.  Perhaps you ought to have a look at the Irving family history and wonder why old man Irving moved everything offshore.  Or perhaps you can look at former Prime Minister Paul Martin and his business dealings.  But I guess this is all just drivel and rhetoric to you and you really don't want to put any thought into it.  Fine with me.


----------



## ModlrMike (25 Nov 2013)

This would be the same Paul Martin that flags his ships in the Bahamas to avoid paying tax in Canada?


----------



## ballz (25 Nov 2013)

George Wallace said:
			
		

> :
> 
> You really don't pay attention to detail.  You don't like what I say, calling it drivel or just rhetoric, while not proving anything to the contrary.  All you want is to ***** and complain and be part of the problem, but not provide any solutions.  When you are told anything different than what your beliefs are, you call BS.  Two can play that game.  Prove to me, and the others, that all examples that we have seen with Socialism, Communism and Welfare Starts in the West have prospered by stifling innovation and initiative of persons wanting to attain wealth.  Tell me how great the world is when you penalize those who attempt to achieve something better for themselves.  As I said, and others have as well, when you take away incentives and stifle industry and the wealthy, they leave.  Perhaps you ought to have a look at the Irving family history and wonder why old man Irving moved everything offshore.  Or perhaps you can look at former Prime Minister Paul Martin and his business dealings.  But I guess this is all just drivel and rhetoric to you and you really don't want to put any thought into it.  Fine with me.



You keep crying "socialist" like a broken Republican record. What is there about a tax system that has the rich pay *at least* the same tax rate as everyone else that is socialist? It has nothing to do with socialism or capitalism. 

I'm not even talking about socialism, communism, or capitalism. I am talking about regressive tax systems, flat tax systems, and progressive tax systems. 

And you are still singing the same tune about socialism vs capitalism which actually has *nothing* to do with it, despite the fact that you can have any of the three tax systems in a capitalist society or a socialist society. 

I provided you with a solution... close the loopholes and have a flat tax rate, or a simpler progressive tax rate than what we currently have. You somehow started singing about socialism.


----------



## The_Falcon (25 Nov 2013)

I like and believe in the statement "No one else is entitled, to what I have earned".


----------



## ArmyRick (26 Nov 2013)

A word of caution. I have _some_ respect for those that have earned their income through private means and done well. My father-in-law started his own structural steel company and has done quite well for himself. He is an example of what I might call wealth well earned. 

Than there is the other side of the coin. I worked for a company at one time, will not say who, that basically the owner was getting rich ripping people off and creating paper trails and confusion so no one could really pin anybody for it. Not unless a crown attorney has an army of lawyers to waste time going after this company. I found out about this because they liked me and started to fill me in on a few ways of how they do things. That was enough for me to say I'm done. 

There are companies out there that abuse their power of finance and/or political influence. Those of us been in CAF long enough have seen it. Every peice of kit purchsed for the CF was on the level, right?


----------



## a_majoor (29 Nov 2013)

One of the nice things about the Flat or Single tax (besides the efficiency) is it eliminates the various loopholes and places where paper trails and other obscurants can be laid: you made $x dollars in wages, real estate, dividend income, interest = you pay y%.

The current tax code is basically a repository of who won or lost the political game; tax exemptions, etc. are net "wins" for someone, we who pay to make up these deficits lose. A single tax offers no incentives to move money or investments around, if you made $1,000,000 in capital gains you pay the same as if you collected $1,000,000 in interest payments. Under the current system, you are penalized for collecting interest and rewarded for investing for capital gains, regardless of what your interests or risk tolerance are.

We also have an example (posted here) which demonstrates that incentives do matter, although even reading the newspaper will provide innumerable examples (look at what happened in France when the top rate was raised to 75%, or for that matter look at the cahnge in US GDP, median income and other wealth indicators before and after the Reagan Revolution, and consider how that happened).


----------



## a_majoor (13 Apr 2014)

Looks like the "Occupy" people made a lasting impression on the good citizens of New York:

http://americanglob.com/2014/04/12/new-york-court-struggles-to-find-jurors-who-dont-hate-the-occupy-movement/



> *New York Court Struggles To Find Jurors Who Don’t Hate The Occupy Movement*
> APRIL 12, 2014
> 
> The trial of an Occupy Wall Street activist accused of assaulting a police officer has been held up by the jury selection process.
> ...


----------

