Occupy Wall Street's debt buying strikes at the heart of capitalism


Cliffy
+2
#1  Top Rated Post
When the Occupy movement came into being in the summer of 2011, its critics said that a lack of identifiable objectives and strategy for achieving them meant it was doomed to fail. This was a monumental underestimation of its potential impact. Two years on, the debate about the ethics of corporate capitalism in its current form, the fairness of the remuneration of those at the top, the widening wealth gap and the morality of tax avoidance is alive and well. The concept of the "99%" is now part of the collective consciousness. All this is, in no small part, down to the fuse lit by the Occupy movement.
However, another significant aspect of the movement – dismissed as being woolly – was that it brought like-minded people together and allowed a dialogue which identified common strands. This appears to have evolved into several focused and practical initiatives. One of the most significant, and perhaps the most threatening to the status quo, is the Strike Debt group, of which the Rolling Jubilee project forms part.


more: Occupy Wall Street's debt buying strikes at the heart of capitalism | Alex Andreou | Comment is free | theguardian.com
 
taxslave
+2
#2
A lot of rather twisted logic in there. Keeps the believers happy I guess. In the long run this is of immense benefit to industry because these people have been relieved of their debt and are now free to get new loans and buy stuff they probably don't really need.
 
Cliffy
+2
#3
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

A lot of rather twisted logic in there. Keeps the believers happy I guess. In the long run this is of immense benefit to industry because these people have been relieved of their debt and are now free to get new loans and buy stuff they probably don't really need.

Mmmmm..... speaking of twisted logic....
 
taxslave
#4
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Mmmmm..... speaking of twisted logic....

Not really. The note holders have already written off the bad loans against their taxes. Now dogooders with more money than brains have made some people debt free. That I have no problem with. But I'm betting the majority of them will soon be in debt again.
 
Cliffy
+1
#5
Quote: Originally Posted by taxslave View Post

Not really. The note holders have already written off the bad loans against their taxes. Now dogooders with more money than brains have made some people debt free. That I have no problem with. But I'm betting the majority of them will soon be in debt again.

That is not the point. The present economic and monetary systems are ridiculously unsustainable and based on nothing tangible. What they are trying to do is collapse the system to force governmemnts and bankers to come up with something more sustainable and sensible. Revolutions doesn't always have to involve bloodshed.
 
captain morgan
+2
#6
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

That is not the point. The present economic and monetary systems are ridiculously unsustainable and based on nothing tangible. What they are trying to do is collapse the system to force governmemnts and bankers to come up with something more sustainable and sensible. Revolutions doesn't always have to involve bloodshed.

The biggest unsustainable factor is a high (and rising) level of social services that are demanded... That is a simple expression of entitlement and it will be the downfall of that system.
 
petros
#7
The strange thing is you can buy tangibles with something that has no tangible backing.
 
Liberalman
#8
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

The biggest unsustainable factor is a high (and rising) level of social services that are demanded... That is a simple expression of entitlement and it will be the downfall of that system.


Entitlements? Everybody has to be earning money for their entitlements and it is the government’s job to protect the jobs and enforce the laws like illegal aliens taking away jobs that are for the citizens of this country.
 
captain morgan
#9
Quote: Originally Posted by petros View Post

The strange thing is you can buy tangibles with something that has no tangible backing.

'Obligation' in terms of the backing is kinda a bit of both

Quote: Originally Posted by Liberalman View Post


Entitlements? Everybody has to be earning money for their entitlements and it is the government’s job to protect the jobs and enforce the laws like illegal aliens taking away jobs that are for the citizens of this country.



They are desperate for people in Sask and Ab right now.
 
Cliffy
#10
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

The biggest unsustainable factor is a high (and rising) level of social services that are demanded... That is a simple expression of entitlement and it will be the downfall of that system.

The government builds roads and other infrastructure so that corporations can rape the environment. Do you consider that entitlements too?
 
cj44
+1
#11
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

The government builds roads and other infrastructure so that corporations can rape the environment. Do you consider that entitlements too?

Taxpayers paid for those roads cliffy.
 
Cliffy
#12
Quote: Originally Posted by cj44 View Post

Taxpayers paid for those roads cliffy.

Yes I know. That was my point.
 
Omicron
+2
#13
Quote: Originally Posted by captain morgan View Post

The biggest unsustainable factor is a high (and rising) level of social services that are demanded... That is a simple expression of entitlement and it will be the downfall of that system.

The whole point of having a civilization is that it enables "social services" to happen by virtue of the power of numbers, but it depends on how the wealth is distributed.

When a middle-class is dominant, the majority can afford to pitch in a bit for things like taking care of citizens when they're sick, such that what you call "entitlements" are just a cheep and efficient way to streamline the solution of problems common to all, i.e., anybody can get sick, and it's hard to pay for treatment if you're sick, but if you can be cured, then you can get back to work and start pitching in again.

But when half the economy is in the hands of 1%, they start grumbling about how they don't want to take care of sick people... they'll say things like, "That's not my problem". I know some very rich people in the US, and a gripe I've heard about Obamacare is (I quote) "I don't want to pay for care of sick n*ggers and wetbacks! It's their problem!" (That is a literal quote.)

Isaac Asimov predicted there would come a day when a few people would end up owning everything, and instead of plowing their money back into the economy the way nobles of the middle ages would circulate money through the economy by employing craftsmen and artisans to build cathedrals, they would instead use it to build armies of robots to serve their every need, until they could cut themselves away from the rest of the humanity whose wealth they had scooped out like a pumpkin, and move to another planet.

Maybe he was right. One thing you'll notice is how one area of research that never has trouble getting funding is robotics. It's probably already at a stage where a very rich private citizen can buy his own fleet of drones.
 
EagleSmack
+1
#14
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Yes I know. That was my point.

Corporations pay for that as well.
 
Omicron
+2
#15
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

The government builds roads and other infrastructure so that corporations can rape the environment. Do you consider that entitlements too?

Actually, that's probably *exactly* how the corporations see it.

Speaking of corporate entitlements and how in the US they've become legally classified as "people" (in order to justify them making unlimited donations to a political party the way a private individual might)...

I think for a corporation to get "person" status, it should have to exist according to the same standards as a normal human, which means... it would be illegal for it to knowingly hurt another.

How many corporations do you know where, if it's behavior were subjected to a personality test, would *not* end up being classified as psychopathic?
 
cj44
#16
Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Yes I know. That was my point.

Corporations pay taxes too.

Quote: Originally Posted by Omicron View Post

The whole point of having a civilization is that it enables "social services" to happen by virtue of the power of numbers, but it depends on how the wealth is distributed.

When a middle-class is dominant, the majority can afford to pitch in a bit for things like taking care of citizens when they're sick, such that what you call "entitlements" are just a cheep and efficient way to streamline the solution of problems common to all, i.e., anybody can get sick, and it's hard to pay for treatment if you're sick, but if you can be cured, then you can get back to work and start pitching in again.

But when half the economy is in the hands of 1%, they start grumbling about how they don't want to take care of sick people... they'll say things like, "That's not my problem". I know some very rich people in the US, and a gripe I've heard about Obamacare is (I quote) "I don't want to pay for care of sick n*ggers and wetbacks! It's their problem!" (That is a literal quote.)

Isaac Asimov predicted there would come a day when a few people would end up owning everything, and instead of plowing their money back into the economy the way nobles of the middle ages would circulate money through the economy by employing craftsmen and artisans to build cathedrals, they would instead use it to build armies of robots to serve their every need, until they could cut themselves away from the rest of the humanity whose wealth they had scooped out like a pumpkin, and move to another planet.

Maybe he was right. One thing you'll notice is how one area of research that never has trouble getting funding is robotics. It's probably already at a stage where a very rich private citizen can buy his own fleet of drones.

Well all of that is just a big old pile of manure. The 1% are the most charitable. Good Grief! AHHHHH. I have just fallen into the trap. Clearly, there are stingy stooged scrooges in all classes. And if one day only a few own everything you can thank Obama and his ilk. Spreading the wealth does NOT work. In so doing, you spread poverty and then the super rich hold on to their coins all more because they don't want what they worked for going to sluggards. They gladly (not all) give to the poor. Look at your philanthropists - they aren't the people making minimum wage. Did you personally get burned by a "corportation" or are you just looking for something to gripe about?

You might want to thank the 1% and the corporations for footing 90% of bill.
 
eh1eh
+1
#17
Quote: Originally Posted by EagleSmack View Post

Corporations pay for that as well.

Where do corporations get their money?
From your pocket. The loop is closed. There is only one dollar.
 
taxslave
#18
I think we need to divide the companies into at least two groups.
Group A)the creators, those that create wealth by building products, taking risks in exploration etc.
Group B) the parasites that buy and sell shares and futures and bankrupt viable companies without a single care except to squeeze a penny out of every sale.
 
cj44
+1
#19
“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy;
Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery” ... Winston Churchill
 
Sal
#20
Quote: Originally Posted by cj44 View Post

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy;
Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery” ... Winston Churchill

capitalism ain't working so well anymore either...we need a new system
 
Omicron
+2
#21
Quote: Originally Posted by cj44 View Post

Well all of that is just a big old pile of manure.

Ooo... and with that witicism the argument is settled.

Quote:

The 1% are the most charitable. Good Grief! AHHHHH. I have just fallen into the trap. Clearly, there are stingy stooged scrooges in all classes. And if one day only a few own everything you can thank Obama and his ilk. Spreading the wealth does NOT work. In so doing, you spread poverty and then the super rich hold on to their coins all more because they don't want what they worked for going to sluggards. They gladly (not all) give to the poor. Look at your philanthropists - they aren't the people making minimum wage. Did you personally get burned by a "corportation" or are you just looking for something to gripe about?

You might want to thank the 1% and the corporations for footing 90% of bill.

In terms of economic effects, I bet you don't know the difference between a rich person spending it to buy goods and services produced by those who work, versus using the money to buy other companies to boost profits, so you can use the bigger profits to buy more companies, so you can use the bigger profits to buy more companies...

Having a person be rich doesn't hurt one damn thing if he spends it back on where he made it from.

In fact, it can help in some interesting ways, because if he's got surplus cash, he might use it to buy a very fancy bicycle made with the finest materials by the most skilled engineers, who wouldn't have been able to show their engineering talent and make a sale if there hadn't been someone rich enough to buy their product.

It's when they *don't* spend it back... when they instead use it to monopolize... that everything goes in the direction which, judging according to behavior, is where the current orchestrator Satan wants it to go, which is hell... dragging the rest of the planet with it.

Quote: Originally Posted by cj44 View Post

“Socialism is a philosophy of failure, the creed of ignorance, and the gospel of envy;
Its inherent virtue is the equal sharing of misery” ... Winston Churchill

You do know that Churchill was drunk when he slured out those platitudes, right?
Last edited by Omicron; Nov 17th, 2013 at 07:36 PM..
 
Walter
#22
I call BS to the whole article. I don't believe a word of it. Why was there not one person who received these so-called letters named as a recipient of said letter? We'd see stories on every lefty website in the US if this was happening.
 
Omicron
+1
#23
Quote: Originally Posted by Sal View Post

capitalism ain't working so well anymore either...we need a new system

Yeah... and you know, Gorbachov used to talk about that.

He used to say that Capitalism still has all the intrinsic paradoxical flaws that it always had, so he didn't want to see Russia go back to the beasts (which it did anyway, through a painful process in the late 90's leading to their current system under the Oligarchs) but that the style of communism tried by the Bolshevics - Marxism Leninism - wasn't working either, therefore he used to wonder out loud about a thing he called "The Third Way".

Looks like China's closest to nailing it. Technically they're still communist, and they still enforce some fundamental communist positions, like not allowing a rich person to buy up and control infrastructure essential for all, but they opened it up to Free Enterprise.

This was possible because Free Enterprise is not the same as Capitalism. Free Enterprise is a means of production, whereas Capitalism is a system of ownership.

You'd be *amazed* how many Americans think Free Enterprise and Capitalism are the same thing.

Chinese Communists let Free Enterprise loose, and most Yanks think it means the Communist government in Bejing has turned "Capitalist".
 
pgs
#24
Quote: Originally Posted by Liberalman View Post

Entitlements? Everybody has to be earning money for their entitlements and it is the government’s job to protect the jobs and enforce the laws like illegal aliens taking away jobs that are for the citizens of this country.

Are you a liberal ?

Quote: Originally Posted by Cliffy View Post

Yes I know. That was my point.

Hmmm if I want to build a mine log a forest or sink a well I am pretty sure I must provide my own access .
I may be wrong .
 
cj44
+2
#25
Quote: Originally Posted by Omicron View Post

Ooo... and with that witicism the argument is settled.

In terms of economic effects, I bet you don't know the difference between a rich person spending it to buy goods and services produced by those who work, versus using the money to buy other companies to boost profits, so you can use the bigger profits to buy more companies, so you can use the bigger profits to buy more companies...

Having a person be rich doesn't hurt one damn thing if he spends it back on where he made it from.

In fact, it can help in some interesting ways, because if he's got surplus cash, he might use it to buy a very fancy bicycle made with the finest materials by the most skilled engineers, who wouldn't have been able to show their engineering talent and make a sale if there hadn't been someone rich enough to buy their product.

It's when they *don't* spend it back... when they instead use it to monopolize... that everything goes in the direction which, judging according to behavior, is where the current orchestrator Satan wants it to go, which is hell... dragging the rest of the planet with it.



You do know that Churchill was drunk when he slured out those platitudes, right?

Yeah, I am known for my wit.

Quote: Originally Posted by Sal View Post

capitalism ain't working so well anymore either...we need a new system

capitalism is working fine. the problems we are experiencing are due to our nanny government.
 
Goober
#26
Quote: Originally Posted by cj44 View Post

Corporations pay taxes too.
You might want to thank the 1% and the corporations for footing 90% of bill.

Nope- have a link for those numbers- now while you look I expect you back just after Armageddon.
 
cj44
#27
Omicron: What is wrong with ownership? Ownership Good. Free Enterprise Good. Both Good.

Quote: Originally Posted by Goober View Post

Nope- have a link for those numbers- now while you look I expect you back just after Armageddon.

Goober Goober Goober. If you are able, get a look at the 60 Minutes program that aired tonight. They had many billionaires - you know those evil 1% capitalists talking about how they pledged to give 50% of their wealth away to help the poor, the environment, education etc. Of course we will find a few bad apples - some real scrooges that keep every penny they earn - which by the way is their right to do so. But, overall, I find wealthy people to be extrodinarily generous. Can we not be happy for those that have been blessed with wealth?????

Just who in the world do you think pays the majority of taxes???? Do you think it is the folks on food stamps???? Middle Class is getting nailed for sure, but Buffet and Gates are really paying through the nose. Even if they are keeping some in off shore accounts, they are paying a hefty sum. Can't escape the tax man.
 
Sal
-1
#28
Quote: Originally Posted by Omicron View Post

Yeah... and you know, Gorbachov used to talk about that.

He used to say that Capitalism still has all the intrinsic paradoxical flaws that it always had, so he didn't want to see Russia go back to the beasts (which it did anyway, through a painful process in the late 90's leading to their current system under the Oligarchs) but that the style of communism tried by the Bolshevics - Marxism Leninism - wasn't working either, therefore he used to wonder out loud about a thing he called "The Third Way".

Looks like China's closest to nailing it. Technically they're still communist, and they still enforce some fundamental communist positions, like not allowing a rich person to buy up and control infrastructure essential for all, but they opened it up to Free Enterprise.

This was possible because Free Enterprise is not the same as Capitalism. Free Enterprise is a means of production, whereas Capitalism is a system of ownership.

You'd be *amazed* how many Americans think Free Enterprise and Capitalism are the same thing.

Chinese Communists let Free Enterprise loose, and most Yanks think it means the Communist government in Bejing has turned "Capitalist".

thanks for that explanation ♦

Quote: Originally Posted by cj44 View Post

Yeah, I am known for my wit.


capitalism is working fine. the problems we are experiencing are due to our nanny government.

no it isn't working there is enough money to ensure everyone eats and has healthcare and has their basic needs met ... we should be there, instead food stamp usage in your country has risen by 20%, people have lost their jobs...same with here in Ontario... it's all gone to hell in a hand basket because the wealthy are squeezing out the middle class...soon there will be the poor and the rich...guess where we will be...luckily for me, I'm old enough that it won't much matter...it's the grandchildren who will be screwed six ways to Sunday. Hopefully they can clean up this mess we've left for them.
 
cj44
+1
#29
Quote: Originally Posted by Sal View Post

thanks for that explanation ♦

no it isn't working there is enough money to ensure everyone eats and has healthcare and has their basic needs met ... we should be there, instead food stamp usage in your country has risen by 20%, people have lost their jobs...same with here in Ontario... it's all gone to hell in a hand basket because the wealthy are squeezing out the middle class...soon there will be the poor and the rich...guess where we will be...luckily for me, I'm old enough that it won't much matter...it's the grandchildren who will be screwed six ways to Sunday. Hopefully they can clean up this mess we've left for them.

Capitalism isn't the reason for social ills. And by the way, everyone in America has enough to eat and we all had access to health care before the great obamacare. Don't believe the lie the liberals are peddaling. The biggest lie is that Americans do not have access to health care. You know St. Jude hospital for children stricken with cancer? They do not charge for their services. The greedy wealthy donate millions every year so no family has to pay a dime!!!!! Food Stamp usage increased because Obama and company wanted it to. And Georgy W. didn't help things in that department either. The wealthy are NOT squeezing the middle class. The wealthy are providing jobs for the middle class. The wealthy are the ones repainting/furnishing their homes every few years. They are the ones buying stuff, lots of stuff, even expensive stuff. That's good. Let them buy yachts and private jets - all good. Those jobs, the yacht builders, designers, jet builders - they make a comfortable wage. The wealthy buy decent clothing - not the five dollar shirts at walmart. Let them spend $200 on a shirt or a pair of socks for that matter. The profit on that $200 pair of socks will support the sock designer, manufacturing manager, sock maker, retail store, and saleslady. The wealthy go to the salon every week to have their face waxed and their toes painted - that is good. Let the wealthy be and let them spend their money and donate their money. We are being squeezed by BIG government and being taxed to death. It's time we have a parade for the wealthy. Tell them to bring their wallets and purses and then unleash them to the shoppes and clothiers and boat builders. Shazaam! Employment for everyone!

So maybe we don't agree on everything, but I really like that hypnotic blue squiggly avatar.
 
Omicron
+1 / -1
#30
Quote: Originally Posted by cj44 View Post

capitalism is working fine. the problems we are experiencing are due to our nanny government.

Oh really. So it was a nanny government, and not capitalism, to cause the meltdwon in 2008 which America has still not recovered from six years later?

Quote: Originally Posted by cj44 View Post

Capitalism isn't the reason for social ills.

And that simple statemnet proves it, eh? You're definitely American. I've become tuned to telling the difference by virtue of the absense of premises in American arguments.

Quote:

And by the way, everyone in America has enough to eat and we all had access to health care before the great obamacare.

Aside from the fact that you've got the highest rate of infant mortality among the industrialized nations, how come what you call "liberals" (with not the same meaning that the other industrialized democracies ascribe to the term), you've got the pro-Obamacare people saying it now brings tens of millions into the fold of having insurance, while on the other hand those of your ilk are saying its reducing the number of people covered?

Who's right? Show us the facts.

Try to answer without saying something simple-minded and blankly robotic like, "They're lying". I've noticed in the States, it's become fashionable to twist the meaning of the word "lying" to include situations where a person thought they were stating the truth, but simply didn't have all the facts.

Lying is when you *know* that what you're saying is not the truth.

Quote:

Don't believe the lie the liberals are peddaling.

See... you did it.

Quote:

The biggest lie is ...

And you did it again. That's how I know you're American.

Quote:

... that Americans do not have access to health care.

Everybody knows Americans have access to health care if they have money and can afford it.

Do you have any idea at all how the rest of the industrialized nations on the planet handle it? They never got all bent up and twisted out of shape like you guys. They just did it. Everyone gets covered, and the premiums are affordable.

Why didn't you just copy Germany or Japan or Canada or Australia or Holland or Taiwanese or French or Italian or any of the other industrial democracy's systesm, and be done with it?
Last edited by Omicron; Nov 17th, 2013 at 10:30 PM..
 

Similar Threads

2130
Occupy Wall Street Fail
by Locutus | Jan 14th, 2015
9