Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Occupy George

occupygeorge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 167 posts

Re: Occupy George

#101

Post by georgemcbay »

sixtofour wrote: post #32
hkmurakami wrote: post #27

This is alarming to me, because this particular act is appears to be pure sensationalism to me. It also takes the numbers grossly out of context. When I saw the "Richest 400 vs Bottom 150,000,000" 50/50 split on one of the bills, my immediate thought was the following: __Do these people consider how many jobs these top 400 people created over the last decades, and how much better off the world is because they existed…

How many jobs do those 400 create? Who are they, actually? Are they generally captains of industry, steering the ship of employment? Or are they generally trustafarians, doing whatever?

"How many jobs do those 400 create?"

As few as possible... the shareholders demand it!

Re: Occupy George

#102

Post by ArchD »

mseebach wrote: post #72
jamieb wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the traders on Wall Street would be the first people to want an economic bounce back. Hence your failure to understand OWS. Wall Street's job is to make money. Period. If it happens that it is effective to make money by repeatedly crashing and booming the stock market, then that is exactly what they will do. Well, it turns out that it is extremely effective to make money by repeatedly crashing and booming…

> If it happens that it is effective to make money by repeatedly crashing and booming the stock market, then that is exactly what they will do. The two crashes of the past decade were painful exactly because "they" expressly failed to make money. They caused a lot of pain to a lot of 1%ers. If you think the financial sector likes, and purposefully causes, crashes, well, you're wrong. > Our economy has been rooted. Th…

If you were a purely profit-minded trader in a situation where you have the chance to make a million with 50% chance and lose a thousand with 50%, and in the scenario where you lose a thousand, other members of society take a collective loss of hundreds of millions, what would you do? My numbers are not indicative of the historical reality but are just to illustrate the idea of socialized costs. Anyway, I think your choice is clear.

This trader is not intentionally causing crashes, but is increasing systemic risk of crashes. 'Purposefully' causing crashes is not necessary for actually causing crashes.

The problem is both the sysadms and the hackers. I don't think, though, that the anger is directed 100% at the hackers, though the location of the protest, apart from the actual message you see on the signs if you bother to examine them, may suggest otherwise.

Re: Occupy George

#103

Post by davros »

tjmc wrote: post #80
Shenglong wrote: post #11

Can someone brief me on what Occupy Wall Street is trying to do? I can't quite figure it out. If they're mad about being unemployed, marching sure isn't going to fix their situation. If they're mad about government corruption, what exactly would they like done? If they're mad about the economy in general, isn't Wall Street the worst place to be protesting? I feel like the traders on Wall Street would be the first peo…

Some illustrative charts from Business Insider: http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-a...

Detailed charts presented clearly. Take the time to read this and you'll see the problem. The solution is not so clear...

Re: Occupy George

#104

Post by tintin »

scottjad wrote: post #35

"The richest 1% of Americans control over 1/3 of the wealth, leaving the bottom 80% with less than 1/5." This suffers from the pie fallacy covered in http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html Also if you look at http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html table 3 you'll see that the distribution of wealth between 1% and 99% in 2007 (which I assume is pretty much the same today) was essentially identical t…

I disagree with PG. Ofcourse you can create wealth by fixing an old car. But you will need two things: investment (an old car) and resources (time for instance). When you are working +100 hours a week (commuting included) just to make ends meet it's very hard to fix an old car. Most of the people I describe here are totally exhausted when they come home from work. When you are exhausted it's very hard or even impossible to get out of your situation.

Re: Occupy George

#105

Post by deadmansshoes »

scottjad wrote: post #35

"The richest 1% of Americans control over 1/3 of the wealth, leaving the bottom 80% with less than 1/5." This suffers from the pie fallacy covered in http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html Also if you look at http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html table 3 you'll see that the distribution of wealth between 1% and 99% in 2007 (which I assume is pretty much the same today) was essentially identical t…

Am I missing something with this "pie fallacy"?

If you restore a car and then sell it to someone that needs a car then surely there is someone else who has sold one less car. The same principle applies to crop prices when all the farmers have a bountiful year.

Surely the reason that wealth has grown, is that the human population has grown - creating more needs and desires, and more workers to meet them.

Re: Occupy George

#106

Post by ericd »

jamieb wrote: post #91
hkmurakami wrote: post #27

This is alarming to me, because this particular act is appears to be pure sensationalism to me. It also takes the numbers grossly out of context. When I saw the "Richest 400 vs Bottom 150,000,000" 50/50 split on one of the bills, my immediate thought was the following: __Do these people consider how many jobs these top 400 people created over the last decades, and how much better off the world is because they existed…

Do these people consider how many jobs these top 400 people created over the last decades You seem to be claiming that these people actually create jobs. That they have some magical power, or even non-magical power. Some economic something. Some accumen. Whatever. You are saying jobs were created and these people are responsible. Great. If that is the case, may I ask "Why have the stopped now?" It turns out that jobs…

They haven't stopped, many thousands of people still work for them.

And please don't downplay what Gates has done. He may have been a ruthlessly competitive businessman, but he has had a larger positive impact on the world than almost anyone else alive.

Re: Occupy George

#107

Post by Jgrubb »

Daishiman wrote: post #19
Shenglong wrote: post #11

Can someone brief me on what Occupy Wall Street is trying to do? I can't quite figure it out. If they're mad about being unemployed, marching sure isn't going to fix their situation. If they're mad about government corruption, what exactly would they like done? If they're mad about the economy in general, isn't Wall Street the worst place to be protesting? I feel like the traders on Wall Street would be the first peo…

OWS appears to be a concentration of several basic grievances held against the financial industry's control of the government. It attempts to raise awareness to the fact that income inequality is increasing, and that the accumulation of capital does not seem to be benefiting the large majority of society. It complains about the fact that the mistakes of the financial industry are being paid by the whole of society. I…

"It's also worth noting that there were some very powerful interests funding the Tea Party."

You said it. The Tea Party is/was essentially a media fabrication. There's obviously a lot of middle class dissatisfaction out there to be mobilized and the right wing tried to co-opt it for their agenda.

OWS, on the other hand, is an actual grass roots movement. Furthermore, when I listen to NPR (of all media outlets) continually doing their very best to interview every fumbling 22-year old and make the entire movement look stupid it makes me think that OWS has some very powerful people genuinely worried.

Thanksgiving with my entire Republican family is going to be a blast this year.

Re: Occupy George

#108

Post by jamieb »

mseebach wrote: post #72
jamieb wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I feel like the traders on Wall Street would be the first people to want an economic bounce back. Hence your failure to understand OWS. Wall Street's job is to make money. Period. If it happens that it is effective to make money by repeatedly crashing and booming the stock market, then that is exactly what they will do. Well, it turns out that it is extremely effective to make money by repeatedly crashing and booming…

> If it happens that it is effective to make money by repeatedly crashing and booming the stock market, then that is exactly what they will do. The two crashes of the past decade were painful exactly because "they" expressly failed to make money. They caused a lot of pain to a lot of 1%ers. If you think the financial sector likes, and purposefully causes, crashes, well, you're wrong. > Our economy has been rooted. Th…

They caused a lot of pain to a lot of 1%ers. If you think the financial sector likes, and purposefully causes, crashes, well, you're wrong.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday

George Soros made $1bn in a day. The UK Gvt lost 3.3bn UKP.

Some people believe that Norman Lamont rose to the highest office of economics in the united kingdom without the knowledge of how currency markets work, and that he could not possibly have known that his actions would be to hand George Soros, and others, 3.3bn UKP. But let us pretend that this was incompetence so that we can answer your point.

Did George Soros purposefully crash the value of the UKP? Yes.

I use this example, rather than other more recent examples like [1], because it highlights the role of government in the transfer of wealth from the poor to the rich. In short, if the government were to say to the common man "We must give this rich person one trillion dollars and you and your children will pay for it", there would be revolution.

But if the government says "Look! The stock market has crashed! We must give one trillion dollars to the banks so that the financial system does not collapse, so that children and dogs do not roam the streets, oh dear God we must give one trillion dollars to the banks now!" And nobody complains.

Better yet, give one trillion dollars in a highly recognizable bill, lets call it TARP. Make sure that all of that money is paid back. Then, when someone says "But we gave you all that money", the rich can claim "TARP? No! We paid all that back! Look!".

But also give several trillion more in completely one-off, non publicized, totally forgettable transactions. For example, give citibanks $25bn in TARP funds - and also give them $275 in non-TARP funds. Then have them pay the $25bn back. Amazingly, if you ask the average american about citibank, they will say "Yes, they got $25bn! Bastards". "No! They gave that $25bn back! Look it up!" "Oh you are right!" And that will be the end of it. Fox News will tell you almost daily, "Look who paid back their TARP funds! TARP has made a profit!". TARP is the hand they want you to look at, while they make your future vanish with the other.

You have to admit, its really impressive.

  [1] http://www.npr.org/2011/05/02/135846486/how-some-made-millions-betting-against-the-market

Re: Occupy George

#109

Post by mseebach »

ArchD wrote: post #102
mseebach wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If it happens that it is effective to make money by repeatedly crashing and booming the stock market, then that is exactly what they will do. The two crashes of the past decade were painful exactly because "they" expressly failed to make money. They caused a lot of pain to a lot of 1%ers. If you think the financial sector likes, and purposefully causes, crashes, well, you're wrong. > Our economy has been rooted. Th…

If you were a purely profit-minded trader in a situation where you have the chance to make a million with 50% chance and lose a thousand with 50%, and in the scenario where you lose a thousand, other members of society take a collective loss of hundreds of millions, what would you do? My numbers are not indicative of the historical reality but are just to illustrate the idea of socialized costs. Anyway, I think your…

What you're describing is so common when government embrace an industry that it is it's own field of economic research. It's called moral hazard.

I try not to draw too many conclusions from signs or any individual expression of opinion. But I do note that the protesters marched to the home of the J.P. Morgan CEO as well as the J.P. Morgan headquarters, even though J.P. Morgan didn't bet the house on sub-prime mortgages and didn't need bail-out. That's location and action indicating anger focused on Wall Street.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405297020349970457662...

Re: Occupy George

#110

Post by euccastro »

philwelch wrote: post #99
potatolicious wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'd venture to say that the downvotes are coming from the very broad brush with which you're painting tens of thousands of people, few of which you personally know. I'd argue that the unprecedented unemployment rate represents a clear systemic dysfunction. These aren't temporary job losses due to the natural boom-bust cycle, a very large portion of these jobs are simply never coming back. Whose fault that is is hard…

Something can't be a "systemic dysfunction" while being the sole fault of 1% of the population, either.

It can, if that 1% effectively control the system.
Post reply on HN