[Sumwun]

	Originally Posted by PlungingHornets To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Which is a fine example of out of control lack of regulation and income disparity? No thanks. (Unless I'm doing aid work To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. )

Actually, the problem isn't lack of regulation. It's over regulation. It's illegal to sell organic home-grown vegetables in some states, for example. But monolithic, megapolluting corporate farm warehouses are allowed everywhere.

Government favoritism and lobbying is what's causing all the problems concerning income disparity.

[PlungingHornets]

	Originally Posted by Sumwun To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	It's illegal to sell organic home-grown vegetables in some states, for example.

I would argue that this is an example of dumb regulation and/or corruption rather than over-regulation.

[Polymath20]

	Originally Posted by PlungingHornets To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I would argue that this is an example of dumb regulation and/or corruption rather than over-regulation.

This particular case is likely a holdover from when the majority of Americans relied upon their farm for their livelihood. There are still a lot of subsidies out there that make some crops "cash crops" even though the produce doesn't hold nearly the same value that it used to plus it artificially inflates prices for food just so that farmers can keep doing things as they have for the past 100 years.

[Sumwun]

Originally Posted by Polymath20 To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

This particular case is likely a holdover from when the majority of Americans relied upon their farm for their livelihood. There are still a lot of subsidies out there that make some crops "cash crops" even though the produce doesn't hold nearly the same value that it used to plus it artificially inflates prices for food just so that farmers can keep doing things as they have for the past 100 years.

It's actually a very new "law". There were recently armed police raids against a small family farm in Missouri where a little girl's laptop was stolen by the cops and the parents' thousand dollar equipment was destroyed. Look into it.

It was likely voted for by megacorporate farming lobbies.

	Originally Posted by PlungingHornets
	I would argue that this is an example of dumb regulation and/or corruption rather than over-regulation.

That too. Corruption is what makes these laws.

[freeeekyyy]

I like some of the OWSers. The problem is that they have no unifying philosophy. There are crazy communists, who I want nothing to do with, and ron paul libertarians, who I identify greatly with. I don't think the banks should have been bailed out, but that complaint needs to be taken up with the government, not wall street, who only took what they were given by the politicians. I'm not rich by any means (actually quite poor) but don't identify with the "99%" either, and can't stand their robin hood-type philosophy of stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Let everyone keep what's theirs, and everyone make the choice to give and help their neighbor. But there's a big difference between choosing to help your neighbor, and somebody stealing from you and giving the money to your neighbor.

[Sumwun]

Originally Posted by freeeekyyy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I like some of the OWSers. The problem is that they have no unifying philosophy. There are crazy communists, who I want nothing to do with, and ron paul libertarians, who I identify greatly with. I don't think the banks should have been bailed out, but that complaint needs to be taken up with the government, not wall street, who only took what they were given by the politicians. I'm not rich by any means (actually quite poor) but don't identify with the "99%" either, and can't stand their robin hood-type philosophy of stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Let everyone keep what's theirs, and everyone make the choice to give and help their neighbor. But there's a big difference between choosing to help your neighbor, and somebody stealing from you and giving the money to your neighbor.

Who do you think bribed those politicians to bail banks out in the first place?

[Deliberator]

I voted with OWS because technically speaking, I am too poor to pay taxes. I have a college degree, graduated magna cum laude, have been working since before I graduated, and still only make 15k a year. I have a 2yo child and a disabled husband who can't work. As much as I'd like to have enough money to be one of the 53% who pay taxes, I don't. I don't complain when the IRS gives me all my money back at the end of the year because only then can I afford to purchase health insurance for my kid, while I go without.

I really don't know if those OWS people have any good ideas because they are so vague with everything. Sure, I can agree that such a huge income gap is a bad sign, doesn't take a genius to figure that out. How do we fix it?

Originally Posted by freeeekyyy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I like some of the OWSers. The problem is that they have no unifying philosophy. There are crazy communists, who I want nothing to do with, and ron paul libertarians, who I identify greatly with. I don't think the banks should have been bailed out, but that complaint needs to be taken up with the government, not wall street, who only took what they were given by the politicians. I'm not rich by any means (actually quite poor) but don't identify with the "99%" either, and can't stand their robin hood-type philosophy of stealing from the rich to give to the poor. Let everyone keep what's theirs, and everyone make the choice to give and help their neighbor. But there's a big difference between choosing to help your neighbor, and somebody stealing from you and giving the money to your neighbor.

Agreed, mostly. I have a nagging feeling that directly taking money from the rich to give to the poor will not work as well as some other kind of technique that maybe benefits small businesses and middle class citizens.

[freeeekyyy]

	Originally Posted by Sumwun To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Who do you think bribed those politicians to bail banks out in the first place?

Wall Street. But you can't take away people's right to lobby the government. It was the politicians who gave in.

[Distance]

	Originally Posted by Sumwun To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Who do you think bribed those politicians to bail banks out in the first place?

The banks were bailed out to prevent a credit crunch and subsequent depression.

[MrFox]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The banks were bailed out to prevent a credit crunch and subsequent depression.

Well jeepers creepers, did they have to do it the way they did? Everybody gets stuck with $15+ T of debt, $1+ T of annual deficits as far as anyone can see, slow growth and no jobs for indebted college grads - everybody except the guys who caused the disaster; those guys came out of it just fine.

But hey - if makin' sure Lloyd Blankfein never has to miss even one of his 8-digit annual paydays makes you happy, then I'm happy as a hog in mud too.

[PlungingHornets]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The banks were bailed out to prevent a credit crunch and subsequent depression.

I didn't feel great about it either, but I supported it after I saw a study showing what it would have done to tax revenues after the economy tanked. Basically, the banks had us by the balls and they knew it. And that's why they need to be regulated.

[freeeekyyy]

	Originally Posted by PlungingHornets To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	I didn't feel great about it either, but I supported it after I saw a study showing what it would have done to tax revenues after the economy tanked. Basically, the banks had us by the balls and they knew it. And that's why they need to be regulated.

That'll just make it easier for them to keep pulling the same crap. They have to face consequences for their poor decisions.


If the banks had been allowed to go under, it would have been bad for the economy, but we would have recovered, and when we did come back, we'd not be so dependent on them anymore.

[Aronnax]

	Originally Posted by freeeekyyy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That'll just make it easier for them to keep pulling the same crap. They have to face consequences for their poor decisions. If the banks had been allowed to go under, it would have been bad for the economy, but we would have recovered, and when we did come back, we'd not be so dependent on them anymore.

The people actually in charge of making decisions faced no significant consequences for failure. They'd still walk out the door with millions and get picked up by competing banks to manage all the assets they acquired at fire sale prices due to bankruptcy.

A better solution would have been to bail them out, fragment them into much smaller banks (banks actually got bigger due to mergers after the bailouts). Existing anti-trust laws should be modified to include banks (they're currently exempt), give the SEC enough funding to actually do its job and use RICO laws to prosecute bankers when they get out of line.

[PlungingHornets]

	Originally Posted by freeeekyyy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	That'll just make it easier for them to keep pulling the same crap. They have to face consequences for their poor decisions. If the banks had been allowed to go under, it would have been bad for the economy, but we would have recovered, and when we did come back, we'd not be so dependent on them anymore.

Can you give me a single shred of evidence from a peer reviewed source that: 1) This is true 2) Such an unregulated system wouldn't result in massive monopolies?


To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[MrFox]

	Originally Posted by PlungingHornets To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Can you give me a single shred of evidence from a peer reviewed source that: 1) This is true 2) Such an unregulated system wouldn't result in massive monopolies?

It's counter-factual conjecture, which can never be proven, but so what? No society should be condemned to live indefinitely in the servitude of an elite class who can demand any sacrifice of the society whenever it's necessary to preserve them in their elite status and position.

Whatever the price - that system has to go.

[freeeekyyy]

	Originally Posted by PlungingHornets To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Can you give me a single shred of evidence from a peer reviewed source that: 1) This is true 2) Such an unregulated system wouldn't result in massive monopolies? To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

How do you maintain a monopoly if you aren't even in business? And how do you remain dependent on a non-existent business?

[PlungingHornets]

	Originally Posted by freeeekyyy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	How do you maintain a monopoly if you aren't even in business? And how do you remain dependent on a non-existent business?

Ok you can't. Good thing we cleared that up.

[Quantiq]

Instead of going through 65 posts on OWS, I thought I would mention this. If you or your family makes a total of over $60 000 per year. You are within the top 10% wealthiest populace. If you or your family makes over $100 000, you are within the top 3% wealthiest populace.

So apparently OWS is representing me even if I'm within the world's wealthiest populace. Interesting. It's really too bad that OWS doesn't represent the 99% of people in absolute poverty making less than $1 per day in poor african and asian states.

Originally Posted by Deliberator To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

I voted with OWS because technically speaking, I am too poor to pay taxes. I have a college degree, graduated magna cum laude, have been working since before I graduated, and still only make 15k a year. I have a 2yo child and a disabled husband who can't work. As much as I'd like to have enough money to be one of the 53% who pay taxes, I don't. I don't complain when the IRS gives me all my money back at the end of the year because only then can I afford to purchase health insurance for my kid, while I go without. I really don't know if those OWS people have any good ideas because they are so vague with everything. Sure, I can agree that such a huge income gap is a bad sign, doesn't take a genius to figure that out. How do we fix it?

Sorry about this in advance and no offence intended but have you seriously considered moving somewhere else other than within the United States?

Seriously. Assuming that you are from the United States of America (you mentioned IRS), it shouldn't just be a question of what WE can do but what YOU can do. The United States is in the biggest financial hole ever and it doesn't seem like a problem likely to be fixed within a short amount of time. I think instead of suffering and feeling bad about yourself and your job and your family and your life, etc. Why don't you look for a life in a country elsewhere?

With the qualifications that you have, you are quite valuable to many businesses. The only reason why this business is getting away with paying you less than $15 000 a year is because every other business in the United States does the same thing. It's insanity.

Consider moving to places within Europe where high skilled jobs are needed such as Germany, France, The Netherlands, etc. Or even places such as Shanghai, Hong Kong or Taiwan for startups and managerial positions.

Just something to consider. I'm probably going to try starting a small tech business in Shanghai when I receive enough Angel funded money and capital to get it off the ground.

There are always options in life and risks that need to be taken to improve it.
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[freeeekyyy]

	Originally Posted by PlungingHornets To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Ok you can't. Good thing we cleared that up.

Your points were irrelevant, so I chose not to answer them. Why should I let you take things in a different direction that has nothing to do with what was being discussed?

[zibber]

	Originally Posted by Distance To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	The banks were bailed out to prevent a credit crunch and subsequent depression.

By former Goldman Sachs employees.

	Originally Posted by MrFox To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	But hey - if makin' sure Lloyd Blankfein never has to miss even one of his 8-digit annual paydays makes you happy, then I'm happy as a hog in mud too.

I realize the above is also a Jewish name (well, two), but that's unfair to all the non-Jewish white people making money from this.

[PlungingHornets]

	Originally Posted by freeeekyyy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	Your points were irrelevant, so I chose not to answer them. Why should I let you take things in a different direction that has nothing to do with what was being discussed?

You disagreed with me, refuse to give any support for your arguments, then say I'm the one being irrelevant? If you could see me, I'm feigning shock right now.

[freeeekyyy]

	Originally Posted by PlungingHornets To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You disagreed with me, refuse to give any support for your arguments, then say I'm the one being irrelevant? If you could see me, I'm feigning shock right now.

What do monopolies have to do with the issue at hand? You said the banks need further regulation. I said they didn't. You then brought up something about monopolies, which I see as a non sequitur.

[larkin]

	Originally Posted by freeeekyyy To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
	You said the banks need further regulation. I said they didn't. You then brought up something about monopolies, which I see as a non sequitur.

Pretty much exactly the problem with those who favor deregulation of the financial industry. Monopolies (and thus, dependency) are an inevitable consequence of deregulation. But in this worldview, consequences seem to be a non-sequitur.

[HIDE="Bank consolidation since Gramm-Leach-Bliley - from 37 to 4"]
To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
[/HIDE]

[freeeekyyy]

Originally Posted by larkin To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

Pretty much exactly the problem with those who favor deregulation of the financial industry. Monopolies (and thus, dependency) are an inevitable consequence of deregulation. But in this worldview, consequences seem to be a non-sequitur. [HIDE="Bank consolidation since Gramm-Leach-Bliley - from 37 to 4"] To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 2 or greater. You currently have 0 posts. [/HIDE]

This is an argument specifically about financial regulation, though. At least, I thought it was. Anti-trust regulation is a different issue.

[ppu6502]

Depending on how you define it, I'm either in the 1% or 99%

Either way, I am also in the 53% because I pay income taxes.

The goals and arguments (or lack thereof) are so inconsistent and arbitrary, I can't say that I really identify with any of them. Even 1% of the population is such a massive number of people, all with various and often contradictory opinions, that it's absurd to lump them into the same group. It's the same sort of fallacy that started the [wealthy people are evil and need to be punished] bullshit to begin with.

It's all just distraction from the countless actual issues that need to be addressed.