Occupy Wall St.

[atreides]

At any rate, history and data mining lessons aside, there is something really wrong in this video...
http://youtu.be/TH3kiaJ1-c8

If that customer was not with the OWS folks, she should get a really good lawyer and sue. Where is Phoenix Jones when you need a super hero to come to the rescue.:D

 

[Abdel]

The constitution is flexible.

If that is the case, why even have a constitution? We're not talking about the elasticity demand of a product. We're talking about strict rules under wich, people from different path of life with different opinions accept to live together under these rules.

If everyone followed the constitution to a dot, the USA would be a speck of what it is today. The flexibility of the legal system is one of the defining characteristics that led to the economic success of this country. Just look at something as fundamental as the Louisiana purchase, if you will.

''A speck of what it is today'', really? Sounds good to me.

The USA of today:
- Biggest debtor nation in human history ($16T debt + medicaid+medicair+social security+ Fannie & Freddie = $60T in debt).
- Real unemployment is over 16% (Remember that when unemployed people benefits expire, they are not counted as unemployed)
- College tuitions are in the stratosphere
- Costs to go see a doctor are very high
and I can go on and on.

The economic success of this country was seen during the industrial revolution that happened under a Gold standard, no income tax, almost no regulations and a tiny federal governement (I think it was around 5% of GDP). The industrial revolution saw the biggest economic growth in human history.

Then in 1913 (FED) and in the 1930's (social programs), the U.S really stopped following the constitution. It tooked you guys +70 years to spend all the wealth accumulated (shows how wealthy you got under the free market rules, i.e. following the constitution).

As a matter of fact, the quality of life of the "poor" rapidly increased right around where what you probably consider the most egregious violations of the constitution (i.e. income tax) took place. And progressively decreased since the start of Reaganomics and the "reclamation" of a strict interpretation of written work (constitution and bible)... right now we're at roughly the same median quality of life as in the '20s.

You need to ask yourself why during centuries, living in total misery was a fact of life for the majority of humans (except of course for kings etc.)
Then all of a sudden, for the 1st time in human history, we tried a small governement, no income tax, low regulations and bam:
The wealthiest nation in human history was born.

Sure, if governement takes money and give it away to people, their quality of life increases but it is an illusion of wealth (not based on people's increased productivity). And as the illusion fades away (current times), reality starts to kick in and people desperatly look back at the old days and still do not connect the dots.

P.S. I don't see where I mentioned Russia.

I mentioned Russia because in our previous debates, you told me that free market rules doesn't work because Russia is currently applying those rules and it's a mess. And I told you that you needed a strong legal system.

 

[TBeas]

The charts aren't some sort of final word. People are reading into the protests whatever they want to. In reality it seems to be an inchoate, amorphous and inarticulate "movement." Correction: if you ask the protesters, you get in response a babel, a cacophony of voices, with perhaps a few common underlying themes that haven't been made explicit. They -- whoever "they" are -- haven't thought through what is making them unhappy. They haven't connected the dots to make a coherent pattern. Hence no policy statements and no concrete set of demands. They also don't seem to know how the political and financial systems work in detail -- except that "they are all crooks and very greedy." I too expect the Occupy "movement" to fade away as the weather becomes chillier. I also expect it will be resurrected next year -- because the economic and political malaise that has fueled these protests will remain. Next time around it might be more determined and organised. We'll see -- but don't hold your breath.

I threw in this little clause you might have missed.

"So if we acknowledge the problems as those listed in the charts that Shantanu Kumar posted (just assume that those are the problems whether you agree or not),...."

I'm not saying that those charts are the final word on that matter. I'm sure that whoever made those charts didn't use the fairest measuring techniques and gladly pulled exactly which statistics they wanted to use. I said if we assume that that is the problem, how do you even fix it? A hypothetical I suppose.

 

[Anthony DeAngelis]

The Constitution is not flexible. That is the whole point. The USA surpassed many nations around WWII. Our dominance accelerated because we freed Europe and rebuilt it (along with Japan).

States rights are preeminent and a limited Federal government was what was intended. Hopefully Obama care will be found unconstitutional (which it is) and if not, defunded.

 

[Abdel]

That's a philosophical question.

No it is not. These are the rules of the house that maintain a social cohesion in your country.

You think that I want to live surrended by socialists? Of course not, but I ACCEPT to live with them under certain strict rules, i.e. Constitution. If they break the rules, it is a breach of contract and we do not have a country anymore.

The global dominance of this country developed in the aftermath of World War II.

A global dominance that was being built decades ago.
Thanks to the wealth generated by the free market rules & the constition. The U.S just didn't popped out of nowhere.

 

[Anthony DeAngelis]

Whoa, how is the Louisiana purchase unconstitutional? Thomas Jefferson made a good case why it was within bounds and the Constitution never explicitly says that acquiring territory was forbidden.

 

[Abdel]

The first correct thing you've said yet.
You can say whatever you want, but you are simply wrong.

Bwahahahaha, OK, you win

 

[mfegrad]

I agree about the other lobbyists as well; however, I'm sure everyone on this boards knows that money talks. To think that a feminist rights lobbyist has as much political leverage as a Goldman rep in DC is pure illusory.

you have no idea how much money is given to NARAL/NOW/PP. and let's call a spade a spade. those aren't "feminist rights" groups; they are "pro-the right to have an abortion" groups.

if the issue is removing lobbyists and money's influence in dc, that's fine. but it has to be done across the board...not just with one-sided politics behind it.

 

[Simpleton]

mfegrad: That's kind of a binary approach- both your view of feminism and lobbying. I'm a pro-lifer myself, but think we have a long way to go with equal rights in this country. In terms of the lobbying, nobody is saying do away with it. My point is that the amount of financial influence of large banks tends to trump that of special interest groups. Women's right groups are just the beginning.

De Angelis: Regulation can be a double-edged sword. Case in point. Loosening of the belt is what allowed Enron to become successful and pipeline prices to drop. Lack of regulation is what allowed its downfall.

To Others: The Constitution is a flexible document. Why would they have Amendments? The founding forefathers could not have anticipated the rapid growth, infrastructure, technology, and other factors of a rising nation. We were different in 1778. Scattered, smaller populations where people were more dependent on themselves for defense, et al. than a bureaucracy. Anyone who studies law understands that there is law- there is also interpretation and enforcement. The Constitution meant far less to powerless people with no land. Remember Prohibition?

Some would argue the nation didn't rise to prominence until after the 60s with the space program, investments in education, technology, etc. I think we all can agree America's success is a result of capitalism and rewarding innovation. No arguments here on that one.

 

[Abdel]

Anyone who studies law understands that there is law- there is also interpretation and enforcement.

Interpretation? Is the U.S constitution written in chinese?

It doesn't need interpretation, either you apply it (was applied during the first 100 years with the result that you became the wealthiest on earth) or you stop applying it (last 100 years with the result that you became the most undebted nation on earth).

Knowing these facts, you still don't want to follow the constitution?

 

[bigbadwolf]

It doesn't need interpretation, either you apply it (was applied during the first 100 years with the result that you became the wealthiest on earth) or you stop applying it (last 100 years with the result that you became the most undebted nation on earth).

Knowing these facts, you still don't want to follow the constitution?

You don't know basic US history. The country wasn't the wealthiest in the world in 1876 -- though it was one of the wealthier ones. Top spot was held by Britain. The 50-year period between the end of the Civil War and WW1 was the period when coal and steel production skyrocketed in the US, and rapid industrialisation catapulted it to major power status. But in 1876, it was still the opening stages. As for the Constitution being responsible for the transformation, the idea is just silly. The westward expansion of the US, kicking out the Mexicans from Texas, Arizona, etc., kicking out the Brits from the Northwest, and of course, dispossessing and decimating Indian population was one factor. Ample resources -- oil, coal, iron, etc. -- was another. The influx of immigrants another. Claiming the transformation was because of a document composed by representatives of a loose confederation of 13 states is absurd.

Even by 1913, per capita GDP for the US was just a little ahead of the British (source), but with roughly double the population, the country's GDP would be about twice as much.

 

[Abdel]

You don't know basic US history. The country wasn't the wealthiest in the world in 1876

You get my point, I'm not saying it's exactly 100 years. I'm saying these first 100 years of following the constitution led you to become the wealthiest nation on earth. So, don't be too quick on the trigger.

As for the Constitution being responsible for the transformation, the idea is just silly.

The Constitution created the necessary environment that allowed free market capitalism to function with the result that it lifted our of poverty millions of people while the rest of the worlds population was still starving (as it was the case for the past centuries)

The westward expansion of the US, kicking out the Mexicans from Texas, Arizona, etc., kicking out the Brits from the Northwest, and of course, dispossessing and decimating Indian population was one factor.

If kicking people out of their countries is economic growth, then why the US economy isn't booming? You guys are involved in +100 countries and yet, you're broke as hell with no real growth, lol.

Look at the soviet union, they invaded plenty countries and yet, they failed due to their economic system that was the opposite of free market capitalism.

Ample resources -- oil, coal, iron, etc. -- was another.

Plenty countries with ressources are 3rd world countries; Lybia, Iran, Algeria, Venezuela, etc etc. All these countries have one thing in common, their economic system is the opposite of free market capitalism.

The influx of immigrants another.

Hey, France has millions of immigrants and yet, they're stuck in economic stagnation. And guess what, the french economic system is....*drums* is the opposite of free market capitalism! lol

Claiming the transformation was because of a document composed by representatives of a loose confederation of 13 states is absurd.

It doesn't matter if it was composed by rep. of 1 or 13 or 1000 states. The point is what is written on that document.
The US constitution is not a perfect document. But it is by far the most important document in human history in my opinion.

Even by 1913, per capita GDP for the US was just a little ahead of the British (source), but with roughly double the population, the country's GDP would be about twice as much.

GDP per capita doesn't mean ish. The U.S have the 10th highest GDP/capita in the world and yet people are starving in the US (1 in 6 american is on food stamps, almost 50% of americans are too broke to pay income tax)

The bottom line is, millions of people fled europe to go to the U.S for a reason.

 

[Anthony DeAngelis]

BBW - I have no issue with regulation, but the amount of regulation the USA has is inhibitory to business. If we got rid of the superfluous regulation and only focused on what was necessary, business would be able to grow and expand. When we have a global economy we need to realize that regulation which becomes a burden will only result in jobs and industry going elsewhere.

 

[Abdel]

BBW - I have no issue with regulation, but the amount of regulation the USA has is inhibitory to business. If we got rid of the superfluous regulation and only focused on what was necessary, business would be able to grow and expand. When we have a global economy we need to realize that regulation which becomes a burden will only result in jobs and industry going elsewhere.

We only need market regulations.

People have to realise and accept that there will always be a small % of business ppl that are scammers. Look at Bernie Madoff, with all the regulations, he still pulled it out with the approbation of the SEC. However, the vast majority of businessmen are honest people.

Market regulations are more strict than governement regulations because it is based on your reputation. If you're customers are not satisfied, you're reputation is ruined and you go bankrupt.

The market clear you because you clearly aren't improving people's lifes by offering a good quality/price product/service. So, by going bankrupt you stop wasting ressources that could be used in a more efficient manner.

There will be private market created agencies that rate businesses by sector that will help people make a wise choice. And these agencies will also play by the market rules. If they recommend a bad business, people won't trust them and they'll go bankrupt.

 

[Simpleton]

Interpretation? Is the U.S constitution written in chinese?

...Knowing these facts, you still don't want to follow the constitution?

This is the type of idealism that plagues many conservatives. Who said do or don't follow the Constitution?

Remember Prohibition? It "prohibited" drinking. However, peoples disdain for the law and the perspective that otherwise law abiding citizens were criminals because they took a drink turned that around in a hurry.

I remind you the first Amendment concerning the right of citizens to vote was not in 1965. Not even in the 20th century. All kinds of legal rambling in the South was employed to keep people from voting- even though the Constitution explicitly states it shouldn't.

Never underestimate the power of state and local governments. There are ways around rules. Especially broad-based rules attempting to encompass a nation.

If interpretation isn't a factor, what do you say about how some military are allowed to legally drink BEFORE 21? In my college, the cops didn't care if you drank, as long as you stayed in your room. It's not black or white. I respect the Constitution as a backbone. America's rise to power came long after it was written.

De Angelis: I'm with you that market forces eventually will drive dishonesty out of business. However, what about the in between? The people who lose their jobs as a result? The ones who lose their money? I think this board is proof that people in corporations can be blinded by the dollar.

 

[bigbadwolf]

BBW - I have no issue with regulation, but the amount of regulation the USA has is inhibitory to business. If we got rid of the superfluous regulation and only focused on what was necessary, business would be able to grow and expand. When we have a global economy we need to realize that regulation which becomes a burden will only result in jobs and industry going elsewhere.

Anthony, the key point you're missing is that business itself has asked for a bigger state and more regulation. Start with Michael Perelman's "Railroading Economics." Business doesn't have a problem with rules and regulations. Indeed, big business often welcomes them because complying with them keeps all the small fry out and hence acts as another barrier to entry. This is why I say that capitalism and the state have co-evolved. Even in the days of mercantile capitalism two and three centuries back, it was ultimately the embryonic European states that provided guarantees and firepower to back fledgling mercantile capital. Thus for example the East India Trading Company gave way to the British state, and I think there is an analogous Dutch example. This is something the libertarians simply do not want to understand: they live in an Ayn Rand world where the state "gets out of the way" of private initiative -- not realising it runs counter to history and to the imperatives and needs of capital itself.

 

[Abdel]

This is the type of idealism that plagues many conservatives.

lol, idealism? really?

You know, we're not talking about a local baseball team that moved to another city and we're nostalgic about the good ol' days and how we were living when they were here.

We're talking about the Constitution aka the social contract under wich, people with different opinions accept to live together. In other words, it is the document that maintain social cohesion in your country (that is, if you want to have a descent country).

Remember Prohibition? It "prohibited" drinking. However, peoples disdain for the law and the perspective that otherwise law abiding citizens were criminals because they took a drink turned that around in a hurry.

I remind you the first Amendment concerning the right of citizens to vote was not in 1965. Not even in the 20th century. All kinds of legal rambling in the South was employed to keep people from voting- even though the Constitution explicitly states it shouldn't.

As I said in my previous post, it is not a perfect document but the whole point of the US constitution is/was to restrain the federal governement.

Sure, you can bring up some small technicalities here and there, but I'm talking about the big picture (the foundations of the house) and how since the US drifted away from those basic principales of small governement, no income tax and low regulations braught the coming economic armageddon.

 

[euroazn]

The words "Occupy Wallstreet" or any abbreviation haven't appeared in this thread for a while... wtf.

 

[Simpleton]

Abdel: Interpretation? Is the U.S constitution written in chinese?

Abdel: Knowing these facts, you still don't want to follow the constitution?

That's interesting. First you talk about how it's as simple as following or not following the Constitution. Now you say it isn't perfect. Honestly, I think the Constitution allowed us to have a successful economy- however, it wasn't the only factor.

Per capita income, even when taking inflation into consideration, is actually as good as it has ever been. I dont understand the 100 years up 100 years down argument. Some point out how price fixing and other things are results of the gov't becoming too involved in business. What about child labor? Scams?

Do you remember how we got into this financial mess in the first place? Predatory lending? Not taking insurance out on risky loans? The failure of the US regulatory agencies to do their job? Lack of regulation is what caused this. Bush and McCain themselves warned us. People with money can be corrupt and blinded by the almighty dollar. Human nature won't allow us to effectively police ourselves.

It sounds like a nice speech, but the facts don't point to strict adherence of the Constitution being the reason for America's success. In the 1900s, the country was largely agricultural, and many things we do today concerning commerce weren't even accessible to the average citizen. I encourage you to show evidence to the contrary.

 

[DanM]

It sounds like a nice speech, but the facts don't point to strict adherence of the Constitution being the reason for America's success. In the 1900s, the country was largely agricultural, and many things we do today concerning commerce weren't even accessible to the average citizen. I encourage you to show evidence to the contrary.

I don't want to speak for Abdel, but the majority of people (libertarians & paleoconservatives) who share his views are not utilitarians. They are not concerned with the effects on overall utility of the policies they support, but rather with the effects on liberty. They don't support limited government because they think it will maximize utility, they base their arguments on deontological ethics (non-aggression principle, for example). And quite honestly, this makes more sense philosophically, as utilitarianism is an irrational & incoherent ethical theory.