Newgrounds.com — Everything, By Everyone.

At 10/6/11 07:56 PM, Chris-V2 wrote: 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?

No, I am referring to the vast array of investments that are not protected by the FDIC. Savings, checkings, and CDs represent a very small amount of investment. There are even a few other bank runs accounts that might be protected, but those are few and far between.

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.

CDs, savings, and checking all has piss poor interest rates. We'll just say their rates range in the area of less than ten percent of inflation. I believe I had a CD that got at best .45% interest.

Stocks, money markets, hedges, bonds, debentures, and so on all represent opportunities to get higher interest rates, but they represent higher risks.

Np.

Here's a few that have paid back.

Yes and no.

More on the yes. A few taxes may end up going up in the long run due to TARP, but more money was saved because the sector was saved from collapsing completely. We'll just use Detroit and the auto industry as a localized example of what would have happened to us should the financial markets have collapsed the way they were leaning toward.

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.

I do agree. The lower end got hit the hardest. No doubt. However, your statement about GM bond buyers isn't actually accurate. The GM bond buyers weren't buying the bonds with their money, they were using the middle class' money.

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.

True, however, by picking EVERY battle, instead of the most important battles, they have dulled the impact of their protests.

Contempt for the common man is a slippery slope!

And the slippery slope is a load of shit.

Judging from what I've read, that is, the material produced by so-called representatives of these protests, the situation is very bad. The protesters tend to have the very ideology that is part of the problem. They advocate an authoritarian state justified by the necessity of providing free goodies to everyone.

At 10/6/11 09:34 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: The protesters tend to have the very ideology that is part of the problem.

Exactly how so?

At 10/6/11 09:34 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: Judging from what I've read, that is, the material produced by so-called representatives of these protests, the situation is very bad. The protesters tend to have the very ideology that is part of the problem. They advocate an authoritarian state justified by the necessity of providing free goodies to everyone.

if you are suggesting that America has all of a sudden turned socialist after just one president then you are waaaaaaaaaay out of your mind. But even then, its not even socialism that started these protests. I won't tell you people again:its about ENDING CORPORATE WELFARE.

again: not about demanding government hand outs to the bottom 99%, its about ending government hand outs to the top 1%.

At 10/6/11 10:13 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: again: not about demanding government hand outs to the bottom 99%, its about ending government hand outs to the top 1%.

That sounds like a nice little slogan on the surface. Only problem is things always tend to get muddy the deeper you go.

But there are only jobless kids, career protesters, and college students in attendance.

I went over to Milkandcookies (what do you mean, you've never heard of it?) and there have been like five headlined Wall Street Black Out videos in the past three days. The funny thing is that I went over to YouTube to look at the most popular videos this day and this week, but I didn't see any videos like that, it seemed like I would. I have the feeling that something big is going to come out of these protests, or at least I hope so.

At 10/7/11 05:03 AM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: But there are only jobless kids, career protesters, and college students in attendance.

yep. these people should be ignored and have no value to society what so ever.

@Camerohusky:

It's more complicated than this, but [aggregate] demand based economics is the intellectual bodyguard of the bailout mentality, and the

At 10/6/11 10:13 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

if you are suggesting that America has all of a sudden turned socialist after just one president then you are waaaaaaaaaay out of your mind. But even then, its not even socialism that started these protests. I won't tell you people again:its about ENDING CORPORATE WELFARE.

Did I use the word Socialism anywhere? No...

Now I am guessing that many of the occupy-wallstreet-ers [I'll call them occupiers from now on for short] are probably vanilla "social democrats", but Obama's corporatism [and Bushes] is not motivated by some social democratic philosophy, but statist ideologies that advocate expanding state power ultimately empower these politicians to do things either unrelated or contrary to the goals of their supporters.

Think about the baptists and the bootleggers. The Baptists advocate prohibition for the ostensible purpose of promoting morality and the abuse of alcohol. But their policy put into effect lead to no real gains to this effect, and simply empowered the most criminal members of society, and made alcohol all the more lucrative [and dangerous].

Another less commonly known example is how Milton Friedman's contraption of free floating currencies has allowed Governments to amass deficits that in the past would have been fiscally impossible [and inconceivable] Friedman's brand of libertarianism is impossible to achieve in a world where governments are able to spend so much money without having to raise nominal tax rates to pay for it. As a result, his own ideology conflicted with his desires.

It's the classic case of wanting government to be big enough to give you everything you want, and getting instead a government that is big enough to take away everything you have.

again: not about demanding government hand outs to the bottom 99%, its about ending government hand outs to the top 1%.

A lot of people who are libertarian or libertarian leaning, and are sympathetic to some of the aims of the Tea party, wanted to pretend that the bulk of the movement was about a principled advocacy of personal and economic freedom, but it simply ran in the face of the evidence, I know that I did at first. At most, slightly less than half were of that kind of ideology. Most were rank and file conservatives, and they in turn advocated predictable conservative positions.

And so you could scream and shout about how the tea party is only about wanting to fiscally restrain the Government, but and the response would be to point simply to what the so-called representatives of the tea party said from their own mouths. [Excluding people like Ron/Rand paul]

And my impression from the bulk of these people is that they ARE social democrats. Perhaps it is simply that the most outspoken members are such, but Like i said, the best sample I have are what gets written on their websites. The Occupy Wallstreet manifesto calls for a main street bailout.

At 10/6/11 07:56 PM, Chris-V2 wrote:

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

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!

And how did you come up with that? Radicalization on either side of the spectrum and especially for opinions in a hotly debated subject like this tends to go downhill more often then not. Just because people are stating that corporations are bad, and people like Norm Chomsky would most likely support this, doesn't make it legitimate.

We are all in favor for change in government, but at the same side of the coin, trying to force it down our throats is not the way to go, especially if there is no clear motive besides the tired cliche of "Corporations are evil" crap, that is being championed by modern day hippies, whinos and the ignorant.

This "occupy Wall St." movement is really no different than the Tea Party when you get down to brass tacks, the only difference is that at least the Tea Party has 1 political issue to unite on, whereas OWS is really nothing more than angsty rhetoric.

At 10/7/11 10:56 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: @Camerohusky:

Dammit Smilez! How many times do I have to tell you! It's Camaro. Like the car. yeesh... ;p

It's more complicated than this, but [aggregate] demand based economics is the intellectual bodyguard of the bailout mentality, and the

Looks like this idea got cut off...

At 10/7/11 11:06 PM, orangebomb wrote:
This "occupy Wall St." movement is really no different than the Tea Party when you get down to brass tacks, the only difference is that at least the Tea Party has 1 political issue to unite on, whereas OWS is really nothing more than angsty rhetoric.

So says the mainstream media, and you are silly enough to believe it.

At 10/8/11 06:21 AM, MercatorMapV2 wrote:

At 10/7/11 11:06 PM, orangebomb wrote:
This "occupy Wall St." movement is really no different than the Tea Party when you get down to brass tacks, the only difference is that at least the Tea Party has 1 political issue to unite on, whereas OWS is really nothing more than angsty rhetoric.

So says the mainstream media, and you are silly enough to believe it.

Orangebomb is actually right. The Tea Party had the political underpinnings of wanting much smaller government. That was their main goal with a few other small ideas piggy-backing upon it. The Occupy Wall Street is based on "We're poor and mad about it!" as well as "We don't like how rich people have power!" with a few small legitimate political ideals piggy-backing upon it.

At 10/8/11 11:29 AM, Camarohusky wrote:
Orangebomb is actually right. The Tea Party had the political underpinnings of wanting much smaller government. That was their main goal with a few other small ideas piggy-backing upon it. The Occupy Wall Street is based on "We're poor and mad about it!" as well as "We don't like how rich people have power!" with a few small legitimate political ideals piggy-backing upon it.

Nah. You just don't pay attention.

time to shit on police cars

At 10/8/11 11:44 AM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: Nah. You just don't pay attention.

Could you post a link to a written version? I am not always in a place where I can play sounds aloud.

At 10/8/11 12:50 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 10/8/11 11:44 AM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: Nah. You just don't pay attention.

Could you post a link to a written version? I am not always in a place where I can play sounds aloud.

I saw it and the jist of it was "Corporations are evil and Politicians should listen to the people who elected them not the corporations"

At 10/8/11 01:25 PM, All-American-Badass wrote:
I saw it and the jist of it was "Corporations are evil and Politicians should listen to the people who elected them not the corporations"

of the "people" (corporations)
by the "people" (corporations)
for the "people" (corporations)

here's another good way of putting it.

At 10/7/11 11:08 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 10/7/11 10:56 PM, SmilezRoyale wrote: @Camerohusky:

Dammit Smilez! How many times do I have to tell you! It's Camaro. Like the car. yeesh... ;p

Srry, I see your name and I think the Cameron... You know, the Avatar Guy.

It's more complicated than this, but [aggregate] demand based economics is the intellectual bodyguard of the bailout mentality, and the

Looks like this idea got cut off...

...And the corporatism that it inevitability leads to.

Dunno why that sentence got cut off. Sometimes I stop a sentence in mid flight and work on the next paragraph.

I just made a thread based on this thread.

Basically, the reason there is no media coverage is because the media doesn't want to cover it. It represents something they don't like to cover. A protest with an ununified message. There is no question what the general push of the protest is, but that generality is so simple-minded that the media has to interpret it in a way that doesn't sound obtuse on air.

And that's exactly why the protests have inspired discussion about police brutality. It's because the gist of the actual protest (because it is not causing an effective disruption) is too vague. The police brutality is important to highlight, but in the end it's the media's ploy to distract you from the fact that what it is covering is meaningless.

Apparently this doesn't deserve its own thread.

I actually have very little idea what is going on with all the "Occupy Wall Street" protests going on in the country, but what has really intrigued me is how much energy has gone into the protests vs. how little the protested against seem to be responding. There is certainly a disconnect between what the protesters deem to be "the two sides".

There is something very appealing about watching a protracted argument between large groups of people in which neither side understands the other. It becomes a waste of time for all involved. The protestors, the protested, and those who take interest.

But I think this concept has amazing potential as satire and for revealing irony. Think about it. These protests are not so different from The Daily Show's March to Restore Sanity. The people who are attending/attended such events were not unified in message, albeit the latter was more tongue-in-cheek.

Eventually, the March to Restore Sanity did reveal its message about the hyperbolic role the media plays, but the message eventually died soon there after. The failure of both protests is that they did not cause disruption. Many businesses are unaffected by "Occupy Wall Street" because they are not located on Wall Street. The March was held peacefully in a Mall for three hours. Not disruptive at all.

Wouldn't it be brilliant if a prolonged mass protest commenced where its attendees did not know or would not tell what they were truly protesting. If they disrupted the flow of business, they would attract the attention of America, consuming it like a black hole.

The media, politicians, Wall Street, all the important facets of our country would be fixated on this useless event. The end result is a a modern-day Modest Proposal.

1. By covering the news of a protest without a cause for hours on end, the irony of the media would be revealed. The Media is supposed to show us what's important, what we should care about, but instead gets absorbed in the hype of "no directionness".

2. The protests could symbolize the meaningless disconnect between the two parties in Washington, a disconnect that threatens the stability of our country on a daily basis.

3. Really there arn't just three applications of this use of irony. I bet your could name more.

What do you guys think?

At 10/8/11 11:44 AM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: Nah. You just don't pay attention.

Alright. I finally had a chance to listen.

Guess what? My opinion hasn't changed, well at least not for the better. I lasted about three minutes before I was like, "seriously?" and turned it off. This is just the hippy bong-watercooler talking points. In other words "We are mad that corporations have power!!!!"

This is just a ton of whining without any base except "Corporations bad! Corporations bad! Fire- I mean, Corporations Bad!" I respond to the protestors with the slogan of one of their corporate oppressors who has tortured them and sent their farmed animals overseas while buring forests just for the pleasure of it:

Where's the beef?

At 10/8/11 09:06 PM, Camarohusky wrote:

At 10/8/11 11:44 AM, MercatorMapV2 wrote: Nah. You just don't pay attention.

Alright. I finally had a chance to listen.

Guess what? My opinion hasn't changed, well at least not for the better. I lasted about three minutes before I was like, "seriously?" and turned it off. This is just the hippy bong-watercooler talking points. In other words "We are mad that corporations have power!!!!"

This is just a ton of whining without any base except "Corporations bad! Corporations bad! Fire- I mean, Corporations Bad!" I respond to the protestors with the slogan of one of their corporate oppressors who has tortured them and sent their farmed animals overseas while buring forests just for the pleasure of it:

Where's the beef?

Your views are way too black and white.

he states crimes committed by corporations and you jump to the conclusion that he is saying they do it for shits n giggles. Hes not accusing them of being psychopaths, hes accusing them of being sociopaths. They aren't shipping our jobs over seas and telling us that they can do that any time just to see us cry, they are doing it so they can get away with cutting their pay while making them do more work for nothing more in return. But when someone makes a claim you have to jump to the extreme and even add facts in there to make it look more ridiculous, because this world is black and white. You are either Caligula or Buddha.

I think I'm going to put my final overall analysis up. Feel free to criticize and interpret as you wish.

But here are my problems with it...

1) The people protesting are not under any form of unified voice or focused ideology. And they therefore come across as people protesting just because they're upset, without fully understanding what it is they're upset about (basically it's too loose and broad).

2) These people blame the rich, corporations, and banks, without placing any blame on themselves. I feel anyone protesting was more than likely affected by those groups, but fail to realize that they more than likely naively helped to create the problem too. The people use the old, "we were mislead or lied to" excuse. Placing fault purely on someone else, is just overall making excuses. Thus it makes the people protesting sound extremely immature.

3) My other problem is that these people want to tear down the system and talk idealistically about what they want to put in place. They have all these broad and general ideas, but once again no focus. They lack any form of plan or explanation for what they want in place. They're trying to start some form of social revolution without an idea for as to what to fill the gap/hole with if one were created. Therefore, they'd end up leaving a vacuum of power up for grabs for anyone.

Once you begin to think about, there's absolutely no reason as to why anyone with enough reason and logic in their opinions, should ever support the people protesting. It's also probably the same reason as to why you're probably hearing very little coverage and very little reaction from the side that's being protested against.

The people in the media and the people being protested are looking at it as, "Who the fuck are these people and why should we care?" In the end these people are just so unfocused and rebelling without any real cause or reason. With no leadership and no voice, these people will fade as quickly as they came. They might linger on for a short while afterwards, but within a years time, people sharing their views will fade from any form of spotlight.

At 10/8/11 09:34 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote: They aren't shipping our jobs over seas and telling us that they can do that any time just to see us cry, they are doing it so they can get away with cutting their pay while making them do more work for nothing more in return.

Blah blah blah. You can try to get existential and tear up my argument that way, but when it comes down to the very core, all the protestors are saying is "Corporations are bad!" They need to have a specific solution, or specific problem with the corporations. The more they load on, the more it changes from a call for change to nothing other than a bitter dump-fest.

I would have to add that the addition of the ultra-hippy digs in the messgae don't help either. "Torturing farm animals" "hurting the earth" Come on. It's like the posters I see on campus that say "Vegan food offered!" In real world translation it says "the less touch you have with reality, the better!"

These perotestors need to get a better core than just how bad corporations are. They also need to drop the hippie additions. The Tea Party lost major points because they adopted ultra-reactionary tags, and these protestors are doing the smae with their "Whale Wars" additions.

At 10/8/11 09:39 PM, Psil0 wrote: I think I'm going to put my final overall analysis up.

All great points. I agree wholly.

At 9/30/11 10:03 PM, Iron-Hampster wrote:

its a big enough event to deserve some media coverage, yet it gets none, why do you guys think this is, and do you think it is right?

I stopped trusting media perspective after the [true] Ron Paul polls were released.

Fun facts: During the 2008 election campaign, Obama received more donations from Goldman Sachs than all republicans running for all offices put together.

But go ahead, try going to one of these things and saying Obama is part of the problem or that Ron Paul would make a better president.

The vast majority of these people are utter morons, and so is anyone who supports these protests.