Occupy Movement right about global recession (see MOD WARNING Post #14)

yore

KyussBishop wrote: »

Heh, ya you're right I guess, anyone who has a problem with anything in the western world should just shut up; it's not as bad as Somalia after all so what have they got to complain about anyway, the rabble rousing rousers.

No. you're twisting my words. Let them protest all they like; just don't portray it as a global equality movement of the 99%. Because it's not. It's the 95th percentile wanting what the 99th percentile want. They don't give a shit about the 95% below them.

I'm not saying they have to give a shit about them or even should give a shit about them. Just don't pretend to represent them when they don't!

KyussBishop

yore wrote: »

No. you're twisting my words. Let them protest all they like; just don't portray it as a global equality movement of the 99%. Because it's not. It's the 95th percentile wanting what the 99th percentile want. They don't give a shit about the 95% below them.

I'm not saying they have to give a shit about them or even should give a shit about them. Just don't pretend to represent them when they don't!

No, you're twisting their (Occupy and it's members) arguments/goals and applying them to the entire population of the planet, in a farcical shifting of the goalposts, that tries to undermine the credibility of their general goal.

It's no different to complaining about people that criticize the US, saying "well why don't you criticize Russia, China, x, y, z, etc. too?" or "it's worse in country x, y, z, what are you complaining about?", assuming they don't have any criticisms of those countries on similar grounds.

More so, you claim to be able to read their minds apparently, saying they don't give a toss about people in the developing world who are worse off, which is again a completely fallacious argument.


What do you know about any of their motives? To you, trying to tackle income inequality in the western world is apparently an impossibility, because it must be tackled in the whole world all at once, which is such a comically stretched argument that it's, to be honest, not really worth responding to (but here I am regardless).


If 1% of the people in the US, hold an overwhelming majority of the wealth, and take up to 90% of earnings, you bloody well can argue against that on grounds of inequality (just as you can argue against western exploitation of the developing world, on grounds of inequality).

Asserting that peoples motives are instead for selfish reasons, is just another variation of the utterly stupid begrudgery argument, and is basically an apologist argument in favour of income inequality, as it tries to discredit any criticisms of income inequality.

yore

KyussBishop wrote: »

No, you're twisting their (Occupy and it's members) arguments/goals and applying them to the entire population of the planet, in a farcical shifting of the goalposts, that tries to undermine the credibility of their general goal.

It's no different to complaining about people that criticize the US, saying "well why don't you criticize Russia, China, x, y, z, etc. too?" or "it's worse in country x, y, z, what are you complaining about?", assuming they don't have any criticisms of those countries on similar grounds.

More so, you claim to be able to read their minds apparently, saying they don't give a toss about people in the developing world who are worse off, which is again a completely fallacious argument.


What do you know about any of their motives? To you, trying to tackle income inequality in the western world is apparently an impossibility, because it must be tackled in the whole world all at once, which is such a comically stretched argument that it's, to be honest, not really worth responding to (but here I am regardless).


If 1% of the people in the US, hold an overwhelming majority of the wealth, and take up to 90% of earnings, you bloody well can argue against that on grounds of inequality (just as you can argue against western exploitation of the developing world, on grounds of inequality).

Asserting that peoples motives are instead for selfish reasons, is just another variation of the utterly stupid begrudgery argument, and is basically an apologist argument in favour of income inequality, as it tries to discredit any criticisms of income inequality.

No. Criticising the US/China etc are distinct issues.

If you are an American protesting against US military policy that's fine. If you want to also criticise Chinese military policy for example, it doesn't effect your motivation for going against US policy. Making Chinese policy "fairer" doesn't negate the effect of making US policy fairer.

In the case of income equality it does. They want higher incomes. But if the system was fairer on the global scale they claim to represent, they would end up with lower incomes.
One of the posters used the phrase "zero sum game". It might have been yourself. Ethics/military policy/ politics is not a zero sum game. Money/Income can be argued to be. (I'm not saying it is, but it's certainly closer to one than)


It'd be a bit like junior consultants going on strike because they wanted "income equality and fairness" for themselves in relation to what senior consultants get and saying they were representing the less well off 95% of Irish society.

Jonny7

KyussBishop wrote: »

So you even acknowledge the legitimacy of their base goal, therefore your support of that base goal, and then denigrate their success in promoting discussion of that because...why exactly?

Huh?

.."income inequality", specifically what? between doctors and street sweepers? between first world and third world? between middle and lower class?

What better poster child than someone with a iphone and dreadlocks who can spend months on a street in a "hideously broken" society to highlight income inequality isn't there.

But wait.. there were other goals.. many many more goals.. millions of goals in fact..

It's almost like they were spreading the earth-shatteringly informative message that "unfairness is unfair!"..

****ing douchebags

Anything else?

karma_

Jonny7 wrote: »

Huh?

.."income inequality", specifically what? between doctors and street sweepers? between first world and third world? between middle and lower class?

Have you not been paying attention? Between the 1% at the very pinnacle of the pyramid who harvest in vast amounts of wealth and pay little to no tatex and everyone else beneath them. It's not that hard to deduce this one mate, it was their slogan for crying out loud.

What better poster child than someone with a iphone and dreadlocks who can spend months on a street in a "hideously broken" society to highlight income inequality isn't there.

Just an ad hominem attack, what matter their style of clothes, the phone they carry or the way they wear their hair?

But wait.. there were other goals.. many many more goals.. millions of goals in fact..

It's almost like they were spreading the earth-shatteringly informative message that "unfairness is unfair!"..

****ing douchebags

Anything else?

You're a long time member of the forum here and you should know better than to post this drivel, it lacks any substance whatsoever.

K-9

Jonny7 wrote: »

Income inequality is bad.. I'm not really aware of anyone who thinks it's exactly good, I guess we can thank Occupy for pointing this out to us? What a goal. I bet the 99% in the world who can spend weeks squatting and living off Burger King are glad they pointed that out.

Then again, Occupy were amazing at coming up with issues, (first world) problems, grievances, you name it - this is where they excelled, hats off, everything, I mean everything was in there.

Yeah .. not so much with workable proposed solutions.

Most idiotic protest movement... ever. Then again I love to bash them.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Huh?

.."income inequality", specifically what? between doctors and street sweepers? between first world and third world? between middle and lower class?

What better poster child than someone with a iphone and dreadlocks who can spend months on a street in a "hideously broken" society to highlight income inequality isn't there.

But wait.. there were other goals.. many many more goals.. millions of goals in fact..

It's almost like they were spreading the earth-shatteringly informative message that "unfairness is unfair!"..

****ing douchebags

Anything else?

I think we get you don't like them at this stage. Don't post in this thread again.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Could you please link to Occupy claiming credit for this? If you look at Occupy Londons website you can see that their reaction to Holdane is sceptical and saying its just a start they are not claiming credit at all. This idea that they are jumping around patting themselves on the back has been posted a few times in this thread with zero evidence.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I guess you know more than a Bank of England executive, I think he's in a better position to know about it then yourself.

KyussBishop

yore wrote: »

No. Criticising the US/China etc are distinct issues.

If you are an American protesting against US military policy that's fine. If you want to also criticise Chinese military policy for example, it doesn't effect your motivation for going against US policy. Making Chinese policy "fairer" doesn't negate the effect of making US policy fairer.

In the case of income equality it does. They want higher incomes. But if the system was fairer on the global scale they claim to represent, they would end up with lower incomes.
One of the posters used the phrase "zero sum game". It might have been yourself. Ethics/military policy/ politics is not a zero sum game. Money/Income can be argued to be. (I'm not saying it is, but it's certainly closer to one than)


It'd be a bit like junior consultants going on strike because they wanted "income equality and fairness" for themselves in relation to what senior consultants get and saying they were representing the less well off 95% of Irish society.

And....why can't people criticize income inequality in their own country, just like the distinct issues of military policy in US, China etc.?

Why exactly, must it be taken in the context of the entire planet, when people can only influence the politics of the country they are in?

What has income inequality got to do with people wanting higher incomes either? That's another stretch towards the begrudgery type argument.
Income inequality is about the massively disproportionate income a small percentage of people get, much of which is based on economic rent seeking of various kinds, that effectively taxes everyone in society; that has nothing to do with wanting higher wages.

Just look at LIBOR for instance, that is economic rent seeking on an fundamental and epic scale, which defrauded many governments (both national and local in many cases, and thus their countries/counties population); that was a cost on everyone, and a lot of these rent seeking activities effectively amount to an additional tax on society, especially where essential commodities are concerned.

The irony and zero-sum game here, is that anyone supporting income inequality hoping to become part of the 'privileged few' (whether they have the honesty to state that boldly or not), is more statistically likely to push themselves down rather than reach up, short of lavishly sucking up to someone already there.

Godge

20Cent wrote: »

Could you please link to Occupy claiming credit for this? If you look at Occupy Londons website you can see that their reaction to Holdane is sceptical and saying its just a start they are not claiming credit at all. This idea that they are jumping around patting themselves on the back has been posted a few times in this thread with zero evidence.


.

Are you having a laugh? The thread title is "Occupy Movement right about global recession", the OP is known from previous threads as a prominent Occupy supporter. If Occupy are sceptical, then why the thread?

One swallow does not make a summer. One banker in one speech to an Occupy-organised meeting who makes a few platitudes about Occupy does not turn into a mass acknowledgement (or even a thread of yaysayers) that Occupy were right. Do you understand that point?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Good loser

KyussBishop wrote: »

And....why can't people criticize income inequality in their own country, just like the distinct issues of military policy in US, China etc.?

Why exactly, must it be taken in the context of the entire planet, when people can only influence the politics of the country they are in?

What has income inequality got to do with people wanting higher incomes either? That's another stretch towards the begrudgery type argument.
Income inequality is about the massively disproportionate income a small percentage of people get, much of which is based on economic rent seeking of various kinds, that effectively taxes everyone in society; that has nothing to do with wanting higher wages.

Just look at LIBOR for instance, that is economic rent seeking on an fundamental and epic scale, which defrauded many governments (both national and local in many cases, and thus their countries/counties population); that was a cost on everyone, and a lot of these rent seeking activities effectively amount to an additional tax on society, especially where essential commodities are concerned.

The irony and zero-sum game here, is that anyone supporting income inequality hoping to become part of the 'privileged few' (whether they have the honesty to state that boldly or not), is more statistically likely to push themselves down rather than reach up, short of lavishly sucking up to someone already there.

I have no problem with income inequality.

It's fundamental in a free society.

It provides incentive to work, innovate and work harder than others.

Risk/business is rewarded when it is well judged (J P McManus and countless others) and otherwise when not (Sean Quinn and countless others).

This 'rent seeking' you mention; are you referring to the vested interests of the professions such as barristers and doctors or the unions (average ESB pay €95,000)? These can be tackled by laws on competition.

Or are you referring to jockeys, pop stars, actors, footballers, golfers?

Or do you want the State to put higher and higher taxes on those high earners to redistribute the money? And leave the income inequality untouched?

Surely if inequality is the highest principle large elements of the tax take should be sent to Africa?

You see otherwise 'inequality' arguments could be used as paths to power or placement. It's hard to know when these guys are sincere and what would satisfy them.

KyussBishop

Good loser wrote: »

I have no problem with income inequality.

It's fundamental in a free society.

It provides incentive to work, innovate and work harder than others.

Risk/business is rewarded when it is well judged (J P McManus and countless others) and otherwise when not (Sean Quinn and countless others).

This 'rent seeking' you mention; are you referring to the vested interests of the professions such as barristers and doctors or the unions (average ESB pay €95,000)? These can be tackled by laws on competition.

Or are you referring to jockeys, pop stars, actors, footballers, golfers?

Or do you want the State to put higher and higher taxes on those high earners to redistribute the money? And leave the income inequality untouched?

Surely if inequality is the highest principle large elements of the tax take should be sent to Africa?

You see otherwise 'inequality' arguments could be used as paths to power or placement. It's hard to know when these guys are sincere and what would satisfy them.

Issues affecting income inequality are not as simple as some people having higher wages than others, or some people gaining personal gain through smart investments or entrepreneurialism; I've no problem with people being (handsomely) rewarded for their genuine hard-worked efforts, but do have a problem with fraud, varieties of economic rent seeking, and other illegal or socially-harmful practices, that affect income equality.
Many different things causally factor into measurements of income inequality, so it doesn't make sense to say you are 'for' it, because that could easily mean you are for allowing systemic fraud in finance, for the sake of worsening income inequality; I'm not saying you are for that, just showing what it can mean, when you say you're 'for' it.

Most of the questions you ask there, can be answered with reference to the post you quote; I also gave a pretty specific example of the kind of rent seeking I'm talking about (regarding LIBOR manipulation/fraud).

I agree about laws on competition i.e. regulations, particularly regarding fraud and systemic risk in finance; that's one of the most significant areas where income inequality has been worsened, through lack of enforcement of regulation, and outright fraud.


Why would we send tax income to Africa? International aid is a demonstrable failure at trying to resolve issues in poor nations, and can often exacerbate problems by free aid e.g. food preventing people from being able to sustain a livelihood, as they can't compete with the free aid.

Not to say all aid is bad or inherently counterproductive, but the idea that income inequality must be tackled only on a global scale, or not at all is silly and impractical, and it is most obvious that it can and should be tackled within our local economic/political system for its own sake, and there's no reason that can't be done in tandem with assisting developing nations as well, as that usually revolves around completely separate policies.

In the end, we have political/economic influence over our own country, and little influence over the politics/economics of others (and neither should we, outside of international diplomacy), so just what are we meant to do about the rest of the world anyway? It's up to other countries to nurture a healthy economy (and for us to look after our own too), and the best way we can assist other countries with that on a fundamental level, is simply through trade.

yore

KyussBishop wrote: »

And....why can't people criticize income inequality in their own country, just like the distinct issues of military policy in US, China etc.?

Why exactly, must it be taken in the context of the entire planet, when people can only influence the politics of the country they are in?

You've find that I've stated that they can protest all they like but just they can't legitimately be giving it the high and mighty "global movement for the 99%" spiel.

KyussBishop

Ah okey, so we've been debating that thin a semantic distinction; good to know. I'll contact Occupy and let them know to strike out the 'global' part

20Cent

This post had been deleted.[/QUOTE]

Its not me making the claim its Andrew Haldane from the Bank of England, the guy responsible for developing Bank policy on financial stability issues. This is very clear from the op and has been repeated ad nauseum throughout the thread.

yore

KyussBishop wrote: »

Ah okey, so we've been debating that thin a semantic distinction; good to know. I'll contact Occupy and let them know to strike out the 'global' part

Seeing as you're talking semantics, don't just isolate the word "global"; also strike out the 99%. Replace it with the word "me".

I gave a hypothetical example of junior consultants striking/protesting to get more of what senior consultants have. They're entitled to do so, but they can't claim to represent the rights everyone else.


This is going off thread. Back to the subject, a "movement" with no policy or structure cannot claim credit, or be attributed credit by anyone else, for anything.

Good loser

KyussBishop wrote: »

Issues affecting income inequality are not as simple as some people having higher wages than others, or some people gaining personal gain through smart investments or entrepreneurialism; I've no problem with people being (handsomely) rewarded for their genuine hard-worked efforts, but do have a problem with fraud, varieties of economic rent seeking, and other illegal or socially-harmful practices, that affect income equality.
Many different things causally factor into measurements of income inequality, so it doesn't make sense to say you are 'for' it, because that could easily mean you are for allowing systemic fraud in finance, for the sake of worsening income inequality; I'm not saying you are for that, just showing what it can mean, when you say you're 'for' it.

Most of the questions you ask there, can be answered with reference to the post you quote; I also gave a pretty specific example of the kind of rent seeking I'm talking about (regarding LIBOR manipulation/fraud).

I agree about laws on competition i.e. regulations, particularly regarding fraud and systemic risk in finance; that's one of the most significant areas where income inequality has been worsened, through lack of enforcement of regulation, and outright fraud.


Why would we send tax income to Africa? International aid is a demonstrable failure at trying to resolve issues in poor nations, and can often exacerbate problems by free aid e.g. food preventing people from being able to sustain a livelihood, as they can't compete with the free aid.

Not to say all aid is bad or inherently counterproductive, but the idea that income inequality must be tackled only on a global scale, or not at all is silly and impractical, and it is most obvious that it can and should be tackled within our local economic/political system for its own sake, and there's no reason that can't be done in tandem with assisting developing nations as well, as that usually revolves around completely separate policies.

In the end, we have political/economic influence over our own country, and little influence over the politics/economics of others (and neither should we, outside of international diplomacy), so just what are we meant to do about the rest of the world anyway? It's up to other countries to nurture a healthy economy (and for us to look after our own too), and the best way we can assist other countries with that on a fundamental level, is simply through trade.

This Occupy movement is against income inequality it seems (can't be bothered checking the detail of their stuff).

If they, and others, are against it there is no reason why I should not be in favour of it.

As I said it is essential for freedom and enterprise.

It is just so hard to get a fix on what those that oppose it want.

It is very difficult to understand how the LIBOR fixing scandal that you cite as an example illustrates anything other than sharp practice by a few insiders to the detriment of other insiders which happens in every market.
Is it any different from rewinding the mileage clock in cars, for example?

Being more practical, over the last ten years this country witnessed imo the greatest upheavel in class incomes any country ever experienced. The working class, specifically those in the building and allied industries, vaulted over the middle class professionals into very high wage positions. Income equality was hugely advanced (I was all for it) yet it has left the country in a perilous state. All is now reversed.

In conclusion I don't think this there is any scandalous income inequality in this country - or in Britain, or Germany or Holland etc. There is an inequity between State employees and others. The situation is quite different in the USA.

KyussBishop

yore wrote: »

Seeing as you're talking semantics, don't just isolate the word "global"; also strike out the 99%. Replace it with the word "me".

I gave a hypothetical example of junior consultants striking/protesting to get more of what senior consultants have. They're entitled to do so, but they can't claim to represent the rights everyone else.


This is going off thread. Back to the subject, a "movement" with no policy or structure cannot claim credit, or be attributed credit by anyone else, for anything.

Oh I see, we've just figured out the novel concept of considering income inequality on a country-by-country basis, and now the goalposts are moved yet again so that now the 99 percent has to be considered on a global basis.

I wonder if it's possible to consider the 99% on a country by country basis? That would be an informative discovery. No I guess not, it's not possible to do that, so the 99% really must mean 'me'.


It's such a stupid and knowingly paper-thin argument really (and for the sole purpose of trying to apply an equally stupid begrudgery accusation to Occupy), that I regret taking the time to even get into the income inequality side of it earlier.

KyussBishop

Good loser wrote: »

This Occupy movement is against income inequality it seems (can't be bothered checking the detail of their stuff).

If they, and others, are against it there is no reason why I should not be in favour of it.

As I said it is essential for freedom and enterprise.

It is just so hard to get a fix on what those that oppose it want.

It is very difficult to understand how the LIBOR fixing scandal that you cite as an example illustrates anything other than sharp practice by a few insiders to the detriment of other insiders which happens in every market.
Is it any different from rewinding the mileage clock in cars, for example?

Being more practical, over the last ten years this country witnessed imo the greatest upheavel in class incomes any country ever experienced. The working class, specifically those in the building and allied industries, vaulted over the middle class professionals into very high wage positions. Income equality was hugely advanced (I was all for it) yet it has left the country in a perilous state. All is now reversed.

In conclusion I don't think this there is any scandalous income inequality in this country - or in Britain, or Germany or Holland etc. There is an inequity between State employees and others. The situation is quite different in the USA.

Heh, I was going to credit you on at least straight-out admitting you support fraud and income inequality for sake of 'enterprise' profit, where others don't even have the honesty to admit that, despite supporting it, though later on you do seem to tip-toe around the issue and just offer apologist arguments, which deny the effects of the fraud.

One example, is that large banks rate-fixed LIBOR, so they could get favourable rates on US (local) government infrastructure projects, where part of the deal was based on LIBOR, thus fraudulently gaining extra profit from the US government and thus taking money from the US people.

That cost everyone money, where their local or national government was affected, and through decriminalizing fraud (which is inherent to deregulation), finance wants to impose these kinds of rent seeking activities on all of society.

LIBOR also affected mortgages, student loans, and many forms of financial derivatives/products, so it pretty much affected all of society in the US, even when you don't consider the direct effects it had on the US government, on both a national and local level.


This kind of stuff is why it's no surprise that grand majority of people you find promoting these kinds of policies, are either already working in or aspiring to work in finance; it is such an enormous conflict of interest, that it's impossible to believe many are being honest in their arguments, especially when you seen various forms of argumentative acrobatics/flip-flopping to avoid addressing some issues; the far more obvious conclusion a lot of the time (which none will have the honesty to admit), is choice of policy based on personal self-interest alone, knowing much of it is promoted with false arguments.

yore

KyussBishop wrote: »

Oh I see, we've just figured out the novel concept of considering income inequality on a country-by-country basis, and now the goalposts are moved yet again so that now the 99 percent has to be considered on a global basis.

I wonder if it's possible to consider the 99% on a country by country basis? That would be an informative discovery. No I guess not, it's not possible to do that, so the 99% really must mean 'me'.


It's such a stupid and knowingly paper-thin argument really (and for the sole purpose of trying to apply an equally stupid begrudgery accusation to Occupy), that I regret taking the time to even get into the income inequality side of it earlier.

I didn't move any goalposts. you just selectively read what I said and saw what you wanted to see. I'll quote it again below.

yore wrote: »

You've find that I've stated that they can protest all they like but just they can't legitimately be giving it the high and mighty "global movement for the 99%" spiel.

You isolated the word "global". You had no justification for doing so. It just suited your point.


The rest of your post is unclear to me. I honestly can't tell what point you're making or trying or make or whether you're trying to be sarcastic.


I'll repeat again for the umpteenth time. Let anyone who wants to protest do so. But they predominantely are doing it for inherently selfish reasons so just don't paint it as some moral crusade. It's not. You want to break it down into country by country basis. I gave the extended hypothetical analogy of junior consultants going on strike to protest for more of what their senior consultans get.
Is it ok and legitimate for them to protest - yes, let them protest. But what would you say if you saw the head of their union on tv giving the poor mouth and claiming the protest was about equality and fairness in Irish society as they were only on 150K whereas the senior consultants get 250K? (again I'm making up the figures...the exact ones are irrelevant). Would you be as morally supportive in theory as to their reasons for protesting?

This is not the topic of the thread. I don't want to get warned and I'm only repeating myself so I'll stop now unless you come back with a new genuine point or question.

Please stop shouting slogans about LIBOR unless you fully understand and can explain it properly. I don't mean regurgitate what is on wikipedia. LIBOR has nothing got to do with "Occupy". They did not uncover any scandal or force regulators to do anything. Most probably never heard of it. Most probably still don't know how it is being used. Most won't know why there has been a movement away from it for the last few years anyway. And the motivations have nothing to do with regulation or fraud.


Edit: Just to add, re begrudgery, that's a funny accusation to make.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/begrudgery
I'm not sure why I might begrudge the occupiers anything for their protesting? Unless you are suggesting that they are wealthier or more successful than me? I'm not saying they aren't but it's a curious addition to the argument if they are already wealthier than me, and protesting that they personally should get a bigger share of the income of the the very wealthy.......

KyussBishop

You're going out of you way to avoid the point, again, for the sake of repeating the same petty/nonsensical accusation against supporters of Occupy, of begrudgery "they just want to take money from the 1%", with the most stupid/specious argument, that their motives can't possibly be based on moral reasons, because it's apparently not possible to tackle income equality locally as a moral issue; no, it has to be greed (with the last page or so wasted, elaborating on how income inequality doesn't have to be taken on globally, to be a moral issue, and you just going back to step 1 to repeat the same 'begrudgery' ad-hominem).

Even after acknowledging that income equality is an issue that can then be tackled locally (thus that it can be tackled as a moral issue per-country), you then repeat the exact same argument again, but instead pick at the 99% saying, and try to insist that that can only be applied globally.

It's variations of the same knowingly fallacious generalizations, insisting that the movements goals can only be judged in terms of applying them to the planet as a whole, so you can hold onto the same stupid begrudgery argument.


You also apparently at this stage are deliberately avoiding taking my posts in their proper context, taking bizarre misrepresentations of my posts, like suggesting I was linking LIBOR to Occupy (or some other nonsensical thing like that).
You clearly at this stage are taking my posts wildly out of context, for the sake of point scoring, and/or don't even understand the issues I bring up (particularly LIBOR), and why I've brought them up.

yore

KyussBishop wrote: »

You're going out of you way to avoid the point, again, for the sake of repeating the same petty/nonsensical accusation against supporters of Occupy, of begrudgery "they just want to take money from the 1%", with the most stupid/specious argument, that their motives can't possibly be based on moral reasons, because it's apparently not possible to tackle income equality locally as a moral issue; no, it has to be greed (with the last page or so wasted, elaborating on how income inequality doesn't have to be taken on globally, to be a moral issue, and you just going back to step 1 to repeat the same 'begrudgery' ad-hominem).

1) someone else started using the word "begrudgery"....not me. I only responded to same
2) They think they have "moral" reasons. My posts give my opinion why those "morals" have feet of clay
3) If they don't want to take money from the 1% then what exactly do they want? for the 1% to keep their money? They don't need to protest to achieve that because for the most part they're pretty good at doing that already!

KyussBishop wrote: »

Even after acknowledging that income equality is an issue that can then be tackled locally (thus that it can be tackled as a moral issue per-country), you then repeat the exact same argument again, but instead pick at the 99% saying, and try to insist that that can only be applied globally.

I don't think I acknowledged anything of the sort. I'm not saying it can't; I just never expressed that it can or should. Feel free to respond to my "consultant" analogy.

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's variations of the same knowingly fallacious generalizations, insisting that the movements goals can only be judged in terms of applying them to the planet as a whole, so you can hold onto the same stupid begrudgery argument.

Again, please explain the "begrudgery" accusation

KyussBishop wrote: »

You also apparently at this stage are deliberately avoiding taking my posts in their proper context, taking bizarre misrepresentations of my posts, like suggesting I was linking LIBOR to Occupy (or some other nonsensical thing like that).
You clearly at this stage are taking my posts wildly out of context, for the sake of point scoring, and/or don't even understand the issues I bring up (particularly LIBOR), and why I've brought them up.

Why exactly did you bring up your "rent-seeking LIBOR" sthick on a thread titled "Occupy Movement right about the global recession" if you are not trying to make some subconscious link to them? Multiple times. Occupy has nothing got to do with that scandal. Start another thread on it if you want to talk about it. It is an indicative rate (which was) set by the BBA. The "scandal" was that the contributors committed fraud by lying and submitting false indications. There was also a level of collusion for it to work which amounts to market manipulation. These things are already illegal.
You also must realise that for the most part the it was (almost) a zero sum conclusion in that some people received gains that they shouldn't have and some lost what they shouldn't have. That is not to excuse it. It's just a clarification. Plenty of other banks could have lost billions and some could have gained billions via the fraud. I think that the ones that could lose billions might have had more pull in having it transferred from the BBA than a few fellas in a tent on Dame St.

Edit 2: I'm out of this thread. I have said everything I want to say. Good luck!

The Bishop!

Good loser wrote: »

This Occupy movement is against income inequality it seems (can't be bothered checking the detail of their stuff).

It would be more accurate to say that they're generally against the kind of inequality that has manifested itself over the last 30 years or so. The kind that is squeezing large parts of the middle class out of existence, reducing social mobility, vastly increasing debt and poverty etc.

As I said it is essential for freedom and enterprise.

This argument and it's variants is trotted out a lot but it's really a strawman.
If anyone addresses gross inequality and it's pernicious effects it is said you're as good as waving goodbye to freedom and enterprise. Or you're told to observe North Korea for proof of this folly as if either we're all closet communists or that somehow the only two choices are unfettered free market capitalism or the U.S.S.R. circa 1950.
Or that you're jealous or hypocritical or begrudging. That you want to bite the hand that feeds us all; that you're sawing off the branch we're sitting on. Destroying the 'wealth creators'. That you literally want to kill capitalism.

In seems to me that what movements like Occupy want to do is save capitalism from itself, not kill it. They want a society that rewards enterprise and values freedom, but also one that doesn't suck all the wealth inexorably to the top instead of where it should be, sloshing around in a healthy economy.

Good loser

The Bishop! wrote: »

It would be more accurate to say that they're generally against the kind of inequality that has manifested itself over the last 30 years or so. The kind that is squeezing large parts of the middle class out of existence, reducing social mobility, vastly increasing debt and poverty etc.



This argument and it's variants is trotted out a lot but it's really a strawman.
If anyone addresses gross inequality and it's pernicious effects it is said you're as good as waving goodbye to freedom and enterprise. Or you're told to observe North Korea for proof of this folly as if either we're all closet communists or that somehow the only two choices are unfettered free market capitalism or the U.S.S.R. circa 1950.
Or that you're jealous or hypocritical or begrudging. That you want to bite the hand that feeds us all; that you're sawing off the branch we're sitting on. Destroying the 'wealth creators'. That you literally want to kill capitalism.

In seems to me that what movements like Occupy want to do is save capitalism from itself, not kill it. They want a society that rewards enterprise and values freedom, but also one that doesn't suck all the wealth inexorably to the top instead of where it should be, sloshing around in a healthy economy.

I suppose I have no problem with inequality of incomes in the private sector as long as there are no competitive distortions. Let Aidan O'Brien and Van Morrison make as much money as they can or want.

In the public sector I like the Dutch model where (I believe) the ratio of top salaries to bottom salaries is 4:1 against 10:1 in Ireland (I believe).

Thereafter it is just a matter of taxation and social welfare. Let the taxes and welfare be set at levels that do not discourage hard work and enterprise, or encourage evasion.

For what it's worth, currently, in Ireland, I think welfare's too high as are public service pay and pensions. For a property tax and against a third tier of income tax.

KyussBishop

You've also got the need for adequate regulation, which is a big part of my points regarding income inequality; primarily in finance, as otherwise fraud will be pretty rampant as deregulation gets rid of both definitions of fraud, along with ways of discovering and disincentivizing it.

It is varieties of that fraud (with LIBOR being a big example I put forward), which can amount to economic rent seeking on the rest of society, which exacerbates income inequality in one of the most harmful ways.

That kind of income inequality doesn't have anything to do with hard work or being 'enterprising' and such, it is solely to do with fraud, and if people promote deregulation or are anti-regulation without dealing with individual policies (treating it as all bad), that is inherently promoting fraud, and economic 'rent seeking' in general, including fraud that would harm most and in some cases even all of society.


EDIT: The damage that can be caused by this means it really can't be ignored, and when you talk in generalizations about the economy, about regulation = bad, competitive distortions = bad, 'market distortions' in general (such as minimum wage) = bad; when you talk in blanket generalizations like that, there are far-reaching impacts from those simply stated policies, that are just abstracted away and ignored, which is why it's always important to deal with things on a policy-by-policy basis as otherwise you may be promoting (unknowingly) some seriously damaging things.

Same with income inequality, as it is just as prone to generalization (it's logical conclusion if it were 100% bad, would be everyone earning the same wage, which is silly), which is why it not only must be dealt with per-policy (as I've done here, largely with respect to regulation), but it's equally not a valid argument to take specific per-policy arguments against income inequality, and use a generalized argument regarding income inequality, to tackle it (which is, unknowingly or not, a straw man).

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Regarding income inequality, its easy to just cry socialism and claim they want to "overthrow capitalism" or whatnot. The "reds under the bed" scaremongering has been used against pretty much every movement for the last few decades (anti-apartheid, enviromentalism, nuclear power, war etc ) to smear and discredit them to keep the staus quo.
The hint about Occupy is in the name its Occupy Wall Street, not Occuppy Capitalism. Does one really need to wonder why anyone would have a problem with Wall St after the 2008 crash? Watch the documentary "Inside Job" to get a good summary of what happened.

Income inequality is not that a doctor makes more than a cleaner. The term refers to the measurement of the distribution of assets and income in a society. All metrics are showing that the rich are getting richer at a faster pace then the other income groups. Either these wealthy people are just working harder and smarter than everone else or the game is rigged. Looking at the bailouts and the crisis of 2008 one can only conclude that the game is rigged. Socialism for the rich capitalism for the poor so to speak.

The truth is (ironically) that what Occupy are calling for actually more like what people traditionally call capitalism than what is in place now. Too big to fail institutions taking responsibility for their mistakes instead of using their position to hold the economy to ransom. Currently there is little or no accountability and practices that would be considered fraud for the normal person are allowed occur in the financial industry. If a game is rigged do you just keep on playing harder believing you will start winning for some reason or do you point out the cheating and do something about it.

hatrickpatrick

Good loser wrote: »

It is just so hard to get a fix on what those that oppose it want.

Ending the corrupting influence of money on politics is one, and applying the rules of the free market to those at the top in terms of failure is another.

You know, instead of the current situation in which government acts as a client of big business, and failed banksters are bailed out at our expense.

Obscure-ish example: The US government taking down Megaupload at the request of the movie industry on grounds of their copyrighted materials allegedly being traded on it, but refusing to give ordinary citizens back the files they own all the rights to.

The ordinary people should at the very least be treated equally with the lobby group in terms of access to their copyrighted material, but you can guess which side the government is siding with.

You can find examples of this type of bullsh!t cronyism and corruption in every single Western nation, and that is what Occupy is trying to bring an end to.

There is nothing wrong with becoming wealthy through hard work and innovation. Using that to exert undue influence on politics, or getting to that level of wealth through dishonest and corrupt means, is the problem. Not the wealth itself.

KyussBishop

A semi-interesting article, only tangentially related, which makes me think precisely of all the semantic wrangling over concepts like income inequality, regulations, monopolies, and all sorts of other stuff that've derailed/muddied discussions on the forum before:
http://firedoglake.com/2012/11/04/useless-liberal-intellectuals/

Good loser

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Ending the corrupting influence of money on politics is one, and applying the rules of the free market to those at the top in terms of failure is another.

You know, instead of the current situation in which government acts as a client of big business, and failed banksters are bailed out at our expense.

Obscure-ish example: The US government taking down Megaupload at the request of the movie industry on grounds of their copyrighted materials allegedly being traded on it, but refusing to give ordinary citizens back the files they own all the rights to.

The ordinary people should at the very least be treated equally with the lobby group in terms of access to their copyrighted material, but you can guess which side the government is siding with.

You can find examples of this type of bullsh!t cronyism and corruption in every single Western nation, and that is what Occupy is trying to bring an end to.

There is nothing wrong with becoming wealthy through hard work and innovation. Using that to exert undue influence on politics, or getting to that level of wealth through dishonest and corrupt means, is the problem. Not the wealth itself.

Wealth, whether personal or corporate, is power; the more the wealth the greater the power. This power may be used to a greater or lesser extent as the holders choose.

Politics also generates power. In the nature of things these types of power are interested in each other and will interact. That is inevitable.

There is an equal duty on both sides in their interactions to behave ethically. Many will and many won't.

Good loser

KyussBishop wrote: »

You're going out of you way to avoid the point, again, for the sake of repeating the same petty/nonsensical accusation against supporters of Occupy, of begrudgery "they just want to take money from the 1%", with the most stupid/specious argument, that their motives can't possibly be based on moral reasons, because it's apparently not possible to tackle income equality locally as a moral issue; no, it has to be greed (with the last page or so wasted, elaborating on how income inequality doesn't have to be taken on globally, to be a moral issue, and you just going back to step 1 to repeat the same 'begrudgery' ad-hominem).

Even after acknowledging that income equality is an issue that can then be tackled locally (thus that it can be tackled as a moral issue per-country), you then repeat the exact same argument again, but instead pick at the 99% saying, and try to insist that that can only be applied globally.

It's variations of the same knowingly fallacious generalizations, insisting that the movements goals can only be judged in terms of applying them to the planet as a whole, so you can hold onto the same stupid begrudgery argument.


You also apparently at this stage are deliberately avoiding taking my posts in their proper context, taking bizarre misrepresentations of my posts, like suggesting I was linking LIBOR to Occupy (or some other nonsensical thing like that).
You clearly at this stage are taking my posts wildly out of context, for the sake of point scoring, and/or don't even understand the issues I bring up (particularly LIBOR), and why I've brought them up.

Reading there where the Argentine Govt were fiddling with the official inflation rate to reduce the interest they had to pay on index linked bonds.

There's no end of ways one can use to reduce inequality!

hatrickpatrick

Good loser wrote: »

Wealth, whether personal or corporate, is power; the more the wealth the greater the power. This power may be used to a greater or lesser extent as the holders choose.

Politics also generates power. In the nature of things these types of power are interested in each other and will interact. That is inevitable.

There is an equal duty on both sides in their interactions to behave ethically. Many will and many won't.

Which is why I'm saying it should be legislated for to force them to behave. Political donations should be banned, all potential conflicts of interest should be publicly aired so that when something fishy happens people know exactly who might be in bed with a vested interest, etc.

Democracy is supposed to mean one vote per person. Not proportional voting weight based on how much your vote helps those in power.

Money doesn't have to be power if legislation exists to ensure a fair political process and to penalize any cronyism when and if it occurs.

KyussBishop

Good loser wrote: »

Reading there where the Argentine Govt were fiddling with the official inflation rate to reduce the interest they had to pay on index linked bonds.

There's no end of ways one can use to reduce inequality!

Predictable whataboutery "Oh 'x' government did it too, therefore there's nothing wrong with it when finance does it, and it's not really fraud".

It's interesting how some who advocate a different political system, feel they should be above current laws as well, just because they have a different political view; I'd have more respect for someone who at least has the honesty to straight-out admit their political views are for the express purpose of enabling fraud, for their own personal benefit, but it's the papering it up under a highly dishonest ideology (which is designed to obfuscate and fool even very smart people into supporting it), that bugs me about it.

Good loser

KyussBishop wrote: »

Predictable whataboutery "Oh 'x' government did it too, therefore there's nothing wrong with it when finance does it, and it's not really fraud".

It's interesting how some who advocate a different political system, feel they should be above current laws as well, just because they have a different political view; I'd have more respect for someone who at least has the honesty to straight-out admit their political views are for the express purpose of enabling fraud, for their own personal benefit, but it's the papering it up under a highly dishonest ideology (which is designed to obfuscate and fool even very smart people into supporting it), that bugs me about it.

No whataboutery, just amusing that a State (always good!) is resorting to the frauds of the private sector (always bad!) to bring about the goals of the Occupy Movement - specifically lessening income inequality. Roundaboutery maybe.

KyussBishop

No, even your post right there is whataboutery; you could easily rephrase it as "What about the state 'x' fiddling with interest rates in such and such a way? If that's 'good' then it can't be so bad when private bank 'y' does it too!".

Where did anyone even mention Argentina at all? That seems to be a complete straw man, used to try and diminish criticism of LIBOR fraud.


It's pretty simple really: Manipulating LIBOR was against the law; it is fraud, that demonstrably plucked the pockets of a very large number of people, so if you defend that, you are being an apologist for fraud, and an apologist for the idea that finance should be above the law.

If you aren't trying to diminish criticism of the LIBOR scandal, an unambiguous denouncement of the LIBOR fraud would help show that.

Good loser

KyussBishop wrote: »

No, even your post right there is whataboutery; you could easily rephrase it as "What about the state 'x' fiddling with interest rates in such and such a way? If that's 'good' then it can't be so bad when private bank 'y' does it too!".

Where did anyone even mention Argentina at all? That seems to be a complete straw man, used to try and diminish criticism of LIBOR fraud.


It's pretty simple really: Manipulating LIBOR was against the law; it is fraud, that demonstrably plucked the pockets of a very large number of people, so if you defend that, you are being an apologist for fraud, and an apologist for the idea that finance should be above the law.

If you aren't trying to diminish criticism of the LIBOR scandal, an unambiguous denouncement of the LIBOR fraud would help show that.

I won't dance to your agenda.

The thing about the Argentine State (and all others) is that they make the laws. Imagine breaking your own laws! At least the Liborites didn't do that.

The LIBOR thing was US/Britain? Why not allude to Argentina?

KyussBishop

What agenda? Something is either legal or illegal, and you're either willing to speak out against such harmful fraud as the LIBOR scandal, or you're an apologist for it (and by extension an apologist to the idea that some in finance should be above the law); that's simple enough.

I don't have to criticize Argentina to 'balance out' criticism of LIBOR fraud either; if the Argentinian government broke any laws with the handling of their interest rate, grand that is wrong, and those responsible should face legal repercussions, just like those responsible for LIBOR fraud.

None of that diminishes from the severity of the LIBOR scandal, and if anyone is going to make apologist arguments to say what happened with LIBOR shouldn't be treated as fraud, they should have the honesty to state it straight-out, rather than tip-toeing around the issue to try and save face, knowing that they are defending fraud that picked the pockets of an extremely large number of people.