The Demands of Occupy Wall Street

[WinePusher]

People at occupy wall street have released unofficial lists of demands here and there. There are apparently many out there and they don't seem to correspond to eachtother, but here's one unofficial list of demands:

-Demand 1: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending Freetrade by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.
-Demand 2: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.
-Demand 3: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
-Demand 4: Free college education.
-Demand 5: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.
-Demand 6: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.
-Demand 7: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of Americas nuclear power plants.
-Demand 8: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.
-Demand 9: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.
-Demand 10: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.
-Demand 11: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the Books. World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the Books. And I dont mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.
-Demand 12: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.
-Demand 13: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

http://toddkinsey.com/blog/2011/10/08/o ... f-demands/

1) What do you make of these demands? Are they reasonable or unreasonable?
2) In a list of demands seperate from this list, OWS protestors have expressed disapproval towards the ruling in Citizens United v. Federal Election Commision. Do you agree or disagree with the ruling?
3) Although absent from the list of demands, OWS have expressed disdainment towards what they percieve to be a growing gap between the top 1% of society and the remaining 99% of society. What is the truth regarding wealth and income inequality?

[LiamOS]

In addition, one of the young men featured says, We need a sex space in the park, a space surrounded by tarps, held by the people, so we can get naked and fill each other with ourselves." And a few lines later: I want to moan as the bankers and men on Wall Street watch with their binoculars, and in this way we shall win. Theyll come, demanding our naked bodies, and well share ourselves. Sasha Gray, where are you? Get down here and gang bang for democracy. And show them just how beautiful our bodies, and the way we glow when we make one another radiate.

John

I'm not sure whether or not you're taking this seriously...


But I'm pretty sure the young man was exercising his satire muscle.

[Goat]

It has been many years since I read a biography of Bill Gates, so I won't argue the details with you. I know that he used every resource he could find to market his ideas, but it was his efforts and the ideas themselves that were responsible for his success. I do not believe any influence his mother may or may not have had was responsible for propelling her stupid incompetent little boy into billionaire-hood.

John

What you believe or not believe is irrelevant that if it wasn't for his mother, he would not have gotten the opportunity to start Microsoft. Nor is it relevant to the fact he did not invent Dos, but bought the rights to use it from someone. On the other hand, he was great at marketing other people's ideas.

Don't throw a hissy-fit! Sorry I mentioned Bill Gates if it disturbs you so much. I will withdraw it if you like. I agree that he was not the original inventor of either DOS or BASIC, and never claimed to be, but he did adapt and implement them and made them available to the general public.

Bill Gates popped into my mind only as an example of the opportunities for self-improvement and advancement available in America. The fact that he did not start out as a homeless street panhandler does not negate his achievement. I also admit that Henry Ford did not invent the automobile, Marconi did not invent the radio, etc. but these entrepreneurs did make these devices cheap and available to millions. I don't know anything about Henry Ford's family background, but I doubt his mother promoted the Model T for him. My mother, a lowly single schoolteacher then, bought her very own Model T in 1918. No, I did not personally observe it and cannot prove it, but I "believe" her and take her word for it.

John

I am not saying that he didn't do a wonderful job at marketing and innovation.

On the other hand, the opportunity was given to him because he had financial and political connections. It was specifically due to that high kind of privilege that he got his initial connection, and it is because he had that kind of privilege that he got his initial funding.

In other words, he is exactly the the wrong example to use.. since it is power and privilege that gave him his first start.

A much better example would be Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs, or Mark Zuckerman (the starter up of Facebook).

[Iolo]

The "hired workers" were paid the market value for their work,

Since the market is not a true free market, we cant really say what the "market value" of ones work is. For the exact same position, for the exact same employee, during the exact same economic conditions, two different employers can pay two totally different amounts. So, if we wish to talk about "market value for work", how can we make a statement when it has zero predictive value?

The rich control the government, which is their central committe, and clearly work the whole system to rob the mass of people, as you of course know. Why should we discuss obviously interested nonsense?

It is OK to ask them to pay based on actual usage, but anything more is discrimination and robbery. The half of the population who pay no taxes on average use much more of public services than the rich do. Let them pay for their own share of usage!

Are you so sure of that? where is your evidence?

I admit that the labor market is not a "free" market, largely because of such things as unions and artificially imposed minimum wages, etc. The question is, are these things good or bad?

If any employer does not pay prevailing wages, the good employees soon leave for better jobs while the bad employees deserve what they get. This is called "freedom," a word unfamiliar to most liberals.

Unions were once necessary to fight many abuses of the capitalist system. Years ago, one of my mother's relatives was killed by Ford Motor Company's strike-buster hired goons. However, the arbitrary power of unions today has grown beyond all reason and is largely responsible for America's increasing inability to compete in the world market. And don't even get me started on teacher's unions!

Minimum wage laws raise wages for some while reducing the number of unskilled people employable. I remember a cartoon which showed the manager of a fast-food place talking to employees. He said "The good news is that your wages are going up. The bad news is that one of you is fired!"

My only "evidence" immediately at hand for my statement that lower classes receive more in taxpayer-supported welfare benefits than the rich do comes mainly from a lifetime of observation and experience. I do not intend to spend hours now searching for statistics to support what has long been common knowledge. If you have evidence to refute it, please present that evidence.

John

[Iolo]

The "hired workers" were paid the market value for their work,

Since the market is not a true free market, we cant really say what the "market value" of ones work is. For the exact same position, for the exact same employee, during the exact same economic conditions, two different employers can pay two totally different amounts. So, if we wish to talk about "market value for work", how can we make a statement when it has zero predictive value?

Clearly the whole system, including the government, which is their centrol committee, exists to favour the rich. Why should we be discussing interested nonsense?

It is OK to ask them to pay based on actual usage, but anything more is discrimination and robbery. The half of the population who pay no taxes on average use much more of public services than the rich do. Let them pay for their own share of usage!

Are you so sure of that? where is your evidence?

I admit that the labor market is not a "free" market, largely because of such things as unions and artificially imposed minimum wages, etc. The question is, are these things good or bad?

If any employer does not pay prevailing wages, the good employees soon leave for better jobs while the bad employees deserve what they get. This is called "freedom," a word unfamiliar to most liberals.

Unions were once necessary to fight many abuses of the capitalist system. Years ago, one of my mother's relatives was killed by Ford Motor Company's strike-buster hired goons. However, the arbitrary power of unions today has grown beyond all reason and is largely responsible for America's increasing inability to compete in the world market. And don't even get me started on teacher's unions!

Minimum wage laws raise wages for some while reducing the number of unskilled people employable. I remember a cartoon which showed the manager of a fast-food place talking to employees. He said "The good news is that your wages are going up. The bad news is that one of you is fired!"

My only "evidence" immediately at hand for my statement that lower classes receive more in taxpayer-supported welfare benefits than the rich do comes mainly from a lifetime of observation and experience. I do not intend to spend hours now searching for statistics to support what has long been common knowledge. If you have evidence to refute it, please present that evidence.

John

This thing will not print my comment.

[WinePusher]

So if I am understanding you correctly, you dismiss the statistics because they do not take the number of people per household into account? If so, I think you're mistaken, because the referenced study clearly does take household size into account. I'm not really grasping how you think this makes the numbers inaccurate.

Do you have any other better studies to compare with?

The problem with statistics is that they report income at one given moment in time as opposed to following changes in income over a long period of time. You think your case has been proven Fuzzy Dunlop just because some people have recklessly thrown out some statistics and numbers that seem to support your premise. Statistics, especially in economics and sociology, are extremely dubious because they contain thousands and thousands of fallacies. A statistic showing a huge income and wealth gap among different quintiles does not take into account that people within these quintiles are constantly moving. So while the number of people comprised in a quintile remains constant, the individuals themselves are always changing. In addition to that, the measurements of family/household income do not incorporate factors such as househould size. Median household income can decline at the same time per capita income can rise because as the number of people per household declines the median income of that household will also decline. When you look at actual individuals, per capita income, the average total has been increasing, not decreasing. The gap is much smaller in this area which is why you people ignore it. It's an inconvient fact.

And I've explained why limiting the political influence of corporations does not limit our right to tax or sue them. "Legal personality" is a definition created by our legal system, which means that the definition is subject to change.

I already said that's not my argument.

The bottom line is that most people feel that corporations have too much influence over government policy and that this is a serious threat to our Republican form of government. Our government is said to exist of the people, for the people, and by the people, with people referring to real people, not some legal personality. Youve provided no rebuttal (other than to say nuh-uh) to the fact that money plays an important role in who wins or who loses an election and political influence comes to those who make large monetary contributions. Ive given examples of money and political influence: the number of lobbyists running around Washington, why we are unable to raise taxes on wealthy individuals and corporations even though the vast majority of Americans support such move, and the recent debate over health insurance reform.

I've provided no rebuttal? Seriously? I provided a point by point rebuttal to you in Post 12, and you ignored it. Now you have the nerve to say I didn't? Well, the post is still there and you can respond to it any time you want. Here's some food for thought for those people who absolutely love the Occupy Wall Street Movement:

Occupy WallStreet Encampments Becoming Havens For Death and Disease.
Occupy WallStreet Destroying Businesses On Mainstreet.
Sexual Assualts Reported In Occupy Camps.

[JohnPaul]

Iolo wrote:

This thing will not print my comment.

That's OK, I can imagine it! Will that do?

Cheers,

John

[JohnPaul]

It has been many years since I read a biography of Bill Gates, so I won't argue the details with you. I know that he used every resource he could find to market his ideas, but it was his efforts and the ideas themselves that were responsible for his success. I do not believe any influence his mother may or may not have had was responsible for propelling her stupid incompetent little boy into billionaire-hood.

John

What you believe or not believe is irrelevant that if it wasn't for his mother, he would not have gotten the opportunity to start Microsoft. Nor is it relevant to the fact he did not invent Dos, but bought the rights to use it from someone. On the other hand, he was great at marketing other people's ideas.

Don't throw a hissy-fit! Sorry I mentioned Bill Gates if it disturbs you so much. I will withdraw it if you like. I agree that he was not the original inventor of either DOS or BASIC, and never claimed to be, but he did adapt and implement them and made them available to the general public.

Bill Gates popped into my mind only as an example of the opportunities for self-improvement and advancement available in America. The fact that he did not start out as a homeless street panhandler does not negate his achievement. I also admit that Henry Ford did not invent the automobile, Marconi did not invent the radio, etc. but these entrepreneurs did make these devices cheap and available to millions. I don't know anything about Henry Ford's family background, but I doubt his mother promoted the Model T for him. My mother, a lowly single schoolteacher then, bought her very own Model T in 1918. No, I did not personally observe it and cannot prove it, but I "believe" her and take her word for it.

John

I am not saying that he didn't do a wonderful job at marketing and innovation.

On the other hand, the opportunity was given to him because he had financial and political connections. It was specifically due to that high kind of privilege that he got his initial connection, and it is because he had that kind of privilege that he got his initial funding.

In other words, he is exactly the the wrong example to use.. since it is power and privilege that gave him his first start.

A much better example would be Steve Wozniak and Steve Jobs, or Mark Zuckerman (the starter up of Facebook).

OK, I withdraw the name of Bill Gates and will accept your alternate suggestions. However, I do object to your description of Bill Gates as "privileged." He may have been middle class, but what is wrong with that?

John

[Goat]

OK, I withdraw the name of Bill Gates and will accept your alternate suggestions. However, I do object to your description of Bill Gates as "privileged." He may have been middle class, but what is wrong with that?

John

Uh.. No. he was not 'middle class'.. his parents were mulch-millionaires. And, back in the early 80's, a million dollars was a lot more than it is now.

Now, Wozniak and Jobs were middle class.

[JohnPaul]

In addition, one of the young men featured says, We need a sex space in the park, a space surrounded by tarps, held by the people, so we can get naked and fill each other with ourselves." And a few lines later: I want to moan as the bankers and men on Wall Street watch with their binoculars, and in this way we shall win. Theyll come, demanding our naked bodies, and well share ourselves. Sasha Gray, where are you? Get down here and gang bang for democracy. And show them just how beautiful our bodies, and the way we glow when we make one another radiate.

John

I'm not sure whether or not you're taking this seriously...


But I'm pretty sure the young man was exercising his satire muscle.

No, I don't take this particular comment too seriously, but I am sure it is popular in the crowd. I do believe this young man fairly represents the mental level of a majority of the participants in these circuses. I am always suspicious of any vast economic ideas propounded by people who have never worked a day in their lives, but these are over the top! They seem to believe that anyone who has more than they have is somehow "robbing" them and owes them a living! They are attacking those evil corporations and those evil banks, etc. Where do these people think jobs come from? Oh, right! The government makes them out of thin air! But why bother with jobs? The government should hand out all sorts of freebies and make us all equal without the need to work for anything! That's what democracy is all about, isn't it? The people rule! Yay!

I am beginning to rant and my blood pressure is rising, so I will quit for now.

John

[dianaiad]

OK, I withdraw the name of Bill Gates and will accept your alternate suggestions. However, I do object to your description of Bill Gates as "privileged." He may have been middle class, but what is wrong with that?

John

Uh.. No. he was not 'middle class'.. his parents were mulch-millionaires. And, back in the early 80's, a million dollars was a lot more than it is now.

Now, Wozniak and Jobs were middle class.

His father was solidly middle class all his life; went to school on the GI bill, became a lawyer...in fact, his parents were what we all think 'middle class' IS.

Well, 'upper-middle class' and they got their on their own. They also taught their son the work ethic that allowed him to get where HE is.

He didn't inherit his billions, and his dad didn't inherit HIS wealth, either. What in the name of all that is wonderful have you got against people actually succeeding in America, anyway?