Support NeoGAF

[Gallbaro]

lol, it's like ya can't tell the difference between disliking capitalism, and disliking corrupt crony capitalism nearing friedmanite levels of unregulation that undermines democracy.

Crony capitalism can ONLY exist through regulatory capture.

 

[Chichikov]

Crony capitalism can ONLY exist through regulatory capture.

False.
Any sort of monopoly can create crony capitalism.
And monopoly does not require regulatory capture.

 

[empty vessel]

Crony capitalism can ONLY exist through regulatory capture.

This is false, but even beyond that crony capitalism is not the only problem with capitalism. Unregulated capitalism is not an option, as it is the worst version of capitalism.

 

[Frank the Great]

i wonder if people in favor of unregulated capitalism would be in favor of eliminating the incorporation statutes of every state.

 

[empty vessel]

i wonder if people in favor of unregulated capitalism would be in favor of eliminating the incorporation statutes of every state.

Indeed, they would have to be, because that is government involvement.

 

[Jarmel]

Here's a question. How much does a Vice President at a medium sized hedge fund make? I'm trying to see if my father would qualify in that 1% or not.

 

[Chichikov]

Here's a question. How much does a Vice President at a medium sized hedge fund make? I'm trying to see if my father would qualify in that 1% or not.

You think we are better positioned than you to figure out how much your father make?

i wonder if people in favor of unregulated capitalism would be in favor of eliminating the incorporation statutes of every state.

Or bankruptcy laws.

 

[dave is ok]

Here's a question. How much does a Vice President at a medium sized hedge fund make? I'm trying to see if my father would qualify in that 1% or not.

That amount varies greatly

Does your father does take advantage of the carried interest exemption and only pay 15% in taxes?

 

[Akia]

Here's a question. How much does a Vice President at a medium sized hedge fund make? I'm trying to see if my father would qualify in that 1% or not.

dave beat me to it

 

[Jarmel]

That amount varies greatly

Does your father does take advantage of the carried interest exemption and only pay 15% in taxes?

What would be a base number then? Even a ballpark estimate would be satisfactory.

If I had access to his tax returns, I would probably be able to answer this question already.

You think we are better positioned than you to figure out how much your father make?

I was looking for an average not a precise amount.

 

[dave is ok]

I was looking for an average not a precise amount.

Depends on how successful his hedge fund is. He's likely paid based on how much money it makes. Hedge funds aren't like other jobs that have an average wage

 

[travisbickle]

You need assets of over a million dollars too.

So if he owns a couple of houses, no mortgage, he might be in the top 1%.

 

[Jarmel]

Depends on how successful his hedge fund is. He's likely paid based on how much money it makes. Hedge funds aren't like other jobs that have an average wage

Well I know they deal with roughly 6 bil in assests but I don't know how much profit they make.

You need assets of over a million dollars too.

So if he owns a couple of houses, no mortgage, he might be in the top 1%.

Well our house is atleast 2 mil but I think he's still paying off the mortgage for it.

 

[kame-sennin]

http://occupylove.org/post/11953304392/sidebyside

 

[Dash27]

So how representative of this movement is Michael Moore? Here he is with Anderson Cooper saying that they want to replace "2011 Capitalism" with something else that they (OSW) will "come up with". Essentially create a new economic system. Do all the protesters generally agree with this?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...oing_to_replace_capitalism_as_we_know_it.html

 

[ReBurn]

So how representative of this movement is Michael Moore? Here he is with Anderson Cooper saying that they want to replace "2011 Capitalism" with something else that they (OSW) will "come up with". Essentially create a new economic system. Do all the protesters generally agree with this?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...oing_to_replace_capitalism_as_we_know_it.html

http://www.celebritynetworth.com/ar...multimillionaire-michael-moore-denies-part-1/

I've always seen Michael Moore as a detestable person who makes money off of the social injustice he claims to be against. But that's just my opinion of him and it has nothing to do with Occupy.

 

[Chichikov]

So how representative of this movement is Michael Moore? Here he is with Anderson Cooper saying that they want to replace "2011 Capitalism" with something else that they (OSW) will "come up with". Essentially create a new economic system. Do all the protesters generally agree with this?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...oing_to_replace_capitalism_as_we_know_it.html

He is as representative as any other person there.

Also, his full quote(s) does not really suggest that he want to abolish capitalism (whatever that would even mean), just the current shit system we have -

"So, let's not use the old definition where we think -- when we say capitalism, we're talking about 2011. 2011 capitalism is an evil system set up to benefit the few at the expense of the many. That's what happened, and that's what people are tired of. Which is too bad for the capitalists because I think a lot of people, perhaps in this crowd, probably used to support the 'old-style' of capitalism,"
[...]
"Well there's no system right now that exists. We're going to create that system. This movement, this movement in the next year, or two, or few years is going to create a democratic economic system. That's the most important thing. Whatever we come up with it has to have at its core -- the American people are going to be the one's controlling this economy. We're going to have a say, a big say, the say in how this economy is run,"

Personally I would frame that a different way for tactical reasons, but I can't say I see a whole lot I disagree with (mainly because it's super light on details).

Do you?

 

[cooljeanius]

Can anyone help me find that picture from a few pages back parodying the following image by making an analogy with slavery:

It said "Down with slavery" and then pointed to everything being made by slaves...

 

[Dash27]

He is as representative as any other person there.

Also, his full quote(s) does not really suggest that he want to abolish capitalism (whatever that would even mean), just the current shit system we have -


Personally I would frame that a different way for tactical reasons, but I can't say I see a whole lot I disagree with (mainly because it's super light on details).

Do you?

I think it's pretty clear he does want to abolish Capitalism here since he says what he'd replace it with doesnt exist yet. Since "old style capitalism" (whatever that means?) exists he seemingly doesnt want to use that.

Also clear from the video he at least believes he's speaking for some portion of OWS. He consistently refers to "we". "We" are going to do this or that. Just curious if that's a widespread opinion.

 

[rohlfinator]

So how representative of this movement is Michael Moore? Here he is with Anderson Cooper saying that they want to replace "2011 Capitalism" with something else that they (OSW) will "come up with". Essentially create a new economic system. Do all the protesters generally agree with this?

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/vi...oing_to_replace_capitalism_as_we_know_it.html

It's hard to judge who agrees with what since there are so many opinions in the group. I just listened to NPR's Planet Money podcast coverage of OWS last night, and the gist of their reporting was that many of the protesters were trying to come up with their own economic/governmental system -- something based around the idea of smaller, direct-democracy meetings, which is what they are using at the protests. One guy said there would be a consensus around mid-November.

Keep in mind this was in New York only, so I have no idea if other protesters around the country agree with this. The podcast is worth a listen, they do a better job of explaining it than I do: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/10/07/141158199/the-friday-podcast-what-is-occupy-wall-street

 

[Dash27]

The podcast is worth a listen, they do a better job of explaining it than I do: http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/2011/10/07/141158199/the-friday-podcast-what-is-occupy-wall-street

Will check it out thanks.

 

[cooljeanius]

Also, there was a Supercommittee Hearing today, and Rep. Clyburn from South Carolina was really the only one who said anything about inequality and taxing the top 1%. Just thought people in here should know who's on their side...

 

[Chichikov]

I think it's pretty clear he does want to abolish Capitalism here since he says what he'd replace it with doesnt exist yet. Since "old style capitalism" (whatever that means?) exists he seemingly doesnt want to use that.

Abolish capitalism is a bit of an empty phrase.
And I seriously doubt that he want to instill a system where the means of production are not privately held (and if he does, I'm certain he will not get huge support from the OWS crowd).

Also clear from the video he at least believes he's speaking for some portion of OWS. He consistently refers to "we". "We" are going to do this or that. Just curious if that's a widespread opinion.

People are free to believe what they want.

But to answer the question you seem to be wanting to ask - I have been to a number of these rallies, and I have only met a handful (>1%) of people who support full-on socialism.

 

[sphagnum]

Can anyone help me find that picture from a few pages back parodying the following image by making an analogy with slavery:

Couldn't find it, but did find this.

 

[cooljeanius]

Couldn't find it, but did find this.

Hm, good, but could use some additional captions... still wish I could find the slavery one though

 

[CrankyKong]

Your inability to distinguish the difference between opposing governement corruption spawned by undue corporate influence in a capitalist system and capitalism itself does not reduce the credibility of OWS; rather it just exposes you as a fool incapabale of comprehending even the most obvious nuance.

thats...very well put

 

[empty vessel]

But to answer the question you seem to be wanting to ask - I have been to a number of these rallies, and I have only met a handful (>1%) of people who support full-on socialism.

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

 

[Hasphat'sAnts]

My professor wrote an article in our school paper today.

I think he articulated a lot of how I feel about the financial crisis in general, and since I'm mostly interested in the risk incentives on Wall Street, I think the piece explains why I'm dubious of the reform initiatives OWS'ers are advocating.

http://dukechronicle.com/article/got-greed

 

[Mortrialus]

Hm, good, but could use some additional captions... still wish I could find the slavery one though

Yeah, I went through the entire thread and couldn't find it. Can't find it on the internet either.

 

[Dude Abides]

My professor wrote an article in our school paper today.

I think he articulated a lot of how I feel about the financial crisis in general, and since I'm mostly interested in the risk incentives on Wall Street, I think the piece explains why I'm dubious of the reform initiatives OWS'ers are advocating.

http://dukechronicle.com/article/got-greed

His attempt to blame the problem on some kind of collective failure to impart values other than greed onto "our kids" is a bit odd. First, it's not a problem that's really soluble. "Teach the children well" is a cliche, not a policy prescription. Second, the root of the financial crisis was that a relatively small number of people foolishly failed to understand that real estate would not continue to appreciate in value at the rate it was in the 2000s because not understanding it was very lucrative in the short term. That is an incentive problem that regulation could at least mitigate. Additionally, this small group of people also earns a lot of money, in part, at least, for their alleged ability to understand risk, which creates understandable outrage.

 

[g23]

Looks like its going down in oakland tommorow.

 

[cooljeanius]

Yeah, I went through the entire thread and couldn't find it. Can't find it on the internet either.

Lol, I just went through the entire thread, too. Maybe it got taken down from wherever it was being hosted? Bandwidth or something?

 

[Mortrialus]

Lol, I just went through the entire thread, too. Maybe it got taken down from wherever it was being hosted? Bandwidth or something?

Seems like the most likely circumstance.

 

[travisbickle]

My professor wrote an article in our school paper today.

I think he articulated a lot of how I feel about the financial crisis in general, and since I'm mostly interested in the risk incentives on Wall Street, I think the piece explains why I'm dubious of the reform initiatives OWS'ers are advocating.

http://dukechronicle.com/article/got-greed

Amateur attempt of writing about human psychology by a professional economist.

I believe we need to listen to theorists talk about how to move forward to the next stage of humanity, people like Zizek, but economists shold stick to what they know, or don't know looking at the current economic situation lol

 

[Chichikov]

Not that there's anything wrong with that.

I don't disagree, though "that" is such a loosely defined concept, that I'm certain that under the umbrella of socialism you fit a metric ton of systems that I would vehemently oppose.

Realistically, we'll end up with a mixed system, it's only a question of the exact mixture.
Painting this disagreement as socialism vs. capitalism is good for drama and good for our two party system, but not so great for everyone else (not saying that you do that, just waxing poetic).

 

[noah111]

I believe we need to listen to theorists talk about how to move forward to the next stage of humanity, people like Zizek, but economists shold stick to what they know, or don't know looking at the current economic situation lol

So what's the chance of a dual governance coming to fruition like Peter Joseph suggests? What are the estimated numbers across the United States currently?

 

[Amibguous Cad]

Crony capitalism can ONLY exist through regulatory capture.

Crony capitalism can exist through deregulation, too. Call it "deregulatory capture." Consider a straightforward privatization plan where the state sells formerly state-owned industries to well-connected people at significantly below market value. The politicians have an incentive to reward their donors and a significantly lesser incentive to drive the hardest bargain for the state.

Assuming for the sake of argument that the public choicers are right and the informational asymmetry between special interests and voters is so huge that special interests set the bulk of economic policy, I still don't get how that makes deregulation the answer. If special interests really are in control, deregulation will occur only when it is in the politically ascendant special interests' favor. The regulations that benefit those interests at the expense of the public will remain, and the regulations that do legitimately serve the public interest will be torn down. Both the right and the left alternatively serve as apologists for special interests, depending on whether the regulation in question really is for the public benefit or whether it's regulatory capture. Bootleggers and Baptists (http://www.cato.org/pubs/regulation/regv7n3/v7n3-3.pdf- as a quick summary, the article posits as paradigmatic an example where zealous Baptists provide ideological cover for Bootleggers to get together and promote prohibition, which of course increases their profit margins) is fundamentally correct, but Cato's just as likely to be the Baptists as left-leaning think tanks are.

The standard libertarian argument for deregulation seems to me more a recipe for fatalism than an exhortation to redouble political efforts .Which is depressing, because in its broad outlines, public choice theory is pretty persuasive.

 

[empty vessel]

I don't disagree, though "that" is such a loosely defined concept, that I'm certain that under the umbrella of socialism you fit a metric ton of systems that I would vehemently oppose.

Realistically, we'll end up with a mixed system, it's only a question of the exact mixture.
Painting this disagreement as socialism vs. capitalism is good for drama and good for our two party system, but not so great for everyone else (not saying that you do that, just waxing poetic).

I'm a socialist, but I was really just making a Seinfeld reference.

And I agree that OWS is not, and doesn't need to be, about that.

 

[Flying_Phoenix]

The reason why America, as well as the Western world, has had so much success is due to the fact that they have a system the incorporates both socialism and capitalism. I doubt its good to only have one or the other.

 

[Karma Kramer]

The reason why America, as well as the Western world, has had so much success is due to the fact that they have a system the incorporates both socialism and capitalism. I doubt its good to only have one or the other.

I think this is accurate, however I also think that technology and the slow destruction of tradition/culture will lead to a more socialist society that is less geared towards monetary/materialistic needs. Competition will therefore be driven more from a communal standpoint not an individualistic one. IE delivery will be less reliant on your class and more on your ideas and ability to execute or organize execution of those ideas. In some ways we will go back to a more tribal society but on a global scale. Geographic barriers no longer restrict cooperation and interaction. Our economies have become unified and therefore our future depends on implementation of singular policy or cooperative policy. At least I see this as a possibility in the far future.

 

[LakeEarth]

In London Ontario they have a mini-occupy thing going for almost 2 weeks now. The city is currently trying to shuttle the protesters from camping in a downtown park (which they don't have permission to camp) to a very large church lawn a few blocks down (which have given them permission to stay). While people are setting camps there, some refuse to leave. Due to religious beliefs? Just stubborn people not wanting to be told what to do? No clue. I doubt it will lead to any violence, but I'll keep the thread apprised.

 

[noah111]

I think this is accurate, however I also think that technology and the slow destruction of tradition/culture will lead to a more socialist society that is less geared towards monetary/materialistic needs. Competition will therefore be driven more from a communal standpoint not an individualistic one. IE delivery will be less reliant on your class and more on your ideas and ability to execute or organize execution of those ideas. In some ways we will go back to a more tribal society but on a global scale. Geographic barriers no longer restrict cooperation and interaction. Our economies have become unified and therefore our future depends on implementation of singular policy or cooperative policy. At least I see this as a possibility in the far future.

I would have to agree with this, problem is who knows if it will be an simple slow process of evolution, or a quick but chaotic power grab with violence.

 

[Karma Kramer]

I would have to agree with this, problem is who knows if it will be an simple slow process of evolution, or a quick but chaotic power grab with violence.

A collapse of the global economy might push us faster in this direction or it could leave us in total ruin for a long time.

 

[Karma Kramer]

OWS has transformed public opinion

A combination of police crackdowns and bad weather are testing the young Occupy movement. But rumors of its demise are premature, to say the least. Although numbers are hard to come by, anecdotal evidence suggests the movement is growing.

As importantly, the movement has already changed the public debate in America.

Consider, for example, last week’s Congressional Budget Office report on widening disparities of income in America. It was hardly news – it’s already well known that the top 1 percent now gets 20 percent of the nation’s income, up from 9 percent in the late 1970s.

But it’s the first time such news made the front page of the nation’s major newspapers.

Why? Because for the first time in more than half a century, a broad cross-section of the American public is talking about the concentration of income, wealth and political power at the top.

Score a big one for the Occupiers.

Even more startling is the change in public opinion. Not since the 1930s has a majority of Americans called for redistribution of income or wealth. But according to a recent New York Times/CBS News poll, an astounding 66 percent of Americans said the nation’s wealth should be more evenly distributed.

A similar majority believes the rich should pay more in taxes. According to a Wall Street Journal/NBC News poll, even a majority of people who describe themselves as Republicans believe taxes should be increased on the rich.

I remember the days when even raising the subject of inequality made you a “class warrior.” Now, it seems, most Americans have become class warriors.

And they blame Republicans for stacking the deck in favor of the rich. On that New York Times/CBS News poll, 69 percent of respondents said Republican policies favor the rich (28 percent said the same of Obama’s policies).

more: http://www.salon.com/topic/occupy_wall_street/

 

[Myansie]

Wow, that's pretty amazing.

 

[maharg]

In London Ontario they have a mini-occupy thing going for almost 2 weeks now. The city is currently trying to shuttle the protesters from camping in a downtown park (which they don't have permission to camp) to a very large church lawn a few blocks down (which have given them permission to stay). While people are setting camps there, some refuse to leave. Due to religious beliefs? Just stubborn people not wanting to be told what to do? No clue. I doubt it will lead to any violence, but I'll keep the thread apprised.

In Edmonton the Occupy camp is on a private park the occupiers mistakenly believed was a public park (it was as recently as 2007). It actually seems to have worked out well for them, the owner either doesn't have the balls to face the publicity nightmare of shoving people out of the park with police power or has some level of sympathy for them, so they've been allowed to stay with some weak protestations that they shouldn't sleep there overnight because it's getting cold.

 

[XMonkey]

OWS has transformed public opinion



more: http://www.salon.com/topic/occupy_wall_street/

I questioned the timing and how early it was before the election and right before winter, but looking back at it, I think the timing is perfect. I do wonder if the original organizers expected it to spread across the country so quickly. I have to think not, but it just goes to show you that a lot of people share similar sentiments with the movement (as we're finding out).

 

[alstein]

Looks like something happened in Tulsa. Reports the police are going bonkers there on Twitter.

http://cynthiayildirim.posterous.com/occupy-tulsa-65-protest-photos-from-november#

 

[Dash27]

But to answer the question you seem to be wanting to ask - I have been to a number of these rallies, and I have only met a handful (>1%) of people who support full-on socialism.

Realistically, we'll end up with a mixed system, it's only a question of the exact mixture.
Painting this disagreement as socialism vs. capitalism is good for drama and good for our two party system, but not so great for everyone else.

No support of "full-on socialism". Then you speak of a mixed system, a mix of what, if not socialism and capitalism?

 

[Fusebox]

Mandatory tipping should have already softened you guys up for some faux-Socialism.