What's new
  • As of today ICMag has his own Discord server. In this Discord server you can chat, talk with eachother, listen to music, share stories and pictures...and much more. Join now and let's grow together! Join ICMag Discord here! More details in this thread here: here.

Occupy Wall Street: Not on major media but worth watching!

Status
Not open for further replies.

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
You know there was once a country called United States of America where there was no tax, gold standard, and no fed.

The working class that you speak of didn't dominate in that country either. Small business owners were the power however.

Almost Every individual and every family was considered to be an entrepreneur. People would undertake in anything and the productivity along with quality of products was great. False marketing along with bureaucratism was weak.

That was the fastest booming economy EVER. That was a country with gold standard. That was the Laissez-faire at work.

That was a country where every liberty loving individual would migrate to.

We all know too well what happened to that country.

But if you would want to take that country back to gold standard you would need to consider one little fact....

THERE IS NO GOLD LEFT AT FORT KNOX. What a bummer :D

You'd have to go back to post Colonial America to reference 'no tax'. George Washington levied federal liquor taxes after the war to pay off debt.

Nobody referenced domination. I referenced strong middle class (which includes small business owners.) I'm not going to argue which demographic is more important, all boats need to float. But middle class income is flat since 1973 while the top is off the chart. We need a strong business class and we also need a strong economy so the middle class can buy their stuff. Otherwise we get what we have now, 50 million looking for full time work and too few jobs to sustain.

As for fractional reserve lending for gold, I don't see how it could be possible with a real gold standard.
Not sure where you got that one. Ron Paul floated a suggestion we use some type of fractional reserve based on gold instead of GDP. But like Cain's tax plan, it takes a review to see how the numbers fall. IMO, gold-based fractional reserve is no different philosophically than gdp-based fractional reserve.
 

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
Bank Of America Branch In California Reportedly Refuses To Allow Protesters To Close Accounts - (VIDEO)

Posted: 10/16/11 11:46 AM ET


Should people who are tired of paying extra fees be allowed to close their bank accounts in protest? One Bank of America official reportedly doesn't think so.
According to Addicting Info, two women involved with the Occupy Santa Cruz movement in California walked into a Bank of America branch earlier this week and attempted to close their bank accounts. In response, the bank manager threatened to lock the doors and call the police on them. Her reasoning? You can't be a customer and a protester at the same time, the manager said.
Central Coast News contacted Bank of America about the incident and received a response from the company:
Central Coast News has contacted Bank of America to get their side of the story. In an email Colleen Haggerty with Bank of America released this statement to Central Coast News. "It is our responsibility to ensure a safe environment for customers to conduct financial transactions. So, due to the disruptive nature of protests lately and the potential for safety or security issues, we do not allow protestors inside of our banking centers. If a customer who is participating in a protest wishes to conduct bank business, including close an account, we ask them to come back when they are not protesting or they may also conduct their bank business at a nearby branch away from protest activities." Haggerty also said that Bank of Ameica, "respect everyone's ability to exercise their first amendment rights, however we also have to balance safety and business needs for all customers."
According to Central Coast News, "The women said that they would return to Bank of America the next day, sans signs, and close their accounts taking their 'money away from the banking elite and into a local credit union.'"
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/16/bank-of-america-protesters-close-accounts_n_1013490.html
This is baloney. There's no incident to reference a safety issue. BOA doesn't want others to see closings happening alongside protests because more accounts will close. IMO, BOA is attempting to stifle protest effectiveness by steering closings away from public attention.
 

Dudesome

Active member
Veteran
You'd have to go back to post Colonial America to reference 'no tax'. George Washington levied federal liquor taxes after the war to pay off debt.
Well the liquour tax is a joke compared to todays taxes that middleclass persone pays.



Not sure where you got that one. Ron Paul floated a suggestion we use some type of fractional reserve based on gold instead of GDP. But like Cain's tax plan, it takes a review to see how the numbers fall. IMO, gold-based fractional reserve is no different philosophically than gdp-based fractional reserve.

Ok now. This is where I'm lost. Are you purposing gold derivatives fractional reserves lending that's on right now already?(we do have type of fractional reserve lending with gold atm: Comex, NYGE). Because with FRL no matter what your money is it will get multiplied like that(SNAP!). And that just can't happen with physical gold of which there is a limit.

I have huge respect for Ron Paul and I don't doubt he has some kind of idea for that.

I just think that if you were to think wider, you would really want to cut the middleman and bring investment banks down.

So when I said to be intelligent and buy gold I meant to buy gold, so that COMEX and NYGE go down with their ponzi-schemes of fractional reserve gold lending
With them will fall the shadow banks(investment banks and hedgefunds) and the USD itself. Now that's what's up...
 

BiG H3rB Tr3E

"No problem can be solved from the same level of c
Veteran
This is baloney. There's no incident to reference a safety issue. BOA doesn't want others to see closings happening alongside protests because more accounts will close. IMO, BOA is attempting to stifle protest effectiveness by steering closings away from public attention.

Bruh... normally i wouldnt side with the bank - but as a business owner i cant help but agree with them. If they want to close accounts - go in there and just close them. Im guessing here ... but like with most protesters they want to make a fucking circus out of ANYTHING. Im sure they probably went in there yelling and screaming with signs and got turned away. If they would have just walked in there and said wed like to close our account there would be no problem. You can then stand outside and protest BOA and tell people that they closed accounts - but why act like assholes and disrupt other customers and their business. I own businesses and have to do large number transactions and last thing id want while conducting business is a bunch of asshole protesters causing a fucking ruckus. The bank is privately owned and thus allowed to conduct their operations as they see fit...
 

Dudesome

Active member
Veteran
This is baloney. There's no incident to reference a safety issue. BOA doesn't want others to see closings happening alongside protests because more accounts will close. IMO, BOA is attempting to stifle protest effectiveness by steering closings away from public attention.

BoA is going down anyway unless they nationalize it Dexia style...
Accounts closing should push that.

BoA is either another Lehmanbros or another Bearstearns. I really hope it's Bearstearns. That way we will have more time to prepare.
 

Dudesome

Active member
Veteran
Bruh... normally i wouldnt side with the bank - but as a business owner i cant help but agree with them. If they want to close accounts - go in there and just close them. Im guessing here ... but like with most protesters they want to make a fucking circus out of ANYTHING. Im sure they probably went in there yelling and screaming with signs and got turned away. If they would have just walked in there and said wed like to close our account there would be no problem. You can then stand outside and protest BOA and tell people that they closed accounts - but why act like assholes and disrupt other customers and their business. I own businesses and have to do large number transactions and last thing id want while conducting business is a bunch of asshole protesters causing a fucking ruckus. The bank is privately owned and thus allowed to conduct their operations as they see fit...


Dude you should seriously reconsider having anything to do with BoA right now :D Look at their chart.
 

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
Well the liquour tax is a joke compared to todays taxes that middleclass persone pays.

Washington didn't have to pay for the modern infrastructure you and I might take for granted.

Ok now. This is where I'm lost. Are you purposing gold derivatives fractional reserves lending that's on right now already?(we do have type of fractional reserve lending with gold atm: Comex, NYGE). Because with FRL no matter what your money is it will get multiplied like that(SNAP!). And that just can't happen with physical gold of which there is a limit.
Naw, didn't propose anything and not sure where we diverged. I'm not a gold standard fan, don't buy or trade gold and didn't intend to mislead in that direction.

I have huge respect for Ron Paul and I don't doubt he has some kind of idea for that.

I just think that if you were to think wider, you would really want to cut the middleman and bring investment banks down.
It's not that I don't think wider, there's no statistics to suggest free market solutions are our best direction.

I'm not in the 'bring em down' mode when global implications are dire. I'm no fan of the way things are going. I'm a Clinton fan but a big opponent of CFTA. 1999 was the last time we saw substantial regulations separating low risk pools of capital from high risk investments.

I'm more for regulating em instead of bringing em down. If we return investment banking to the pre high roller days where systemic risk doesn't threaten the global economy, let em fold. IMO, doing it now risks the remedy being more painful than the problem.

What I'm for is reinstating the firewall between investment banks and commercial banks. I'd also like to see enforcement funded properly so that fraud is prosecuted.

So when I said to be intelligent and buy gold I meant to buy gold, so that COMEX and NYGE go down with their ponzi-schemes of fractional reserve gold lending
With them will fall the shadow banks(investment banks and hedgefunds) and the USD itself. Now that's what's up...
That's market based theory, might even be accurate. Whether it translates into significant balance isn't backed by historic statistics. In our 234 years we've tried just about every level of regulated free market solution. IMO, the mid and late 90s was the best mix of regulated free market we've experienced. Biggest sustained peacetime expansion in modern history.

Thanks for the gold advise but I'm not into gold investments.
 

Space Toker

Active member
Veteran
Forgive me, I did not read all of this, not even close!
But what are they protesting anyway? If it is common people wanting to end the 99% domination of the rich, I am all for it. If it is those that can afford to pay and are too cheap, like the tea baggers, to hell with that!
 

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
Bruh... normally i wouldnt side with the bank - but as a business owner i cant help but agree with them. If they want to close accounts - go in there and just close them. Im guessing here ... but like with most protesters they want to make a fucking circus out of ANYTHING. Im sure they probably went in there yelling and screaming with signs and got turned away. If they would have just walked in there and said wed like to close our account there would be no problem. You can then stand outside and protest BOA and tell people that they closed accounts - but why act like assholes and disrupt other customers and their business. I own businesses and have to do large number transactions and last thing id want while conducting business is a bunch of asshole protesters causing a fucking ruckus. The bank is privately owned and thus allowed to conduct their operations as they see fit...

I agree they shouldn't be allowed to carry protest signs or create distractions inside the banks. IMO, they should be able to protest on the sidewalk and still close their account at the same branch, so long as they don't bring their protests inside. That said, they should be able to return to the protest once civil business is concluded.

IMO, at no time should protesters get away with blocking or discouraging folks who want to continue business. If protesters do shit like block doors or intimidate customers they should be dealt with, up to and including arrest.

All respect to you as a business owner. I've followed BOA since part of it was NCNB in the 1970s. NCNB's spawn, NationsBank went on to buy BOA. I'd like to think both entities were more ethical before they got so big they have to resort to measures that hammer account holders.
 

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
Forgive me, I did not read all of this, not even close!
But what are they protesting anyway? If it is common people wanting to end the 99% domination of the rich, I am all for it. If it is those that can afford to pay and are too cheap, like the tea baggers, to hell with that!

Care for an economics professor's take?

The Rise of the Regressive Right and the Reawakening of America

Robert Reich - Posted: 10/16/11 05:44 PM ET

A fundamental war has been waged in this nation since its founding, between progressive forces pushing us forward and regressive forces pulling us backward.

We are going to battle once again.

Progressives believe in openness, equal opportunity, and tolerance.

Progressives assume we're all in it together: We all benefit from public investments in schools and health care and infrastructure.

And we all do better with strong safety nets, reasonable constraints on Wall Street and big business, and a truly progressive tax system. Progressives worry when the rich and privileged become powerful enough to undermine democracy.

Regressives take the opposite positions.

Eric Cantor, Paul Ryan, Rick Perry, Michele Bachmann and the other tribunes of today's Republican right aren't really conservatives.

Their goal isn't to conserve what we have. It's to take us backwards.

They'd like to return to the 1920s -- before Social Security, unemployment insurance, labor laws, the minimum wage, Medicare and Medicaid, worker safety laws, the Environmental Protection Act, the Glass-Steagall Act, the Securities and Exchange Act, and the Voting Rights Act.

In the 1920s Wall Street was unfettered, the rich grew far richer and everyone else went deep into debt, and the nation closed its doors to immigrants.

Rather than conserve the economy, these regressives want to resurrect the classical economics of the 1920s -- the view that economic downturns are best addressed by doing nothing until the "rot" is purged out of the system (as Andrew Mellon, Herbert Hoover's Treasury Secretary, so decorously put it).

In truth, if they had their way we'd be back in the late nineteenth century -- before the federal income tax, antitrust laws, the Pure Food and Drug Act, and the Federal Reserve. A time when robber barons -- railroad, financial, and oil titans -- ran the country. A time of wrenching squalor for the many and mind-numbing wealth for the few.

Listen carefully to today's Republican right and you hear the same Social Darwinism Americans were fed more than a century ago to justify the brazen inequality of the Gilded Age: Survival of the fittest. Don't help the poor or unemployed or anyone who's fallen on bad times, they say, because this only encourages laziness.

America will be strong only if we reward the rich and punish the needy.

The regressive right has slowly consolidated power over the last three decades as income and wealth have concentrated at the top. In the late 1970s the richest 1 percent of Americans received 9 percent of total income and held 18 percent of the nation's wealth; by 2007, they had more than 23 percent of total income and 35 percent of America's wealth. CEOs of the 1970s were paid 40 times the average worker's wage; now CEOs receive 300 times the typical workers' wage.

This concentration of income and wealth has generated the political heft to deregulate Wall Street and halve top tax rates. It has bankrolled the so-called Tea Party movement, and captured the House of Representatives and many state governments.

Through a sequence of presidential appointments it has also overtaken the Supreme Court.

Scalia, Alito, Thomas, and Roberts (and, all too often, Kennedy) claim they're conservative jurists. But they're judicial activists bent on overturning 75 years of jurisprudence by resurrecting states' rights, treating the 2nd Amendment as if America still relied on local militias, narrowing the Commerce Clause, and calling money speech and corporations people.

Yet the great arc of American history reveals an unmistakable pattern. Whenever privilege and power conspire to pull us backward, the nation eventually rallies and moves forward.

Sometimes it takes an economic shock like the bursting of a giant speculative bubble; sometimes we just reach a tipping point where the frustrations of average Americans turn into action.

Look at the Progressive reforms between 1900 and 1916; the New Deal of the 1930s; the Civil Rights struggle of the 1950s and 1960s; the widening opportunities for women, minorities, people with disabilities, and gays; and the environmental reforms of the 1970s.

In each of these eras, regressive forces reignited the progressive ideals on which America is built. The result was fundamental reform.

Perhaps this is what's beginning to happen again across America.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/robert-reich/gop-ideals_b_1014396.html
 

SpasticGramps

Don't Drone Me, Bro!
ICMag Donor
Veteran
Another economic professors take.

Steve Keen On Keynes And The Failings Of The Neoclassical School
Australian Steve Keen, whose work and analysis we always enjoy. For those unfamiliar with Keen, we have attached the following just released interview with Ross Ashcroft of The Renegade Economist in which he deconstructs the failings of contemporary interpretations of Keynesianism (in essence the usurpation of theory by those in power to perpetuate their own greedy practical pursuits), and exposes the core of neoclassical economics that guide every day macroeconomics for the sham it is: "fundamentally neoclassical economists are the priests of Capitalism, but the priests don't necessarily know there is god. They have this model of god and ditto with neoclassical economics: they have a model of capitalism which is almost but not quite, completely unlike actual capitalism. And they don't even realize that they have erected a smokescreen behind which if people want to rip the system off, then there is plenty of avenues created by these guys." Just a thought, but perhaps it is time for #OccupyWallStreet to pay a visit and #OccupyNYUEconomicsDepartment...
 

Dudesome

Active member
Veteran
I'm more for regulating em instead of bringing em down. If we return investment banking to the pre high roller days where systemic risk doesn't threaten the global economy, let em fold. IMO, doing it now risks the remedy being more painful than the problem.

It's like you want to regulate something which regulates everything in this economy :D The funniest thing is: it's not even something.... it's Somebody. And that somebody sure has his intentions.

Care for an economics professor's take?

Ok the quotation is a bit off... :D

I Am sorry but does anyone here put any emphasis on the fact the FEDERAL RESERVE has nothing to do with Federal Government? It is 100% private. Magna Carta all the way...
How is that different from rich barons running the country? If you wanna think Republican - think pre 1913... actually think preMorgan even...
 

Dudesome

Active member
Veteran
Look at the Progressive reforms between 1900 and 1916; the New Deal of the 1930s; the Civil Rights struggle of the 1950s and 1960s; the widening opportunities for women, minorities, people with disabilities, and gays; and the environmental reforms of the 1970s.

Progressive reforms :D does he mean the Fed? Does he even know who was behind those reforms? Those were the same barons of 20 he spoke of....

I just can't help to amaze myself with howmany weeeird opinions are out there. It is just too easy to get lost in that amount of information if you have no clue of what is actually going on. I bet 99% of OWS folks have no idea why they are there :dance013:

Listen carefully to today's Republican right and you hear the same Social Darwinism Americans were fed more than a century ago to justify the brazen inequality of the Gilded Age: Survival of the fittest. Don't help the poor or unemployed or anyone who's fallen on bad times, they say, because this only encourages laziness.

My advice to this "fine" professor is to learn some arethmetics from another fine professor named Albert Bartlett and realize what expotential growth means.


here is a very interesting video that smashes people's opinions like one above to dust.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=F-QA2rkpBSY


It's 8 part almost an hour long video, but it's really worth it. Albert Bartlett just breaks your mind with real sience.
 

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
Progressive reforms :D does he mean the Fed? Does he even know who was behind those reforms? Those were the same barons of 20 he spoke of....

I can't speak for Ruben but I can speculate based on current and historic postulation. IMO, Ruben isn't obsessed over cebtral banking nor fractional reserve. IMO, Ruben is focused on reforms other than the monetary system which IMO is unlikely to change. Please don't get upset, that's just my lowly opinion.

IMO, Ruben is referencing the child labor laws, 40 hr work week, workplace safety and environmental reforms. Teddy Roosevelt stuff. New Deal stuff. Like father like son, strong middle-class initiatives type stuff.

I acknowledge, as Ruben would that the Federal Reserve was mandated in 1913. I just don't think that's his idea of progressive reform. I think he'd liken it to practical reality. We were a lesser global entity without membership in central banks and our leaders of the day naturally wanted us to be a global player. Without membership with the central banks, imports would be more expensive, international trade deals would favor more powerful countries and we wouldn't be the leader of the free world.

IMO, Rubin would agree that the central bank isn't the root of our ills. That would be lack of reasonable regulations and the significant enforcement to back them.

I just can't help to amaze myself with howmany weeeird opinions are out there. It is just too easy to get lost in that amount of information if you have no clue of what is actually going on. I bet 99% of OWS folks have no idea why they are there :dance013:
If they took Ruben's economics courses, I bet they'd have an idea of the post depression era and it's economic and social ramifications, both good and bad. If their economics are based on idealism, they might not know their ideas have already been tried and failed, at least in the macro. Just kidding. Ruben is more than happy to explain why laissez fairre doesn't work and show the economic periods that prove it, year in and year out.

Never get your economic philosophy from a political or ideological perspective, at least if you want it to work.

Here's my idea of weird opinions.

We never defaulted under a gold standard so that automatically means we'd never default under the gold standard.

Free market and gold standard would mitigate fraud

Government made it legal to rip folks off. Just get out of the way and we'll stop rippin.:)
 

Dudesome

Active member
Veteran
Without membership with the central banks, imports would be more expensive, international trade deals would favor more powerful countries and we wouldn't be the leader of the free world.

World trade is great, but tell me who really benefits from it right now? Are those the consumers of low quality products from china? Are those the chineese who are payed rediculous wages just so the inflation of yuan makes their GDP?

Do we see any internal production? Nope. We see corporations moving offshore.
Yet imagine how powerful a healthy internal market can be.... Employment + good quality of products and independence from world trade.
In my opinion Central banks do no real Banking functions. Their main function is to print fiat paper. Actually today not too many banks really do ANY Traditional Banking at all...

So who is that benefiting from This powerful world trade? :) the answer is clear. The banks and corporatocracy


Free market and gold standard would mitigate fraud
This is actually a very hard question. In reality when you look @ America in that period of time you will notice that the economy Boomed in that period. From a colony you guys became a country #1 in the world.
 

DiscoBiscuit

weed fiend
Veteran
World trade is great, but tell me who really benefits from it right now? Are those the consumers of low quality products from china? Are those the chineese who are payed rediculous wages just so the inflation of yuan makes their GDP?

Do we see any internal production? Nope. We see corporations moving offshore.
Yet imagine how powerful a healthy internal market can be.... Employment + good quality of products and independence from world trade.
In my opinion Central banks do no real Banking functions. Their main function is to print fiat paper. Actually today not too many banks really do ANY Traditional Banking at all...

So who is that benefiting from This powerful world trade? :) the answer is clear. The banks and corporatocracy


This is actually a very hard question. In reality when you look @ America in that period of time you will notice that the economy Boomed in that period. From a colony you guys became a country #1 in the world.

Especially the top benefits from global trade. The top has also lobbied their interests heavily for the last 37 years. It's no wonder their incomes have exploded during the last 30. They have lobbied half their taxes away and pump the rest to offshore tax havens. We're collecting the least revenues since 1952. 68% of US corporations pay zero income tax. The biggest get refunds.

We have far more in the name of national commerce than WalMart goodies. MIC and national security is a global business the US still leads. Not that I'm a fan of big brother but we're talking jobs.

We have a history of nationalistic movements and the economic contraction that went along with em. We'd have to militarize to generate an economy capable of sustaining 320 million people w/o global trade. Don't forget, we've had global trade since the 19th century. But the last 30 years of lobbying has seen multinational corporation easier to achieve and far more profitable.

In a capitalist system, we're reluctant to impose excessive restrictions on business. But we can mandate restrictions that make job flight a less palatable option for the filthy rich. Instead of an off/on switch it's more like a volume control. Ever since the Bush tax cuts and the current extensions, business acts like 4% on the volume knob is tantamount to switching the economy off. We know that's not true based on historic tax and economic statistics.
 

kmk420kali

Freedom Fighter
Veteran
Bruh... normally i wouldnt side with the bank - but as a business owner i cant help but agree with them. If they want to close accounts - go in there and just close them. Im guessing here ... but like with most protesters they want to make a fucking circus out of ANYTHING. Im sure they probably went in there yelling and screaming with signs and got turned away. If they would have just walked in there and said wed like to close our account there would be no problem. You can then stand outside and protest BOA and tell people that they closed accounts - but why act like assholes and disrupt other customers and their business. I own businesses and have to do large number transactions and last thing id want while conducting business is a bunch of asshole protesters causing a fucking ruckus. The bank is privately owned and thus allowed to conduct their operations as they see fit...

Actually, they did have a sign, but were sitting quietly and respectfully...til they got told they could not close their account--
Here is the vid--:tiphat:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/16/bank-of-america-protesters-close-accounts_n_1013490.html?ncid=edlinkusaolp00000009
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top