Occupy a bathtub already

Can we get back to that please? Land-owners being the only ones who can vote? I' be happy with that.

 

At the very least anyone filing taxes, and NOT on any type of gov't assistance. If you get food stamps or a welfare check we don't want your opinion. Military disability would get a pass.

noone can even agree on what 1% is.... the number ranges from $300,000 to $565,000

 

I need to know which side of the protest i'm on.

I need to know which side of the protest i'm on.

 

Yeah, being from Bel Air the only place you'll be occupying is Mélisse.

 

Yeah, being from Bel Air the only place you'll be occupying is Mélisse.

 

 

Olivia room for 2 please.

http://www.daveramsey.com/article/dear-occ...dmoney_economy/

http://www.daveramsey.com/article/dear-occ...dmoney_economy/

 

brilliant.

 

“Wealth Redistribution Is the Answer!”

"I’ve heard a lot about wealth redistribution over the past few years, and I’m sure you’ve heard it too. Call it whatever you want, but this is how it usually sounds to most Americans: “We are the 99% of Americans who don’t have as much as the 1%, so we’re mad and think the government should take their wealth and property away so that I can have a piece of it. Wealth inequality is a moral breakdown! We should all spread the money around so everyone gets a fair share!”

 

I have my toughest critique for those who believe this: You are a thief. When someone takes my money and gives me no say in the matter, that’s called theft—whether they’re using a gun or the government. At the core of this demand is envy. And that’s not the same as jealousy. Jealousy just says, “I want what you have.” Envy is a different beast. Envy says, “I don’t think I can ever have what you have, so you shouldn’t have it either.” Decades of horrible economic teaching and the politics of envy have kept this monster alive and growing and moving forward.

 

This way of thinking makes you assume that all rich people are evil and have scammed their way into wealth. That may be true in the tale of Robin Hood, but I choose to live in the real world. Sure, there are some scoundrels, but the vast majority of successful men and women got that way by working hard and serving people—lots of people. Steve Jobs and Bill Gates changed the world in ways we’re just now starting to realize. Their positive impact on the world has helped all of us live better lives, and they made fortunes for themselves by doing so. Why is it that you’re holy if you help one person but evil if you help a million? That’s just stupid.

 

 

A good friend of mine is a country music legend. He’s made a bazillion dollars over his career, and he just bought a $400,000 car. He’s worked like a crazy person his whole life, spending decades in tour buses, writing songs in the middle of the night, and entertaining enormous crowds of cheering fans. He paid a price to get there, and I’m happy for his success. Would it be right for me to walk into his house and demand my “fair share” of his wealth? Heck no! I’m a terrible singer! I didn’t do one thing to contribute to his success, so why would I be entitled to a share of his wealth? He’s given me years of entertainment through his music. That’s my fair share of his hard work.

 

My problems aren’t his fault. And my problems aren’t McDonald’s fault or Home Depot’s fault or Walmart’s fault, either. My problems are my fault! And the more people these companies serve, the more money they make—and that’s none of my business! If you don’t like McDonald’s, then here’s an idea: Don’t eat there. But don’t walk into the restaurant and demand a portion of their proceeds for the day.

 

When you scream, “I’m in the 99%!” you just look like a whiner. Those of us willing to pay the price to win look at you and shrug. Heck, when it comes to the music business, I’m in the 99% myself! But that doesn’t mean I have to tear Toby Keith, Brad Paisley or even Kanye down. Oh, and a special note just for Kanye: Capitalism has been pretty good to you. I celebrate your success, but you look a little hypocritical protesting capitalism while wearing a $50,000 watch."

http://www.daveramsey.com/article/dear-occ...dmoney_economy/

 

Well put and thought-out, but it doesn't address how we got into this financial mess and how those who orchestrated it and took their money at the cost of others were able to get away with it.

Well put and thought-out, but it doesn't address how we got into this financial mess and how those who orchestrated it and took their money at the cost of others were able to get away with it.

 

 

Neither does occupy wall st.

 

 

Nobody "Orchestrated it". I know youre hung up on this but its time for you to get over it.

 

Recessions are part of the business cycle. They happen on a MACROECONOMIC level (what weve been going through) and they happen on a macroeconomic level. Nobody is ACTUALLY able to really predict MACROECONOMIC Events like this.... the global economy is too big, and too complex. When you tweak one part of it, you cause a million other ripples to form.

 

There are BOOM times, when EVERYBODY wants your product (Or when everybody that wants the products YOUR COUNTRY is best at delivering) and there are BUST times when every body has your product, and doesnt need any more of it.

 

SMART PEOPLE, knew the good times dont last forever, battened down the hatches and got the fcuk out of the way of the oncoming train. Dumb people were dancing to the sound of the train whistle.

http://www.daveramsey.com/article/dear-occ...dmoney_economy/

 

 

Didnt I write that two days ago?

Didnt I write that two days ago?

 

 

 

Maybe you are Dave Ramsey......

 

 

 

Maybe you are Dave Ramsey......

 

 

 

No. But my pornstar name is "Dick Ramsey".

Also interesting and something I've always agreed with:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/opinion/...;WT.mc_ev=click

Also interesting and something I've always agreed with:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/opinion/...;WT.mc_ev=click

 

The problem is that MONEY is not the problem with american education or the education of the poor. Take a look at the numbers. we created the dept of education in the 70s. Since then we've poured hundreds of billions of dollars into it and student achievement has remained unchanged. Its another unmitigated failure. You could have simply handed each of the kids a check for 100 thousand dollars and the money probably would have done just as much good.

 

I don't know why some kids who have NOTHING wrong with them, refuse to study, skip class and drop out as soon as they can because they "don't like school". And other kids are born with severe learning disabilities, struggle every fcuking day, and go on to get three post graduate degrees. But I know that throwing money at the schools isn't the answer.

I don't think the author is talking about HOW MUCH is spent, but in general how WELL its spent and the notion that education is the only real place to make opportunities as equal as possible (we know they will never be fully equal). The author talks about early childhood but I would imagine it would be effective up to the teen years, to think of education as an investment.

 

I too never understood why some are just not as driven as others. I remember back in grade school when kids would complain that there was too much homework. It puzzled me because parents would come in and complain about their kids having too much homework. The truth was that there was very little homework and my parents would go to school asking my teachers to give me more homework The reality is that most dont " dont like school", its that they dont know what they're good at and what their true potential is. Once a kid (whether its grade school or high school) gets discouraged it creates a bad downward cycle for them (especially in areas like science and math). In college and even in highschool they are adult enough to recognize hardship and battle through it, but when they are very young its easy to just want to give up because they dont know whats at stake. Once they fall behind the curve, they will certainly remain behind.

 

And on that note, I've got an exam tomorrow. Time to go study.

Well put and thought-out, but it doesn't address how we got into this financial mess and how those who orchestrated it and took their money at the cost of others were able to get away with it.

 

Also interesting and something I've always agreed with:

 

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/20/opinion/...;WT.mc_ev=click

 

The problem with education has nothing to do with money, it has everything to do with parenting. If a person that didn't value education has a child, and that child has homework they don't under stand, what are the chances the person can help their child? The unlikely scenario is the child will seek help from their teacher and possibly succeed, or they will follow their parents example, find no use in education and end up bitching about minimum wage 20 years down the road. It is on the parents to actually be parents and help their children learn and become adults with skills that make them valuable to employers or better yet teach them how to create their own opportunities.

 

Please stop talking about the rich people that stole from the rest of the country. Do you actually believe 50% of the United States are poor because the rich people stole from them or tricked them out of their money? If you really believe that, nobody here can help you, not even Romandad.

The problem is that MONEY is not the problem with american education or the education of the poor. Take a look at the numbers. we created the dept of education in the 70s. Since then we've poured hundreds of billions of dollars into it and student achievement has remained unchanged. Its another unmitigated failure. You could have simply handed each of the kids a check for 100 thousand dollars and the money probably would have done just as much good.

 

I don't know why some kids who have NOTHING wrong with them, refuse to study, skip class and drop out as soon as they can because they "don't like school". And other kids are born with severe learning disabilities, struggle every fcuking day, and go on to get three post graduate degrees. But I know that throwing money at the schools isn't the answer.

 

 

The problem with education has nothing to do with money, it has everything to do with parenting. If a person that didn't value education has a child, and that child has homework they don't under stand, what are the chances the person can help their child? The unlikely scenario is the child will seek help from their teacher and possibly succeed, or they will follow their parents example, find no use in education and end up bitching about minimum wage 20 years down the road. It is on the parents to actually be parents and help their children learn and become adults with skills that make them valuable to employers or better yet teach them how to create their own opportunities.

 

Please stop talking about the rich people that stole from the rest of the country. Do you actually believe 50% of the United States are poor because the rich people stole from them or tricked them out of their money? If you really believe that, nobody here can help you, not even Romandad.

I agree with you that parenting is just as important as the schooling, but the schooling and the education system are just as important.

 

I never said the rich stole money from the poor, at least not in the way you seemed to have read what I wrote. I didn't agree with what everything Inside Job said (I hope for sure that everyone who passes judgement on it has watched it) but when it comes to the facts, facts are facts. Just as I came home from my corporate finance midterm last night, I opened the news and saw this:

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-inves...article2206395/

I agree with you that parenting is just as important as the schooling, but the schooling and the education system are just as important.

 

I never said the rich stole money from the poor, at least not in the way you seemed to have read what I wrote. I didn't agree with what everything Inside Job said (I hope for sure that everyone who passes judgement on it has watched it) but when it comes to the facts, facts are facts. Just as I came home from my corporate finance midterm last night, I opened the news and saw this:

 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-inves...article2206395/

Fines under a billion dollars aren't news for major banks or un-common in any economic situation

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/globe-inves...article2206395/

 

Interesting.

 

The bottom line is I'm ok with the fact that I probably will never be as rich as these guys. That's fine with me despite the fact that Wall Street creates no value to society (just move money from one pocket to the other)....it's a private club with few easy ways of getting in. I don't want anything from them, and they do not owe me anything either.

 

However, this public endangerment of other people's money is serious, serious stuff. Just because no one died here, like they would of malpractice (negligent MD), or a bridge collapse (negligent PE), or whatever doesn't mean this isn't as serious or WORSE. I consider

 

Citi paying $285 million is getting the easy way out. The real punishment is a personal lawsuit against the individuals responsible and/or jail time.

 

If Occupy Wall Street was focused solely on this issue, it would be a worthy movement. The whiny liberal stance is not worthy.

 

While I agree with a lot of what RD has said in this thread relating to capitalism, liberty, being a man and taking care of yourself, etc. I wonder how he will spin this as a non issue?

Interesting.

 

The bottom line is I'm ok with the fact that I probably will never be as rich as these guys. That's fine with me despite the fact that Wall Street creates no value to society (just move money from one pocket to the other)....it's a private club with few easy ways of getting in. I don't want anything from them, and they do not owe me anything either.

 

However, this public endangerment of other people's money is serious, serious stuff. Just because no one died here, like they would of malpractice (negligent MD), or a bridge collapse (negligent PE), or whatever doesn't mean this isn't as serious or WORSE. I consider

 

Citi paying $285 million is getting the easy way out. The real punishment is a personal lawsuit against the individuals responsible and/or jail time.

 

If Occupy Wall Street was focused solely on this issue, it would be a worthy movement. The whiny liberal stance is not worthy.

 

While I agree with a lot of what RD has said in this thread relating to capitalism, liberty, being a man and taking care of yourself, etc. I wonder how he will spin this as a non issue?

well to start as RD already pointed out he raised cash before the market crash in his account and he reduced his losses, i bet a banker didn't call him in an attempt to force him to re-invest all of it and if he did RD would have told him to go fcuk himself. So whose money did they lose? All the foreclosures as mentioned earlier i believe only hurt the home buyer at a maxium of 20% of home value (closer to the >10% in most cases) the banks are then stuck with 80%+ of the home value downside. So they take serious downside and downside risk compared to the individual. Finally, to go back to the overly beaten point where did they force anyone to do anything with their money that the person wasn't in a position to object too if he or she wished.

well to start as RD already pointed out he raised cash before the market crash in his account and he reduced his losses, i bet a banker didn't call him in an attempt to force him to re-invest all of it and if he did RD would have told him to go fcuk himself. So whose money did they lose? All the foreclosures as mentioned earlier i believe only hurt the home buyer at a maxium of 20% of home value (closer to the >10% in most cases) the banks are then stuck with 80%+ of the home value downside. So they take serious downside and downside risk compared to the individual. Finally, to go back to the overly beaten point where did they force anyone to do anything with their money that the person wasn't in a position to object too if he or she wished.

 

I guess there's no moral/ethical code for lending, a pre-requisite to work in the industry perhaps? The idea is if it's not illegal, then by all means proceed...right?

 

I don't know if I totally agree that banks take more risk.......they are quite risk averse by nature, at least since the S&L crisis of the '80s. You give a 10 or 20% down payment to reduce their risk if you foreclose. Weren't a good # of these loans backed by Freddy and Fannie (or FHA)?

 

Even if presented with great opportunities for high returns, banks do not want to own real estate, nor sell it. If they felt that way in 1999, I'm sure they feel a lot more strongly about it now.

 

Looking back, the banks had to have some idea this would happen and if it did the government would be forced to give them a bailout instead of letting them fail. Moral hazard as they say.

On pet peeve of mine is like with that cartoon, when it says about "giving back' to society. That implies that in order to become successful, you had to take something from society, which isn't true. If you create a company and provide products/ services and become worth hundreds of millions of dollars, you ADDED to society. That's how you became rich. You can then use some of your wealth to GIVE to society. But you aren't "giving back" anything because you never took anything to begin with.

 

Interesting.

 

The bottom line is I'm ok with the fact that I probably will never be as rich as these guys. That's fine with me despite the fact that Wall Street creates no value to society (just move money from one pocket to the other)....it's a private club with few easy ways of getting in. I don't want anything from them, and they do not owe me anything either.

 

Well actually, that's not true. That's a common misconception about financiers and the financial system, one that goes back thousands of years, that they are all just leeches on the system who don't really create anything and just move money around, but the reality is more complex than that. Financiers, bankers, the financial system overall, all play a very important role in the economy.

 

However, this public endangerment of other people's money is serious, serious stuff. Just because no one died here, like they would of malpractice (negligent MD), or a bridge collapse (negligent PE), or whatever doesn't mean this isn't as serious or WORSE. I consider

 

I think the economist Raghuram Rajuran summed the crisis up well: ""The problem, as often is the case with government policies, was not intent. It rarely is. But when lots of easy money pushed by a deep-pocketed government comes into contact with the profit motive of a sophisticated, competitive, and amoral financial sector, matters get taken far beyond the government's intent" (http://www.project-syndicate.org/commentary/rajan7/English). Rajan is an economist who believes that inequality did contribute to the crisis, but he is not one of those far-leftwing economists, his analysis is strictly academic in nature (the ideologues try to absolve the government of any involvement in the financial crisis whatsoever). As said I am very skeptical of the whole "inequality is bad thing" notion, but people like Rajan I think are worth reading for their opinions on the subject.

Congratulations Occupy Wallstreet. You got the coveted

!.

Congratulations Occupy Wallstreet. You got the coveted

!.

hahahahaha ben "shalom" bernake, great.