Источник
Public discussion posts pertaining to the Occupy Wall Street movement
Выбор редакции
16 октября, 23:30

Debt Treachery

  • 0

Rentiers (those who live off property or investments/interest) are not just living by the work of we the people. Their exploitation makes them traitors and threats to the human race. Docile debt payers are treacherous and like lender/investors. We're less a threat to the survival of the human race. We at least do some real work to earn our living, unlike the rentiers who own most of the corporate stocks and bonds and grow rich by profiting from our work. The IMF and World Bank have forced austerity on nations around the world to service debt, as they are forced to do by the neo-liberal master lenders. The more we suffer, the more they profit. Capitalism is a failed system for at least 90% of the human race. Those it serves do not deserve to live, because they live by the work and suffering of the rest of us. "... The consequences of IMF orthodoxy are often deadly, with the Malawi case as one very painful episode. In 1996, the IMF staff pushed the government of Malawi to privatize its agricultural development and marketing corporation. This body held Malawi’s grain stock, and it regulated the price for the sale of grain in the country. Privatization of the corporation in 1999 left Malawi’s government without a means to protect its population in case of an emergency. Between October 2001 and March 2002, the price of maize shot up by 400 percent. Flooding in 2000-2001 and a year of drought set the food production in the country into distress. People began to die of starvation—as many as 3,000. The IMF did not relent. Malawi had to continue to service its debt.,,," https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/10/the-imf-convenes-in-washington-deaf-to-the-suffering-it-causes-across-the-planet.html

Выбор редакции
13 октября, 19:36

25 time

  • 0

Will the Republicans come to their senses in time to save their party from further humilation by the orange clown in the white house? It's hard to believe anyone still defends Trump. The SNL Weekend Update (10/12/19) was more honest in their approach to the issue of Trump's criminality than the Sunday morning news shows that still pretend there are two sides to the issue and are complicit in deploying repugnicant "weapons of mass distraction." But even if almost half of Americans are still [or at least pretend to be] bigger morons than Trump, the majority of us are or have been awakened to right wing perfidy. Greater than that of his clownish crimes is the evidence of his mental instability. It's time for the VP and cabinet to come alive and invoke the 25th. I refuse to accept the possibilty that more than 30% of the US population is so brain dead as to continue to embrace the insanity that has its death grip on America. "... Section 4: Declaration by vice president and principal officers Section 4. Whenever the Vice President and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive departments or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as Acting President...." https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Twenty-fifth_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution#Section_4:_Declaration_by_vice_president_and_principal_officers

Выбор редакции
28 сентября, 19:30

Control

  • 0

Control of the work of many, not one's own hard work, is the only way to get rich. How much must one have to be rich? If most people had 10 times what they have now, say income of $500k and net worth of several million, they would consider themselves rich. They're not, by today's measure, but let's say possession of ten times the average material wealth is rich. How does one acquire ten times the average? Well ... it's plausible to say that if 20 people work for a one who takes half of what each produces by their individual labor and what the workers have left after the extraction is average, then the rich one has ten times what each ordinary person has. I know that last sentence is awkward. If you didn't quite get it, read it again. Repeat until you're quite sure you understand it. Without thorough comprehension you can't grasp what follows: If it takes the work of ten people to make 1 person rich, then only 1 in 11 of us, or about 9%, can ever be rich. And by today's measure of great wealth I doubt that the real ratio is even one in a thousand. Those who have 2 to 10 times the average make the odds even slimmer for the rest of us poor muted schmucks! The preceding is about the quaint old fashioned acquisitiveness of those who get rich by appropriating the value of the labor of workers that produce material products and services. In the 21st century, most of the rich acquire their excess by abstract financial means that have little to do with any real production. Michael Hudson, as always, has a lot to say about real economy and concentration of wealth. https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/09/michael-hudson-asset-price-inflation-and-rent-seeking.html

Выбор редакции
28 сентября, 08:15

"Why Bernie Sanders Matters" by Seth Ackerman

  • 0

New York magazine’s Eric Levitz — probably the sharpest liberal political commentator writing today — has a few bones to pick with Jacobin writers on the subject of Bernie Sanders versus Elizabeth Warren. The case for Warren as a force for progressivism, Levitz says, is stronger than we’ve allowed. Whatever differences exist between the two candidates will probably end up moot if their policies ever reach the floor of Congress anyway. Moreover, Levitz questions our conviction that Bernie Sanders has the potential to transform American politics in any real way — at least any more than Warren does. Given the country’s legislative stasis and its conservatizing political institutions, he argues, such optimism about any politician is ill-advised. None of these points is completely wrong, and yet there’s something perverse about this two-and-a-half-cheers-for-Warren case. Somehow, the very fact that Sanders’s post-2016 ascent triggered a historically unprecedented leftward lurch in Democratic Party discourse — a development for which Elizabeth Warren’s rise is Exhibit A — is used to argue that Bernie Sanders has no particular monopoly on the ability to push American politics leftward. According to Levitz, Sanders has already “persuaded many 2020 Democratic hopefuls to stop worrying and learn to love social democracy” — therefore, he concludes, Sanders must now be dispensable. It’s like saying that since there’s never been a break-in at Fort Knox, there must be no need for all those armed guards. Yet even as Levitz sees Sanders’s mission as all but accomplished, he also wants to argue that the Vermont senator has accomplished very little. “Sanders has had a national platform for three years now,” Levitz writes. “He has built up an independent organization and traveled the country proselytizing for class struggle. And none of it has been sufficient for his acolytes to dominate Democratic primaries, or to win him a broader base of support for his 2020 run than he had in 2016, or even to keep his approval rating from slipping underwater.” It’s true that Sanders has not decisively conquered the American political system for socialism in the space of three years. Socialism is seldom built in a day. Between its first electoral outing and its second, the British Labour Party went from 1.8 percent of the vote in 1900 to 5.7 percent in 1906; the German Social Democratic Party from 3.2 percent in 1871 to 6.8 percent in 1874; the French Workers’ Party (whose first election manifesto was co-written by Karl Marx) from 0.4 percent in 1881 to . . . 0.4 percent in 1885. All three of these parties, in some form, went on to transform their countries’ political landscapes — just not in three years. However, a startling indication of how much Sanders has already changed US politics was recently reported by Martin Wattenberg, a political scientist at the University of California Irvine. Every four years since 1956, the American National Election Studies (ANES) has asked voters to describe, in their own words, what they like or dislike about the two parties. It was on the basis of these interviews that the political scientist Philip Converse reached his famous verdict in 1964 that ordinary Americans are, broadly speaking, “innocent of ideology” — that they don’t think in ideological terms. Political scientists have generally accepted that judgment ever since, along with a corollary notion about American public opinion, advanced in 1967 by the politics scholars Lloyd Free and Hadley Cantril: that Americans tend, on the whole, to be “operationally liberal” (favoring specific liberal policies like Social Security and Medicare) but “philosophically conservative” (rejecting broad expressions of left-wing ideas). In a widely noted 2016 book, the political scientists Matthew Grossmann and David A. Hopkins elaborated on this idea, showing that American public opinion is “asymmetric,” with Republican voters embracing broad conservative ideology while rank-and-file Democrats avoid abstract ideas —thinking mainly in terms of which particular social groups will be helped or harmed by each party’s policies. In the long run, Democrats “suffer from not forthrightly making ideological arguments,” Grossmann argues; “partially as a result, [the] public maintains conservative predispositions.” But Wattenberg’s detailed analysis of the ANES voter interview transcripts has led him to conclude that in 2016 something fundamental changed in American public opinion: Past research has shown that Republicans are substantially more likely to be ideologues whereas Democrats are much more inclined to conceptualize politics in terms of group benefits. This pattern was quite evident in the 2008 and 2012 American National Election Study (ANES) responses that I personally coded. However, two developments occurred in 2016 that dramatically reshaped the partisan nature of belief systems. First, the Bernie Sanders wing of the Democratic Party evidenced a great deal of ideological thinking, thereby pushing Democrats to a record percentage at the top level of ideological conceptualization. “Far more than most Democratic presidential contenders,” Wattenberg continued, “Sanders openly discussed and emphasized ideological concepts, proudly promoting progressivism and democratic socialism.” “What we saw in 2016,” the scholar explained in a recent interview, “was sort of a legitimation of talking in those terms. Bernie Sanders said, ‘Progressivism, democratic socialism, these are good things.’ For the first time, I’m really seeing that in the interviews.” For a single candidate, in a single campaign, to leave such an imprint on mass opinion is remarkable; Obama didn’t manage that, and by all indications neither would Warren. Maybe Levitz is right when he posits that a President Warren would be able to “get senators like Jon Tester and Kyrsten Sinema to swallow marginally more progressive legislation in 2021” than a President Sanders. Maybe. But to embrace that as our political horizon would be a counsel of despair. The rationale for Sanders’s brand of politics has always been that shifting the basic parameters of American politics — however difficult that may be — is a better aim than accepting those parameters and trying to maneuver within them. Both the bitter disappointments and the fragile hopes of the last decade of politics have tended to prove that strategy right. Lowering our sights now would be a world-historical mistake. verbum satis sapienti ... [Article copied verbatim under "Fair Use" from: https://jacobinmag.com/2019/09/bernie-sanders-elizabeth-warren-eric-levitz-2020-presidential-campaign-democratic-nomination & use ^ this ^ link to access the 7 underlined embedded information links.]

Выбор редакции
18 сентября, 18:25

The Death Value Looms

  • 0

Definition of kakistocracy : government by the worst people - Merriam Webster Dictionary Thus is most of the history of civilization summarized. Thus is all of the history of Capitalism accurately characterized. 50 years ago some good things were still happening. That began to be stifled with the election of Richard Nixon. It was almost eliminated by Ronald Reagan and has turned to the almost pure evil of unbridled Capitalist domination and debt enslavement of the majority of Americans since 1980. We, as consumers, sell our labor to get the money to buy what we need to live and whatever luxuries we can afford. We, as producers, work to make products to exchange for money to buy the things we need and the luxuries we can afford. In an ideal world the value of the products we buy would be our labor and would be equal to the value of the work that produced, refined and distributed those goods. The value is not well balanced. The Capitalists who buy and sell goods add exchange "value" that represents no labor but only the parasitic profit of middle "men" and interest of money lenders, the (often the same) capitalists who put us in debt to pay for their graft. Exchange Value is destructive to our economy and ultimately threatens our existence. Exchange value represents no one's work. It is the profit on invested capitol, which has no value to producers, transporters, refiners and consumers. Parasitic buyers and sellers that insert themselves between producers and consumers have inflated prices, while depressing wages and salaries to further increase their profits. They've grown so bloated that their existence threatens ours. https://truthout.org/articles/this-is-not-the-sixth-extinction-its-the-first-extermination-event/ see also: https://www.marxists.org/archive/marx/works/1867-c1/ch06.htm

Выбор редакции
11 сентября, 16:50

The Impossible Dream

  • 0

When I was five my three year old brother and I were killing Japs in the basement on a rainy day. Our older sister was taking clothes off the basement lines. We chanted "Yap yap yap, another dead Jap," as we fired our toy pistols. It was 1951 and our know it all older sibling pointed out that commies were the enemy now. We tried to fix our death song but ended up doing something else. I didn't find out till much later that the struggles against communism were in defense of the impossible dream of wealth created on Wall St. Most trades and price increases of stocks, which originated in IPOs or other stock issues from a source business, invest nothing in the real economy. They make something out of nothing. Yet that pyramid scheme, like the real estate Ponzi, is responsible for the prices and height of the indices that everyone thinks indicates the health of the economy and the glorious victory of the Wall St Oligarchs over Socialism. Sound familiar? If so, let me know? It would be a pleasant surprise to find out that someone actually reads my attempts to enlighten. Ok. Yes. That's self indulgent and I apologize. But repeating the fact that much if not most economic activity is non productive and makes something out of nothing is absolutely necessary. Think about pharmaceutical and health care provider corporations price gauging, while wasting billions on advertising and creating proprietary products instead of cooperating with the people they serve and one another to create superior health care. Think about every industry that funds university research that fifty years ago would have been shared in the public domain (like BSD, MIT's X-Windows, the IBM PC Architecture were) but now creates half a dozen nearly identical competing products that have superficial but proprietary differences. All the wasted money, energy and resources reinventing wheels over and over again and heating the economy artificially and ultimately destructively. The business majors love this of course. They're getting rich as we get deeper in debt trying to keep up with the unnecessary price increases created by all the redundant activity. The Capitalist Economy is self destructive and a danger to the human community. No. Not central planning, except where that's necessary like interstate highways and such. But the people must have a say in what we work to produce. Our survival in communities at whatever level are the purpose and source of all economy. We must plan for our futures. We can not depend on Wall St. Oligarchs to care about anything but their own self interest.

Выбор редакции
05 сентября, 20:57

it ain't like it was in the old days

  • 0

In the summer and early fall of 1929, Wall St was booming and president Hoover was taking all the credit. The question I want to pose is: What do the price of stocks and Wall St profits really mean? Do they indicate the superiority of Capitalism over Socialism? An IPO raises money for establishment or expansion of some business enterprise. It may or may not produce a material product or useful service. That's not the point, though it is something to think about. Subsequent stock issues also raise money that's, presumably, invested in a business. Such Wall St transactions may or may not contribute to the real economy of production, distribution and consumption of material goods and services. But that's only the smallest part of what goes on in Wall St. trading. The subsequent trades and price increases of stocks originating in IPOs or other stock issues, invest nothing in the real economy. They make something our of nothing. Yet that pyramid scheme, like the real estate Ponzi, is responsible for the prices and height of the indices that everyone thinks indicates the health of the economy and the glorious victory of the Wall St Oligarchs over Socialism. ?????? When are you morons going to wake the fuck up?

Выбор редакции
30 августа, 19:27

The SS Lies

  • 0

Republicans have been lying about Social Security for 84 years. FDR himself offered this warning, after the passage of the Social Security Act in 1935: "Let me warn you and let me warn the nation against the smooth evasion which says, 'Of course we believe all these things; we believe in social security; we believe in work for the unemployed; we believe in saving homes. Cross our hearts and hope to die, we believe in all these things; but we do not like the way the present Administration is doing them. Just turn them over to us. We will do all of them—we will do more of them, we will do them better; and, most important of all, the doing of them will not cost anybody anything.' "But, my friends, these evaders are banking too heavily on the shortness of our memories. No one will forget that they had their golden opportunity—twelve long years of it. "Remember, too, that the first essential of doing a job well is to want to see the job done. Make no mistake about this: The Republican leadership today is not against the way we have done the job. The Republican leadership is against the job’s being done." There's no honesty or sincerity in most Republican's or any conservative leader, especially the Wall St Oligarchs and billionaire hucksters like the Orange Clown.

Выбор редакции
30 августа, 18:45

Hong Kong Unrests

  • 0

An explanation of the non-abating unrests in Hong Kong is : https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=6_RdnVtfZPY Hong Kong is the greatest hub for capital flow and business between Red China and the West (foremost amongst which is not too surprisingly the U.S; we do have many U.S. nationals there, at least one percent of the teeming masses.) Its economy is "slightly larger than Israel's or Ireland's[29][30][31] and its GDP per capita at purchasing power parity was the sixth highest globally in 2011, higher than the United States and the Netherlands and slightly lower than Brunei." Imagine pulling the plug to drain off the economy of Israel or Ireland! The totally unnecessary (yep, the colonial Brits would have done better by sipping tea and betting on the horses; when the bosses were mostly having their attention largely directed towards elsewhere for centuries, Hong Kong had grown marvelously well from a small fishing village which even came with pirates in its environs into a major cosmopolis) politico-economic scar will last for at least many decades if not longer. Time is also running out fast because Beijing is under "terrorist" attacks just as "it was in June of 1989 in Tiananmen Square." See @18:43 a typical example of what Red China has brainwashed its people with and kept them inside of a drum.

Выбор редакции
24 августа, 03:31

Does the Passing of David Koch spell trouble for the GOP?

  • 0

Will His passing result in a smaller flow of Dark Money into Republican State & Federal Campaigns? Does This Hurt CATO & Heritage?

Выбор редакции
08 августа, 21:58

There Can Be Only One

  • 0

Can our communities organize ourselves to provide employment, goods and services on a non-profit basis as easily as the for profit corporations and businesses on which we now depend for our lives and livelihoods? It's playing out like "The Highlander." In the end, there can be only one. What is the answer to the vanishingly small number of possible big time winners, billionaires, in the winner take all economy? The one, the 100 or 1000 - the exact number when the pyramid collapses is irrelevant. What's true is that he, she, it or them is or are so psychopathic and single-mindedly greedy that they don't care about or are too stupid to see that when we starve in their service, they will die too. One answer is to tax wealth over $10 million at 99 or 100 percent. Use the money to finance every critical thing or service of, by and for the people on a non-profit basis. Prices come down. The real estate Ponzi is eliminated because, like all of banking, investment, insurance and real estate, the FIRE sector is the first industry to be communitized. Medicine, energy, mass communications and transportation follow immediately. Others will no doubt occur to us to be taken out of private hands in order to secure our lives and livelihoods. The for profit system of so called 'free enterprise" is broken. Only the greediest few refuse to see that. Yes, their are many fools who have yet to shed their conditioning. But things are deteriorating fast and even the bulk of the middle class is beginning to suffer from the oppression of the Wall St Oligarchs who own, control or hold the mortgages on almost all the wealth America has ever produced. That number at the top is shrinking, not growing, no matter how much those Ivy League MBAs believe they'll make it in the end, when there can be only one.

Выбор редакции
02 августа, 17:33

Ghengis Scam: The Great Con

  • 0

I hope you fools who haven't figured out that capitalism is the greatest scam of all time are starting to wake up! https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2019/08/families-drowning-in-debt-to-stay-in-the-middle-class.html