Occupy Wall St.

[Marc Majcher]

Because of the law I mentioned in the first paragraph, the law pretty much requires them to do so.

So this isn't just a problem with our laws...

...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something there.

[CarlZ]

Dang it, I can't post URLs yet. So Google the phrase below...

I think the essence of this movement is nothing new. Maybe they should start with this speech, if they want to define their movement:

Redefining the GNP Robert Kennedy

[Pdyx]

Anybody seen any of the Occupy Oakland footage?

Holy fuck. It sounds/looks like a war zone.

[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QngE6kKk8Lg&feature=youtu.be
[/youtube]

There's other videos out there too.

[Baldenhofer]

[youtube]http://youtu.be/xWXm3cd5S-o[/youtube]

Fast forward to :30 to see an officer toss some kind of explosive device into a small crowd of people trying to assist an injured occupant.

I first heard about this on the radio where I could only hear the audio. I couldn't believe this was happening somewhere that wasn't far, far away.

[B. Tribe]

[youtube]http://youtu.be/xWXm3cd5S-o[/youtube]

Fast forward to :30 to see an officer toss some kind of explosive device into a small crowd of people trying to assist an injured occupant.

I first heard about this on the radio where I could only hear the audio. I couldn't believe this was happening somewhere that wasn't far, far away.

The explosive device was a tear gas grenade. The flash was just the primer going off. Not really dangerous or lethal. STILL. That was a total dick move by the cop. That dude needed medical attention and he basically prevented him from getting it. The particular police officer should be punished or fired or both.

You might also find this interesting. http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/27/1030612/-Occupy-Wall-Street:-Iraq-vet-in-fair-condition,-Oakland-mayor-promises-minimal-police-presence?via=blog_1

The mayor apologized and promised to pull back the police presence. It actually happened! Less cops at this last rally.

"We support the goals of the Occupy Wall Street movement: we have high levels of unemployment and we have high levels of foreclosure that makes Oakland part of the 99% too."

Interesting.

[York99]

Because of the law I mentioned in the first paragraph, the law pretty much requires them to do so.

So this isn't just a problem with our laws...

...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something there.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm not totally clear on what's confusing, but I'll take a swing at it.

I'm saying that there is a problem from both sides of the issue. On one side, US law compels corporations to maximize profits. On the other side, maximizing those profits is easy when there is cheap foreign labor and when other countries offer lower corporate tax rates. So the system is stacked against American workers. Put somewhat more simply, the current corporate environment favors the corporations and not the workers or the general American public. That probably wasn't actually more clear.

[Marc Majcher]

Because of the law I mentioned in the first paragraph, the law pretty much requires them to do so.

So this isn't just a problem with our laws...

...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something there.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm not totally clear on what's confusing, but I'll take a swing at it.

I'm saying that there is a problem from both sides of the issue. On one side, US law compels corporations to maximize profits. On the other side, maximizing those profits is easy when there is cheap foreign labor and when other countries offer lower corporate tax rates. So the system is stacked against American workers. Put somewhat more simply, the current corporate environment favors the corporations and not the workers or the general American public. That probably wasn't actually more clear.

My confusion stems from saying that it's the law that requires them to maximize profits at any cost that's the problem, and then saying that it's not the laws that are the problem. Am I incorrect in thinking that it's the law that requires them to maximize profit's that actually the root problem here, and if that law were changed, things could start moving in a better direction?

[MitchellD]

It's strange. A lot of people are against the 1%, but the 1% aren't businesses or corporations, they are individuals. Most of what they are doing wrong is just making whatever they make, which isn't really a problem that a lot of them can solve anyway, unless they volunteer to forego any pay raises or if they volunteer to take a pay decrease.

This is where the disparity lies (and it's a BIG one at that), but how to really solve it?

#1 - you could tax them more, but that would only take away earning power for that year and give it to the government, who can't seem to spend money wisely enough without a major deficit anyway, and also send a lot of money overseas and do crazy stuff with it, before it gets to things that really matter.
#2 - You could have a living estate tax, where you pay 5% of your total assets per year or something, but then that would be way too complicated, and be unfair in terms of double taxation...or trouble having to keep up.
#3 - Increase minimum wages. Maybe even double them. This would greatly increase the spending power of many Americans, allowing for a huge boost in the economy, though not really effect too many non consumer businesses, like radio stations. This could be a good possible solution, though can be hard on some sorts of businesses.
#4 - A new tax on the rich that feeds into a pool that can only go toward spreading wealth directly, or funding programs that puts money into the pockets of workers (maybe as a wage subsidy?).
#5 - Big corporate tax cuts in exchange for major hiring + wage increases. This would be an option, but not forced or given to all.
#6 - A law that limits the amount CEOs can make to a maximum in businesses that are publicly traded. Who knows on this one. Many people leaving US? Loopholes that would then need to be fixed. /shrug.

Anyway there are a lot of things. And kinda at the same time, not many things that would actually not hurt and such.

What many have said is that the reason the economy is so stagnate is due to increased regulations (from the 2k+ page Obamacare bill which can be a bit too long to read for the average person) and other things. Because of this, corporations are saving and not spending, because they don't know what thing might happen next. Is it all completely true? Maybe to an extent.

In the end (generally), gaining money comes from jobs (job suppliers/corporations) capital income (investments and such), and inheritance/gifts. What effects most people would be jobs. And a lot of jobs have been lost to the competitive job grabbing that goes on in places such as China, which intentionally devalued their currency to get an upper edge and grab not only money from import/exports, but also gain jobs from other countries such as ours as well. They also at the same time raise tariffs on goods coming into their country so that their people mostly buy things from within. Because of regulations and yada yada yada, jobs are being lost to overseas, so what some propose is eliminating the corporate tax. Would that do the trick? Maybe. Maybe not. It might counterbalance enough of the downside of regulations for many to come back to the country. It might also allow for higher wages. It could also bring about more business ventures, start ups, and franchise extensions. Who knows? I suppose the problem though with disparity that is going on though really lies within pay. And the businesses decide how who gets payed what amount.

I kinda wonder what it would be like if they built in a new law that made it so that certain tiers of corporations had to be at least to a point in a scale of relation. That is to say, The total of the CEOs can make 10%-20% depending on if they go over a certain employee count threshold (some businesses are 2-5 people). Managers could take 30%, other tier workers make 50% (all of that would be spread combined or whatever. But that's just to get the idea, it could be much more different. Also there are many different positions for different businesses so it could get pretty complicated.

And of course working through capital gains can be pretty crazy as well when it comes to what they can make. But how to go about regulating that without being too controlling. I dunno... /shrug.

Anyway. That's my bag of cents.

[bradisntclever]

I feel like many of your questions would be better answered over at Quora. That place is a gold mine.

[MitchellD]

I feel like many of your questions would be better answered over at Quora. That place is a gold mine.

OooooOOOoooh. That site is pretty cool and extensive.

[mpbrockman]

Because of the law I mentioned in the first paragraph, the law pretty much requires them to do so.

So this isn't just a problem with our laws...

...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something there.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm not totally clear on what's confusing, but I'll take a swing at it.

I'm saying that there is a problem from both sides of the issue. On one side, US law compels corporations to maximize profits. On the other side, maximizing those profits is easy when there is cheap foreign labor and when other countries offer lower corporate tax rates. So the system is stacked against American workers. Put somewhat more simply, the current corporate environment favors the corporations and not the workers or the general American public. That probably wasn't actually more clear.

My confusion stems from saying that it's the law that requires them to maximize profits at any cost that's the problem, and then saying that it's not the laws that are the problem. Am I incorrect in thinking that it's the law that requires them to maximize profit's that actually the root problem here, and if that law were changed, things could start moving in a better direction?

Marc, try reading the link below and see if it doesn't help clear things up. This former corporate tax attorney agrees with your thoughts about changing the corporate law structure - but conservatives would probably scream "socialism!"

Justin, the idea that Chinese, Mexican or Indian workers are going to stand up and demand higher standards is nice in theory, but rather unrealistically idealistic. To do so would cost them their jobs - and I don't think any of them are sitting around their call centers right now suffering crises of conscience - "Oh man, this job really belongs to an American worker". We also need to face up to the fact that Americans won't take some jobs - witness the draconian immigration law induced farm labor shortage in Georgia right now. Fact is, some "American jobs" are Mexican.

Molly Ivins used to say, "The rest of the country needs to take it's cue from Texas. When we need cheap labor, we start looking the other way at the border crossings. When we don't, we look back again."

Anyway, interesting article below:

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0119-04.htm

[York99]

Because of the law I mentioned in the first paragraph, the law pretty much requires them to do so.

So this isn't just a problem with our laws...

...

Maybe I'm misunderstanding something there.

Sorry if I wasn't clear. I'm not totally clear on what's confusing, but I'll take a swing at it.

I'm saying that there is a problem from both sides of the issue. On one side, US law compels corporations to maximize profits. On the other side, maximizing those profits is easy when there is cheap foreign labor and when other countries offer lower corporate tax rates. So the system is stacked against American workers. Put somewhat more simply, the current corporate environment favors the corporations and not the workers or the general American public. That probably wasn't actually more clear.

My confusion stems from saying that it's the law that requires them to maximize profits at any cost that's the problem, and then saying that it's not the laws that are the problem. Am I incorrect in thinking that it's the law that requires them to maximize profit's that actually the root problem here, and if that law were changed, things could start moving in a better direction?

Marc, try reading the link below and see if it doesn't help clear things up. This former corporate tax attorney agrees with your thoughts about changing the corporate law structure - but conservatives would probably scream "socialism!"

Justin, the idea that Chinese, Mexican or Indian workers are going to stand up and demand higher standards is nice in theory, but rather unrealistically idealistic. To do so would cost them their jobs - and I don't think any of them are sitting around their call centers right now suffering crises of conscience - "Oh man, this job really belongs to an American worker". We also need to face up to the fact that Americans won't take some jobs - witness the draconian immigration law induced farm labor shortage in Georgia right now. Fact is, some "American jobs" are Mexican.

Molly Ivins used to say, "The rest of the country needs to take it's cue from Texas. When we need cheap labor, we start looking the other way at the border crossings. When we don't, we look back again."

Anyway, interesting article below:

http://www.commondreams.org/views02/0119-04.htm

Marc, what I'm saying is that there are two problems here. The US law is a problem, but changing that probably wouldn't do much. All it would do would be to take the ethical cover away from companies going overseas. But they would probably still do it for competitive reasons. The fact is that labor in other countries is cheaper. It's cheaper because those workers don't demand the high standards of American workers. And until they do or until there is something else (tariffs? embargoes? lower US worker standards? higher foreign worker standards?) that makes keeping these jobs in the US a benefit to the corporations, there's nothing to change the current trends.

MB, I don't think you're refudiafying (if Palin can make up words, so can I) anything I said. But, I have heard that there are places in China where workers are starting to form unions. But that's going to be a really slow process--several generations probably.

I'm just pointing out how the problem is more complex than meets the eye. I don't really have solutions... at least not ones that don't create other problems.

[mpbrockman]

...if Palin can make up words, so can I...

Really want to associate yourself with Palin (or George "the misunderestimated" Shrub)?

[York99]

...if Palin can make up words, so can I...

Really want to associate yourself with Palin (or George "the misunderestimated" Shrub)?

If you're asking me if I'd like to have a lot of influence and money for not really doing anything, then yes. Yes I do.

[mpbrockman]

OK, then - point taken.

Sadly taken, but taken.