Live data from Hacker News

Occupy George

occupygeorge.com

121–130 of 167 posts

Re: Occupy George

#121
post #91

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…

It turns out that jobs are actually created most by small businesses.

Which many have been able to grow or start due to Microsoft and Bill Gates.

Re: Occupy George

#122
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Let's assume for a moment that the richest 400 people in the US "create jobs" in some reasonable proportion to their personal wealth. Let's also assume that all of them disappeared tomorrow. Do you believe that half the jobs in the US would go away? Let's assume none of them were ever born. Do you believe the US would have half the jobs it does today? I hope you can see what I'm getting at. That aside, take a look at…

If OWS isn't outraged at the Tech Leaders, then they shouldn't generalize "the top 400" in this manner. When you abstract "the ultra-rich" into the symbolic cause of America's current woes, you're going to automatically incriminate those who do drive value-creating businesses as well. I don't think OWS's purpose or message or mantra is wrong. However, if they continue down this path of generalization and polarization…

It's a combination of political slogans/rallying cries and observations about wealth distribution problems in general. The former will always be wider than they ought to be, the latter can't exclude the "good guys" from the conversation entirely, because they have benefited to some degree from the broken system, even if they don't intend to perpetuate it.

But the name is "Occupy Wall Street". They know who their opponents are. They know who screwed with their mortgages and retirements. They know who paid off the politicians. They're out there with MacBooks and iPhones, tweeting and facebook-ing. Silicon Valley isn't their problem, and they know it.

(Edit: They're not even hammering Wal-Mart, and it'd be so easy. I think that says something.)

Re: Occupy George

#123
post #106
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My point is, if these people are magically special, why are they not able to create more jobs now? How come they stopped creating jobs? How come 50 million americans are without jobs?

Is it not, perhaps, the case that the situation was such that these jobs would have been created anyway? My complaint is this.

There are 400 rich people. There are jobs. You attribute a causal relationship.

I say, you could have killed every one of these 400 at birth, and we would still have the jobs (and to be clear I am not advocating doing that at all, I'm just making a hypothetical argument)

Now you might say that it is not these 400 individuals that matter, but that in any system with jobs, there would be 400 people at the top, and these people would have more wealth.

However, it is the "how much more wealth" that is the complaint. Not that there are 400 of them. The complaint is not that these specific 400 people are the problem. Nor that any such 400 would be the problem. The complaint is that a system that allows for the top 400 people to have such a disparate amount of wealth compared to the other 300 million is a fucked system.

To argue that without these 400 people, or any such 400 people, there would be higher unemployment is rubbish. That "we are better off because they existed".

Fuck you, frankly.

Indeed, its more likely that the richest 400 actively act to prevent individuals from gaining wealth and power that can threaten their own. As the feudal system collapsed, small businesses flourished. In order to maintain control, the ruling classes established laws requiring tradesmen to join guilds and pay fees. In the UK for example, guilds had to be recognized by the monarch.

In modern times, these guilds have been replaced by rules and regulations that have the same effect, but their justification is the same: "its in the public interest". Just as you couldn't buy cloth from a non-guild weaver in the 15th century - because it might not be good quality - so now you can't buy a car from Tesla unless Tesla pays millions of dollars for crash testing, or buys a design from an incumbent.

Similarly, patent lawyers. Accountants. That new iPhone app that records your heart rate? Want FDA approval for that? Want to be hit with a lawsuit for a covered medical device that you released without FDA approval? (because they are covered).

I'm not saying that a capitalist world run by a species that is happy to bomb its own offspring could be any different. I'm just saying don't fucking pretend that we owe them any praise. They get away with as much as they can just short of us rising up and killing them.

Re: Occupy George

#124
post #121
post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It turns out that jobs are actually created most by small businesses. Which many have been able to grow or start due to Microsoft and Bill Gates.

Replace "due to" with "despite" and you're closer to the mark.

Re: Occupy George

#125

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…

Can someone brief me on what Occupy Wall Street is trying to do? I can't quite figure it out.

I think Jerry Pournelle said it best "They don’t really know what they want, but they really don’t want more of what they’re getting."

http://jerrypournelle.com/chaosmanor/?p=2487

Re: Occupy George

#126
post #123
post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

My point is, if these people are magically special, why are they not able to create more jobs now? How come they stopped creating jobs? How come 50 million americans are without jobs? Is it not, perhaps, the case that the situation was such that these jobs would have been created anyway? My complaint is this. There are 400 rich people. There are jobs. You attribute a causal relationship. I say, you could have killed…

Well, many of the jobs that have been lost are of the legacy type: jobs in which the creations of Gates, Jobs, et al. have made obsolete. At a previous company I worked for, each executive had his/her own scheduling and appointment secretary. While that may have been necessary back in the day before easy-to-use, syncable-with-your-mobile-device calendars were developed, the jobs that managed such tasks were the first on the chopping block. In fact, those jobs only continued to exist because it was more of a (emotional/sentimental) cost to cut them than to just keep them.

After the company trimmed heavily during recession and bosses got used to doing their own calendars there was no justifying hiring for these secretarial positions again. Sure, talented young out-of-college kids may have found new types of work, but not these former secretaries.

Re: Occupy George

#127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You should read this http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000142405274870426150457620... 99% of TARP has been repaid already. That's more than you can say about regular people paying back their credit card debts due to limitless spending.

Limitless spending? Do you know anything about regular people? To suggest that the TARP banks are in any way more responsible than the average consumer is simply ignorant. 'Regular people' these days are not spending more than they used to, and they're not examples of limitless spending: http://www.yale.edu/law/leo/052005/papers/Warren.pdf Furthermore, TARP being repaid is not an inherently good thing. Who cares whet…

That paper uses a 2001 data set, and things have certainly changed since the housing crisis, but it was interesting all the same.

The paper argued that certain things - like the cost of housing (due to rising prices) and health care - were the cause of middle-class debt loads, and that consumption on frivolous items was actually down from the 1970s.

This is a plausible argument. The cost of housing, health care, and education has certainly skyrocketed. What Warren doesn't mention, though, is that all of these areas are heavily regulated and subsidized by the federal government - unlike all the areas where middle-class consumption has declined.

You might be able to persuade me that people are in fact spending responsibly, but you'll have a harder time persuading me that the solution to their problems is more regulations, or that the appropriate target of these protestors is anywhere outside Washington DC.

Re: Occupy George

#128
post #111

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe I'm getting crazier and more radical in my old age, but I'd say that if the 1% can afford to buy/bend the system to their ends, then it most certainly can be systemic. The fact that I hear Obama's "$1B war chest" being trumpeted and that Tim Pawlenty drops out of the Republican race solely for lack of funding reinforces what I've felt for a very long time - that campaign finance is the elephant in the room in t…

In this particular case, the housing and higher education bubbles required significant proportions of the population to buy into them. Bubbles that do little but draw poor investment from the already wealthy aren't as problematic.

I see what you're saying, and I agree. Those bubbles were not the systemic issue I'm specifically fired up about, though. Those are more like branches of the tree rather than the root.

The root, to me, is corporate money and influence in Washington to such a degree that it effectively shuts out democracy. I lay fault for that systemic problem at the door of "the 1%" and the politicians they influence.

Re: Occupy George

#129
When I tried to access the site at work (we use Postini for our web filtering), I got the message below. What I found most interesting was the category the site was blocked under.

Access Denied The web resource http://occupygeorge.com/ has been deemed by your administrator to be unsafe or unsuitable for you to access. The resource has been blocked. No further action is required. Reason: The category of Hate Speech has been blocked by your System Administrator

Post reply on HN