A zero sum game is a game in which for every winner there is a person who loses to an equal extent. Clearly the economy is not a zero sum game.
You are right, I was wrong. It's not zero sum. I wanted to object to the idea that technology can advance us out of the problems of a 1% hoarding all of the wealth, because while it's not zero sum, when a few people keep the majority of the wealth, other people *do* lose out, even if it's not at a perfect mathematical ratio. We have iphones, but not healthcare for all. We have new videogame delivery platforms, but not fair steady wages (and pensions) for all good competent game developers. We have space ships, but can't feed everyone even inside our own borders. We can fit the entire encyclopedia on a kindle, but we still have huge problems with literacy and reading comprehension among US citizens. Technology advancement benefits the 1% first (and mostly through frivolous luxury goods), and eventually enough of it becomes cheap enough that some of the other 99% gets to enjoy a token portion of it, but just being able to buy some of this shit doesn't mean the system isn't miss-allocating resources.
A lot of that bad debt came from lending money to normal people who were buying giant stupid fucking SUVs and huge houses they didn't need and couldn't afford.
Implying the fault lies with overspending duplicitous lazy american consumers. But then when I called you on it, you totally changed your reason to:
Admitting you understand the crisis was caused by financial fraud on the side of the banks, but somehow that's an "ah hah!" gotcha moment on me? You completely backpedaled from consumer debt to bank fraud. Yes, once the banks were done doling out billions in loans they knew ahead of time were likely to go bad, repackaging them, securing them, insuring them, rating everyone elses AAA, investing more money in them, sure it became a problem. But your first implication, that it was caused by "dumb old 'merican consumers buying dem SUVees" is patently false.
Also ignoring that buying a house is an entrenched part of American culture, we are told we *must* buy, renting is throwing your money away, and houses rising in value (before 2009) was the only way to invest to gain any actual capital for retirement as a normal person. Then the banks go and make 100% loans as easy to get as using a coupon at the grocery store (and engaged in outright fraud on behalf of the consumer in many cases), and it's no wonder there were a lot of bad loans made. This is like writing a contract with a 5 year old and then blaming the 5 year old for not reading the fine print. It's flat out deceit from the side of the banks. Oh and look at that, the banks are the ones that got bailed out on these shady deals, whereas the homeowners have had either zero, or very paltry debt forgiveness plans for their houses, resulting in a huge spike in homelessness, tent cities, and over-dense apartment living.
Also ignoring that buying a house is an entrenched part of American culture, we are told we *must* buy, renting is throwing your money away, and houses rising in value (before 2009) was the only way to invest to gain any actual capital for retirement as a normal person.
Exactly. The explanation for that is the point I was trying to make earlier.
You're right that the immediate cause of these crises are the banks and the financial system, the 1%. But what I'm trying to say is that in the bigger picture, it all stems from desires within the American public. It's just that the public is totally fine with it when the 1% offers them a great deal. Only it's like signing your soul to the devil, one day you'll have to pay. That's the part where everyone gets pissed. But it's no good calling the 1% the Devil (which they are), if you willingly signed that deal.
So for instance, nobody gave a crap when Fannie and Freddie were established. Even though there were people warning of what will happen. Mind you, that speech is from 2003. But it's pretty simple. When Bush came out and said that the American dream is for everyone to own a home, and that his administration will make that easy for all, everyone cheered. See, everyone loves it when the 1% helps them out. But they didn't help anyone out, they never intended to. It was simply a plan to get people to commit to those mortgages. They're constantly looking for money streams from the lower classes to themselves. They know they're taking a big risk. But they also know that we're going to be the ones who will flip the bill when the time comes.
So true, the fault lies squarely with those in the upper class that came up with this crap. But ultimately, we're responsible for our own fates. And at the core there's still the philosophy of easy money going on, and everyone deserving to own a home, everyone deserving a nice big retirement, everyone deserving everything.
Admitting you understand the crisis was caused by financial fraud on the side of the banks, but somehow that's an "ah hah!" gotcha moment on me? You completely backpedaled from consumer debt to bank fraud.
Oh it was clearly both, stupid Americans and asshole thief bankers. A lot of soccer moms bought multiple houses on ARMs expecting to flip them before their adjustment kicked in, but then the housing bubble burst -- they knew exactly what they were doing. Some people were pretty misinformed by the bank, while others probably should have known better. But the bankers were defrauding people with the bad debt made by consumers who bought things they couldn't pay for.
A lot of people can't control their credit spending, and the banks all of the sudden wanted to extend more credit to everyone. Is it the junkie's fault for wanting another hit, or the dealer's fault for trying to get him hooked in the first place?
I kind of assumed we all understood that the bankers are ultimately at fault for the whole situation as it stands, because they are the ones with the power and control-- which is why we are posting in the OWS thread.
edit: I think you read way too far into what I write. My statements are not part of a bigger narrative or philosophy. I'm just trying to write things I think are factually accurate.
A lot of people can't control their credit spending, and the banks all of the sudden wanted to extend more credit to everyone. Is it the junkie's fault for wanting another hit, or the dealer's fault for trying to get him hooked in the first place?
For a lot of people it is impossible to control credit spending because it is a necessity to maintain a basic living standard in America. Wages have been stagnating since the 70s, but the essentials haven't (I've posted extensively about this in this very thread).
The better analogy is when a science lab gives only heroine laced food pellets to a rat in a cage, is it the rat's fault or the scientist's when the rat gets hooked?
So for instance, nobody gave a crap when Fannie and Freddie were established.
Fannie and Freddie are not at fault. Iceland has a direct equivalent, it's who I have my home mortgage from. I had to put down 36% of my house cost, but it was right after the financial collapse and not a single bank, despite having all been nationalized, would have made us a loan because they were all petrified of debt (having done the same stuff the US did, over-leverage and give out loans like candy). A government provided loan company for businesses or houses is not a bad thing. It's the other surrounding financial duplicity that ruined the housing markets.
An Oakland police officer is spotted with his name and badge number covered up on his uniform. He is questioned, which he does not answer. His superior is then questioned about the "tactic" of covering up parts of the uniform. His superior then tears the tape off his name patch: http://vimeo.com/31568216
But WHY would a cop want to cover up his identity??? What LEGAL reason is there for a cop to remain anonymous while ON DUTY?
An Oakland police officer is spotted with his name and badge number covered up on his uniform. He is questioned, which he does not answer. His superior is then questioned about the "tactic" of covering up parts of the uniform. His superior then tears the tape off his name patch: http://vimeo.com/31568216
But WHY would a cop want to cover up his identity??? What LEGAL reason is there for a cop to remain anonymous while ON DUTY?
Hmmmmm...
While I'm sure there could be illegal activities he might want to conceal he probably doesn't want to expose his off duty life to the chaos he is trying to keep under control.
"That sure is a pretty dog you have officer... "Anderson" it would be a shame if it Oh I dunno... ran away and got hit by a car..."
"I honestly don't know who keeps dumping my trash cans all over my lawn, it could be any one of 3,000 protestors who didn't like that I made them climb back up onto the sidewalk instead of stand in the street and get hit by traffic"
The better analogy is when a science lab gives only heroine laced food pellets to a rat in a cage, is it the rat's fault or the scientist's when the rat gets hooked?
This is not the most perfect data, but not terrible:
(this is family/household data)
The CPI is a bit of a cooked statistic, but it is more or less accurate over the long term, and does include medical care, food, fuel, education and lodging, so I don't think it's true that people are worse off than in the 70's, maybe other than the fact that we are in the middle of a global economic depression.
So wages have been pretty flat. Why is that? Here are some things that come to mind.
-- More women have entered the workforce, and so the supply of workers forces wages down.
-- Globalization is causing wage equalization over broader markets.
-- Technology is making many jobs obsolete.
So I don't think the situation is THAT rigged.
In the future, so much will be automated, that a lot of people will have no skills of any value. Right now so much is automated that it is kind of trivial to provide economically worthless people everything they need to live a healthy life.
Here is one thing to consider: a lot of the "wealth" of the 1% is in fact hidden toxic debt, or otherwise does not really exist. If an investor pays a million dollars for 20% of a company that is destined to fail, on the books that company is worth 5 million dollars when it's real value is $0.
I suspect a large portion of the 1% are in fact broke.
This is not the most perfect data, but not terrible:
The CPI is a bit of a cooked statistic, but it is more or less accurate over the long term, and does include medical care, food, fuel, education and lodging, so I don't think it's true that people are worse off than in the 70's, maybe other than the fact that we are in the middle of a global economic depression.
So wages have been pretty flat. Why is that? Here are some things that come to mind.
-- More women have entered the workforce, and so the supply of workers forces wages down.
-- Globalization is causing wage equalization over broader markets.
-- Technology is making many jobs obsolete.
So I don't think the situation is THAT rigged.
In the future, so much will be automated, that a lot of people will have no skills of any value. Right now so much is automated that it is kind of trivial to provide economically worthless people everything they need to live a healthy life.
Here is one thing to consider: a lot of the "wealth" of the 1% is in fact hidden toxic debt, or otherwise does not really exist. If an investor pays a million dollars for 20% of a company that is destined to fail, on the books that company is worth 5 million dollars when it's real value is $0.
I suspect a large portion of the 1% are in fact broke.
First off, you're ignoring the fact that executive salaries have been increasing to almost 500 times what the lowest paid worker gets, but compared to 1970, which was only about 20 times more. That's the reason wages have stagnated. All of the raises are going to the wealthy, not the workers that produce all of the wealth in this country (hint: money is not wealth). Secondly, claiming that certain people that are the cogs in this machine are economically worthless is dishonest and disrespectful to people who are burdened with holding up the 1%.
The rest of your comment is pure conjecture and has no factual merit.
Secondly, claiming that certain people that are the cogs in this machine are economically worthless is dishonest and disrespectful to people who are burdened with holding up the 1%
Oh you told me Greever -- real economically worthless people don't exist, so lets put all those babies, octogenarians and cancer patients to work! In a coma? No problem! Greever knows a job for you!
@Vig, well I think it is helpful to understand their stakes. If they keep up the facade, then they get to be the most powerful people in the country, but if it's clear how broke they are then things will be much much worse for them -- although probably still better off than us!
Oh you told me Greever -- real economically worthless people don't exist, so lets put all those babies, octogenarians and cancer patients to work! In a coma? No problem! Greever knows a job for you!
@Vig, well I think it is helpful to understand their stakes. If they keep up the facade, then they get to be the most powerful people in the country, but if it's clear how broke they are then things will be much much worse for them -- although probably still better off than us!
"Economically worthless people" is just your opinion, a opinion that I do not share. Everyone has value, you just have a poor way of measuring it.
While I'm sure there could be illegal activities he might want to conceal he probably doesn't want to expose his off duty life to the chaos he is trying to keep under control.
You make a good point, as I'm sure there are plenty of people mad at cops in Oakland right now. However, a cop's duty brings him/her directly into contact with people all day every day that can form a personal vendetta. Its the job they do. They uphold the law to those who break it. I just think covering up your identification during an event that has already seen excessive police force is very suspect. Besides, his superior took it off and talked to him about it on a pedestrian's request, so you know he's not supposed to do that.
well I think it is helpful to understand their stakes. If they keep up the facade, then they get to be the most powerful people in the country, but if it's clear how broke they are then things will be much much worse for them -- although probably still better off than us!
I agree. There are a lot of hedge fund guys that don't have to pay taxes until they take their money out of the fund. So what do they do? They barrow against it using the fund as collateral. The chances are high that they'll never have to pay taxes in their life time...
Then you have people like Frank McCourt the former owners of the Dodgers (heh) that borrowed against future ticket sales to fund his lifestyle, and appeared broke on paper but in reality was rolling in disposable income. If he hadn't gotten overly greedy they would probably still be at it. So for every billionaire that is actually worth nothing, there are probably 5 or 6 that are worth billions but on paper appear broke, at least to the IRS...
So for every billionaire that is actually worth nothing, there are probably 5 or 6 that are worth billions but on paper appear broke, at least to the IRS...
Though households make more money than they did in the 1970s, mostly through putting a second worker in the workforce, they have less discretionary income than they once did. And they are also maxed out on available labor, leaving them extra vunerable to any additional shocks. That chart is from this blog post of mine, where we try to get a quant point-of-view on what a credit default swap on the middle class would look like (one of my favorite entries).
Those are nice graphs. I was going to talk more about female workforce participation, but I would have just gotten to the same point.
That is a pretty heavy finance blog -- seems interesting though, to the extent I understand it.
So I think that people in general are in kind of a shitty position, and it is not going to get any better for them unless they can force some changes. Most of the general public's leverage, especially if they are out of work, comes from their capacity to damage incomes for these mega-companies.
I think the changes that OWS should strive for are:
- Legalization and taxation of dope, and maybe other drugs. Free all people in jail on drug charges. Close the now mostly empty prisons. Use that money for education and community projects.
- I think we should turn medicine into a social service. Medical care is interesting because there is always information asymmetry between the consumer and provider, and it is the kind of service people only want if they really have to use it, so it is especially well suited towards being a government program.
- Tax rich people more and use it to make a higher quality and more inclusive "social safety net"
That's it for Babby's First Econ Lesson. You're welcome.
I know what economic value is and you're wrong, it's the utility of a good to society. And the value of an economic good is not dependent on the existence of a market. If you consider a living person to be a utility to society, they are not "economically worthless". What you mean to say is that they aren't generating income, which doesn't mean they are worthless. To label people as such is derogatory. You keep acting like you're an economics guru, but end up showing your ignorance far too often.
It is because they refuse to be sufficiently cowed, and cops can't stand that. They have to "show them who is boss".
I actually think that the cops are covertly helping the OWS movement. at least it seems that the police arrests and brutality only injected more fuel to the movement and gave it more media coverage.
I actually think that the cops are covertly helping the OWS movement. at least it seems that the police arrests and brutality only injected more fuel to the movement and gave it more media coverage.
I seriously doubt anyone willing to rupture a non-violent protestors spleen is doing it for "the greater good".
Its almost seems a little too convenient, there are thousands and thousands of protestors all over the US and other countries, of many ages, and occupations. Only two get hurt bad enough to wind up in intensive care, both vets of current military conflicts, both apparently doing nothing wrong, both in the same city. I'm not saying that means anything, but those are incredible odds.
Do you think any employer was foolish enough to schedule one on a day that was announced going to be a strike day?
...yeah. Yeah I could actually really see that happening. To think your average day job hiring manager pays an ounce of attention to anything, even the shit that's on your resume (from my experience), well that's just asking too much.
(FYI, it was meant to be a joke, poking fun at the fact that "shutting down" a city could in fact actually be a gigantic pain in the ass to the average citizen of the "99%")
...yeah. Yeah I could actually really see that happening. To think your average day job hiring manager pays an ounce of attention to anything, even the shit that's on your resume (from my experience), well that's just asking too much.
(FYI, it was meant to be a joke, poking fun at the fact that "shutting down" a city could in fact actually be a gigantic pain in the ass to the average citizen of the "99%")
I know it was snarky. Hence my snarky reply. Your joke could be used on most things. Including legal events. Like I HATE stadium games, and I can see someone missing a interview because of the traffic. Your specifically attempting humor at this while its really an everyday occurrence (someone missing interview because of outside factor).
...see, I just thought it was a funny thought because unlike...those other things, here we have people holding up signs like "I could lose my job for having a voice", people unhappy with the financial state of the country, unemployment...etc...yeah? Still no?
Tulsa PD deals with protesters that are sitting on the ground with their arms linked. Obviously, this violent and destructive threat needs to extinguished with point-blank pepper spray shots.
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IGtQDmFMY2s"]Police in Tulsa hold protesters head then pepper spray him in the face - YouTube[/ame]
That park curfew is NOT to be disobeyed. Park hours trump freedom of assembly every time. /sarcasm
That park curfew is NOT to be disobeyed. Park hours trump freedom of assembly every time. /sarcasm
I know you were being sarcastic, but there are many people (here on Pcount included) who say "the law is the law, no exceptions" except...
Cops have a code that basically amounts to always letting fellow cops go. When a cop pulls over an off-duty officer, the officer who was pulled over discreetly flashes his badge to let him know that he's on the force, and he's simply let go. You think we don't know what's going on, assholes?
Sometimes you write tickets for going 1 over the speed limit, sometimes it's 10. Then when you get called on doing something stupid like writing a ticket to someone for a law that shouldn't be enforced and rarely is (like jay-walking in New York), you hide behind your tired mantra that it's the law and that you have to be consistent. Except when you aren't.
It's not going anywhere until the entire current system is dismantled. It is the end result of allowing a few people to accumulate all the power (capitalism). I agree it needs to go, but nothing is going to happen to it until drastic measures are undertaken. It's just too convenient for those with the money, who fund those with the legislative power.
Interesting Ben, I didn't know it went as far back as 1819. I had thought it was started with Santa Clara Co. vs Southern Pacific Railroad. Thanks for the info.
Just saw this and thought it would be pertinent to our current conversation. Former LAPD Officer sends a message to all police officers concerning their actions against the occupy movement:
I believe that law and order must be upheld at all times. I sometimes criticize the movement's actions when dealing with the police, making police aggression inevitable. However, it's incredible that such force should be needed to "evict" people from public locations. They evicted my local occupation here last night in the middle of a rainstorm. They told people to get out of their tents and go walk (not "stand", because that blocks pedestrian traffic) on the sidewalk in the rain or they would be arrested. They also confiscated the media team's electronic equipment
And then theres this video, the beginning shows some provocateurs, yes.. but around the 1:00 mark they start arresting literally anyone and everyone, including a few old ladies, a girl trying to leave the protest, and a dude just standing around watching everything.
Bank of America refuses to let customers close accounts - YouTube
Was just waiting for this to happen, in the agreements people sign with their banks they state you need to give notice before you can withdraw large amounts of cash and they can suspend withdrawals at any time, they do this to prevent bank runs since banks are only required to keep a certain amount of cash on hand and most of the money in a bank is tied up in investments.
Replies
You are right, I was wrong. It's not zero sum. I wanted to object to the idea that technology can advance us out of the problems of a 1% hoarding all of the wealth, because while it's not zero sum, when a few people keep the majority of the wealth, other people *do* lose out, even if it's not at a perfect mathematical ratio. We have iphones, but not healthcare for all. We have new videogame delivery platforms, but not fair steady wages (and pensions) for all good competent game developers. We have space ships, but can't feed everyone even inside our own borders. We can fit the entire encyclopedia on a kindle, but we still have huge problems with literacy and reading comprehension among US citizens. Technology advancement benefits the 1% first (and mostly through frivolous luxury goods), and eventually enough of it becomes cheap enough that some of the other 99% gets to enjoy a token portion of it, but just being able to buy some of this shit doesn't mean the system isn't miss-allocating resources.
Implying the fault lies with overspending duplicitous lazy american consumers. But then when I called you on it, you totally changed your reason to:
Admitting you understand the crisis was caused by financial fraud on the side of the banks, but somehow that's an "ah hah!" gotcha moment on me? You completely backpedaled from consumer debt to bank fraud. Yes, once the banks were done doling out billions in loans they knew ahead of time were likely to go bad, repackaging them, securing them, insuring them, rating everyone elses AAA, investing more money in them, sure it became a problem. But your first implication, that it was caused by "dumb old 'merican consumers buying dem SUVees" is patently false.
Also ignoring that buying a house is an entrenched part of American culture, we are told we *must* buy, renting is throwing your money away, and houses rising in value (before 2009) was the only way to invest to gain any actual capital for retirement as a normal person. Then the banks go and make 100% loans as easy to get as using a coupon at the grocery store (and engaged in outright fraud on behalf of the consumer in many cases), and it's no wonder there were a lot of bad loans made. This is like writing a contract with a 5 year old and then blaming the 5 year old for not reading the fine print. It's flat out deceit from the side of the banks. Oh and look at that, the banks are the ones that got bailed out on these shady deals, whereas the homeowners have had either zero, or very paltry debt forgiveness plans for their houses, resulting in a huge spike in homelessness, tent cities, and over-dense apartment living.
Exactly. The explanation for that is the point I was trying to make earlier.
You're right that the immediate cause of these crises are the banks and the financial system, the 1%. But what I'm trying to say is that in the bigger picture, it all stems from desires within the American public. It's just that the public is totally fine with it when the 1% offers them a great deal. Only it's like signing your soul to the devil, one day you'll have to pay. That's the part where everyone gets pissed. But it's no good calling the 1% the Devil (which they are), if you willingly signed that deal.
So for instance, nobody gave a crap when Fannie and Freddie were established. Even though there were people warning of what will happen. Mind you, that speech is from 2003. But it's pretty simple. When Bush came out and said that the American dream is for everyone to own a home, and that his administration will make that easy for all, everyone cheered. See, everyone loves it when the 1% helps them out. But they didn't help anyone out, they never intended to. It was simply a plan to get people to commit to those mortgages. They're constantly looking for money streams from the lower classes to themselves. They know they're taking a big risk. But they also know that we're going to be the ones who will flip the bill when the time comes.
So true, the fault lies squarely with those in the upper class that came up with this crap. But ultimately, we're responsible for our own fates. And at the core there's still the philosophy of easy money going on, and everyone deserving to own a home, everyone deserving a nice big retirement, everyone deserving everything.
Oh it was clearly both, stupid Americans and asshole thief bankers. A lot of soccer moms bought multiple houses on ARMs expecting to flip them before their adjustment kicked in, but then the housing bubble burst -- they knew exactly what they were doing. Some people were pretty misinformed by the bank, while others probably should have known better. But the bankers were defrauding people with the bad debt made by consumers who bought things they couldn't pay for.
A lot of people can't control their credit spending, and the banks all of the sudden wanted to extend more credit to everyone. Is it the junkie's fault for wanting another hit, or the dealer's fault for trying to get him hooked in the first place?
I kind of assumed we all understood that the bankers are ultimately at fault for the whole situation as it stands, because they are the ones with the power and control-- which is why we are posting in the OWS thread.
edit: I think you read way too far into what I write. My statements are not part of a bigger narrative or philosophy. I'm just trying to write things I think are factually accurate.
For a lot of people it is impossible to control credit spending because it is a necessity to maintain a basic living standard in America. Wages have been stagnating since the 70s, but the essentials haven't (I've posted extensively about this in this very thread).
The better analogy is when a science lab gives only heroine laced food pellets to a rat in a cage, is it the rat's fault or the scientist's when the rat gets hooked?
Fannie and Freddie are not at fault. Iceland has a direct equivalent, it's who I have my home mortgage from. I had to put down 36% of my house cost, but it was right after the financial collapse and not a single bank, despite having all been nationalized, would have made us a loan because they were all petrified of debt (having done the same stuff the US did, over-leverage and give out loans like candy). A government provided loan company for businesses or houses is not a bad thing. It's the other surrounding financial duplicity that ruined the housing markets.
http://vimeo.com/31568216
But WHY would a cop want to cover up his identity??? What LEGAL reason is there for a cop to remain anonymous while ON DUTY?
Hmmmmm...
This is not the most perfect data, but not terrible:
(this is family/household data)
The CPI is a bit of a cooked statistic, but it is more or less accurate over the long term, and does include medical care, food, fuel, education and lodging, so I don't think it's true that people are worse off than in the 70's, maybe other than the fact that we are in the middle of a global economic depression.
So wages have been pretty flat. Why is that? Here are some things that come to mind.
-- More women have entered the workforce, and so the supply of workers forces wages down.
-- Globalization is causing wage equalization over broader markets.
-- Technology is making many jobs obsolete.
So I don't think the situation is THAT rigged.
In the future, so much will be automated, that a lot of people will have no skills of any value. Right now so much is automated that it is kind of trivial to provide economically worthless people everything they need to live a healthy life.
Here is one thing to consider: a lot of the "wealth" of the 1% is in fact hidden toxic debt, or otherwise does not really exist. If an investor pays a million dollars for 20% of a company that is destined to fail, on the books that company is worth 5 million dollars when it's real value is $0.
I suspect a large portion of the 1% are in fact broke.
First off, you're ignoring the fact that executive salaries have been increasing to almost 500 times what the lowest paid worker gets, but compared to 1970, which was only about 20 times more. That's the reason wages have stagnated. All of the raises are going to the wealthy, not the workers that produce all of the wealth in this country (hint: money is not wealth). Secondly, claiming that certain people that are the cogs in this machine are economically worthless is dishonest and disrespectful to people who are burdened with holding up the 1%.
The rest of your comment is pure conjecture and has no factual merit.
Oh you told me Greever -- real economically worthless people don't exist, so lets put all those babies, octogenarians and cancer patients to work! In a coma? No problem! Greever knows a job for you!
@Vig, well I think it is helpful to understand their stakes. If they keep up the facade, then they get to be the most powerful people in the country, but if it's clear how broke they are then things will be much much worse for them -- although probably still better off than us!
"Economically worthless people" is just your opinion, a opinion that I do not share. Everyone has value, you just have a poor way of measuring it.
Can you not read at all? maybe you did not spot the word "economically" in there. Maybe you don't know what that word means?
"An economic value is the worth of a good or service as determined by the market."
(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Value_(economics))
That's it for Babby's First Econ Lesson. You're welcome.
You make a good point, as I'm sure there are plenty of people mad at cops in Oakland right now. However, a cop's duty brings him/her directly into contact with people all day every day that can form a personal vendetta. Its the job they do. They uphold the law to those who break it. I just think covering up your identification during an event that has already seen excessive police force is very suspect. Besides, his superior took it off and talked to him about it on a pedestrian's request, so you know he's not supposed to do that.
That's a great poem btw. Thx for the share.
Then you have people like Frank McCourt the former owners of the Dodgers (heh) that borrowed against future ticket sales to fund his lifestyle, and appeared broke on paper but in reality was rolling in disposable income. If he hadn't gotten overly greedy they would probably still be at it. So for every billionaire that is actually worth nothing, there are probably 5 or 6 that are worth billions but on paper appear broke, at least to the IRS...
Hehe, good point.
I think this is better data (since women entering the workforce is of course going to increase household median income, with two workers, duh):
(from here: http://rortybomb.wordpress.com/2010/01/15/stangant-wages-and-the-financial-bubble-ii-replies/)
Though households make more money than they did in the 1970s, mostly through putting a second worker in the workforce, they have less discretionary income than they once did. And they are also maxed out on available labor, leaving them extra vunerable to any additional shocks. That chart is from this blog post of mine, where we try to get a quant point-of-view on what a credit default swap on the middle class would look like (one of my favorite entries).
And this one:
From here: http://modeledbehavior.com/2010/07/22/income-inequality-a-deeper-look/
It is depressing and very true.
Those are nice graphs. I was going to talk more about female workforce participation, but I would have just gotten to the same point.
That is a pretty heavy finance blog -- seems interesting though, to the extent I understand it.
So I think that people in general are in kind of a shitty position, and it is not going to get any better for them unless they can force some changes. Most of the general public's leverage, especially if they are out of work, comes from their capacity to damage incomes for these mega-companies.
I think the changes that OWS should strive for are:
- Legalization and taxation of dope, and maybe other drugs. Free all people in jail on drug charges. Close the now mostly empty prisons. Use that money for education and community projects.
- I think we should turn medicine into a social service. Medical care is interesting because there is always information asymmetry between the consumer and provider, and it is the kind of service people only want if they really have to use it, so it is especially well suited towards being a government program.
- Tax rich people more and use it to make a higher quality and more inclusive "social safety net"
- Restructure the banking/finance industry.
I know what economic value is and you're wrong, it's the utility of a good to society. And the value of an economic good is not dependent on the existence of a market. If you consider a living person to be a utility to society, they are not "economically worthless". What you mean to say is that they aren't generating income, which doesn't mean they are worthless. To label people as such is derogatory. You keep acting like you're an economics guru, but end up showing your ignorance far too often.
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/04/occupy-oakland-second-veteran-injured
***updaate
http://www.baycitizen.org/occupy-movement/story/iraq-war-vet-says-he-was-injured/
It is because they refuse to be sufficiently cowed, and cops can't stand that. They have to "show them who is boss".
I actually think that the cops are covertly helping the OWS movement. at least it seems that the police arrests and brutality only injected more fuel to the movement and gave it more media coverage.
http://www.baycitizen.org/courts/story/judge-slams-oakland-leaders-slow-police/2/
[ame="
Do you think any employer was foolish enough to schedule one on a day that was announced going to be a strike day? Especially one in the port itself?
Just watched this. It's absolutely brilliant!
...yeah. Yeah I could actually really see that happening. To think your average day job hiring manager pays an ounce of attention to anything, even the shit that's on your resume (from my experience), well that's just asking too much.
(FYI, it was meant to be a joke, poking fun at the fact that "shutting down" a city could in fact actually be a gigantic pain in the ass to the average citizen of the "99%")
I know it was snarky. Hence my snarky reply. Your joke could be used on most things. Including legal events. Like I HATE stadium games, and I can see someone missing a interview because of the traffic. Your specifically attempting humor at this while its really an everyday occurrence (someone missing interview because of outside factor).
...right. Continue with the youtube videos then.
[ame="
That park curfew is NOT to be disobeyed. Park hours trump freedom of assembly every time. /sarcasm
$4.5 BILLION transferred out of big banks and into credit unions, says the Credit Union National Association (CUNA).
http://www.occupyboston.org/2011/11/06/it-credit-unions-4-5-billion-savings-transferred-big-banks-month/
However, this amount was calculated before yesterday's "Bank Transfer Day" that occupations across the country were actively participating in.
[ame]www.youtube.com/watch?v=FwtRg2WMm6A[/ame]
Corporate personhood is bullshit and needs to stop.
I know you were being sarcastic, but there are many people (here on Pcount included) who say "the law is the law, no exceptions" except...
Cops have a code that basically amounts to always letting fellow cops go. When a cop pulls over an off-duty officer, the officer who was pulled over discreetly flashes his badge to let him know that he's on the force, and he's simply let go. You think we don't know what's going on, assholes?
Sometimes you write tickets for going 1 over the speed limit, sometimes it's 10. Then when you get called on doing something stupid like writing a ticket to someone for a law that shouldn't be enforced and rarely is (like jay-walking in New York), you hide behind your tired mantra that it's the law and that you have to be consistent. Except when you aren't.
(courtesy of Maddox http://thebestpageintheuniverse.net/c.cgi?u=message_to_cops )
Corporate personhood started in 1819. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporate_personhood
It's not going anywhere until the entire current system is dismantled. It is the end result of allowing a few people to accumulate all the power (capitalism). I agree it needs to go, but nothing is going to happen to it until drastic measures are undertaken. It's just too convenient for those with the money, who fund those with the legislative power.
http://october2011.org/blogs/kevin-zeese/message-all-police-officers-former-lapd-officer-and-occupy-wall-street-supporter
Holy shit @ 5:50!
I believe that law and order must be upheld at all times. I sometimes criticize the movement's actions when dealing with the police, making police aggression inevitable. However, it's incredible that such force should be needed to "evict" people from public locations. They evicted my local occupation here last night in the middle of a rainstorm. They told people to get out of their tents and go walk (not "stand", because that blocks pedestrian traffic) on the sidewalk in the rain or they would be arrested. They also confiscated the media team's electronic equipment
Sigh...
[ame="
I just don't get it.
That was two months ago...
It isn't like they changed their policy. Plenty of stories about people not being allowed to close their account that are recent.