Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/4/11 09:07 PM, Psil0 wrote:

At 10/3/11 09:41 PM, ToddM wrote: They really should protest on K Street in D.C. because thats where the lobbyists are located. Why aren't they there though puzzels me.

Because the people in the protests are stupid and don't really understand who their anger should be directed at.

they plan to protest in more than just one city. LA is already getting some demonstrators, DC will get protests too.

At 10/4/11 08:30 PM, SurferLight wrote: I'm sure that the Wall Street protests are not spontaneous. There are political interests behind them. People, inside and outside the country, who seek to end any and all form of stability in the USA.

Oh noooooo! Not a chance of it ever being the case in fact we should not even consider this possibility at all whatsoever. Done. Ruled out totally.

If there's anything good about the protests it's going to get mudded by that list of demands that idiot posted (no doubt some people are using it as a way to include other agendas). Especially since Rush talked about them on his show: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JpRwfPCLz Hs

And then there's this:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hJLOKWH4m KI
If that's what occupy Wall street turns into, at some point both sides are going to wind up in the same spot and it WILL be a riot.

At 10/4/11 09:46 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

At 10/4/11 09:07 PM, Psil0 wrote:

At 10/3/11 09:41 PM, ToddM wrote: They really should protest on K Street in D.C. because thats where the lobbyists are located. Why aren't they there though puzzels me.

Because the people in the protests are stupid and don't really understand who their anger should be directed at.

they plan to protest in more than just one city. LA is already getting some demonstrators, DC will get protests too.

Well it doesn't matter what city they protest in, because either their anger/reasoning is unfocused or it's focused on the wrong people.

Also they're disorganized and have no leadership, they'll fall apart quickly due to that alone.

At 10/5/11 02:06 AM, Psil0 wrote:

At 10/4/11 09:46 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

At 10/4/11 09:07 PM, Psil0 wrote:

At 10/3/11 09:41 PM, ToddM wrote: They really should protest on K Street in D.C. because thats where the lobbyists are located. Why aren't they there though puzzels me.

Because the people in the protests are stupid and don't really understand who their anger should be directed at.

they plan to protest in more than just one city. LA is already getting some demonstrators, DC will get protests too.

Well it doesn't matter what city they protest in, because either their anger/reasoning is unfocused or it's focused on the wrong people.

Also they're disorganized and have no leadership, they'll fall apart quickly due to that alone.

oh you underestimate the power of mob mentality. Tea party was really no different, their coverage faded but they are influencing the republicans and democrats anyways, and they still demonstrate. Their main focus is smaller government but you see people demanding other issues that have absolutely nothing to do with their favorite issue being chanted about everywhere. This protest is about sponsorship and corporate welfare. Lac of unity never stopped tea party.

Let's wait and see if they're still protesting on Wall Street once it starts snowing. Of course they're moving to other cities, it's getting cold. Anyways the same thing came and went in Israel. I'm not looking to debate Israel/Palestine right now, I'm just saying that they "occupied" the streets of the cities in some huge protest all summer long, now summer's over, end of protest. If you're going to model your protest after something, don't model it after something that didn't work.

At 10/3/11 01:03 AM, SadisticMonkey wrote: Wow I really didn't realise just HOW stupid these gys are.

Strawmen. Easy.

Personally I think George Carlin said it best.

At 10/5/11 02:06 AM, Psil0 wrote: Well it doesn't matter what city they protest in,

Very true.

because either their anger/reasoning is unfocused or it's focused on the wrong people.

I wouldn't call this the issue.

Also they're disorganized and have no leadership, they'll fall apart quickly due to that alone.

Again this isn't the issue either. Very few protests have leadership or organized views, even the ones that blossom into something more (see Tea Party).

The problem here isn't the What, the Why, the Where, or the How of the protests. It's the Who.
They are protesting something that people feel strong about. They are doing so because they feel strongly about it. They are doing it wherever they can get enough people and attention. They are unorganized like virtually every other protest out there, including successful ones.

The issue here is that this protest is made up of a group of people that not only don't attract any attention, they actually scare it away. Liek I have said numerous times before, the Bonaroo crowd does three things, get high, go to "rock" festivals, and protest. They protest so much that them protesting is about as novel as love for Reagan. Furthermore, this group is so repsulive to so many that there is a large sector of society that will actively stay away and not support this when they otherwise might, just because of the crowd that's protesting.

If these protestors wanted us to care, they'd do a couple things. They'd either, stop protesting, become normal average people, and then protest again, or they would get the average folk on and then take a back seat while the who have at least some worth to today's society (not the hippies) take the protest and run with it.

At 10/5/11 09:22 AM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: Personally I think George Carlin said it best.

;;;
I'm not sure whether he said it best or not...but he was definately right.
Ahh, another day, bend over people ,its that time.

At 10/5/11 02:21 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote: Lac of unity never stopped tea party.

The thing is despite the differece various tea party have they were all united based around their common opposition to the Obama administration and that's what made them so powerful. The left had the same thing with Bush but now they're just running around like a chicken with its head cut off not knowing who to vent their frustration on now that their guy is in the white house.

At 10/3/11 04:11 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

I don't mean to sound crass, but the bailout wasn't in Ireland. In teh US, the FDIC only insures Bank held accounts up to $100,000 (approx 67,000EU). IRAs, 401Ks, Stocks, Bonds, Debentures, private CDs, and other forms of saving are wholly losable.

Still quite substantial to the average family! 2-3 wages, even! I presume no private debts (mortgages, loans, overdrafts) are written off in this process?

I am not defending the debt, because the bailouts were paid back (with some sexy level of interest I might add).

Sorry, Cam, I'm going to need sauce on this!

What I am merely pointing out is that Joe Q. American doesn't know enough about the basics of our financial system (I charge them to define just 2 of the terms I listed about without the Net to help) to really understand what's going on. Let alone do they know enough of the complexities (institutional investors, swaps, hedges, insurance, derivatives) to make simple judgments. Foexample, when AIG lost tens of billions by insuring GM to the tune of over 1000% the institutional investors who were investing derivatives of our IRAs, 401Ks and so one stood to lose that money. As that money was actually a combo of millions of regular Joes' accounts, the Joes stood to lose substantially.

Yes and no, while they were investing the money on Joe's behalf Joe was lending them money on the gaurantee of return. Asuch if the investment failed the first priority should have been to give Joe Public his money and let what happens to the financial institutions happen, it's a free market or it's not!

When it comes to career Bonaroo protestors, I seriously doubt that they took or passed high school economics, let alone the securities classes necessary to understand what Wall Street is all about.

First of all, let's not use personal attacks to justify ourselves. Greedy bankers sounds great but it doesn't really mean anything, neither does Bonaroo (Where did you get that word, actualy?)

Maybe they haven't but neither has Average Joe, as you said. You don't like them because they alienate the common man, which isn't an unfair arguement. But I'll take the hippy movement over waiting for a sedentry middle class to get angry any day. No one ever really likes these groups - as I said, I've met socialists and while the ideas are often good the personalities can be pretty..bleh. But it's the issues that should be our priority, not the nature of the demographic - that is completely logicaly unsound.

At 10/5/11 01:03 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: Still quite substantial to the average family!

$100,000 is substantial, but really, what percentage of Americans' debt is contained within the small confines of checking, savings and CDs? Also, the best of my knowledge, the $100K isn't per account, it's per bank (as if that distinction makes much of a difference for most Americans...)

Sorry, Cam, I'm going to need sauce on this!

I'm short on time so here's a google connection a few
links.

Yes and no, while they were investing the money on Joe's behalf Joe was lending them money on the gaurantee of return. Asuch if the investment failed the first priority should have been to give Joe Public his money and let what happens to the financial institutions happen, it's a free market or it's not!

Why do that when you could do both by placing the money exactly where it was before it dissapeared. In that I mean in the hands of the banks where it was being held. This way, we could also avoid the collateral collapse of honest funds that would have crumbled along with the bad ones. Frankly, where the money was put was the right place. Very little in terms of percentage of the money was being used in such a reckless manner, (at worst 10%) but a collapse of these institutions could lead to well over that amount disappearing. It would take substantially more money to fill in the cavern created by the collapse than to patch the hole that already existed.

First of all, let's not use personal attacks to justify ourselves. Greedy bankers sounds great but it doesn't really mean anything, neither does Bonaroo (Where did you get that word, actualy?)

Bonaroo isn't a personal attack. It's an indy hippie music/art festival. I use it to describe exactly who I talk about when I say career protestors. The types that patron things such as Bonaroo, Burning Man, Sasquatch and alike are the kind that are career protestors who garner little to no cred in the arena.

Maybe they haven't but neither has Average Joe, as you said. You don't like them because they alienate the common man, which isn't an unfair arguement. But I'll take the hippy movement over waiting for a sedentry middle class to get angry any day.

Better than nothing? Sure. However, when it's the protest at the drop of a hat sort, they have no room to complain about lack of tattention by the media.

No one ever really likes these groups - as I said, I've met socialists and while the ideas are often good the personalities can be pretty..bleh. But it's the issues that should be our priority, not the nature of the demographic - that is completely logicaly unsound.

This leads me to my bleak outlook of their understanding of the issues. These sort of protestoers are not quite likely to be versed in the ways of the monied class (i.e. science, economics, business, law). They tend to be more knowledgable when it comes to the social areas (i.e. art, sociology). So when they pick perhaps one of the most complex systems of economics to attack I seriously doubt they know anything about what they speak of.

Trust me, having grown up in the Pacific Northwest and spent the better part of my high school and early college years (perhaps even leaking into my original NG posts) being if nothing else, alligned with these bunch (however, much better on the blending in to normal society part) I have a fairly good knowledge of the makeup of these groups. Oh yeah, I also study law with the best and brightest of these folk, so I have experience with their superlatives as well. Trust me, they don't take business law, or securities, they take public interest and environmental.

At 10/5/11 04:12 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

$100,000 is substantial, but really, what percentage of Americans' debt is contained within the small confines of checking, savings and CDs? Also, the best of my knowledge, the $100K isn't per account, it's per bank (as if that distinction makes much of a difference for most Americans...)

100,000 per bank sounds absurdly low. And it is, according to this site it's per person. Though I think the high interest accounts may actually not be covered by this statute.

I'm short on time so here's a google connection a few
links.

Some groups have payed back, yes, but the net deficit seems to be quite high. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae seem to be the blurst of the worst. So I'm not really convinced outright, if you've any particular sources that contradict the fairly vauge results google threw up I'd be really interested in reading them!

Why do that when you could do both by placing the money exactly where it was before it dissapeared. In that I mean in the hands of the banks where it was being held.

Because they don't seem fit for the job at this point in time. You need a complete idealogical culling in order to remove the problem (Bad market practices) instead of the symptoms (Boom-bust economic cycles).

This way, we could also avoid the collateral collapse of honest funds that would have crumbled along with the bad ones. Frankly, where the money was put was the right place. Very little in terms of percentage of the money was being used in such a reckless manner, (at worst 10%) but a collapse of these institutions could lead to well over that amount disappearing. It would take substantially more money to fill in the cavern created by the collapse than to patch the hole that already existed.

But it would seem this is already leading to a cavern as. There is no way to fix a system with this bad a debt/fiat currency ratio, there simply isn't the funds! The best thing to do would be to write off the debts as absurd amounts and start again. Give priority to citizens, let institutions and corporations take the burden of dead credit.

Bonaroo isn't a personal attack. It's an indy hippie music/art festival. I use it to describe exactly who I talk about when I say career protestors. The types that patron things such as Bonaroo, Burning Man, Sasquatch and alike are the kind that are career protestors who garner little to no cred in the arena.

It's definitely derogatory. It sounds like Australian, which is bad in itself.
(Super Soz to anyone reading this).

Better than nothing? Sure. However, when it's the protest at the drop of a hat sort, they have no room to complain about lack of tattention by the media.

I wouldn't exactly call this the drop of a hat. Yes they protest alot. But do you not feel there's alot of things wrong with the world? Things you wish people would try and change? They're idealists and yes, sometimes, even naive. But I'd never hold that against them.

This leads me to my bleak outlook of their understanding of the issues. These sort of protestoers are not quite likely to be versed in the ways of the monied class (i.e. science, economics, business, law). They tend to be more knowledgable when it comes to the social areas (i.e. art, sociology). So when they pick perhaps one of the most complex systems of economics to attack I seriously doubt they know anything about what they speak of.

Well, Cam, I'm sorry to say that you don't actually need to be qualified or informed in order to particiape in a democratic society and in fact you should never have to be! The government IS deliberately misinforming people and to expect the backlash to come from Academia, some mob of militant fiscal conservatives, is unrealistic.

We can't expect in a society where educating people on their rights, the law and how the world works is considered unnecesary that the people will be particularly informed beyond the fact that their lives and the lives of others are being impacted negatively on. And in truth I don't think they need to justify it beyond the fact that they know corporations and the Government and the general status quo of the many industrial-complexes impacts their lives negatively. Wanting change is a very good start, the education will come with it.

I could quote that Black Panther story where the guy askes for a weapon and they give him a book but I don't want to come across too flower power.

Trust me, having grown up in the Pacific Northwest and spent the better part of my high school and early college years (perhaps even leaking into my original NG posts) being if nothing else, alligned with these bunch (however, much better on the blending in to normal society part) I have a fairly good knowledge of the makeup of these groups. Oh yeah, I also study law with the best and brightest of these folk, so I have experience with their superlatives as well. Trust me, they don't take business law, or securities, they take public interest and environmental.

Again, while I understand you took pride in your understanding of economics, law and legislation in the US and how it has and continues to interact with US and global politics I don't think it's fair to expect everyone to adhere to such a standard. Everyone is entitled to an opinion and while battling with common misconceptions is annoying it's just part of the game. Anymore than I'm entitled to get angry at other sound technicians or music appreciators when they come out with absurd statements - I'm quite in depth in my field, I specialise in it. It's my duty to not only provide information when requested but to be aware that to an outsider my language, concepts and logic may be alien and respect their right to an opinion.

Sorry for the wordy posts!

Maybe they should've learned a couple of lessons from the protests in Wisconsin, where the average person did get involved in protesting something that they felt was truly wrong in Senate Bill 5. What these "career protestors" are doing is obviously doing the complete opposite, and it seems like it's going to spread to LA and DC. I know that mob mentality in general isn't exactly the brightest thing in the world to do, but this is getting to a point where this is just asinine, especially when there is no central leadership or even a halfway decent cause for us to understand.

Whatever good intentions they had in mind with this Wall St. black out is clearly being overshadowed by their complete ignorance of the situation at hand, and their lack of answers on how to solve the problem, without to the point of radicalization or just being naive. And if this protest do get violent, ohh boy, it definitely won't end well for everyone.

At 10/5/11 06:14 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: 100,000 per bank sounds absurdly low. And it is, according to this site it's per person. Though I think the high interest accounts may actually not be covered by this statute.

The biggest restriction here is not the $100K or how many it applies it, it's what it applies to. The vast majority of the average American's savings is not in checking, savings, or CDs. They lie in things like stocks, 401Ks, IRAs, and other non FDIC protected investment instruments. In those things, absolutely ZERO of your money is protected.

Some groups have payed back, yes, but the net deficit seems to be quite high. Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae seem to be the blurst of the worst. So I'm not really convinced outright, if you've any particular sources that contradict the fairly vauge results google threw up I'd be really interested in reading them!

Give me some time to do some actual research and I'll come back with some.

Because they don't seem fit for the job at this point in time. You need a complete idealogical culling in order to remove the problem (Bad market practices) instead of the symptoms (Boom-bust economic cycles).

The bailout wasn't meant to fix the problem. It was meant to keep a hole from caving in.

But it would seem this is already leading to a cavern as. There is no way to fix a system with this bad a debt/fiat currency ratio, there simply isn't the funds! The best thing to do would be to write off the debts as absurd amounts and start again. Give priority to citizens, let institutions and corporations take the burden of dead credit.

But it's not.

Here's a representation:
Invesment sector A has 100 billion dollars of invested capital out there. This investment capital exists largely of derivatives and combinations of average Joes' stock and investments.

Now, A goes reckless with 10 billion of its money, giving out false insurance plans thinking they'll never have to cash out. Oops! Economy tanks, cash out time!

Now, A has lost 10 billion dollars of average Americans' retirement and savings money. Two bailout options, pay the Joes that 10 billion, or pay A that 10 billion.

Bailut out the Joes. The Joes get a few thousand each. A and 20 of their ilk lose a combined 100 billion dollars and begin to collapse. A loses more and more and more of Joes' money. In the end, the collapse costs A 30 billion more dollars of Joes' money.

Bailout A. A and its compatriots are bailed out. A stabilizes and loses very littel more money. Joes' retirement and savings, doesn't take the massive hit.

There are your options. Sure, both have some side effects, and it sure makes us feel warm and fuzzy to pay the Joes instead of the reckless corporations, but in the end, sometimes it's better to be smart than it is to go for warm and fuzzy.

I wouldn't exactly call this the drop of a hat. Yes they protest alot. But do you not feel there's alot of things wrong with the world? Things you wish people would try and change? They're idealists and yes, sometimes, even naive. But I'd never hold that against them.

You ever hear of the story of the boy who cried wolf? Yeah, the career protestors protest about so much these days that it's just so dang hard to really get excited or care anymore. Liek I said it's lost its novelty.

Well, Cam, I'm sorry to say that you don't actually need to be qualified or informed in order to particiape in a democratic society and in fact you should never have to be! The government IS deliberately misinforming people and to expect the backlash to come from Academia, some mob of militant fiscal conservatives, is unrealistic.

You don't have to be educated to participate, but it definitely helps. They say something's wrong. yes. They propose solutions. Should I trust their solutions? Should I trust solutions from people who don't really understand what the problem is? No, not really.

I could quote that Black Panther story where the guy askes for a weapon and they give him a book but I don't want to come across too flower power.

Well, can we pass these guys each a book on securities?

Again, while I understand you took pride in your understanding of economics, law and legislation in the US and how it has and continues to interact with US and global politics I don't think it's fair to expect everyone to adhere to such a standard.

If someone came to your music business and started protesting in front of it. Day and night, blocking your business and in general being a pain in the ass, but all they knew about music is that guitars and round brass things make pretty noises, wouldn't that grind on you? Now, I don't work in finances, but I see people who try so hard to make points about it, but they know so little they cannot even pin point the problem. "Corporations are bad!" is not something I cannot jump on board with. When the base question to a protest can be answered with a "yeah, and...?" it's not a strong enough point.

At 10/5/11 07:05 PM, orangebomb wrote: I know that mob mentality in general isn't exactly the brightest thing in the world to do, but this is getting to a point where this is just asinine, especially when there is no central leadership or even a halfway decent cause for us to understand.

Occupy Corvallis! It just got real...

Whatever good intentions they had in mind with this Wall St. black out is clearly being overshadowed by their complete ignorance of the situation at hand, and their lack of answers on how to solve the problem, without to the point of radicalization or just being naive.

The issues of "We're tires of being poor!" and "The rich are rich!" don't really provide any answers or solutions.

Now, these protestors have two options. They can either come up with some clear and worthy problems and solutions to them, or they do the better solution, get some credibility by getting some regular people whose opinions other regular people actually value.

I am no fan of opinions reeking of weed...

At 10/5/11 08:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote: Now, these protestors have two options. They can either come up with some clear and worthy problems and solutions to them, or they do the better solution, get some credibility by getting some regular people whose opinions other regular people actually value.

This isn't about encouraging dialogue or sensible solutions. They're angry, they're unwilling to consider any viewpoints other than their own, and they aren't concerned with the implications or long-term consquences of what their demands would lead to.

Mass protests are never founded on rationality. They couldn't be. Reasonable solutions to major problems are very complex and usually take a lot of experience or background knowledge to understand. To rally people, you need passion and conviction, not logic and an objective mind. It's one reason to be thankful we elect representatives to vote for us rather than cast a ballot for each and every legislative action.

At 10/5/11 09:15 PM, adrshepard wrote: Mass protests are never founded on rationality. They couldn't be. Reasonable solutions to major problems are very complex and usually take a lot of experience or background knowledge to understand. To rally people, you need passion and conviction, not logic and an objective mind. It's one reason to be thankful we elect representatives to vote for us rather than cast a ballot for each and every legislative action.

You're not going to find many people who understand this system who will be opposed to it. The nature of this system is that it is so comple that those who have the knowledge can navigate, control, and thus benefit from the system.

However, it seems as if some unions have joined the protest, so it seems that the average Joe might be hopping on this bandwagon. Now this protest needs to let them be the forefront and get a more articulate message than "they have money, and we don't like that they have it!"

our corporate tax rates are what's holding us back, they are higher than ever and its all because Obama is a socialist and all those hipster babies have no idea what they are talking about and are just greedy freeloaders.

It's weird I think the continuing police brutality is actually helping the protesters. As long as it keeps going on the media is basically obliged to cover it at least partially, and it seems to increase the motivation of the protesters almost.

Unless police could crush the protests in one fell swoop it seems there helping this along, and even then you could just get riots from the backlash of crushing the protests.

At 10/6/11 12:47 AM, thedo12 wrote: It's weird I think the continuing police brutality is actually helping the protesters.

brutality no. unlawful arrests yes.

At 10/6/11 12:52 AM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

At 10/6/11 12:47 AM, thedo12 wrote: It's weird I think the continuing police brutality is actually helping the protesters.

brutality no. unlawful arrests yes.

I consider pepper spray without just cause brutality , although it may not be in the legal sense. IDK. Point is though seems to be helping the actual protests more then hurting.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpOMlDVaX zc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YXuvhg8A hw

Well guys, shit has hit the fan for the serious.

At 10/6/11 02:17 AM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xpOMlDVaX zc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-YXuvhg8A hw

Well guys, shit has hit the fan for the serious.

A Fox 5 news crew was caught in that mess and got on the receiving end of batons and mace:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm9-AypN9 vs

At 10/5/11 07:34 AM, EWaters wrote: Let's wait and see if they're still protesting on Wall Street once it starts snowing. Of course they're moving to other cities, it's getting cold. Anyways the same thing came and went in Israel. I'm not looking to debate Israel/Palestine right now, I'm just saying that they "occupied" the streets of the cities in some huge protest all summer long, now summer's over, end of protest. If you're going to model your protest after something, don't model it after something that didn't work.

People from all over the US are feeding them with take out by internet orders and call ins.

It wouldn't be much of a stretch to start mailing them winter gear.

At 10/6/11 06:34 AM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: People from all over the US are feeding them with take out by internet orders and call ins.

How's about regular people actually start participating instead of encouraging the semi-homeless career protestors?

At 10/6/11 09:52 AM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 10/6/11 06:34 AM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: People from all over the US are feeding them with take out by internet orders and call ins.

How's about regular people actually start participating instead of encouraging the semi-homeless career protestors?

Why don't you become educated and read.

http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/

Regular people are participating. Very little of them are what you call "career protestors", and the main stream media that is ran by the corporations in question here is winning when you believe that the protests have no objectives or clear cut goals.

No. I'm certain they'll stop protesting when Bonnaroo comes around to listen to "rock".

At 10/6/11 05:19 AM, wildfire4461 wrote: A Fox 5 news crew was caught in that mess and got on the receiving end of batons and mace:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=mm9-AypN9 vs

yes, push into the police barricades (and officers) and expect nothing to happen...

At 10/5/11 08:04 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

The biggest restriction here is not the $100K or how many it applies it, it's what it applies to. The vast majority of the average American's savings is not in checking, savings, or CDs. They lie in things like stocks, 401Ks, IRAs, and other non FDIC protected investment instruments. In those things, absolutely ZERO of your money is protected.

Are you referring to the money within a deposit account being moved around to different fund pots for seperate investments by the bank (Ala good ol' fractional reserve) or are we talking the active use of "special rate" investment options?

I find it crazy that people are pouring that sort of cash into investment schemes if this is true. And if so they did take a risk and so long Joe and your cash. Next time consider going to the Bookies instead. Speculating on the market is best left to those who do it full time.

Give me some time to do some actual research and I'll come back with some.

Np.

The bailout wasn't meant to fix the problem. It was meant to keep a hole from caving in.

I'd agree

Here's a representation:
Analogy/story of what happened

There are your options. Sure, both have some side effects, and it sure makes us feel warm and fuzzy to pay the Joes instead of the reckless corporations, but in the end, sometimes it's better to be smart than it is to go for warm and fuzzy.

Yes and no. His savings are safe insofar as what stays within the bank but he still has the cost of paying off the banks which he must fund via taxes and also in more intangible ways such as health and education cuts - not that I want to use arguements of compassion here, but people who needn't have died in A&E or slipped through the cracks in the education system will now do so and there's nothing that the payback of that money can do to resolve that. And those with little to no savings are obviously leaving this recession alot worse off with increased taxes, debt, worse social welfare, healthcare and no savings regardless of the banks.

Even if I beleived in the longterm that the books would be balanced I don't have the conviction to say that it's worth standard of living. At the end of the day, money is only a representitive of value of tangible goods and services. And the bottom line are still being hit alot harder than anyone else. Those who could buy GM bonds with spare cash can take the hit, those who hadn't the cash to speculate obviously can't.

You ever hear of the story of the boy who cried wolf? Yeah, the career protestors protest about so much these days that it's just so dang hard to really get excited or care anymore. Liek I said it's lost its novelty.

But there's unjust wars, the bank bailouts, huge poverty issues, private companies exploiting workers, oligarchs generating coups, medical companies faking epidemics. I don't feel that the protests are spurious, it's not like they're out every day marching about Chemtrails or Area 51's secrecy, generaly their complains are about tangible, factual issues.

You don't have to be educated to participate, but it definitely helps. They say something's wrong. yes. They propose solutions. Should I trust their solutions? Should I trust solutions from people who don't really understand what the problem is? No, not really.

Of course it helps. But you can't dismiss their acknowledgement of a problem via a lack of solution. It'd be much more constructive to go out and say "Yes, you're right! But your solution wont work, you need to do X instead". It requires the informed to engage to the good willed in a serious dialouge.

Well, can we pass these guys each a book on securities?

Do. In fact give them every major political, economic and social critique of importance. Give them a copy of The Republic. Whatever, the more informed we are the less likely we are to doom ourselves.

If someone came to your music business and started protesting in front of it. Day and night, blocking your business and in general being a pain in the ass, but all they knew about music is that guitars and round brass things make pretty noises, wouldn't that grind on you

This actually happens and I don't even care. People think a major record label deal is the only way up and that you need a 60 year old microphone and 30 year old tape to make a good record. You get so used to explaining it that it becomes less of an apology for not being George Martin and more of a rote learned speech. Anyway, that's generaly off topic but my core point would be that I focus on the importance of making them understand the reality of how it works by citing the work of others than through contempt. Contempt for the common man is a slippery slope!

Now, I don't work in finances, but I see people who try so hard to make points about it, but they know so little they cannot even pin point the problem. "Corporations are bad!" is not something I cannot jump on board with. When the base question to a protest can be answered with a "yeah, and...?" it's not a strong enough point.

No, it's not. But that implies they're all uninformed and that's untrue. Some of the interviews I've seen have been fairly informed and intelligent and some serious academics such as Noam Chomsky have gotten on board too. I know Michael Moore has jumped on too, but at least David Icke has stayed away!

The full statement is "Corporations are bad and private institutions and governments are two halves of the same oppresive mechanism. We have to take control of the world we live in and enforce a direct democracy in which a community has the right to autonomously decide what it does or does not do. We must learn to trust others as we must have for power structures to have ever come into place and we must stay vigilant to prevent bodies exploiting us."

Also, Orange Bomb - should you read this. What exactly is wrong with radicalization? The last 80-100 years of political reformism has been piss poor and getting worse!