OCCUPY

[dre]

So it seems that there will be violence, but there won't be a revolution.

Theres no need for revolution. If the occupiers and teapartiers and a LOT of other people are right, then the system is not sustainable and will collapse under its own weight. Its the sustainability of the system thats in question here. Is it sustainable to keep concentrating wealth this fast? Is it sustainable to solve every economic problem with monetary expansion? Is it sustainable allowing private banks to charge interest on money they do not have to loan you in the first place?

If its unsustainable then the practice will collapse/end. Thats just what unsustainable systems do.

I suppose its possible that some sort of revolution could speed it along. But it seems unlikely to me.

Edited November 7, 2011 by dre

[Michael Hardner]

Mike. Trying looking at these protests as a symptom that change might be necessary, or unavoidable, instead of expecting them to CAUSE the change. Kind of like a canary in a coal mine.

I think I've known this, as have others such as the Tea Party.

And the reality is that the fractional reserve monetary system (which is what all these events in our economy are derived from) is the biggest power that exists in the world today. This system is utterly entrenched. Its not going to be brought down because of some negotiations we have with some protesters, or by some act of government.

I didn't realize that the fractional reserve system was the source of these events. It's been with us a long time, though, and my understanding is that the 1% have really started to take off only in the past 40-50 years...

If you are in the second camp like I am then it just doesnt matter. The system will change when it collapses under its own weight. Not a second sooner, and not a second later, and not because theres a bunch of people camping out in the park.

I can have an opinion about the protests and an opinion about the economy and they don't have to be related.

You sound like a Marxist to me. Is that the case ? If so, then maybe the re-emergence of Marxism is the biggest canary in the coal mine of all. It's been relegated to the fringe for a long time - probably too long.

While its collapsing though its going to destroy a lot of peoples lives and piss a lot of people off, and theyre going to take the streets. But they wont be the ones that CAUSE reform to happen. Reform will happen after the system collapses and we have to rebuild from the ground up.

Sounds like a revolution to me. I don't see happening soon though.

[Michael Hardner]

Quit being obtuse.

See Derek's posting above.

Obtuse ? I extrapolated the forced evictions, and violence and you said the protest had more resolve than that. What did I miss ?

[jacee]

So it seems that there will be violence, but there won't be a revolution.

No. They'd be blending in if they were planning to do any bank busting.

Black Block strategies have never included personal violence.

I don't believe they will put the protesters at risk by bank busting either.

Maybe some of you missed this ... not sure if it came from Toronto or NY ... but I know

OCCUPY agreed and communicated that Black Bloc tactics could not be used as the protesters wouldn't be able to tell BB from police provocateurs. Full stop.

The protesters need the moral support, security and protection. I'm glad so many people showed up and marched with them. And a large escort of bicycle police is always nice.

Well done!

[Michael Hardner]

Ye of little faith...

No surprises there, you're too far to the right to fully appreciate the support this movement has

I have to be sure to bookmark this, as I think I'm one of the few posters here to be accused of being right and left. Of course, I humbly thank you.

As to whether I'm too far to the right to appreciate the support, you may be right. I don't think that they have broad support, though, and I'm trying to be objective in that assessment. I haven't seen anything on this thread to change my mind.

[Michael Hardner]

Is it sustainable to keep concentrating wealth this fast? Is it sustainable to solve every economic problem with monetary expansion? Is it sustainable allowing private banks to charge interest on money they do not have to loan you in the first place?

I don't think it's sustainable for the trend of wealth concentration to continue, but other factors may change that. Monetary expansion - lower interest rates and increased government spending ? No, that's limited too as we've seen.

[bush_cheney2004]

I have to be sure to bookmark this, as I think I'm one of the few posters here to be accused of being right and left. Of course, I humbly thank you.

Well, consider the source. Everybody is to the right of a such a mindset.

[jacee]

Theres no need for revolution. If the occupiers and teapartiers and a LOT of other people are right, then the system is not sustainable and will collapse under its own weight. Its the sustainability of the system thats in question here. Is it sustainable to keep concentrating wealth this fast? Is it sustainable to solve every economic problem with monetary expansion? Is it sustainable allowing private banks to charge interest on money they do not have to loan you in the first place?

If its unsustainable then the practice will collapse/end. Thats just what unsustainable systems do.

I suppose its possible that some sort of revolution could speed it along. But it seems unlikely to me.

Revolutionary change can occur without personal violence, I believe.

And I think we're seeing it.

All minds needed.

[cybercoma]

Hey, does anyone remember tha time the Tea Party held that rally and everyone brought their guns and waved them around in public, then the cops came in and shot them with rubber bullets and tear gas?

Yeah, me neither.

[WWWTT]

Revolutionary change can occur without personal violence, I believe.

And I think we're seeing it.

All minds needed.

Agreed.

From my perspective OCCUPY is maintaining a peacefull protest and wish to continue this.

Any effective protest must attain some level of inconvenience to have any success.

And OCCUPY is exerting a timed/measured tolerable amount and their persistance is achieving the goal of exerting the "neccessary" inconvenience!

If there is any violence it will be initiated from the establishment.

Thats a no-brainer.

WWWTT

[dre]

I think I've known this, as have others such as the Tea Party.

I didn't realize that the fractional reserve system was the source of these events. It's been with us a long time, though, and my understanding is that the 1% have really started to take off only in the past 40-50 years...

I can have an opinion about the protests and an opinion about the economy and they don't have to be related.

You sound like a Marxist to me. Is that the case ? If so, then maybe the re-emergence of Marxism is the biggest canary in the coal mine of all. It's been relegated to the fringe for a long time - probably too long.

Sounds like a revolution to me. I don't see happening soon though.

I didn't realize that the fractional reserve system was the source of these events. It's been with us a long time, though, and my understanding is that the 1% have really started to take off only in the past 40-50 years...

Until the 1970's the system was restrained by the watered down bretton woods gold standard. Up until then the ratio of how much commercial banks lend to how much they keep in their vault never surpassed 15:1. In the 90's we removed reserve requirements completely, and according a BoC review had soared to nearly 400-1 by 2000. So while its true that the FR has been around for a long time, what we have now is a completely different beast.

You sound like a Marxist to me. Is that the case ?

No this has nothing to do with marxism at all. Im a capitalist, thus my interest in money and banking and how it effects the economy. Mackenzie king isnt a communist either. Im also not completely anti FR either. It has had practical value despite the fact that its based on fraud. Its effective during very strong periods of economic growth and expansion... which is exactly why when bankers got caught practicing this fraud the English legalized it and sanctioned it. They needed all that fraudulent money to expend their realm.

[Michael Hardner]

Until the 1970's the system was restrained by the watered down bretton woods gold standard. Up until then the ratio of how much commercial banks lend to how much they keep in their vault never surpassed 15:1. In the 90's we removed reserve requirements completely, and according a BoC review had soared to nearly 400-1 by 2000. So while its true that the FR has been around for a long time, what we have now is a completely different beast.

If they lend money that they don't have, and it doesn't get paid back then they are on the hook for it... at least until the bailout.

No this has nothing to do with marxism at all. Im a capitalist, thus my interest in money and banking and how it effects the economy. Mackenzie king isnt a communist either. Im also not completely anti FR either. It has had practical value despite the fact that its based on fraud. Its effective during very strong periods of economic growth and expansion... which is exactly why when bankers got caught practicing this fraud the English legalized it and sanctioned it. They needed all that fraudulent money to expend their realm.

Isn't this more about too much deregulation, and banks being allowed to get themselves in trouble, then ask the government to save them ?

[dre]

If they lend money that they don't have, and it doesn't get paid back then they are on the hook for it... at least until the bailout.

Isn't this more about too much deregulation, and banks being allowed to get themselves in trouble, then ask the government to save them ?

If they lend money that they don't have, and it doesn't get paid back then they are on the hook for it... at least until the bailout.

Hold on. If I print some money on my printer and lend it out at interest, how can I really lose money in the trasaction? I can fail to recognize profit, but I cant lose money. Ok... thats not exactly true. I could lose 1 dollar for every 400 in loans that gets defaulted on.

You have to understand that when the bank sits down with a borrower to talk about a loan, both the bank and the borrower are arriving at the table with empty pockets. Modern commercial banks dont actually loan you anything. The money you borrow is not in existance until you sign a contract to pay it back. Once that contract is signed the guy at the bank simply walks up to a computer and writes the money into your account. Even if you dont pay them back a cent they can still make a profit because they can sieze your real assets as repayment for a loan of money they did not even have.

Isn't this more about too much deregulation, and banks being allowed to get themselves in trouble, then ask the government to save them ?

The fractional reserve system IS deregulation. The severing of ties between dollars and anything of any real value was also reregulation, and in Canada eliminating reserve requirements was also deregulation. First we allowed outright fraud... and gave the banks the right to collect interest on loaning money they do not posess (You or I would go to jail for that). Then we removed the only thing that placed any boundaries on the extent of that fraud.

Heres a quick breakdown of the scam.

The following figures for 1996 are from the Bank of Canada Review, Spring 1997, and Statistics Canada. In 1996 the GDP (gross domestic product) was $797.8 billion. The federal debt was $469.4 billion or 58.1 percent of the GDP. Interest payments on the federal debt—mostly financed with interest-bearing bank created money (BCM) rather than interest-free government created money (GCM)—amounted to $45.3 billion. The interest on the 6.7 percent of the federal debt held by The Bank of Canada and other government agencies flows back to government on our behalf. The approximately $42.2 billion in interest on the remaining 93.2 percent of the federal debt held by private banks and other members of the financial elite, domestic and foreign, is basically a subsidy to the wealthy. For reasons that have nothing to do with economic sense and everything to do with the fact that money buys political influence our government taxes ordinary citizens to pay for that subsidy. Assuming 15 million taxpayers (children and poor people don’t pay taxes) we divide $42.2 billion of interest by 15 million and get an average of $2813 per taxpayer. But when you add provincial and other public debt to the federal debt you get a total of approximately $650 billion. So let’s say about $3500 per taxpayer.

Now what about private debt? If you have a $160,000 mortgage or small business loan at 7 percent, and it is amortized over 25 years, then your average annual interest will be $7242. (Over the 25 year period you’ll pay $181,050 in interest, which is more than the principal.) Yet there’s no economic reason why a government agency couldn’t create and lend you that $160,000 at just enough to cover the cost of administering the loan, say 0.25 percent. Now your annual interest would be $206.

Here’s another way of looking at the folly of BCM. In 1999 bank credit amounted to $557 billion, almost 95 percent of our money supply. Real interest (i.e. nominal interest minus inflation) on this bank credit was at least 5 percent, or $28 billion. But where is this interest to come from since banks create credit, but not the interest they charge on that credit? It can’t come from the approximately $32 billion in cash (GCM) that circulates in public hands. It can only come from more bank credit with more interest attached. But for all existing bank credit to be paid without anyone defaulting on their loans, the economy must expand by 2.9 percent ($28 billion of interest divided by the GDP, $953 billion). Since the average annual real GDP growth from 1960 to 1995 was only 2.3 percent, the economy is going to repeatedly stumble in its effort to keep up with the interest payments on all that bank credit. This is the root cause of what is known as the business cycle, and there’s nothing inevitable about it. A lot of economic weather is man made. It is tolerated because it is the consequence of a system designed to provide investment income to those with financial assets. The cost to the community is increasing public and private debt with all the economic failure and misery that goes with it when the economy slows. What we have in a debt money system is cruelty motivated by self-interest and rationalized under the guise of economic law.

Edited November 7, 2011 by dre

[Shwa]

It means there's no end to it. It will just continue as a kind of sideshow, with the same political effectiveness.

Really, are you sure?

A few pages back you were perplexed with the strategy, now you purport to know it? The problem is, you are trying to analyze it historically by projecting yourself into the future and looking back.

[Shwa]

Indeed. As soon as the first Starbucks or department store or bank window is smashed, that will be the end of the campground……..

Unless they have Canuck jerseys on.

[cybercoma]

I'm more cynical. It's going to end. Violently. And nothing will have changed. The discourse might be raised. People may become more aware of the "issues". Hell, the government may even pass through some symbolic legislation for the protestors. The system will then co-opt the movement, repackage it and sell it back to the protestors at a profit.

[Guest Derek L]

Unless they have Canuck jerseys on.

I don’t know if that would help them………Have you seen how the Canucks have been playing lately?

[Michael Hardner]

Really, are you sure?

A few pages back you were perplexed with the strategy, now you purport to know it? The problem is, you are trying to analyze it historically by projecting yourself into the future and looking back.

I was perplexed with the lack of strategy, I guess.

[bush_cheney2004]

I was perplexed with the lack of strategy, I guess.

There is no strategy...like dogs who chase cars. What are they gonna do when they catch one.

[Guest Derek L]

There is no strategy...like dogs who chase cars. What are they gonna do when they catch one.

Yup, these folks seem ill prepared to even run a campground without outside help………let alone a nation.

[Wild Bill]

Yup, these folks seem ill prepared to even run a campground without outside help………let alone a nation.

You know Derek, there's been a meme out there for a while that we've been experiencing a "dumbing down" of each of the last few generations. Not the ordinary attitude of folks when they get old of thinking the kids don't know anything but a real, actual loss of sophistication, of "smarts".

I first began to think about this myself back when I was in high school. We had one old lady teacher who was retired but came in once in a while as a substitute. When I was in Grade 11, she was there to "babysit" us for a spare period and asked us if we were interested in taking an English reading and comprehension test that she used to give 30 years earlier.

We were a cocky bunch, with most of us taking advanced level courses. We said "Sure!" expecting to ace a test from "caveman" days.

The results were that our class average by this old test's standards was Grade 7. We had a few of us score like a Grade 3!

I was in the last class to be offered Latin. There were only a handful of us left. This lady in her time used to teach Greek, to a full class!

This was the 60's. Within a decade Ontario stopped teaching reading with phonics and turned out an entire generation of virtual functional illiterates before they backtracked with their error!

So every time I see an article, clip or interview on these "Occupy" protesters I' can't help but compare them with the generation that protested for black rights and against the Viet Nam war.

The differences are striking! There are no intellectuals in this new movement! They seem to have no articulate spokespeople! No idea of what they want and not even a concrete idea of just exactly what they are protesting against!

In those old days every demonstration would have speakers well-versed in the issues, with megaphones or PA systems. Most of these protests were on university campuses. Many speakers would be prominent intellectuals from highly placed positions in society.

What do we see today? A bunch of slackers camping out in parks with absolutely no idea of any specifics of their protest! Who, as you say, don't even know how to run a campsite let alone a protest movement! Hell, the cities have to provide them with Port-A-Potties because building a latrine is a cosmic mystery to them!

I think it's a huge and significant difference. I'm not sure exactly what it means but it certainly bears some serious study! If this truly is a trend, where is it going to end up?

No wonder we've never gone back to the Moon! We're no longer smart enough to do it!

Edited November 7, 2011 by Wild Bill

[jacee]

Hey, does anyone remember tha time the Tea Party held that rally and everyone brought their guns and waved them around in public, then the cops came in and shot them with rubber bullets and tear gas?

Yeah, me neither.

Rotflmao

[jacee]

Derek L, on 06 November 2011 - 09:00 PM, said: Indeed. As soon as the first Starbucks or department store or bank window is smashed, th will be the end of the campground……

Unless they have Canuck jerseys on.

Edited November 7, 2011 by jacee

[CPCFTW]

I don't see anything wrong with government borrowing money at 1-3%. If you think of government as a corporation, governments have an incredible cost of capital. The problem is that governments placate the electorate with poor investments that have immeasurable, or negative returns. What I would suggest, which I think is a compromise people that both the left and right could live with, is governments participating more on the buy side of capital markets.

My suggestion is that governments use the proceeds of their t-bill and bond issues to purchase a diversified portfolio of non-voting (except in the event of a takeover bid) shares and bonds of companies. The government should be employing financial analysts, investment bankers, portfolio managers, etc. since capitalism will be the means of production for the foreseeable future (regardless of what the heroine addicts have to say).

I suggest non-voting shares, because we wouldn't want governments to begin placating the electorate by promising to elect protectionist or "green" board members that will reduce the competitiveness of the firms we invest in. However, as a significant shareholder, we would still want to retain the right to vote for/against merger/takeover offers.

There are many benefits to such a model:

1. Heavy government investment in Canadian firms will provide capital for domestic job creation and international competitiveness.

2. We will have measurable returns on investment.

3. The difference between the government's return on investment and our cost of capital can be used to service debt, pay for infrastructure, military, socialist "collective" projects like health care and education, or even distribute dividend payments to Canadians.

Basically what I am suggesting is that the government tax us to save for us.

For the hippies, the "people" (represented by the government) will literally now control the means of production. If one of the means of production has to outsource domestic jobs, they will be generating greater profits for us as the owners, which we can re-invest in domestic companies that create domestic jobs (and you can feel good about providing jobs and wealth to the less fortunate in developing countries).

I think you would find that the "1%" would be much less opposed to taxation if such a model were in place. The current system of taxation is basically "give us your money, we'll take 70% of it to distribute to bureaucrats, then distribute the remaining 30% to the lazy, uneducated, and handicapped".

I think "the 99%" would find that most "1%ers" are extremely patriotic, but they just like to see a measurable return on investment (which is why they are 1%ers). I think this is a model that could work and make both sides happy.

Edited November 7, 2011 by CPCFTW

[jacee]

Anton interrupts family, friends vigil to get media time to threaten protesters

Mayor sends threatening message to mourning protesters via police through media

Vancouver Police Const. Jana McGuinness said ending the camp in the city will be a challenge but she appealed for calm.

"We're hoping for co-operation should that time come," she said. "We want it to go smoothly. We don't want to see anybody be hurt."

Eric Hamilton-Smith, one of the spokespeople for the Vancouver protesters, said he hopes the courts decide against issuing an injunction that would require the demonstrators to pack up their camp.

"It's not enough to overrule our Charter rights of political expression and peaceful assembly, it is not enough just to have one person who died,"

People die everyday in the(Vancouver's) Downtown Eastside and nobody cares."

...

Hamilton-Smith said protesters want to erect new, geodesic tents with fire-resistant tarps to comply with fire safety regulations.

But maybe the politicians could just leave them alone for a bit? I doubt they can get an injunction today ...

And I think it's customary not to threaten to evict people until the dead are respectfully laid to rest ... perhaps?

Or is that different ... during elections?!

Edited November 7, 2011 by jacee