Thread: Occupy Dreamviews

Originally Posted by crazydude007

O.K there comrade! I should refer you to the 74 glorious poverty stricken years of the USSR, which started with that exact mind set in 1917.

Not sure what relevance this has to the rest of the thread, but it must be pointed out that the USSR had vastly improved quality of life over the previous Russian Empire... In a few decades, the Soviet Union went from a third world nation of peasants to a superpower.

Originally Posted by Spartiate

Not sure what relevance this has to the rest of the thread, but it must be pointed out that the USSR had vastly improved quality of life over the previous Russian Empire... In a few decades, the Soviet Union went from a third world nation of peasants to a superpower.

Holodomor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

7.5 million peasants starved to death in a man made famine. That's far more than the Holocaust.

...and that is just the beginning of course; untold numbers of Europeans were sent to their deaths in slave labor or killed outright for siding with Germany; or more accurately, for repelling invaders. FDR's "uncle Joe" was much worse than any monarch.

I think only Mao was responsible for more deaths.

True, I think he holds the record. 80 million or so.

Originally Posted by Never

True, I think he holds the record. 80 million or so.

Although you could argue that number is still rising now. Since he is probably responsible for what it still happening.

Also, I had never heard of Holodomor before. What the hell?

Originally Posted by tommo

Although you could argue that number is still rising now. Since he is probably responsible for what it still happening.

Also, I had never heard of Holodomor before. What the hell?

That's what happens when you only listen to the cultural marxists.

There was also a famine in the first few years after the revolution when they tried to go without money entirely. After that, they decided to use a weird partial monetary system, which allowed them to advance economically enough to actually have some food. Congrats, Russia.

Originally Posted by cmind

That's what happens when you only listen to the cultural marxists.

There was also a famine in the first few years after the revolution when they tried to go without money entirely. After that, they decided to use a weird partial monetary system, which allowed them to advance economically enough to actually have some food. Congrats, Russia.

They eventually just started using global market prices. It allowed them to retain some semblance of an economy but otherwise it was pretty awful.

Originally Posted by tommo

Although you could argue that number is still rising now. Since he is probably responsible for what it still happening.

Also, I had never heard of Holodomor before. What the hell?

There are many genocides/massacres throughout history that you will probably never hear about, even on the internet without specifically searching, as they are not politically advantageous to the establishment.

In the west the Ukrainian genocide was denied by many in the mainstream; notably the Pulitzer winner Walter Duranty.

Originally Posted by Quantiq

Fact: If you're family's income is over $60 000 USD a year, then you are within the top 10% wealthiest people in the world. Most people on DV I would expect, would fit into this category. How about we start working on solutions to global wealth inequality than try to "occupy wall street".

Just some Food For Thought.

Right. Most on this website are apart of that top 10% like you said. The middle class has basically disappeared. Instead of raises, jobs are now taking away holiday bonuses , doing layoffs ( even TEMP services are doing layoffs ) or paycuts , more home foreclosures, there's more hiring freezes, the price of food has went up. Seems like their is only a rich class and a poor class

Even if you did graduate college with a degree if you didn't find a job in the field you went to school for, your basically part of the poor class now because your stuck paying off student loans and depending on what your major was that could be anywhere from $30,000 to $120,000. On top of that they add interest to it. Working a $9 an hour job you could be paying this off until you die.

I believe this system needs to be done away with period cause it doesn't work. Away with paying taxes, away with using credit, away with paying off student loans, MORE with saving and buying with straight cash. Living within your means. When you don't have any payments, you have money to spend..money to save. This would probably make the death rate from street related diseases and the need for blood pressure and heart medication to go down even. It would also cause banks to shut-down because they make money from overdraft fees and interest rates. So i agree completely with the OWS protestors of taking your money out of the banks.

If you went to school and learned something and can't find a job in the field, work for yourself using that knowledge. You don't need government to survive, I know people with different trades and live off those trades. Also The internet has made it so a lot of things can be outsourced now, programming, art, design, repairs, etc.

This is the way to be self-sufficient without the government. I think people with money should invest money into or help fund small Indie businesses.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

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.

Progressive tax that differentiates by a person's income : Fair and good
Loopholes that allow for a difference in paying taxes: unfair and bad

^ This totally makes sense when you think about it.

Originally Posted by tommo

....











?

What confuses you about that statement? I believe that no one should involuntarily pay for services that they might not need or want. If they want such services they can enter into agreement with the agency that is providing these services and voluntarily pay for them.

Does that clear up your confusion?

No. Thar's ridiculous. People don't want to pay for a lot of things, but we're ALL better off if they do.
Some people do not have foresight nor enough intelligence to see the bigger picture. So people who do, have to think for them, in a way.
Taxes are a good thing, most of the time. Obviously they can be used for bad things, like war. With healthcare for example, even though you might not need it right away, you will eventually.
Everyone does. Most people don't think about that though, so they wouldn't pay for that.

Then the entire healthcare system goes to shit and people who had enough intelligence get screwed over. Good system bro.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

...and you reply as if I had not just gone to excruciating lengths to say I'm not talking about causes of the income gap.

Yea I'm not talking about the causes of the income gap either persay. I mean I did say that there are people who do make money because they are providing a service for a mass of people and the people are paying for this service thus making the person rich but this is the cause for wealth accumulation, not a cause for the gap of income.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

I'm simply isolating for effects of the income gap. "Regardless of cause" does not mean "cause is irrelevant", it just means it's been isolated, for a particular demonstration about effect. I'm surprised you can draw such conclusions about what I think from such an intentionally limited statement (actually not, you've done it before...) We might actually agree on a more than you are knee-jerk-guessing we do.

Saying regardless of the cause is making the cause irrelevant in the overall theme. No matter what the cause is like saying "even if the cause is A, B or C, no matter which of these it is X is still true" If it does not matter if it is A B or C then the cause because irrelevant because in the end X is true none the less. That is why I can draw such conclusions, because you actually use words that insinuate meaning. Also if you will noticed, I put questions marks in my statement. The asking of questions in a non-rhetorical/sarcastic manner infers that I do not know the answer and those questions were not rhetorical...but maybe sardonic which is different then sarcastic.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

..which is why I said 'tentative conclusion'. Seriously if people would just read my words this would go a lot smoother. I'm studying primate behavior right now, and a progressively more and more sophisticated accumulation of corroborating corollaries are really all we have to go by to make any type of claim. Absolute causal claims are virtually non-existent in the social sciences (which includes economics and politics), as such we can't rely on them. That doesn't mean progress is at a stand-still. I understand the importance of all conclusions from correlation remaining open to re-examinable for any time a contradiction appears, even if it means modifying decades of progress (which happens in social science from time to time.)

First you say I read too much into your words now you say I don't read into them enough. Honestly, which is it with you? Since you are having such trouble with casual chains then let me enlighten you and perhaps you can greater excel your work in primitive behavior. Speculating on causes is different then trying to prove correlation is causation. On the one you are, well, speculating. You are judging from a place in which total information is not achieved therefore disallowing you to make an affirmative casual chain. Now saying correlations equal causation is trying to establish an affirmative casual chain from a place of speculation. Also I do not understand this claim that since absolute casual chains are few..that means they can not be relied upon. That is not coherent and it does not follow.

Originally Posted by IndieAnthias

for fucks sake.

Yes I do not read your words yet you purposely cut off one of my sentences in a quote. Great stuff Scooter.

"(I haven't watched it because I am merely addressing the premise you espoused that correlation means causation)"

Originally Posted by tommo

No. Thar's ridiculous. People don't want to pay for a lot of things, but we're ALL better off if they do.

He knows, he's saying that if we're all better off then people won't have a problem paying for them.

Some people do not have foresight nor enough intelligence to see the bigger picture. So people who do, have to think for them, in a way.

Wait... you mean politicians?? LOL.

Don't you think that saying 'you are too stupid to agree with me that this is a good idea so I'll just force you to pay for it' is a bit concerning?

If your idea is so good, convince whoever you're talking to, and then they'll pay for it.

If they don't agree, that's none of your business; go talk to somebody else.

And why have you tried to portray the intelligentsia as a benevolent and unified whole? People with intelligence can have vastly different opinions on what to do about something.

And why do you think people who vote are especially intelligent anyway?

There are so many problems with what you are saying...

Originally Posted by tommo

No. Thar's ridiculous. People don't want to pay for a lot of things, but we're ALL better off if they do.
Some people do not have foresight nor enough intelligence to see the bigger picture. So people who do, have to think for them, in a way.
Taxes are a good thing, most of the time. Obviously they can be used for bad things, like war. With healthcare for example, even though you might not need it right away, you will eventually.
Everyone does. Most people don't think about that though, so they wouldn't pay for that.

Then the entire healthcare system goes to shit and people who had enough intelligence get screwed over. Good system bro.

Well who's "big picture?" Why should we allow say someone like you to tell us what is good for us? Why is theft justifiable if it is the government but not if it is a common thug? What you are basically espousing is

I need my agents to steal from you because you do not know what is best for you and my agents do. In order to subsidize my agents in doing these good deeds for you, they are also required to steal from others.



Truely this is the great fiction that Bastiat was discussing when it comes to people trying to live at the expense of other people.

And yes the healthcare system is certainly failing because people are not stealing quickly enough from one another

Originally Posted by Seroquel

Holodomor - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

7.5 million peasants starved to death in a man made famine. That's far more than the Holocaust.

Guess I was talking mostly post-Stalin .

People who paint the USSR as a joke are ignoring that it was once the most powerful nation in the world, and it didn't take hundreds of years to get there like the USA. I'm not saying that the USSR should in any way be a model of how to run a country, but elements of their approach were certainly effective.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Well who's "big picture?" Why should we allow say someone like you to tell us what is good for us? Why is theft justifiable if it is the government but not if it is a common thug? What you are basically espousing is

I need my agents to steal from you because you do not know what is best for you and my agents do. In order to subsidize my agents in doing these good deeds for you, they are also required to steal from others.

Truely this is the great fiction that Bastiat was discussing when it comes to people trying to live at the expense of other people.

And yes the healthcare system is certainly failing because people are not stealing quickly enough from one another

Yeah, providing healthcare for people who can't afford thousands per year is so BAAAAAAD....

All you have to do is look at US healthcare vs, any nation which has public healthcare. Then apply that to anything else 99.9% of people use.
You have no good argument. Just admit it.
It is best for the majority, if not every single person in that country. That is how I know my opinion is right. Not everything is subjective.

Originally Posted by tommo

Yeah, providing healthcare for people who can't afford thousands per year is so BAAAAAAD....

All you have to do is look at US healthcare vs, any nation which has public healthcare. Then apply that to anything else 99.9% of people use.
You have no good argument. Just admit it.
It is best for the majority, if not every single person in that country. That is how I know my opinion is right. Not everything is subjective.

You didn't address a single thing he said.

I would imagine he thinks providing healthcare is a very good thing, and thus would spend a lot of his own money on such a cause.

Also, your strawman fails to even be consistent because it implies that virtually everything people use should be provided by the state, yet you are not a communist. In fact it doesn't even make sense in the basic case, US healthcare is superior to the healthcare in many countries with public healthcare, this is obvious.

US healthcare is better? ok.... Tell that to the people who go bankrupt paying their bills.

Also, I agree with communism.

So you're saying look at US housing,



compare it to state, for example Soviet, housing,



and thus conclude that people should not have the choice to decide what services they want to pay for?

Originally Posted by juroara

This is why we need a living wage - not a min. wage. I guarantee you, had we a living wage to begin with Occupy wouldn't exist.

I never made any false assumption. Your suggesting increasing the minimum wage. Or, sorry, to keep to your original wording, getting rid of the minimum wage and putting a minimum on wage 'suitable for living'. Please do, cease conversation with me here, and preferably on this topic with anyone else.

that picture kinda reminds me of downtown

Basic amenities should not be a possible argument for minimum wage.

Originally Posted by juroara

that picture kinda reminds me of downtown

The very poorest people have housing of the same quality as the standard in Soviet Russia.

Solution to this problem: give everybody housing of the same quality as the standard in Soviet Russia.

I like your style.