Occupy Reality

[xmcp123]

I was referring to Union vs. Corporate influence in politics. You said Unions did not have the influence.

I meant they did not co-opt Occupy, I wasn't speaking in terms of elections.

That said, Unions in general(bluecollor unions especially) have been in a serious decline for decades. <15% membership nowadays if I remember right. The older your numbers are, the more influence they will show. The other end of it is that a lot of the corporate cash for the past election cycle or two has been hidden away in untraceable SPACs....and corporations are almost the sole beneficiaries of the revolving door policies our government has had in vogue lately, which makes lobbying outside of the campaign season much more effective for them. Unions are not a good influence on our political system, but their influence is much weaker than the top corporations.
I'm by no means a huge union supporter, but this needs to be put into perspective.

OWS always talks of removing corporate money from politics - why not Union money? Clearly Unions give more.

Most people I talked to would support removing the ability of Unions, Corporations, and PACs/SPACs to donate. Granted there is less support for blocking unions on the further end of the OWS political spectrum, but they would still absolutely jump on any bill that restricted all of the above categories.

 

[REIMktg]

That's the problem. You cannot restrict people/businesses/etc from running commercials, ads, etc for a candidate - that is restricting free speech.

Tell me how to take money out of politics - it simply is not possible. Therefore everyone, corporations, unions, individuals, etc need equal unrestricted access.

If the people want to join associations/clubs/groups to pool their money then fine - but you cannot take the money out of politics.

Does OWS actually have a way this can be accomplished that does not violate the constitution - and if there is an amendment, imagine the slippery slope that could lead to.

 

[xmcp123]

That's the problem. You cannot restrict people/businesses/etc from running commercials, ads, etc for a candidate - that is restricting free speech.

Tell me how to take money out of politics - it simply is not possible. Therefore everyone, corporations, unions, individuals, etc need equal unrestricted access.

If the people want to join associations/clubs/groups to pool their money then fine - but you cannot take the money out of politics.

Does OWS actually have a way this can be accomplished that does not violate the constitution - and if there is an amendment, imagine the slippery slope that could lead to.

It's a tricky issue to be sure, and is one of the reasons there has not been a concrete proposal that has passed.

First off, money is not speech. You can say whatever the fuck you want, but you're speaking with your mouth not your wallet.
I don't think you can stop SPACs or PACs from running commercials. But I do think you can stop direct donations and limit donations into SPACs(we already do it with PACs). Donating to candidates is not free speech any more than it is free speech if I buy weed from a dealer.

You get to say what you want. That is what free speech is. Words, text, etc. Not benjamins.

 

[JakeStratham]

It is not imprecise. My money was taken by the state, then they used the state to take that money. While I didn't agree with the state taking it, at least before I would see a benefit from it in some ways. They stole that possibility, and with it "stole my money".

First, realize that I'm not trying to be argumentative. But I think it is critical to highlight a distinction between Wall Street and the state. In my last post, I tried to clarify whether you were saying Wall Street was stealing your money or the state was stealing your money. In the passage directly above, you say your money was taken by the state. I completely agree.

If I'm understanding you correctly, your disdain is directed at both the banks and the state because you consider them to be so closely entwined that they are essentially the same. I say they are not.

Consider...

- can Wall Street arbitrarily declare themselves exempt from taxes of any kind? Or, are they able to do so only through the state's action?

- can Wall Street monetize debt (i.e. print money)? Or, is this the domain of the Fed?

- can Wall Street enact and enforce legal tender laws, thereby eliminating private currencies? Or, can only the state do this?

The state and the banks are not one and the same. They are distinct. The former is a monopoly of compulsion. The latter can only whisper in its ear, and promise goodies for its allegiance.

It is important to send a clear message: If you want the powers of the state, we will treat you like the state. We will take your money, turn your influence back on you, and make you wish that you had embraced the free market while you had the chance.

But Wall Street does not have the powers of the state. There is no need to treat them like the state. Rather, the message should be, "Hey banks, let's see how well you fare without your big friend pushing people around."

Without our government, you have no "modern" banking system as it is today.

I agree. Monopoly banks are clearly a problem. But that problem was created - and is perpetuated - by the state. Get rid of the state - along with the Fed, legal tender laws, etc. - and the problem goes away.

People get so caught up in "is it corporate or is it government" that they are unable to see the two merge in front of their eyes.
There is nothing free market about Wall Street. There is nothing worth defending. No "market" to save, no "right" to their profits. Because they've destroyed the market and their profits came from your pocket.

Please understand that I am not sticking up for the banks. I never have. My only focus is to pinpoint the root source of the problem.

It's all irrelevant because point blank: You're not going to eliminate the state. Not in the near future, or likely in the distant future.
So your realpolitik choices right now are: Lube up and continue to get fucked intentionally by 2 aggressors, 1 of whom you have no control over, or try and limit the damage to 1 aggressor you have a tiny degree of say in.

Those are your choices.

Were the choice truly that simple (2 aggressors versus 1 aggressor), I could understand the allure. However, I suspect getting rid of one aggressor will spawn many more, and cause even more misery.

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

It's going to take genuine, honest politicians to make ratifications on the fuzzy demands that OWS protesters have. Like Ron Paul.

The protest itself is stupid and a waste of time, especially since most of America believes what the media tells them. OWS doesn't help alert them of anything and since they let themselves be pushed around by the cops, they won't objectively do anything either. Spend time supporting honest politicians, not a protest against corrupt ones.

 

[xmcp123]

First, realize that I'm not trying to be argumentative. But I think it is critical to highlight a distinction between Wall Street and the state. In my last post, I tried to clarify whether you were saying Wall Street was stealing your money or the state was stealing your money. In the passage directly above, you say your money was taken by the state. I completely agree.

If I'm understanding you correctly, your disdain is directed at both the banks and the state because you consider them to be so closely entwined that they are essentially the same. I say they are not.[/quote]
Before we go any further, I will ask you to think to yourself: How willingly must the government surrender coercive power to an entity before it is a part of the government? How intertwined must they be?


Consider...

- can Wall Street arbitrarily declare themselves exempt from taxes of any kind? Or, are they able to do so only through the state's action?

Thought exercise: Can the Department of Justice throw you in prison, or do they need the police to do that?
It's the same thing. They require cooperation from other branches, just as any other government agency would.

- can Wall Street monetize debt (i.e. print money)? Or, is this the domain of the Fed?

The Federal Reserve is private. Or do you consider the Fed so related to the government that it is one and the same?imp:
And considering the money is then given to the banks, I would suggest that the Fed is actually the best example of how Wall Street and our government have essentially merged.

- can Wall Street enact and enforce legal tender laws, thereby eliminating private currencies? Or, can only the state do this?

can the Department of Justice enact and enforce legal tender laws, thereby eliminating private currencies? Or do they need the FBI to do this?

The state and the banks are not one and the same. They are distinct. The former is a monopoly of compulsion. The latter can only whisper in its ear, and promise goodies for its allegiance.

Unless you can only get elected into the former with the support of the latter. That would make it the politicians who are whispering in the ear of the banks, offering goodies for their allegiance.

But Wall Street does not have the powers of the state. There is no need to treat them like the state.

If I tell a guy to punch you in the face, you might punch him in the face in defense. But would you resist the urge to punch me as well, knowing that it was me who decided it should be done?

Rather, the message should be, "Hey banks, let's see how well you fare without your big friend pushing people around."

Once again: You are speaking in fantasy. Whether or not what you say would work(I believe it would) It's not going to happen. From a practical perspective, you may as well be suggesting that when Aslan from Narnia gets here he will sort out the banks. Because the chances of it happening are about as good.

I agree. Monopoly banks are clearly a problem. But that problem was created - and is perpetuated - by the state. Get rid of the state - along with the Fed, legal tender laws, etc. - and the problem goes away.

Yet again: This position is valuable in theory and philosophy, but absolutely worthless today. It is intellectual masturbation: It feels great, but achieves nothing.

The state is not going anywhere and even on the off chance the state faded away, there aren't enough people in existence who have even heard of the theories and organizational structures they would need to make it work. This is also not going to change unless there is an absolute apocalypse in which millions starve(an outcome I'd like to avoid). Nothing less dramatic could bring it about.

My reccomendation? Stop focusing on the best you're never going to get, and start focusing on the 'better' you can. Right now we have a state. Figure out how to work within that construct, otherwise it's nothing but hot air.

 

[JakeStratham]

xmcp123, I have to bail on this conversation since each moment here means one less moment of sleep tonight (that's how this weekend is for me). You bring up interesting points, and there is a lot I'd like to respond to. I'll do so on one point to further demonstrate the reason I focus so rabidly on the state.

The Federal Reserve is private. Or do you consider the Fed so related to the government that it is one and the same?imp:
And considering the money is then given to the banks, I would suggest that the Fed is actually the best example of how Wall Street and our government have essentially merged.

I understand your point. But saying the Fed is private is not like saying Jimmy's Deli down the street is private. Indeed, the purpose of the Fed. Reserve Act was to create the Fed, and give it a monopoly over the issuance of green paper tickets that the state enforces as legal tender.

So, is the Fed private? Technically, yes. But if the state did not exist - and thus legal tender laws did not exist - where would the Fed be? They're a monopoly set up by the state. Lots of folks say "end the Fed!," but ending the Fed does little to preclude the creation of subsequent central banks. That's why I focus on the state (with a nod to your fantasy argument. ).

Admittedly, I should have avoided throwing the Fed into the debate as a tool to demonstrate the limits of Wall Street as an compulsory monopoly.

Once again: You are speaking in fantasy. Whether or not what you say would work(I believe it would) It's not going to happen. From a practical perspective, you may as well be suggesting that when Aslan from Narnia gets here he will sort out the banks. Because the chances of it happening are about as good.

This made me laugh.

 

[xmcp123]

xmcp123, I have to bail on this conversation since each moment here means one less moment of sleep tonight (that's how this weekend is for me). You bring up interesting points, and there is a lot I'd like to respond to. I'll do so on one point to further demonstrate the reason I focus so rabidly on the state.

I bravely await it.

I understand your point. But saying the Fed is private is not like saying Jimmy's Deli down the street is private. Indeed, the purpose of the Fed. Reserve Act was to create the Fed, and give it a monopoly over the issuance of green paper tickets that the state enforces as legal tender. So, is the Fed private? Technically, yes. But if the state did not exist - and thus legal tender laws did not exist - where would the Fed be?

I am taking that a step further and saying that Citibank and Bank of America are not private in the same away Jimmy's Deli is private.
Where would they be if not for the state? The answer is "Bankrupt". And that's ignoring the dirt cheap capital they get from the state.

 

[REIMktg]

I am taking that a step further and saying that Citibank and Bank of America are not private in the same away Jimmy's Deli is private.
Where would they be if not for the state? The answer is "Bankrupt". And that's ignoring the dirt cheap capital they get from the state.

I wonder if that is true or not. Would they have made the loans they did if it were not for pressure from regulators and politicians? They lowered underwriting standards based on Govt pressure and Govt guarantees - and because of anti-discrimination laws they did not simply lower these standards in at-risk communities but across the board to all prospective borrowers. Would they have done this if not under pressure?

Some answers we will never know.

 

[xmcp123]

I wonder if that is true or not. Would they have made the loans they did if it were not for pressure from regulators and politicians? They lowered underwriting standards based on Govt pressure and Govt guarantees - and because of anti-discrimination laws they did not simply lower these standards in at-risk communities but across the board to all prospective borrowers. Would they have done this if not under pressure?

Some answers we will never know.

It wasn't "pressure" in the typical sense. TheyThey tweaked the underlying laws/interest rates to make it appealing to the banks to take out loans.
The government (R and D alike) agreed on one thing in the Dole/Clinton era: That owning a home was the way to lift the lower/middle class up. The idea was that rent goes to nothing, whereas mortgages get you equity.
In order to make it easier to give loans, they cut interest rates. Then, wanting to increase the underlying value of the mortgages(to encourage more), they repealed Glass Steagall (creating a larger market for the mortgages). So there's not much question they were egged on, but also little question that they benefited from it in the short term.

The real trick here is when it gets into evaluating the value of the loans and the possibility that people will pay it back; that's where the banks fucked up. They mistook the bubble that arose from houses being a more reliable investment than anything else for genuine security of investment. This confusion not only impacted the amount loans were given out for, but the insurance they required. These mistakes are what took the housing bubble crash and turned it into a financial system meltdown.

So....yeah, I guess it's a bit tricky to call. Reminds me why I dislike the banks and the government instead of one or the other.

 

[(O_o)]

didnt read anything in this thread at all but just want to show you all this

 

[guerilla]

It is not imprecise. My money was taken by the state, then they used the state to take that money. While I didn't agree with the state taking it, at least before I would see a benefit from it in some ways. They stole that possibility, and with it "stole my money".

It is imprecise because you just clarified it and even your clarification is pretty convoluted.

The robber stole from you, and because Wall Street controls the robber, the robber is spending it on things you don't like, instead of the robber spending it on things you do like.

Oh, and you don't like being robbed, but it is ok if the Robber gives you a portion back.

Libertarians abhor the state because they abhor coercive force(Non Aggression principle).

Coercion and aggression are different things. Libertarians (small l) don't abhor the state. They see it for what it is. A gang of criminals.

I have been aggressor by the banks, I feel absolutely no remorse about returning it in kind.

Banks, state etc are all just abstractions. You're angry at specific people for specific things, or, you're not as bright as I give you credit for.

So name the people and their exact actions, and the train of causation that gives you a right to extract retribution, and maybe you can make that case.

Don't become overwhelmed by the dogma Jake.

Rational, logical thinking isn't dogma. The stuff you have been posting about OWS reeks of dogma and demagoguery.

There are small government solutions to most problems

Prove it.

but our political system is incapable of doing them for now.

It never did it. It merely propagandized that it did at one time. If you won't deal with logic and shed mythology, you're not going to be able to work from solid premises.

Again, prove this stuff, don't assert it. The latter isn't an argument, it's just shouting.

While a pure small/no government approach might be preferable in theory, right now the "small government" narrative is too controlled and obscured by the largest industries and there's no realistic hope for change in that regard.

It's not preferable in theory. Preferences are values. Values are separate from the validity of the theory.

And because of this they specifically set out with their lobbyists to get the state's ability to coerce. That makes them aggressors who should be dealt with accordingly.

Everyone who lobbies the government lobbies for coercion. The military, the education system, everyone. If you're not against all lobbyists, that's hypocrisy.

It is important to send a clear message: If you want the powers of the state, we will treat you like the state. We will take your money, turn your influence back on you, and make you wish that you had embraced the free market while you had the chance.

The way to diminish Wall Street and the state is to establish better cultural habits and operate outside their paradigm.

What you are endorsing has been tried before and it doesn't work.

OWS runs on emotion, not reason. And that's why ultimately it will fail to achieve anything meaningful or enduring.

 

[guerilla]

First off, money is not speech. You can say whatever the fuck you want, but you're speaking with your mouth not your wallet.

Our capacity to act in the physical world (including speech/communication) is dependent upon our material means.

"Money" is an abstraction for property.

There is no such thing as free speech. You're not entitled to speak freely anywhere you want.

I don't think you can stop SPACs or PACs from running commercials. But I do think you can stop direct donations and limit donations into SPACs(we already do it with PACs).

Surely you can take something from the efforts to ban drugs and sex. If you can't ban drugs and sex, how to you expect to be able to ban violence and power?

That's the thing about your arguments. They are fundamentally irrational. You support irrational power (politics) for some people (politicians), gained by an irrational process (democracy) and then you say the problem is that people support that irrational process in the most rational way possible (influence).

I'm always reminded of Ayn Rand's admonishment, "Check your premises".

I wish more people did.

Donating to candidates is not free speech any more than it is free speech if I buy weed from a dealer.

As above, free speech doesn't exist as a meaningful concept. It's just wind/words/nonsense/abstraction.

If there were no donations, who gets to decide how to make coverage and opportunity equal? Maybe some candidates shouldn't be allowed to host large meetings. Or create advertisements. Maybe they shouldn't be allowed to wear suits, or take plane flights.

Where do you draw the line?

Better yet, WHO has the moral authority to draw that line at all?

You get to say what you want. That is what free speech is. Words, text, etc. Not benjamins.

Again, money is just an abstraction for property. Saying something isn't as important as being heard. You can't be heard by a lot of people without the purchasing power to reach them. That's how we ration attention and opportunity.

This is free market econ 101 stuff.

 

[xmcp123]

It is imprecise because you just clarified it and even your clarification is pretty convoluted.

The robber stole from you, and because Wall Street controls the robber, the robber is spending it on things you don't like, instead of the robber spending it on things you do like.

I don't like either robber, but I'd prefer to get something back if the alternative is not getting something back.

Oh, and you don't like being robbed, but it is ok if the Robber gives you a portion back.

Not ok, better.

Banks, state etc are all just abstractions. You're angry at specific people for specific things, or, you're not as bright as I give you credit for.

They're abstractions, yes. It's a mistake to think it all comes back to an individual. The actions of individuals within the bank are clouded by secrecy - you don't get to know what idea was whose or who signed off on which loans.
What you do know - is that it's the states who took the money from you, the banks who took it from them, then the CEOs of the banks who gave much of it to themselves as bonuses for a "job well done". If they show up in that chain of events, they're on my radar.

Rational, logical thinking isn't dogma.

No, but it is dogma when you decide that the immediate title bestowed upon a group(state or corporation) decides your perspective on that group rather than the reality of their capabilities and actions. If the banks can wield state power as if they are the state, it is foolish to protect them as corporations.
It comes back to the agorist class theory. Statist capitalists are little better than the state itself.

Prove it.

You can't prove a negative. Do you actually believe we're anywhere near abolishing the state? Do you see any real pathway there that is likely to occur in the near future?

Everyone who lobbies the government lobbies for coercion. The military, the education system, everyone. If you're not against all lobbyists, that's hypocrisy.

Thank god I don't like any lobbyists then.

The way to diminish Wall Street and the state is to establish better cultural habits and operate outside their paradigm.

And when this has a realistic chance of happening, I will support it as well.

 

[. Jack .]

I really like watching the amazing atheist and wish the sound worked on my puter because he has such neet things to say.


he is over rated though.

 

[svakanda]

i like a lot of what you have to say xmcp

 

[Myler]

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wX3_Jj3aLNY]AMERICA: The Greatest? - YouTube[/ame]

Anyone denying any of the shit he speaks in this vid is trolling himself, which is not a smart thing to do

 

[ly2 from WF]

AMERICA: The Greatest? - YouTube

Anyone denying any of the shit he speaks in this vid is trolling himself, which is not a smart thing to do

It's not even about his message, he's just a fucking toolbag. He's just an angry and jealous bitch and it shows in his videos.

 

[Myler]

ummmmm............................nope, im not convinced by your short and shallow argument at all.