Thread: Occupy Dreamviews

Your social programs rely on "economic growth" to exist... For example, the teachers pensions in California make their payments based on the assumption of 8% growth. SS is similar. The US actually experiences around 2%, and more recently it's been 0%. So you have two choices, either figure out ways to keep the growth paradigm going, or give up on your social programs. Hint: you're going to lose the social programs.

Originally Posted by cmind

Your social programs rely on "economic growth" to exist... For example, the teachers pensions in California make their payments based on the assumption of 8% growth. SS is similar. The US actually experiences around 2%, and more recently it's been 0%. So you have two choices, either figure out ways to keep the growth paradigm going, or give up on your social programs. Hint: you're going to lose the social programs.

And what's your opinion on institutions like the Pentagon? Should we continue funding our bloated military complex?

I don't hear about corporations losing their subsidies very often, either. Nor taxing the top 2%

Instead they want to cut education and social security

Education is our greatest possible investment as a nation, it should be one of the last functions we relieve in a recession.

Our military gets an enormous amount of support while there's a mass exodus of professors leaving Wisconsin because their pay is being reduced haphazardly.

Spending needs to be reallocated. And really, I think that's what most of this movement wants to see.

You won't find many people who say we should cut education programs, yet our policies reflect that we do. As a democracy, that should not happen.

This movement is largely about how the minority overpowers the majority. Majority rule is the basis of a democracy.

Originally Posted by Omnis Dei

And what's your opinion on institutions like the Pentagon? Should we continue funding our bloated military complex?

I don't hear about corporations losing their subsidies very often, either. Nor taxing the top 2%

Instead they want to cut education and social security

Education is our greatest possible investment as a nation, it should be one of the last functions we relieve in a recession.

The total welfare burden of the US is something like $150 trillion, if they actually paid it all. Defense is certainly bloated, probably by a factor of 10, but it's still nothing compared to welfare. By welfare I mean all forms of free money from the government. You're living in a fantasy if you think that this money will be paid. Either they'll stop sending checks, or they'll have hyperinflation and the checks won't be able to buy anything. Either way, the money won't be paid.

I was just about to make this thread and I'm happy that someone beat me to it. I've been on the occupywallst chat almost all night. Things are definitely heating up. Anyone in or around NYC taking part?

Well I hope things worked out yesterday. Constitution Day tends to have a high number of events like this. Lots of rallies, activist group meetings, (and a few campaign contribution bombs).

I don't agree with everything behind the Occupy Wall Street movement, but I definitely believe militarism needs to be drastically decreased.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

I don't agree with everything behind the Occupy Wall Street movement, but I definitely believe militarism needs to be drastically decreased.

Unfortunately, I think the worldwide military presence of the US is the only reason that foreign governments are still buying your bonds. If not for them, the US dollar would collapse under hyperinflation.

Originally Posted by cmind

Unfortunately, I think the worldwide military presence of the US is the only reason that foreign governments are still buying your bonds. If not for them, the US dollar would collapse under hyperinflation.

As for the hyperinflation I can thank our central banking system for continually diminishing the value of our dollar through lending and QE methods. We need more money and loans created to satisfy our military expenditures to continue our military presence... vicious cycle that will end in no good.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

As for the hyperinflation I can thank our central banking system for continually diminishing the value of our dollar through lending and QE methods. We need more money and loans created to satisfy our military expenditures to continue our military presence... vicious cycle that will end in no good.

Tax receipts more than cover the military, even as bloated as it is. The main expense responsible for the deficit is welfare programs. The dollar is being devalued to prop up the markets to keep the SS checks flowing. Sorry, but the level of welfare you have in the US is way above what is sustainable.

Originally Posted by cmind

Tax receipts more than cover the military, even as bloated as it is. The main expense responsible for the deficit is welfare programs. The dollar is being devalued to prop up the markets to keep the SS checks flowing. Sorry, but the level of welfare you have in the US is way above what is sustainable.

Oh I absolutely know. But to alleviate the pressure we are putting on those who have already paid into Social Security, we need to end our militarism NOW. Our tax money shouldn't be devoted to welfare OR warfare. But it's much more expedient to end wars than it is to end social programs. Our social programs need phased out within the next 10 or so years or else we will be financially destroyed. The only person in politics that even cares enough to propose a phase-out of both our wars AND social security is Ron Paul. He is planning an "opt-out" if he is elected President, allowing a way to wean people off of Social Security. If I didn't have to pay into it, I wouldn't. And I wouldn't "expect" the government to take care of me, because I don't want it to. I am a "pull yourself up by your bootstraps" libertarian, and I'd much rather support myself as best as possible than force someone else to pay for me.

If you agree that freedom is the right to communicate, to live, to be, to go, to love, to do what you will without the impositions of others, then you might be one of us.

Well I could somewhat agree with that. Though what if you crossed into another's property? That isn't somewhere you can live or necessarily go.

If you agree that a person is entitled to the sweat of their brows, that being talented at management should not entitle others to act like overseers and overlords, that all workers should have the right to engage in decisions, democratically, then you might be one of us.

A worker's democracy...you lost me there.

If you agree that freedom for some is not the same as freedom for all, and that freedom for all is the only true freedom, then you might be one of us.

Ok equality in freedom, I like that.

If you agree that power is not right, that life trumps property, then you might be one of us.

And you lost me again. Life is property. You own your own body which enables you not to be aggressed against in the first place. If you didn't have self-ownership then how could you defend yourself against the whims of others? Power is not right, but all rights disseminate from property.

If you agree that state and corporation are merely two sides of the same oppressive power structure, if you realize how media distorts things to preserve it, how it pits the people against the people to remain in power, then you might be one of us.

Ok I can agree with that.

We call for workers to not only strike, but seize their workplaces collectively, and to organize them democratically. We call for students and teachers to act together, to teach democracy, not merely the teachers to the students, but the students to the teachers. To seize the classrooms and free minds together

Hahaha ok. I'm done. You guys were so close to being liberty-orientated but you lost it with that call to action. What happened to the freedom of all? Now it's the freedom of the majority. Now you want workers to steal capital in their workplace and claim it as their own? Such a petty principle, one that is based off thievery just like the elites who steal from the masses.

There is a reason that teachers are teachers and students are students. It's not some oppressive regime measure meant to smack the hands of children with metaphorical rulers. Let's face it, students are students because they don't know what they come to study to a degree of efficiency. It is as simple as that. That is why they are students. That is why they go to teachers. Does that mean they are complete imbeciles? No. They are capable of knowing a small amount but they are coarse. They come to learn from those with experience or knowledge (the teachers). People who try to act like the teacher is an idiot, they know more then the teacher or grandstand in the classrooms are just showing their immaturity.

Teach democracy. What bullocks. There is nothing more insidious then the notion that the will of a majority makes an individual free. You want freedom for all? Abolish all forms of voting. Abolish the state. Give up the notion that you are competent enough to govern the lives of strangers. Let the individual have the freedom in all capacities in order to discover themselves and flourish.

Glad somebody posted on this. Its an idea who's time has come.

Your social programs rely on "economic growth" to exist... For example, the teachers pensions in California make their payments based on the assumption of 8% growth. SS is similar. The US actually experiences around 2%, and more recently it's been 0%. So you have two choices, either figure out ways to keep the growth paradigm going, or give up on your social programs. Hint: you're going to lose the social programs.

Yes, you need to have growth somehow, but there are alternatives to Wall Street, corporate greed, central banking, and debt-based currencies. I'm not sure what your point is, but I sure hope you don't think you are pointing out some kind of contradiction in the protests against Wall Street corruption.

Pensions and many other social programs will be used to scare people into thinking the don't dare hold Wall Street accountable for corruption. However, at some point the system becomes so corrupt, you have to stop caring whether your measly social security check won't come.

There are other ways to finance growth besides the current wall street model. China's state-controlled bank does a much better job of allocating credit than the irresponsible lending institutions in the US. That's why the US and Britain hate China so much, because China is successfully moving past the obsolete, 19th century Marxist idea that state control of the means of production brings justice. Instead China is directly taking control of the means of exchange, allowing industrial production to be run by the most competent and qualified private individuals, while banking and the allocation of credit remains firmly in the government's hands. China has shown that you can have social programs and growth without the parasitical Anglo-American system of private banking. Right now China's economic system is more "American" than that of the US.government.

Originally Posted by Olysseus

Glad somebody posted on this. Its an idea who's time has come.

Yes, you need to have growth somehow, but there are alternatives to Wall Street, corporate greed, central banking, and debt-based currencies. I'm not sure what your point is, but I sure hope you don't think you are pointing out some kind of contradiction in the protests against Wall Street corruption.

Pensions and many other social programs will be used to scare people into thinking the don't dare hold Wall Street accountable for corruption. However, at some point the system becomes so corrupt, you have to stop caring whether your measly social security check won't come.

There are other ways to finance growth besides the current wall street model. China's state-controlled bank does a much better job of allocating credit than the irresponsible lending institutions in the US. That's why the US and Britain hate China so much, because China is successfully moving past the obsolete, 19th century Marxist idea that state control of the means of production brings justice. Instead China is directly taking control of the means of exchange, allowing industrial production to be run by the most competent and qualified private individuals, while banking and the allocation of credit remains firmly in the government's hands. China has shown that you can have social programs and growth without the parasitical Anglo-American system of private banking. Right now China's economic system is more "American" than that of the US.government.

So your alternative solution to centralized banking...is centralized banking?

I think he is talking about taking the control of our money supply out of the hands of private individuals and putting it into the hands of elected officials that can (theoretically) be held accountable. I don't think China is the best example of this, but it is what is outlined in our own constitution.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I think he is talking about taking the control of our money supply out of the hands of private individuals and putting it into the hands of elected officials that can (theoretically) be held accountable. I don't think China is the best example of this, but it is what is outlined in our own constitution.

All central banks in the history of the United States have been founded by governmental mandate. The Bank of America, The First & Second Bank of the United States and the Federal Reserve. The government is just carrying on its prerogative of issuing monopoly charters for a banking institution. It was established by the government and is used only by the government. It is for all intensive purposes, the bank of the United States government so it is not as if the money supply isn't in the hands of the U.S. government. The creation of new money is carried out first by the Department of the Treasury. The Federal Reserve is just the printers trying to complete an order.

Originally Posted by Xaqaria

I think he is talking about taking the control of our money supply out of the hands of private individuals and putting it into the hands of elected officials that can (theoretically) be held accountable. I don't think China is the best example of this, but it is what is outlined in our own constitution.

Yes, you understood my position. And you are right, China is not the best example, I was just shooting from the hip and citing one example. The point is China is able to allocate credit to infrastructure projects even when they result in lower yields than say making loans for new yachts. It's not a perfect example, but I was responding to the claim that we need Wall Street to drive growth and I was merely showing there are alternative systems that work. Obviously there are plenty of problems in China as well, its far from perfect.

Originally Posted by Olysseus

Yes, you understood my position. And you are right, China is not the best example, I was just shooting from the hip and citing one example. The point is China is able to allocate credit to infrastructure projects even when they result in lower yields than say making loans for new yachts. It's not a perfect example, but I was responding to the claim that we need Wall Street to drive growth and I was merely showing there are alternative systems that work. Obviously there are plenty of problems in China as well, its far from perfect.

What do you think the 447 billion dollar "Jobs Plan" that Obama is pushing is trying to do? It's trying to allocate spending, based on credit, to infrastructure programs such as education, transportation, healthcare etc.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

So your alternative solution to centralized banking...is centralized banking?

The problem with central banking is that in the west it has been private lenders using government mandate to justify their existence. The real problem with the Federal Reserve is that it isn't actually Federal. This means it is operating on a dishonest basis. One solution would be too completely privatize banking, as Ron Paul would do, another would be to nationalize it and let the government, perhaps the states, collect interest on its activities. You should be able to tell from my post where I stand.

Technically I'll cede your point, I should have clarified the difference between Western Central Banking and what I am advocating. But I think the context of the post made it somewhat clear.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

What do you think the 447 billion dollar "Jobs Plan" that Obama is pushing is trying to do? It's trying to allocate spending, based on credit, to infrastructure programs such as education, transportation, healthcare etc.

No, absolutely not. This confuses the difference between fiscal and monetary policy. He is allocating spending, not credit. A program based on credit is not the same thing as an entity issuing credit. Obama's proposed spending would be financed by the government going deeper into debt. When the government is issuing credit, it does not need to go into debt, because it is a creditor; it collects interest and makes a profit. Obama is borrowing money to finance his "jobs plan." I recommend you read Ellen Brown's book "Web of Debt" so you can understand the difference.

Here are two articles that should clarify. My main point is to refute the idea that by criticizing Wall Street and protesting its corruption, people are turning their backs on growth. I have simply cited China as one, very imperfect example of a growing economy without all the trappings of Wall Street. This does not mean I think China is spectacular or that its policies would work everywhere, just that in some ways, it has become more progressively capitalist than the West.

One reason the American economy is dragging is because lending is drying up. This is because the banks can make better profits with derivatives and other instruments than they can from lending to producers who build factories and other infrastructure. No matter how much money Obama pumps into the economy, the credit crisis remains the same unless we can find a way for businesses and local governments to create financing for themselves. Obama pumping money into the economy is fiscal policy, I am talking about monetary policy.

Ellen Brown: China's Miracle Economy: Have the Chinese Become the World's Greatest Capitalists?

Ellen Brown: China's Creative Accounting: How It Buried Its Debt and Forged Ahead with Stimulus

Originally Posted by Olysseus

The problem with central banking is that in the west it has been private lenders using government mandate to justify their existence. The real problem with the Federal Reserve is that it isn't actually Federal. This means it is operating on a dishonest basis. One solution would be too completely privatize banking, as Ron Paul would do, another would be to nationalize it and let the government, perhaps the states, collect interest on its activities. You should be able to tell from my post where I stand.

Technically I'll cede your point, I should have clarified the difference between Western Central Banking and what I am advocating. But I think the context of the post made it somewhat clear.

So you think the problem with the Federal Reserve isn't that it counterfeits currency that Americans are forced to use because of legal tender laws but the fact that it isn't apart of the government in name? Unofficially it is very much apart of the federal government. They just aren't elected officials.

Originally Posted by Olysseus

No, absolutely not. This confuses the difference between fiscal and monetary policy. He is allocating spending, not credit. A program based on credit is not the same thing as an entity issuing credit. Obama's proposed spending would be financed by the government going deeper into debt. When the government is issuing credit, it does not need to go into debt, because it is a creditor; it collects interest and makes a profit. Obama is borrowing money to finance his "jobs plan." I recommend you read Ellen Brown's book "Web of Debt" so you can understand the difference.

What do you think Treasury Bonds are? That is what the Federal Reserve "buys" from the government. That is how new currency is injected into the market. So the US government is in a sense a creditor in Treasury bonds which are based upon future holdings of taxpayers payments.

Originally Posted by Olysseus

Here are two articles that should clarify. My main point is to refute the idea that by criticizing Wall Street and protesting its corruption, people are turning their backs on growth. I have simply cited China as one, very imperfect example of a growing economy without all the trappings of Wall Street. This does not mean I think China is spectacular or that its policies would work everywhere, just that in some ways, it has become more progressively capitalist than the West.

One reason the American economy is dragging is because lending is drying up. This is because the banks can make better profits with derivatives and other instruments than they can from lending to producers who build factories and other infrastructure. No matter how much money Obama pumps into the economy, the credit crisis remains the same unless we can find a way for businesses and local governments to create financing for themselves. Obama pumping money into the economy is fiscal policy, I am talking about monetary policy.

Ellen Brown: China's Miracle Economy: Have the Chinese Become the World's Greatest Capitalists?

Ellen Brown: China's Creative Accounting: How It Buried Its Debt and Forged Ahead with Stimulus

Lending is drying up? The interest rate is at an artificial 0% and has been for months.

Originally Posted by Laughing Man

Lending is drying up? The interest rate is at an artificial 0% and has been for months.

To the contrary of drying up. Instead, lending and investments are so EASY with low interest rates, that malinvestment can occur. Junk investments and loans that are high-risk are now perceived as lower-risk. It's like telling a sick person they are healthy when they really aren't in a manner of speaking. Japan tried it in their depression... look what happened to them? Their economy collapsed. Funny how we are trying it here.

The interest rate you are talking about is what banks are getting from the reserve. The banks are buying bonds instead of lending to businesses precisely because rates are so low, and they can get a better return from bonds. The fed is essentially giving the banks free money so that the treasury can buy it off of them with bonds.

Originally Posted by ThePreserver

To the contrary of drying up. Instead, lending and investments are so EASY with low interest rates, that malinvestment can occur. Junk investments and loans that are high-risk are now perceived as lower-risk. It's like telling a sick person they are healthy when they really aren't in a manner of speaking. Japan tried it in their depression... look what happened to them? Their economy collapsed. Funny how we are trying it here.

Yes, that is why I said artificial