Thread: Occupy Dreamviews

Not all of them, obviously.

Well then you've contradicted yourself. You just made a blanket statement about 'the 1%' but then said it doesn't apply to arguably 2 of its most prominent members. So perhaps you want to clarify?

Okay, the people who screwed up the economy for their own selfish gain, like certain politicians, lobbyists, corporate bankers etc, who are all part of the 1% of wealthy elites.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

ROFL. Classic.

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

Okay, the people who screwed up the economy for their own selfish gain, like certain politicians, lobbyists, corporate bankers etc, who are all part of the 1% of wealthy elites.

Then you've departed from what your compadres were saying. They say that it's inherently bad to be rich, even if you got that way totally legitimately. I would agree that corporations getting special privileges, regulations that favor big businesses, bailouts, etc. are bad. But it sounds like your solution to the problem of big government is bigger government. Am I wrong? For example, people say the government needs to "regulate" Wall Street. But even ignoring the fact that the financial sector is, in terms of number of regulations and regulators, the MOST regulated sector of the economy, what makes you think any new regulations won't be shaped to favor those same institutions?

As long as there's power to be had, the rich will buy it. This is a fact, not a judgment. The only solution is to reduce the power the government has.

What the fuck are you on about?

What you're describing is exactly what we're trying to fight.

Originally Posted by Xei

Well then you've contradicted yourself. You just made a blanket statement about 'the 1%' but then said it doesn't apply to arguably 2 of its most prominent members. So perhaps you want to clarify?

Why do you think those two ARE famous?

Because they're not complete fucking dicks.
It's not like you picked a completely random 2 insanely rich people and they just happened to be pretty good guys.

Originally Posted by cmind

Then you've departed from what your compadres were saying. They say that it's inherently bad to be rich, even if you got that way totally legitimately. I would agree that corporations getting special privileges, regulations that favor big businesses, bailouts, etc. are bad. But it sounds like your solution to the problem of big government is bigger government. Am I wrong? For example, people say the government needs to "regulate" Wall Street. But even ignoring the fact that the financial sector is, in terms of number of regulations and regulators, the MOST regulated sector of the economy, what makes you think any new regulations won't be shaped to favor those same institutions?

As long as there's power to be had, the rich will buy it. This is a fact, not a judgment. The only solution is to reduce the power the government has.

cmind going off on a tangent based on nothing again.

I don't think regulations would help at all. What needs to be done is the entire monetary system to change. So that it isn't exploitable in these extremes. There is NO FUCKING POINT, WHATSOEVER, of half the shit in our economy. It's just ridiculous when you read up about how it all works.

Inflation - ???? Why is this even a thing?
Interest - ???? Who thought this shit up?
Different countries have different strengths for their currency, even though they do the same amount of work for that money.

All these things are only there so certain people can exploit it. And I'm probably only scratching the surface, as I haven't learned everything there is to know about how ti all works.

What we need is an clear and obvious money system:
You work, you get money.
You keep that money, it doesn't change in value for no reason.
Your money is worth the same amount anywhere (even though some products may be cheaper in other countries, just due to shipping, demand etc.).

Originally Posted by tommo

Why do you think those two ARE famous?

Because they're not complete fucking dicks.
It's not like you picked a completely random 2 insanely rich people and they just happened to be pretty good guys.

Xei has a point. How does "the 1%" not apply to these people? So, does this mean that you assume that every other insanely wealthy person is a complete fucking dick? Thus, this logic can apply in a situation like this:

I'm some kid who make shoes in India for 3 cents an hour. So, I basically have no money. Now there's that guy from the Red Cross that helped me go to school so he's a good guy. But all other people who live in Western cultures are complete fucking dicks because they have more money than me. Thus, you are the "complete fucking dick" in this situation.

Originally Posted by cmind

But even ignoring the fact that the financial sector is, in terms of number of regulations and regulators, the MOST regulated sector of the economy, what makes you think any new regulations won't be shaped to favor those same institutions?

The regulators are regulating themselves, both in the financial industry, EPA and FDA. This makes our government institution bought out.

Originally Posted by Quantiq

Xei has a point. How does "the 1%" not apply to these people? So, does this mean that you assume that every other insanely wealthy person is a complete fucking dick? Thus, this logic can apply in a situation like this:

I'm some kid who make shoes in India for 3 cents an hour. So, I basically have no money. Now there's that guy from the Red Cross that helped me go to school so he's a good guy. But all other people who live in Western cultures are complete fucking dicks because they have more money than me. Thus, you are the "complete fucking dick" in this situation.

They're not dicks because they have more money than me. They're dicks because of how they got it.
And no, not all. That's been established. A lot though.

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

This is such a typical Republican attitude, that somehow, no matter what, the rich in this country deserve to be rich and the poor deserve to be poor.

Odd, I didn't see this at all in cmind's post. What I saw was him asking, albeit in a trollish manner (not surprising), if Omnis was jealous of their wealth by asking them to pay their "fair share."

What that "fair share" is, however, I don't know. I just hope he doesn't start quoting that crank Elizabeth Warren. The fact that he posted a video by Thom Hartmann, who is probably the most hilarious failure of intellect on the Earth, is a good indication that he like absolute crazies so who knows.

Originally Posted by tommo

Why do you think those two ARE famous?

Because they're not complete fucking dicks.
It's not like you picked a completely random 2 insanely rich people and they just happened to be pretty good guys.

I really don't know how you manage to keep your derphertz so consistently high.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Forbes_...onaires_(2009)

Maybe they're famous because they are at the very top of the richest people in the world. But of course no, this is a biased sample specifically chosen to not be representative. And Bill Gates and Warren Buffet weren't ubiquitous household bywords for immense wealth until the Bill and Melinda Foundation was set up. Brilliant thinking.

Originally Posted by cmind

As long as there's power to be had, the rich will buy it. This is a fact, not a judgment. The only solution is to reduce the power the government has.

Power is an interesting problem. Don't misinterpret me, I'm generally very anti-authority. But I don't see reducing government as reducing power. It just becomes that much easier to concentrate.

Originally Posted by tommo

They're not dicks because they have more money than me. They're dicks because of how they got it.
And no, not all. That's been established. A lot though.

Ah, I see your point. But do you truly believe that ONE guy is behind an entire corporate operation rather than a system of people and ideas put into place for the goals of making as much profit as possible? You should watch "The Corporation". It's an interesting film quite relevant to your arguments and interests.

By lucky chance, the NWO conspiracists are actually correct that there is just one figure controlling recent world events, through the Freemasons. What they do not realise is that for archaic historical reasons the Freemasons have a very convoluted election procedure, and that this single figure is in fact a mentally retarded ostrich.

The world starts to make a lot more sense when you open your eyes to The Truth.

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

Okay, the people who screwed up the economy for their own selfish gain, like certain politicians, lobbyists, corporate bankers etc, who are all part of the 1% of wealthy elites.

I actually doubt that half of the people responsible are in the "1%". It's mostly people in the top 30% who are making it possible for some of the 1% to do what they do. But even some of the 1% are doing good things.

Originally Posted by StonedApe

I actually doubt that half of the people responsible are in the "1%". It's mostly people in the top 30% who are making it possible for some of the 1% to do what they do. But even some of the 1% are doing good things.

Yeah apparently the US federal government would do a better job of improving the world with Bill Gates' money than him.

The good thing about this movement is that not everyone in it thinks that, that taxes are the solution. Though far too many do. Hopefully this can do something about corporations basically rigging elections through marketing.

Originally Posted by cmind

Then you've departed from what your compadres were saying. They say that it's inherently bad to be rich, even if you got that way totally legitimately. I would agree that corporations getting special privileges, regulations that favor big businesses, bailouts, etc. are bad. But it sounds like your solution to the problem of big government is bigger government. Am I wrong?

No, not really. There needs to be checks and balances so that nobody gets too much power. Corporations want less and less government control so that they can do whatever they want, like eliminate minimum wage and benefits, which is definitely not good. Just an example of what I mean.

Although politicians have gotten us into this mess by allowing wall street to have too much power, and giving corporations the right to vote. Correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like politicians are bought by lobbyists, banks and corporations, not actually voted on by the people. The media's bought and tries to feed America a bought view on which bought politicians to pretend to vote for...

Originally Posted by DeeryTheDeer

No, not really. There needs to be checks and balances so that nobody gets too much power.

Wouldn't that be, like, the ultimate power? Deciding who gets to have power?

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

Again... that's irrelevant. I'm talking about the actual end state itself of wealth inequality. The line in my post "even if through voluntary trade interactions with other people" was a derivative of what I said to begin with, "regardless of cause", because cmind needed it spelled out for him. So... REGARDLESS OF CAUSE. In this argument I don't care if every single transaction that's taken place in the last century was abject robbery, or if every transaction was so honest and fair that god could come down and say, 'yep, I saw it all, and everything meets my holy righteous standards of weights and measures'. It doesn't matter, that's not what I'm talking about.

See and this is what I do not get. Libertarians are trying to establish a system in which certain behavior benefits as many as possible and you do not even care. You are mad that one person has 5 apples and another person has 1. You are mad that there is actual diversity, something inherent in nature itself. So...you are mad at the state of nature? That the 99% can not all be the top 1% of income earners?

Well at the very least, I hope I do not see you going around saying "Libertarians are such greedy egoists, they only care about themselves" because here I am trying to show you a system embraced by libertarians that is a net positive for both parties and you could really careless about it.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

So all correlations are useless? Are you saying that it's a fallacy to compile a large amount of blindly-selected data, look for trends, consider all possible interpretations, and then use the results to draw tentative conclusions? Because if you've seen the presentation and read my posts since I posted the TED link, I've suggested nothing more than that. I've asked cmind once and I'll ask you now... if you care to dispute the presentation itself, please do.

In making a casual chain, yes. Correlations do not infer causation. It is a logical fallacy dating back to Greek civilization. If your link actually does such a thing (I haven't watched it because I am merely addressing the premise you espoused that correlation means causation), then they are incorrect also. It is a logical fallacy. It is not as if logical fallacies are validated by there being a mass of them.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

One more time it must be repeated. All we want from the % is that they pay their fair share, not that they get taxed into Oblivion. Tax refunds enable them to make most of their money back.

And what a surprise Xei doesn't know what he's talking about...

But it is not a fair share by its very existence of being a progressive tax. The more money you make the more you pay. How is that "fair?" If you were talking about a flat tax then you would have something but I think people not paying taxes is a step in the right direction. No one should be paying taxes.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

But it is not a fair share by its very existence of being a progressive tax. The more money you make the more you pay. How is that "fair?" If you were talking about a flat tax then you would have something but I think people not paying taxes is a step in the right direction. No one should be paying taxes.

A Progressive Tax System is simply a ladder between the top and the bottom and there's nothing wrong with it. The problem that has occurred is loopholes allowing refunds to unbalance the tax system effectively starting a war with the middle class.