bush_cheney2004 Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 I'm well aware that I can't be involved in the American political process. That's quite beside the point. Great...please tell the Germans too. Thanks. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 Still beside the point, but have fun petitioning the universities around the world. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 29, 2011 Report Share Posted October 29, 2011 Still beside the point, but have fun petitioning the universities around the world. Why would I do that...America has more top 100 universities than any other country! Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 People earning more money than you has nothing to do with taking anything away from you. The only entity reaching into your pocket, and taking money that you've earned is the government. Somebody in the 1% earns their own money regardless of what you earn or don't earn. I don't care if people earn more money than me. I'm retired and richer in life than anyone still slugging it out. I don't envy wealth. They'e not having any more fun than me. I do resent the wealthiEST 1% taking huge profits from public debt, during lean times, and not contributing back (in taxes) proportionately in the good times. That's how they are increasing their proportion of the wealth ... unfairly. There is no such thing as income inequality. People work in different industries, doing different jobs, earning different levels of compensation based on the revenue their job or industry produces. The term income inequality presupposes that there's such thing, or suppose to be such thing as income equality. That's complete nonsense. The only way to achieve income equality is if you forced everybody to do the same job, for the same amount of hours. Umm ... no one's suggesting income equality across the board. That IS pure nonesense. Fairer taxation to pay public costs ... for the public infrastructure that allows business and industry to I'm just suggesting that the richest 1% stop sucking off the public teat, and contribute their fair share ... which is much more than the 10-20% they currently pay in income tax. The wealthiEST 1% live off us taxpayers ... ALL of the rest of us. They don't contribute their share in taxes so they can put us in debt, so they can collect the interest ... from ALL of the rest of us. They're welfare fraud cases on the biggest scale. And we're ALL their puppets, especially you Shady. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 I do resent the wealthiEST 1% taking huge profits from public debt, during lean times, and not contributing back (in taxes) proportionately in the good times. That's how they are increasing their proportion of the wealth ... unfairly. Umm ... no one's suggesting income equality across the board. That IS pure nonesense. Fairer taxation to pay public costs ... for the public infrastructure that allows business and industry to I'm just suggesting that the richest 1% stop sucking off the public teat, and contribute their fair share ... which is much more than the 10-20% they currently pay in income tax. The wealthiEST 1% live off us taxpayers ... ALL of the rest of us. They don't contribute their share in taxes so they can put us in debt, so they can collect the interest ... from ALL of the rest of us. They're welfare fraud cases on the biggest scale. And we're ALL their puppets, especially you Shady. Have a read at this... My link Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 Have a read at this... My link My favorite extract. Overall, I think there was a real lack of understanding of basic economic principles among the Occupiers. Protesters thought that the rich owed a duty to share their wealth with society. However, they failed to see that in true capitalism, the rich can only acquire their wealth by serving others. No one succeeds in a vacuum. Consider the late Steve Jobs. He became a billionaire by sharing his wealth. Think about the millions of people around the world whose lives are vastly better because of Apple products. Think of all the Apple employees who benefit from high-paying jobs he created. Think about all those investors who made money from Apple stock. Steve Jobs shared his wealth with the entire planet before he ever paid one dime in taxes. In fact, any money Steve Jobs did pay in taxes likely prevented him from creating and sharing even more wealth. Had Jobs tried to hoard his wealth instead, he never would have acquired it in the first place.Of course, the idea that Occupy Wall Street protesters have a right to share directly in the private profits earned by others is immoral. The protesters were correct in being outraged by having to share in Wall Street's losses. But if they do not want to share the losses, they have no right to demand a share of the profits! http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article31237.html Thanks for the link blueblood. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 My favorite extract. Good call...they want to share in the profits but not the losses. I can only deduct a maximum of $3,000 in capital losses per year. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 (edited) Have a read at this... My link He didn't go there to talk with people. He went to talk AT them. He pretty much calls himself a dog in a trash can - ie, he'll do anything he can get away with. He's daring occupiers to demand changes in the laws (to keep him and other dogs out of our trash can) because he knows the politicians are bought and won't do a damned thing the 1%'rs don't tell them to do. He resents every tax dollar he pays because he thinks he "earned" every penny but he has no regard for the country that made that possible. If he's such a high-flyer, he can raise his rates to cover more taxes. However those kind of narcissists don't comprehend that they "earn" because their country affords them that opportunity. He writes about how he and the other 1%'rs can ..."Profit from the economic collapse". Think they wouldn't cause a collapse if they knew they could make megabucks? Of course they would!! Which was my point previously: Predators make megamoney off our public debt. If the dogs will get in any trash can they can, why wouldn't they cause recessions so they can make money? Of course they would. As for this ... . The protesters were correct in being outraged by having to share in Wall Street's losses. But if they do not want to share the losses, they have no right to demand a share of the profits. Such crap! It's faulty logic. The government collects income taxes on earnings, whether he likes it or not. We don't CARE whether he likes it or not. He's a predator, exactly the kind who needs to be reined in. And the kind who needs to take notice ... and obviously is. Edited October 30, 2011 by jacee Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
capricorn Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 And the kind who needs to take notice ... and obviously is. He's the kind who is performing a valuable public service...educating those who are uneducated on matters of economics. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 He didn't go there to talk with people. He went to talk AT them. He pretty much calls himself a dog in a trash can - ie, he'll do anything he can get away with. He's daring occupiers to demand changes in the laws (to keep him and other dogs out of our trash can) because he knows the politicians are bought and won't do a damned thing the 1%'rs don't tell them to do. He resents every tax dollar he pays because he thinks he "earned" every penny but he has no regard for the country that made that possible. If he's such a high-flyer, he can raise his rates to cover more taxes. However those kind of narcissists don't comprehend that they "earn" because their country affords them that opportunity. He writes about how he and the other 1%'rs can ..."Profit from the economic collapse". Think they wouldn't cause a collapse if they knew they could make megabucks? Of course they would!! Which was my point previously: Predators make megamoney off our public debt. If the dogs will get in any trash can they can, why wouldn't they cause recessions so they can make money? Of course they would. He's a predator, exactly the kind who needs to be reined in. And the kind who needs to take notice ... and obviously is. Oh really, he's talking at them. Lets look at what a 3rd party journalist has to say about that... 18 minutes of civility Back to the drawing board eh? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 My favorite extract. http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/Article31237.html Thanks for the link blueblood. The problem isnt companies like apple in the productive economy. The problem is the financial sector and quickly expanding gambling economy. He can say that about steve jobs sure, but how has say.... a guy that got rich off of foreign exchange trading enriched society? He hasnt. He has not produced a good or service, and much of the financial industry operates in the same way. And its growing fast. More currency changes hands between foreign exchange traders in one week than in an entire year of real global trade. The problem isnt that people getting rich producing goods and services. Thats great for everyone. The problem is so much wealth being allocated to people that just gamble. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 Such crap! It's faulty logic. The government collects income taxes on earnings, whether he likes it or not. We don't CARE whether he likes it or not. No..the logic is sound...your side is taking hits. They are not very smart, which is why they have to stand in the snow and protest. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jacee Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 Oh really, he's talking at them. Lets look at what a 3rd party journalist has to say about that... 18 minutes of civility Back to the drawing board eh? Like I said ... if the 1%'rs are taking notice, taking it seriously, that's good. He did do it civilly. But I don't agree with his position on income taxes he shouldn't have to pay. Narcissists think they are solely responsible for their successes with no regard for what their nation does for them. They resent paying the costs of doing business. And as he says, the politicians have to change the laws to keep dogs like him on short leashes. And they need to get the 'political will' to do it from all of us, including the 1%. So Wall Street is the place to get their attention ... and it's working. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 The problem isnt companies like apple in the productive economy. The problem is the financial sector and quickly expanding gambling economy. He can say that about steve jobs sure, but how has say.... a guy that got rich off of foreign exchange trading enriched society? He hasnt. He has not produced a good or service, and much of the financial industry operates in the same way. And its growing fast. More currency changes hands between foreign exchange traders in one week than in an entire year of real global trade. The problem isnt that people getting rich producing goods and services. Thats great for everyone. The problem is so much wealth being allocated to people that just gamble. He enriched society by providing his clients with a service. Those clients are funds that help out with people's pensions. That person looks at fundamentals and goes long or short accordingly. The problem is what kind of money these foreign exchange traders are using. Is it sound money or is it money printed off the printing press? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 He enriched society by providing his clients with a service. Those clients are funds that help out with people's pensions. That person looks at fundamentals and goes long or short accordingly. The problem is what kind of money these foreign exchange traders are using. Is it sound money or is it money printed off the printing press? He enriched society by providing his clients with a service. The Forex traders I know dont provide any clients with any services. Is it sound money or is it money printed off the printing press? About 95% of the currency in circulation did not even come from a mint or printing press. Most of it comes from banks loaning out money that doesnt exist. The Private Commercial banks that create all this money are another example of people that siphon a huge ammount of money out of the economy while doing almost nothing in return. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Bonam Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 The Forex traders I know dont provide any clients with any services. If they're just traders, then all they are doing is risking their own money, that they somehow earned, to try to make profit by trading. What is wrong with that, exactly? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GostHacked Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 So you're saying the entire 1% got rich through fraudulent actions at the sole expense of someone else? And the entire 99% is innocent of getting their money in such a manner? No there are rich people who did indeed earn it. I don't have a problem with that at all. But there are those among those 1% that have gained their fortunes at the expense of others through fraudulent means. But this part of that 1% is causing most of the problems we see at the moment with the financial markets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bush_cheney2004 Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 (edited) If they're just traders, then all they are doing is risking their own money, that they somehow earned, to try to make profit by trading. What is wrong with that, exactly? Yea...what is wrong with that? Last week's stock market surge rewarded my risk taking with a princely sum. (buy on bad news..sell on good.) I did absolutely zero work. Is that wrong? Edited October 30, 2011 by bush_cheney2004 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
dre Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 If they're just traders, then all they are doing is risking their own money, that they somehow earned, to try to make profit by trading. What is wrong with that, exactly? Nothing wrong with it. Iv played around with it a bit myself. But his narrative was that its great we have super wealthy people because they got wealthy providing us with great goods and services. Thats less and less true all the time, as the gambling economy grows larger in proportion to the productive economy. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
charter.rights Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 If I get what the real issue is with the OWS protestors it is that the 1% did not earn their wealth without the contributions of the 99%. And while not all of the 1%-ers are guilty, a good majority of them earned their profits through usury, which in itself is a moral crime. If we believe that working hard is the key to success, then those of manipulate their way to wealth are criminals and for that I am incensed as well. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 He enriched society by providing his clients with a service. Those clients are funds that help out with people's pensions. That person looks at fundamentals and goes long or short accordingly. The problem is what kind of money these foreign exchange traders are using. Is it sound money or is it money printed off the printing press? They don't really help out with people's pensions though, as has already been shown. The majority of people in the United States (somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2/3) own less than $10,000 in those types of investments. That's hardly helping out someone's retirement fund. It's helping themselves. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cybercoma Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 If they're just traders, then all they are doing is risking their own money, that they somehow earned, to try to make profit by trading. What is wrong with that, exactly? What's wrong with it is that it bastardizes the markets. It artificially changes the liquidity of a market and the value of commodities (like grain futures) and investments. The prices should fluctuate based on the commodities themselves and the people producing. It should not be determined by how many people are randomly gambling on something. The market is a wonderful thing for determine fair economic value, but not when the majority of traders swooping in haven't a care in the world for what they're buying because they're merely gambling on numbers. What I'm saying here is hardly Communist or radical thinking. In fact, I support a free market, but the market needs to be based on trading the actual things that people are selling on them. Instead, we have predators playing the shell game and moving numbers around, which messes everything up for everyone and undermines the entire purpose of the markets. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 What's wrong with it is that it bastardizes the markets. It artificially changes the liquidity of a market and the value of commodities (like grain futures) and investments. The prices should fluctuate based on the commodities themselves and the people producing. It should not be determined by how many people are randomly gambling on something. The market is a wonderful thing for determine fair economic value, but not when the majority of traders swooping in haven't a care in the world for what they're buying because they're merely gambling on numbers. What I'm saying here is hardly Communist or radical thinking. In fact, I support a free market, but the market needs to be based on trading the actual things that people are selling on them. Instead, we have predators playing the shell game and moving numbers around, which messes everything up for everyone and undermines the entire purpose of the markets. No it doesn't change liquidy, it provides more. And they do fluctuate based on supply and demand. Why do you think commodities are so volatile? It's because of supply and demand, all the speculators do is do market research and go long/short of those commodities and investments based on said market research. It's not really gambling. For example with that much liquidity in the market it sends very clear signals of what kind of grain to put in production, when to sell, whether to keep it in storage for x amt. Of time, whether to invest in more machinery/inputs, etc, in the market you can't have the price constantly rising or people will lose money when they go short and buy back in. What your proposing makes price discovery impossible, and hurts growth. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 They don't really help out with people's pensions though, as has already been shown. The majority of people in the United States (somewhere in the neighbourhood of 2/3) own less than $10,000 in those types of investments. That's hardly helping out someone's retirement fund. It's helping themselves. Better than saving and investing nothing for retirement. Perhaps people should build smaller houses drive older cars and save some money? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
blueblood Posted October 30, 2011 Report Share Posted October 30, 2011 If I get what the real issue is with the OWS protestors it is that the 1% did not earn their wealth without the contributions of the 99%. And while not all of the 1%-ers are guilty, a good majority of them earned their profits through usury, which in itself is a moral crime. If we believe that working hard is the key to success, then those of manipulate their way to wealth are criminals and for that I am incensed as well. Usury is what got the western world out of the dark ages and made the western world what it is today. It also allows you and I a better lifestyle than just about everybody on the planet. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.