Another quality example of the brainfarters and mouthbreathers that occupy these sideshows. Not quite Loitonesque but he's trying.
Occupy Attacks!: Occupy Portland Attacks KGW News Crew! - YouTube (external - login to view)
****s getting nasty xDDD ouch!
I'm happy the way Canada has handled this situation up to date. Class act.
Our police and city staff should be praised.
I would have to say that who has had the largest effect on the whole planet without us really paying attention across the board and everywhere is the entire banking industry and their disregard for the people that they’re supposed to be working for….So the ways the bankers have kind of toppled the way money is distributed and taken most of it into their hands is as good as Stalin or Hitler and the evil guys…They’re not heroes, but they are people that had a really huge effect on the way the world is operating.*After the debate concluded, I asked Batali if he could elaborate on his belief in moral equivalence between the guys whose greed caused the mortgage crisis and the tyrants who slaughtered millions and reduced Europe to rubble. “Oh, that was just a metaphor,” he said. Oic But, offered the opportunity to back down from his pronouncement, he stood firm. “The way people change lives, I do think bankers change lives as much as a repressive [inaudible] autocrat. But, that said, it was more direct.” (“It” presumably meaning the Hitler/Stalin form of evil.)
Until you make even a slightly concerted effort to be critical of Loc's crap, I would take your views with a grain of salt.
Nut up or shutup, brah.
A few weeks ago, as the Occupy Wall Street protests were first spreading, something amazing happened: For 10 whole seconds, the local reporter on my TV screen actually talked about the realities of the recession - even uttering the phrase "economic inequality."
However, in the past three decades, America has lived a different reality - one perfectly summarized by a new Federal Reserve study revealing that today's increasing inequality accompanies comparatively low social mobility.
"U.S. family income mobility has decreased over the 1969-2006 time span, and especially since the 1980s," notes the Fed paper, adding that "a family's position at (the) end of (the) 2000s was ... more correlated with its start position than was the case 20 years earlier."
This is why almost three-quarters of respondents just told the Hill newspaper's pollsters that income inequality is a problem.
As the Fed noted in a separate report, the federal tax code has been the one proven way to "mitigate income inequality." But with congressional Republicans gradually flattening federal income tax rates and with already-regressive state tax rates in many GOP bastions, the tax system has lately been preserving or exacerbating existing inequality.
Interesting note on this... How has social mobility been affected during this time relative to the increases (over the same time frame) of handouts and heightened social spending?
Raising taxes on the achievers is disingenuous at best... In today's world, both people and capital are highly mobile. There are interesting examples of the trend domestically in the US and to think that this action will not occur over international lines is naive.
A growing body of evidence suggests that the meritocratic ideal is in trouble in America. Income inequality is growing to levels not seen since the Gilded Age, around the 1880s. But social mobility is not increasing at anything like the same pace: would-be Horatio Algers are finding it no easier to climb from rags to riches, while the children of the privileged have a greater chance of staying at the top of the social heap. The United States risks calcifying into a European-style class-based society.The evidence on social mobility is hardly encouraging to those who believe that every American has a solid chance to pull themselves up by their bootstraps:
[M]ore and more evidence from social scientists suggests that American society is much "stickier" than most Americans assume. Some researchers claim that social mobility is actually declining. A classic social survey in 1978 found that 23% of adult men who had been born in the bottom fifth of the population (as ranked by social and economic status) had made it into the top fifth. Earl Wysong of Indiana University and two colleagues recently decided to update the study. They compared the incomes of 2,749 father-and-son pairs from 1979 to 1998 and found that few sons had moved up the class ladder. Nearly 70% of the sons in 1998 had remained either at the same level or were doing worse than their fathers in 1979. The biggest increase in mobility had been at the top of society, with affluent sons moving upwards more often than their fathers had. They found that only 10% of the adult men born in the bottom quarter had made it to the top quarter.And, unfortunately, as the Economist points out, there are few signs of a reform movement, a substantial change from the 1880s, when growing inequality and class stratification sparked efforts to improve education, create an estate tax to prevent the concentration of wealth, bust monopolies, and so forth. It's time for that to change before the American meritocracy becomes an empty myth.
The Economic Policy Institute also argues that social mobility has declined since the 1970s. In the 1990s 36% of those who started in the second-poorest 20% stayed put, compared with 28% in the 1970s and 32% in the 1980s. In the 1970s 12% of the population moved from the bottom fifth to either the fourth or the top fifth. In the 1980s and 1990s the figures shrank to below 11% for both decades. The figure for those who stayed in the top fifth increased slightly but steadily over the three decades, reinforcing the sense of diminished social mobility.
Not all social scientists accept the conclusion that mobility is declining. Gary Solon, of the University of Michigan, argues that there is no evidence of any change in social-mobility rates, down or up. But, at the least, most people agree that the dramatic increase in income inequality over the past two decades has not been accompanied by an equally dramatic increase in social mobility.
Take the study carried out by Thomas Hertz, an economist at American University in Washington, DC, who studied a representative sample of 6,273 American families (both black and white) over 32 years or two generations. He found that 42% of those born into the poorest fifth ended up where they started—at the bottom. Another 24% moved up slightly to the next-to-bottom group. Only 6% made it to the top fifth. Upward mobility was particularly low for black families. On the other hand, 37% of those born into the top fifth remained there, whereas barely 7% of those born into the top 20% ended up in the bottom fifth. A person born into the top fifth is over five times as likely to end up at the top as a person born into the bottom fifth.
Jonathan Fisher and David Johnson, two economists at the Bureau of Labour Statistics, looked at inequality and social mobility using measures of both income and consumption. They found that mobility "slightly decreased" in the 1990s. In 1984-90, 56% and 54% of households changed their rankings in terms of income and consumption respectively. In 1994-99, only 52% and 49% changed their rankings.
Two economists at the Federal Reserve Bank of Boston analysed family incomes over three decades. They found that 40% of families remained stuck in the same income bracket in the 1990s, compared with 37% of families in the 1980s and 36% in the 1970s. Aaron Bernstein of Business Week points out that, even though the 1990s boom lifted pay rates for low-earners, it did not help them to get better jobs.