Lloyd Hart, master occupier talks about Occupy movement's demands on radio

[kwc57]

I feel badly for the people who lost jobs and have legitimately tried to find them because the hooligans in this occupation have totally disparaged their legitimate grievences. I also feel bad because the unions and rich liberal special interests came in and ruined any potential "grassrootsness" (new word) of these protests.

If only they focused the attention at those who created the environment that allowed these things to happen on wall street, the housing markets, and in the banking industry....IE the federal govt's policies in these areas over the last 20 or 30 years, maybe longer.

Herman Cain has it right when he says the OWS needs to move their protest to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

 

[Dragon]

Herman Cain has it right when he says the OWS needs to move their protest to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

The flaw in that argument is that it puts an "or" where the right conjunction is "and."

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

I feel badly for the people who lost jobs and have legitimately tried to find them because the hooligans in this occupation have totally disparaged their legitimate grievences. I also feel bad because the unions and rich liberal special interests came in and ruined any potential "grassrootsness" (new word) of these protests.

If only they focused the attention at those who created the environment that allowed these things to happen on wall street, the housing markets, and in the banking industry....IE the federal govt's policies in these areas over the last 20 or 30 years, maybe longer.

Herman Cain has it right when he says the OWS needs to move their protest to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

If they did, and dropped the "I deserve stuff for being alive" rhetoric the tea partiers would probably ride their express busses over to protest with them.

 

[Si modo]

I feel badly for the people who lost jobs and have legitimately tried to find them because the hooligans in this occupation have totally disparaged their legitimate grievences. I also feel bad because the unions and rich liberal special interests came in and ruined any potential "grassrootsness" (new word) of these protests.

If only they focused the attention at those who created the environment that allowed these things to happen on wall street, the housing markets, and in the banking industry....IE the federal govt's policies in these areas over the last 20 or 30 years, maybe longer.

Herman Cain has it right when he says the OWS needs to move their protest to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

If they did, and dropped the "I deserve stuff for being alive" rhetoric the tea partiers would probably ride their express busses over to protest with them.

And, drop the "I deserve to keep the property of others", I can guarantee that is a true statement.

And, even if they didn't, there still would be express buses to a protest.

 

[Dragon]

If they did, and dropped the "I deserve stuff for being alive" rhetoric the tea partiers would probably ride their express busses over to protest with them.

At which point OWS would become redundant and in effect BE the Tea Party. That's hardly needed.

 

[Si modo]

If they did, and dropped the "I deserve stuff for being alive" rhetoric the tea partiers would probably ride their express busses over to protest with them.

At which point OWS would become redundant and in effect BE the Tea Party. That's hardly needed.

Of course. Fundamentally, the OWS is just a promotion for the government redistribution of wealth.

 

[Dragon]

Of course. Fundamentally, the OWS is just a promotion for the government redistribution of wealth.

So is the Tea Party. The difference is which direction.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Herman Cain has it right when he says the OWS needs to move their protest to 1600 Pennsylvania Ave.

If they did, and dropped the "I deserve stuff for being alive" rhetoric the tea partiers would probably ride their express busses over to protest with them.

And, drop the "I deserve to keep the property of others", I can guarantee that is a true statement.

And, even if they didn't, there still would be express buses to a protest.

I agree 100% with that assesment.

If they did, and dropped the "I deserve stuff for being alive" rhetoric the tea partiers would probably ride their express busses over to protest with them.

At which point OWS would become redundant and in effect BE the Tea Party. That's hardly needed.

Why isn't that needed in your opinion?

 

[Si modo]

Of course. Fundamentally, the OWS is just a promotion for the government redistribution of wealth.

So is the Tea Party.

....

Nope, but should I again thank you for trying to speak for me?

Nope, I won't. You can't.

 

[PLYMCO_PILGRIM]

Of course. Fundamentally, the OWS is just a promotion for the government redistribution of wealth.

So is the Tea Party. The difference is which direction.

Actually you are misinformed.

The tea party does not want the government involved in ANY wealth redistribution. No more bailouts, no more corporate welfare, no more borrowing money we don't have to spend, no more unconstitutional overreaches by the feds (patriot act, obama care).

You are wrong on that assumption, if someone told you that was true (that tea partys want to redistribute wealth from one group to another group) I would not trust what they say in the future

 

[Dragon]

Nope, but should I again thank you for trying to speak for me?

When you're walking off a cliff, it's not a reasonable assumption that that's what you consciously want to do. Nevertheless, it is an observable result.

 

[kwc57]

Of course. Fundamentally, the OWS is just a promotion for the government redistribution of wealth.

So is the Tea Party. The difference is which direction.

Really? Perhaps you can go out to the multitude of TP websites where they have clearly defined goals and document for us where they want to redistribute wealth. I'm sure I'm not the only one here interested in your premise.

 

[Dragon]

Actually you are misinformed.

The tea party does not want the government involved in ANY wealth redistribution.

What it wants and what its policies will produce are not necessarily the same thing.

 

[Lovebears65]

Seems like the Mayor of Boston is letting them break the law .. They are stopping traffic now on Charleston Bridge 2nd podcast down

 

[Si modo]

Actually you are misinformed.

The tea party does not want the government involved in ANY wealth redistribution.

What it wants and what its policies will produce are not necessarily the same thing.

The policies will produce a normal distribution - unhindered, the shape is that of a bell. It's just nature, the bell shape. I know it puts a kink in Marxist ideals, but nature is a bitch.

 

[Dragon]

The policies will produce a normal distribution - unhindered, the shape is that of a bell.

The only way that could be true is if the government abolished itself, and civilization along with it, and after a massive die-off the survivors returned to a hunter-gatherer economy.

The government cannot NOT set trade policy, labor policy, tax policy, or immigration policy. All of these affect the distribution of wealth either upward or downward, depending on the specifics. There is no such thing as a natural, neutral position.

 

[Si modo]

The policies will produce a normal distribution - unhindered, the shape is that of a bell.

The only way that could be true is if the government abolished itself, and civilization along with it, and after a massive die-off the survivors returned to a hunter-gatherer economy.

The government cannot NOT set trade policy, labor policy, tax policy, or immigration policy. All of these affect the distribution of wealth either upward or downward, depending on the specifics. There is no such thing as a natural, neutral position.

Well, that is true; there will always be shifts in the curve with such things. So, that is a good point. Thank you.

As I've stated before, I accept some regulations on the market to prevent major problems we've encountered in the past. I do not accept over regulation because the equilibrium of the market is barely ever reached.

I do not accept a fundamental change in the shape of the curve, however - the flattening that government redistribution will produce, for example. If the market cannot correct those influences by government to redistribute the wealth, the distribution curve will find other, more cataclysmic means of restoring that natural shape.

 

[Dragon]

I do not accept a fundamental change in the shape of the curve, however - the flattening that government redistribution will produce, for example. If the market cannot correct those influences by government to redistribute the wealth, the distribution curve will find other, more cataclysmic means of restoring that natural shape.

What natural shape? What I'm saying is that it has none.

From the industrialization of the economy until the late 1930s, the government set policies so as to redistribute wealth upward.

From the late 1930s until 1980, the government set policies so as to redistribute wealth downward.

Since 1980, the government has set policies so as to again redistribute wealth upward.

Where in all of this can a "natural curve" be identified?

 

[Si modo]

I do not accept a fundamental change in the shape of the curve, however - the flattening that government redistribution will produce, for example. If the market cannot correct those influences by government to redistribute the wealth, the distribution curve will find other, more cataclysmic means of restoring that natural shape.

What natural shape? What I'm saying is that it has none.

From the industrialization of the economy until the late 1930s, the government set policies so as to redistribute wealth upward.

From the late 1930s until 1980, the government set policies so as to redistribute wealth downward.

Since 1980, the government has set policies so as to again redistribute wealth upward.

Where in all of this can a "natural curve" be identified?

I've already told you the natural shape - that of a bell.

It's nature. Nature is a bitch. But, that's what we all have to deal with. You mess with that fundamental shape, and one way or the other - the easy way, or the very hard way - nature will restore it.

[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LLrTPrp-fW8]70s Mother Nature *Chiffon* Margarine Commercial - YouTube[/ame]

 

[Dragon]

I've already told you the natural shape - that of a bell.

There are no data to support this, or rather, that it is some sort of bell curve is true, but the slope of the curve has no natural value.

The reason I say this is because an industrial economy cannot exist without an activist government, and that government must set policies so as to affect the distribution of wealth. In fact, I misspoke somewhat above. The only sense in which the government's policies from industrialization until around 1940 or from 1980 to the present have "redistributed wealth upward" is by comparison to its policies from 1940 to 1980, and the only sense in which its policies during those four decades "redistributed wealth downward" is by comparison to the earlier and later periods. There is no "normal" curve against which we can compare them to determine whether the redistribution is upward or downward in any absolute sense.

So the Tea Party would set those policies in such a way as to result in wider income gaps and more of the total income taken by those at the top, while the Left Insurgency would do the opposite. Neither of these represents a "natural" slope of the curve because there is no such thing.