Support NeoGAF

[Deku]

They also kept wages low by shifting everyone over onto credit cards to make up for it. Now that the credit card age is ending, the ugly truth that wages have been stagnant for a long long time is coming for many.

Credit age isn;t ending, it's just American spending on credit reached monstrous levels.

I recall there were articles written as early as 2006 complaining about the negative savings rate of the US consumer. But the silver lining is savings is up in the positive territory again.

There was very clearly a period of wild spending on credit, in our version of the roaring 20s.

 

[Dude Abides]

The Wal-mart effect disproves that. The US has been able to keep wages low for at least 2 decades, by lowering the cost of goods at the consumption level. Of course we can discuss for example how this policy has created a trade imbalance with China and how it likely won't be sustainable forever.

Although with discussions like this you have to take care not to generalize. For example, it's difficult to calculate the exact cost of a particular policy.

It is not true that the cost of goods has been lowered at the consumption level over the past two decades. The CPI has increased, not decreased, over the past two decades.

 

[BMAN]

I should add that government has the responsibility to create policy that helps ease those in declining industries. "Jobs being sent overseas"

You have to allow declining industry to contract and to be concentrated so that these industries can take advantage of economies of scale.

Maybe some of the problems we are facing is because liberalization is happening to fast, slowing it down will help bring down structural adjustment costs.

Incentive based mitigation, assist workers with education so that they can be competitive e.g. in knowledge based manufacturing.

Government should not subsidize or use protectionist methods to defend failing industry, they should stick to providing public factors

 

[empty vessel]

Everyone who is a consumer benefits from increased efficiency in the production of goods.

That isn't true. Consider a country with a single company for whom everybody works. The company is able to make goods cheaper (more "efficiently") by paying less in wages. The goods remain the same price, however, relative to the wages (lower prices and lower wages). Nobody is better off in this scenario. Consider, too, that reductions in costs from lower wages do not have to show up as a reduction in price. It could go, e.g., to the shareholders as profits or to executives as compensation. That balance--how much goes to shareholders/executives and how much goes to workers/consumers--is determined by the relative bargaining power of those two groups. Your analysis is far too simplistic.

The problem is the asymmetrical political pressure between those groups who are the losers and the winners,consumers. For example the 5% reduction in cost of a good won't receive the same kind of attention and applied political pressure by a group of works who are losing jobs, facing wage reductions in an inefficiency industry. Even though the benefit outweighs the costs.

You haven't shown that the benefits outweigh the costs. I have assumed for the sake of argument that they do at a macroeconomic level, but that doesn't tell us anything at all about whether most people are better off or, even if they are better off in some absolute sense, whether they are as well off as equity and fairness might dictate they ought to be. How we distribute our economy's gains is always up to us. Pointing to something like globalization as the reason why the top 1% have confiscated almost all the gains in the economy over the last decade misses the issue entirely. It doesn't tell us why we have permitted those gains to accrue almost to the sole benefit of such a small faction of our population.

I'm not sure that the benefit of 5% reduction in cost outweights the cost of say the loss to the economy of hundreds of thousands of jobs to China. People aren't just consumers.

Right, a lot of people seem oblivious to the fact that consumers are workers and vice versa. They are the same people. So benefiting them with one hand (lower prices for goods) doesn't necessarily mean they are better off if you are injuring them with another (lower or stagnating wages).

 

[BMAN]

I think the point your missing is that trade exists and that in the real world there are many countries and companies. It is through comparative advantage and specialization in goods and services that allow total wealth to increase.

 

[Azih]

I think the point your missing is that trade exists and that in the real world there are many countries and companies. It is through comparative advantage and specialization in goods and services that allow total wealth to increase.

Well, what we were talking about is your claim that everyone benefits from lower prices we weren't talking about 'allowing total wealth to increase' which is a completely separate discussion.

After all lower prices on some things don't help someone who has lost their job for example or are getting paid less than they used to or are not getting raises in line with inflation. As well not everything is lowering in price. Gas prices have shot up. Healthcare and education costs are now just obscene compared to before. Also empty vessel has a good point that just because cost may be lowered on some items doesn't mean it's all being passed on to consumers.

 

[Enron]

Wow, what the shit is going on. I slack on the news for a day and it looks like the city of Oakland has gone to shit. Is everyone in Oakland retarded? (cops and protesters both)
Why isn't this crap happening anywhere else? What's unique about Oakland?

As for that driver, man If I were that guy I dont know what I'd do. I certainly just wouldnt sit there and let the guy pound the fuck out of my car. I wouldn't get out of the car and try to defend myself either (remember the video of the girl trying to defend her M5 from a crowd of hundereds of thugs in Vancouver?). I'd want to get the fuck out of there ASAP, and if that means going through the guys in front of me that arent moving and are threatening me, so be it. But it looks like the driver could have at least tried to get around that guy.

 

[dave is ok]

Wow, what the shit is going on. I slack on the news for a day and it looks like the city of Oakland has gone to shit. Is everyone in Oakland retarded? (cops and protesters both)
Why isn't this crap happening anywhere else? What's unique about Oakland?

Someone got shot in the face with a rubber bullet and ended up in a coma.

And then they teargassed the people trying to help

 

[BMAN]

I never said all goods are falling in price, there are thousands of factors each with their own weight in how they affect prices of goods. I was simply extracting one of these important factors to analyze its affect on the price of goods and services.
As for healthcare, I living in a country with a public system, the majority of the increase in costs come from an aging population. I do promise you if you go to Thailand its a lot more affordable. The price of oil is unrelated only that demand increases with economic activity to a certain point. I hardly see how that relates to the movement of resources to where they are most effect.
Please see my post above on how to help those who lose their jobs or are facing declining wages

 

[Azih]

The price of oil is unrelated only that demand increases with economic activity to a certain point

Not recently, price of oil is still going up despite economic uncertainty due to speculators.

I hardly see how that relates to the movement of resources to where they are most effect.

Not relating it to the movement of resources to where they are most effect. Relating it to if lowered cost is good for everyone or not as you claimed.

 

[BMAN]

In isolated sense everyone who consumes goods or services well see a benefit of reduced costs. Of course people lose jobs and wages, I am in no way disputing that. But the winners of this movement if they wanted to could fully compensate the losers and still be better off, this reallocation isn't an economics question but a political one.

Edit. Add. People in developing countries, or where ever production shifts to, gain jobs and opportunities that they would not of otherwise had.

 

[Deku]

It is not true that the cost of goods has been lowered at the consumption level over the past two decades. The CPI has increased, not decreased, over the past two decades.

CPI measures a basket of goods, which includes things like gas prices which as we all know has gone up. It is a statistic like an average is a statistic. It often fails to capture substitutions and shift in consumer spending as consumers shift out of department stores into big box discount chains.

Inflation has been extremely low in the last 20 years compared to the 70s and 80s.

 

[Azih]

In isolated sense everyone who consumes goods or services well see a benefit of reduced costs.

Well I guess but
1) only if the reduced costs are passed on as reduced prices which is definitely not guaranteed and
2) It's not too relevant a point as when you can't just apply it in isolation. Reduced costs would be great if one of their potential consequences weren't reduced or lost wages but they do.

 

[jamesinclair]

Argh I cant see this video at work for some reason. Any other sources or can someone give an objective account of it?

Protesters are peacefully crossing the street.

Criminal using dangerous weapon drivers straight into crowd, stopping at last second.

Protester gets mad that his life and the life of others was threatened, bangs on car.

Driver reacts by attempting murder, slamming on the gas pedal and sending the protester flying.

 

[sagi446]

It's really funny how the American media is trying to shove this under the rug. Hope Obama doesn't pull a Clinton and fire 2 random crockets.

 

[Baraka in the White House]

It's really funny how the American media is trying to shove this under the rug. Hope Obama doesn't pull a Clinton and fire 2 random crockets.

The mere existence of OWS pushes back against several well established media narratives, plus the movement naturally doesn't have the media friendly connections that the Tea Party did once it was co-opted. For all the whining about double standards applied to the Tea Party, people tend to ignore the fact that they stopped having much in common with OWS once they got sponsorships.

 

[Kevitivity]

Still can't get over how awesome the Ill Doctrine dude is. I could watch him talk about anything.

The idiot stood in front of the car taunting the driver, pounding on the hood. Showing aggression. The driver, who may have been a woman, was obviously (and rightly so) scared.

The dickhead got what he deserved.

 

[Enron]

Protesters are peacefully crossing the street.

Criminal using dangerous weapon drivers straight into crowd, stopping at last second.

Protester gets mad that his life and the life of others was threatened, bangs on car.

Driver reacts by attempting murder, slamming on the gas pedal and sending the protester flying.

Your account is pretty lol..i guess you are a psychic?

I do believe he said "objective".

Protesters are crossing street. Car pulls SLOWLY into camera view, and comes to a stop as a guy and a girl are crossing. As the car is completing the stop, the guy stops and sort of bends down a bit and starts gesturing with his hands in what appears to be an up/down motion for some reason - either he is taunting the driver or telling the driver he should back up or something. The guy appears to be talking at the driver, and pulls in his hands as if he's pointing to himself during the conversation/argument. The driver then SLOWLY starts forward and turns his wheels slightly to the left as if he's trying to get around the pedestrian or trying to get the guy to back up. The guy refuses and hits the car hood two or three times with both open palms (arms outstretched), and then makes a fist with his right hand and then pounds hard on the car's hood. He then straightens up and the driver of the car hits the gas and hits him, then stops.

http://www.ktvu.com/videos/news/raw-video-pedestrian-hit-by-car-in-downtown/vD4pp/

The car appeared to have been a Mercedes Benz, at least to my eyes. That probably had something to do with the protester's actions.

 

[Mortrialus]

Protesters are peacefully crossing the street.

Criminal using dangerous weapon drivers straight into crowd, stopping at last second.

Protester gets mad that his life and the life of others was threatened, bangs on car.

Driver reacts by attempting murder, slamming on the gas pedal and sending the protester flying.

Video isn't working for me. I really need to see that.

Edit: Got it working. Both people are in the wrong here. That said, the people defending the driver for literally running someone over are absolutely sick.

 

[Dude Abides]

Video isn't working for me. I really need to see that.

Edit: Got it working. Both people are in the wrong here. That said, the people defending the driver for literally running someone over are absolutely sick.

Ever thus to hippies! Plebians need to learn their place.

 

[SouthernDragon]

The better question is, what the fuck was that car doing there in the first place? If there's a protest going on, find another path, or you are putting yourself in harm's way.

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

anyone who has lived in a city... or at least a civilized one, Green arrow doesn't mean shit when there are still people crossing the street... you simply don't drive yet. that's all i have to add.

 

[Enron]

Here's another video of it. In my opinion, an even better one than the ktvu video.

http://latimesblogs.latimes.com/lan...ense-scene-after-protester-struck-by-car.html

The car was in the intersection honking its horn trying to pick its way through the protesters in the street. It didn't just fly up on the guy. The intersection was mostly clear at this point, except for a couple of people including the protester in question. The Benz wasn't the only car in the intersection, either. The guy picked out the Benz, and stood and waited for the car. At the tail end of the video you can see where the guy ended up. It was a Mercedes, and the driver sat in the car and waited for the cops (and was probably worried about getting beat the fuck down after that). He also looks like a complete tool.

The protester was not seriously hurt, and both of these morons should probably be arrested over this.

 

[jamesinclair]

Thats right guys, in some peoples world, the victim of attempted murder with a dangerous weapon should be arrested because he had the audacity of crossing the street as part of a group protest, and reacted when said weapon was thrown inches away from him.

Go fuck yourself.

 

[FlyinJ]

Your account is pretty lol..i guess you are a psychic?

I do believe he said "objective".

Protesters are crossing street. Car pulls SLOWLY into camera view, and comes to a stop as a guy and a girl are crossing. As the car is completing the stop, the guy stops and sort of bends down a bit and starts gesturing with his hands in what appears to be an up/down motion for some reason - either he is taunting the driver or telling the driver he should back up or something. The guy appears to be talking at the driver, and pulls in his hands as if he's pointing to himself during the conversation/argument. The driver then SLOWLY starts forward and turns his wheels slightly to the left as if he's trying to get around the pedestrian or trying to get the guy to back up. The guy refuses and hits the car hood two or three times with both open palms (arms outstretched), and then makes a fist with his right hand and then pounds hard on the car's hood. He then straightens up and the driver of the car hits the gas and hits him, then stops.

http://www.ktvu.com/videos/news/raw-video-pedestrian-hit-by-car-in-downtown/vD4pp/

The car appeared to have been a Mercedes Benz, at least to my eyes. That probably had something to do with the protester's actions.

He FLOORS the accelerator and absolutely destroys the guy in front of him. I'm amazed the guy he intentionally slammed into isn't dead from that video.

How the fuck are you defending the driver? You're a real sick person, you know that?

 

[Enron]

He FLOORS the accelerator and absolutely destroys the guy in front of him. I'm amazed the guy he intentionally slammed into isn't dead from that video.

How the fuck are you defending the driver? You're a real sick person, you know that?

Uhm, go fuck yourself. I didn't defend the driver.

In fact, i just said both of these guys were fucking idiots.

Just because I didn't believe the OMFG MURDER!!!1!!1! unhinged post of jamesinclair (including obvious inaccuracies driven by bias) I am DEFENDING the driver?

Go watch the video, both of them. My description of it is 100% accurate and so is my assertion that both these jackoffs should get charged with something.

But it looks like the driver could have at least tried to get around that guy.

The protester was not seriously hurt, and both of these morons should probably be arrested over this.

 

[demon]

I wouldn't defend the driver for what he did, but the other guy was an idiot for banging on the hood of somebody's car like that.

 

[FlyinJ]

Uhm, go fuck yourself. I didn't defend the driver.

In fact, i just said both of these guys were fucking idiots.

Just because I didn't believe the OMFG MURDER!!!1!!1! unhinged post of jamesinclair (including obvious inaccuracies driven by bias) I am DEFENDING the driver?

Go watch the video, both of them. My description of it is 100% accurate and so is my assertion that both these jackoffs should get charged with something.

"He then straightens up and the driver of the car hits the gas and hits him, then stops."

After the incredibly detailed paragraph description of the "crazy" protester's actions after almost being hit by the car initially, that's the only description you give of what the driver did? One sentence?

Definitely comes off as defending the driver to me.

 

[Mortrialus]

Uhm, go fuck yourself. I didn't defend the driver.

In fact, i just said both of these guys were fucking idiots.

Just because I didn't believe the OMFG MURDER!!!1!!1! unhinged post of jamesinclair (including obvious inaccuracies driven by bias) I am DEFENDING the driver?

Go watch the video, both of them. My description of it is 100% accurate and so is my assertion that both these jackoffs should get charged with something.

I'd want to get the fuck out of there ASAP, and if that means going through the guys in front of me that arent moving and are threatening me, so be it.

.

 

[Enron]

"He then straightens up and the driver of the car hits the gas and hits him, then stops."

After the incredibly detailed paragraph description of the "crazy" protester's actions after almost being hit by the car initially, that's the only description you give of what the driver did? One sentence?

Definitely comes off as defending the driver to me.

Uhm, that's because that's what happened in the span of like 1 second. The guy stands back up after the hood pound, the driver hits the gas, and then comes to a stop after what appears to be 15-20 feet.

 

[Enron]

.

Yeah, if i thought i was being threatened. Way to cut off the last part of my paragraph where I said "THE DRIVER LOOKS LIKE HE COULD HAVE AT LEAST GONE AROUND THE GUY"

nice try.

 

[empty vessel]

The better question is, what the fuck was that car doing there in the first place? If there's a protest going on, find another path, or you are putting yourself in harm's way.

That's what we don't know that would be helpful to know. It's unclear what the driver's intent is at the start. Even if the driver had no malevolent intent at the beginning (which seems unlikely to me given the way the car seems insistent on going through despite the high pedestrian traffic and its intentional bumping of the man who stopped--which precipitated the banging on the car), driving through another human being like that would require much more provocation than occurred to be considered justified as defense (e.g., the pedestrian was pointing a firearm at the driver).

 

[Something Wicked]

Thugs roaming the streets

People attacking cars

Cars attacking people


Sounds like a normal night in Oakland to me.

 

[Mortrialus]

Yeah, if i thought i was being threatened. Way to cut off the last part of my paragraph where I said "THE DRIVER LOOKS LIKE HE COULD HAVE AT LEAST GONE AROUND THE GUY"

nice try.

You spent a portion of your post rationalizing and defending the driver's actions. I am simply highlighting it, because you failed to do so in your previous post trying to deny accusations of such behavior on your part.

Edit: Perhaps we can actually get some reasonable discussion back in this thread.

 

[dave is ok]

DOUBLE KILL

 

[PKrockin]

Wow, that's crazy. Sure that protester was a moron for banging on the car and not getting out of the way, but under no circumstances do you intentionally hit a pedestrian with your car. He didn't even try to force him out of the way first by inching forward, no, he just slammed the gas and bowled him over. Unbelievable.

If I was the driver I certainly wouldn't be threatened to the point of seriously injuring someone unless he pulled a gun.

 

[Mortrialus]

Wow, that's crazy. Sure that protester was a moron for banging on the car and not getting out of the way, but under no circumstances do you intentionally hit a pedestrian with your car. He didn't even try to force him out of the way first by inching forward, no, he just slammed the gas and bowled him over. Unbelievable.

If I was the driver I certainly wouldn't be threatened to the point of seriously injuring someone unless he pulled a gun.

This. The protester was completely out of line, but you don't use potentially lethal force against someone without the immediate threat of bodily harm or death.

 

[slit]

Wait, the police questioned the driver and let him go? How the hell does that happen? I didn't know taunting a driver gives him grounds to bulldoze your ass.

 

[FlyinJ]

Wait, the police questioned the driver and let him go? How the hell does that happen? I didn't know taunting a driver gives him grounds to bulldoze your ass.

That's just unbelievable.

Luckily people will be seeing this video and demanding the driver be charged. And I'm sure a lot of the people who were there have his license, and I'm assuming the police took it down while questioning.

This guy should be in jail.

 

[Mortrialus]

Wait, the police questioned the driver and let him go? How the hell does that happen? I didn't know taunting a driver gives him grounds to bulldoze your ass.

Okay, that is not cool.

Edit: I mean seriously, it's like the Oakland police are intentionally trying to enrage protesters.

 

[PKrockin]

No charge? Not even suspension of his license? Seriously?

 

[BoobPhysics101]

No charge? Not even suspension of his license? Seriously?

If you wanna play GTA in real life, go to Oakland. Fucking crazy... I gotta skip Oakland next time I go to the Bay, it's scarier than ghetto areas of LA nowadays.

I have no idea why/how ANYONE in the police is going to rationalize and spin letting that psycho get away. If I remember it correctly, can't you be charged with assault with a deadly weapon (or attempted) if you even get close enough to a pedestrian with your car that their body is close enough to make contact in any way and they do make contact, even if it's just a tap or a nudge? Can't remember the exact wording of the law.

 

[Slayven]

Enron will be missed

 

[Dash27]

Ok finally saw the video. Inevitable when so many fools are in such a tight space. Protesters was obviously begging for it, you can see him stop intentionally in front of the car to confront the guy probably because he was honking etc. Then was slamming on the hood because what's the guy gonna do about it? I got 1000 people here to defend me!

That said, the guy in the car was way out of control there, he could have killed the idiot and others. Maybe he got scared and hit the gas instead of the breaks but that's hard to rationalize. Pretty messed up.

 

[CHEEZMO™]

Enron will be missed

My heart bleeds.

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

I promise you with every fiber of my knowledge that Enron would be fucking fire and brimstone if the driver was a Occupy guy and the pedestrian wasn't. there'd be false outrage for pages

but thank god we can not have them here anymore, but that stuff isn't permabannable... oh well.

and for the record (again) both guys are total idiots, but guess which one is the bigger? the guy who ran someone over, yup

 

[Mortrialus]

Something simultaneously horrible and amusing just occurred to me. Glenn Beck constantly warned of wide scale civil unrest, and socialists marching in the streets and this being a worldwide phenomenon. I mean you could literally feel the gradual buildup of displeasure in the government and the situation of the United States citizen over the past ten years, but still, the guy was right about something .

 

[BoobPhysics101]

After closer examination of the video, you can clearly see the driver of the car keep rolling for a bit even though there's two pedestrians stopped in front of him.

They're walking, and the car just keeps rolling and THEN they stop to look at him like 'really, dude?' and he's STILL rolling at that point. Then the male pedestrian gets angry and has an exchange with the driver, presumably because the driver is carelessly about to roll right into the guy and his girlfriend (?). All the driver had to do was apologize, and if the pedestrian continued to get angry and STILL banged on his car, he could've got out and confronted the guy directly.

Instead he commits attempted murder with a vehicle and potential vehicular manslaughter, AND a hit & run violation. Wow.

I would've reacted similarly to the pedestrian, btw. If you're such an asshat that you keep rolling that close to pedestrians, you deserve to get your car banged on because you're a dipshit driver. And obviously the driver should NOT have a license if that is the way they react in a somewhat heated situation, ESPECIALLY AGAINST A PEDESTRIAN.

No judge or jury would fail to convict with that video evidence and the 20-30+ witnesses.

 

[Alpha-Bromega]

After closer examination of the video, you can clearly see the driver of the car keep rolling for a bit even though there's two pedestrians stopped in front of him.

They're walking, and the car just keeps rolling and THEN they stop to look at him like 'really, dude?' and he's STILL rolling at that point. Then the male pedestrian gets angry and has an exchange with the driver, presumably because the driver is carelessly about to roll right into the guy and his girlfriend (?). All the driver had to do was apologize, and if the pedestrian continued to get angry and STILL banged on his car, he could've got out and confronted the guy directly.

Instead he commits attempted murder with a vehicle and potential vehicular manslaught, AND a hit & run violation. Wow.

I would've reacted similarly to the pedestrian, btw. If you're such an asshat that you keep rolling that close to pedestrians, you deserve to get your car banged on because you're a dipshit driver. And obviously the driver should NOT have a license if that is the way they react in a somewhat heated situation, ESPECIALLY AGAINST A PEDESTRIAN.

No judge or jury would fail to convict with that video evidence and the 20-30+ witnesses.

yeah, if this was taken to a court of law, which it damn well better, the driver would be abso-fucking-lutely done for. No contest.

 

[sangreal]

So, what's the deal with OWS and rapists? I don't mean that they have undesirables within the ranks, can't do anything about that. I mean their response. First there is this story currently on the front page of Yahoo:

After word had spread of the alleged assaults, Iketubosin was told not to come to kitchen meetings and to stay away from the park, "but he kept coming." Sibbing said that around 9 p.m. last night "a whole bunch of people came and made him leave the park. Then the NYPD picked him up. I wasn't sure if it was for his own safety or if he was being arrested."

http://news.yahoo.com/kitchen-volunteers-sex-assault-arrest-shocks-zuccotti-park-215348689.html

A few days ago, NY Post ran a piece about the group not reporting assault/rape:

A sex fiend barged into a woman’s tent and sexually assaulted her at around 6 a.m., said protesters, who chased him from the park.

“Pervert! Pervert! Get the f--k out!” said vigilante Occupiers, who never bothered to call the cops.

“They were shining flashlights in his face and yelling at him to leave,” said a woman who called herself Leslie, but refused to give her real name.

She said that weeks earlier another woman was raped.

“We don’t tell anyone,” she said. “We handle it internally. I said too much already.”

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/zuccotti_perv_Qd8v3hCAnspzJ7VGC9nJZP