For Those Who Don't Understand What Occupy is REALLY About (Obviously LOTS of you)

[Uncensored2008]

Globalism! That is an interesting word which I have seen defined or explained in many ways.

It appears your definition rests in the area of control, external control by the vested financial people the world over.

Woodrow Wilson was not really a Marxist. But at the time, the theories of Marx were not yet discredited. Wilson adopted many of the ideals of Marx - overtly, though not embracing the establishment of the Communist state. Wilson held with the Fabians that a central ruling body with authority over the entire globe was desirous.

Another definition, the one I would tend to agree with, would be the advancement of all economies such that the people the world over would all have the same basic opportunities of safe working conditions, good wages and an elevated standard of living.

Nothing in history has provided the advance in economies that free markets have. Look to South Korea, Taiwan, India and dozens of other traditionally impoverished nations for examples.

As a humanist I believe in an equal opportunity for wealth and economic freedom for all individuals without regard to borders; devoid of external control.

When there is exploitation and predation, to whom do you turn?

I believe the people of the third world deserve an opportunity to have their own economic revolutions such that the standards of living the world over are relatively similar.

Who makes that decision for them? You?

I don't believe one country, or group of countries have a greater right to wealth than any other.

That is because you have the illusion of a giant pot of wealth that exists in the ether to be shared by all.

The truth though is much different; wealth must be created before it can be looted for those you feel more worthy. The countries with greater wealth have it simply because they created that wealth. Yes, they have a greater right, and in fact the ONLY right, to that which they created.

 

[dnsmith35]

Globalism! That is an interesting word which I have seen defined or explained in many ways.

It appears your definition rests in the area of control, external control by the vested financial people the world over.

Woodrow Wilson was not really a Marxist. But at the time, the theories of Marx were not yet discredited. Wilson adopted many of the ideals of Marx - overtly, though not embracing the establishment of the Communist state. Wilson held with the Fabians that a central ruling body with authority over the entire globe was desirous.

It never even occurred to me that Wilson was a marxist. That too is a philosophy I disagree with vehemently.

Another definition, the one I would tend to agree with, would be the advancement of all economies such that the people the world over would all have the same basic opportunities of safe working conditions, good wages and an elevated standard of living.

Nothing in history has provided the advance in economies that free markets have. Look to South Korea, Taiwan, India and dozens of other traditionally impoverished nations for examples.

I agree. A free market is necessary. Not just in the movement of goods, but the movement of labor or manufacturing should seek the level which is more prone to advancing the economic condition of the location to which labor or manufacturing migrates naturally. Artificially keeping jobs in one place only drives the prices up and everyone suffers.

When there is exploitation and predation, to whom do you turn?

Each market/manufacturing area has to control exploitation and predation itself as the economic revolution in that country or area occurs.

I believe the people of the third world deserve an opportunity to have their own economic revolutions such that the standards of living the world over are relatively similar.

Who makes that decision for them? You?

Of course not. That will have to be determined by the people involved.I don't believe one country, or group of countries have a greater right to wealth than any other.

That is because you have the illusion of a giant pot of wealth that exists in the ether to be shared by all.

Not at all. What I do believe is that the wealth will gradually move as labor forces the world over create a market place the world over.

The truth though is much different; wealth must be created before it can be looted for those you feel more worthy. The countries with greater wealth have it simply because they created that wealth. Yes, they have a greater right, and in fact the ONLY right, to that which they created.

I don't believe in "looting" wealth. But I don't believe we should have protectionist regulations which preclude the normal movement of labor and manufacturing to the advantage of the currently rich countries. Over time given the free market in goods, labor, capital the worlds population will gradually move closer to parity. The clamor of the left to "keep all the jobs in the US" is not feasible in a free market and is counter productive for parity in living conditions. A prime example is India which is growing a great market in their middle class. They only advanced to that when the western world allowed labor intensive jobs to move unencumbered where wages were more in line with the product. As their wages go up their market will improve.

To iterate, yes, the rich countries deserve their wealth. But not to the extent there should be conscious effort to maintain that wealth by preventing wealth to gravitate to markets which do work and do evolve their economies in a move to parity. The 3rd world must earn their wealth but we should not be an obstacle holding them back intentionally.

 

[Uncensored2008]

It never even occurred to me that Wilson was a marxist.

That's funny, because Wilson was a Fabian. These days people don't draw much of a distinction between the two.

That too is a philosophy I disagree with vehemently.

It has done great harm to the world.

I agree. A free market is necessary. Not just in the movement of goods, but the movement of labor or manufacturing should seek the level which is more prone to advancing the economic condition of the location to which labor or manufacturing migrates naturally.

The nature of manufacturing is to earn a profit. It has no goal to advance the economic conditions of host countries. The occurrence of economic growth is purely a by product.

Artificially keeping jobs in one place only drives the prices up and everyone suffers.

Generally, these questions are complex. Rarely is labor a factor in the decision to off-shore. Typically the off-shoring of products consumes more costs in shipping and loss of efficiency, both logistic and labor, than is saved for lower wages. Virtually all off-shoring is done to escape regulation and predatory taxation.

My concern to an entirely Laissez Faire approach to this is that if we agree that dumping mercury into ground water should be prohibited, as most would, then the ability of a company to simply move operations to Mexico and dump mercury into the ground water tables is not an exercise of natural migration but one of exploitation. Competition works when all are bound by the same laws. When this is distorted, then competition fails.

Each market/manufacturing area has to control exploitation and predation itself as the economic revolution in that country or area occurs.

This makes no sense. If your treatise is one of globalization, then a central authority on a global scale must be present as arbiter. Otherwise you are simple advocating the cooperation of nation-states, which is what we already have.

Not at all. What I do believe is that the wealth will gradually move as labor forces the world over create a market place the world over.

Labor forces rarely create anything. As the interconnections of ubiquitous communication disperse knowledge on a global basis, then prosperity will follow to those places that have populations able to leverage that knowledge. Croatia, Latvia, Poland and Estonia have booming technological sectors. But they had an existing educated population that was able to exploit the knowledge that became available to post-Soviet nations. At the same time, Somalia, Sudan, Nigeria, and a host of other nations have access to the same knowledge, yet remain in poverty. The lack of an educated populace and a culture to support economic growth stymie these nations.

I don't believe in "looting" wealth. But I don't believe we should have protectionist regulations which preclude the normal movement of labor and manufacturing to the advantage of the currently rich countries.

I'm just as concerned about regulations which allow a very small elite to escape regulations common in the first world by fleeing to third world backwaters.

Over time given the free market in goods, labor, capital the worlds population will gradually move closer to parity.

Maybe, maybe not.

The clamor of the left to "keep all the jobs in the US" is not feasible in a free market and is counter productive for parity in living conditions. A prime example is India which is growing a great market in their middle class. They only advanced to that when the western world allowed labor intensive jobs to move unencumbered where wages were more in line with the product. As their wages go up their market will improve.

India is indeed improving, but Union Carbide offers an example of why I have concerns.

To iterate, yes, the rich countries deserve their wealth. But not to the extent there should be conscious effort to maintain that wealth by preventing wealth to gravitate to markets which do work and do evolve their economies in a move to parity. The 3rd world must earn their wealth but we should not be an obstacle holding them back intentionally.

I agree that we should not be an obstacle to trade or growth.

 

[dnsmith35]

It never even occurred to me that Wilson was a marxist.

That's funny, because Wilson was a Fabian. These days people don't draw much of a distinction between the two.

That too is a philosophy I disagree with vehemently.

It has done great harm to the world.



The nature of manufacturing is to earn a profit. It has no goal to advance the economic conditions of host countries. The occurrence of economic growth is purely a by product.

Perhaps, but don't you think it is time for some good intentions other than profit motives?

Generally, these questions are complex. Rarely is labor a factor in the decision to off-shore. Typically the off-shoring of products consumes more costs in shipping and loss of efficiency, both logistic and labor, than is saved for lower wages. Virtually all off-shoring is done to escape regulation and predatory taxation.

I suspect some may be, but not all. Most of the outsourcing with which I am familiar was done for lower priced labor and the shipping is not a major issue. Example: textile and telephone tech support.

My concern to an entirely Laissez Faire approach to this is that if we agree that dumping mercury into ground water should be prohibited, as most would, then the ability of a company to simply move operations to Mexico and dump mercury into the ground water tables is not an exercise of natural migration but one of exploitation.

We unfortunately cannot control that. But I believe that the natural economic revolution will eventually do just that.

Competition works when all are bound by the same laws. When this is distorted, then competition fails.

Competition with lower labor costs or lack of regulation is certainly a problem, and again, we can't control the laws in other countries. Only their growing up in a free market which will eventually reject their products will force those governments to control their own negative issues.

This makes no sense. If your treatise is one of globalization, then a central authority on a global scale must be present as arbiter. Otherwise you are simple advocating the cooperation of nation-states, which is what we already have.

It is the only thing that does makes sense. As long as we resist the exportation of jobs, no matter the reason, be it cheap labor or lower taxes and less regulation, there will be no growth of industrial ethics in the 3rd world. That is what an economic revolution is all about, the growth of industrial ethics and parity in standards of living. As the people in other countries start to enjoy their economic parity they will demand reforms of work place safety and environmental controls. As I said, " What I do believe is that the wealth will gradually move as labor forces the world over create a market place the world over".

Labor forces rarely create anything. As the interconnections of ubiquitous communication disperse knowledge on a global basis, then prosperity will follow to those places that have populations able to leverage that knowledge. Croatia, Latvia, Poland and Estonia have booming technological sectors. But they had an existing educated population that was able to exploit the knowledge that became available to post-Soviet nations. At the same time, Somalia, Sudan, Nigeria, and a host of other nations have access to the same knowledge, yet remain in poverty. The lack of an educated populace and a culture to support economic growth stymie these nations.

There is no doubt that some countries have a better education system and that their citizens are better able to cope with the explosion of knowledge and technology. India is a country which 60 years ago was a country of virtually no middle class. Their education system has improved significantly of this half century to the point their literacy has spread even to the villages. Their manufacturing capability has improved drastically and as a result they now have a burgeoning middle class which is becoming a major market. Their labor force was instrumental in this change and will continue to pull them kicking and screaming into the modern world. With well over 300 million new middle class Indians enjoying the fruits of their labor their country is modernizing rapidly. I have personally experienced the old India (I lived there and graduated from High School there in 1952. I have returned to India and experienced the major changes in their society. I believe the people in other 3rd world countries can advance too; and I believe it is time we stop putting road blocks in their way. Like to admit it or not, the industrialized world has definitely intervened against this development for reasons which are not all clear; fear of their catching up? Maybe, more likely the fear of competition for scarce resources as their economic revolution takes over.

I'm just as concerned about regulations which allow a very small elite to escape regulations common in the first world by fleeing to third world backwaters. Maybe, maybe not.

India is indeed improving, but Union Carbide offers an example of why I have concerns. I agree that we should not be an obstacle to trade or growth.

You do remember that the Bhopal incident had wide ranging impact in India besides the horrendous loss of life and destroying the health of many more. That one incident caused significant growth of awareness where before it was laissez faire; but hardly the same since 1984.

BTW, don't you think it is time to apply a little supply side economics and call a tax holiday so as to repatriate all that money being kept offshore so as not to pay exorbitant taxes? Maybe even double taxes? The IRS does not give full tax credit for taxes paid overseas now do they?

 

[Uncensored2008]

Perhaps, but don't you think it is time for some good intentions other than profit motives?

No, I certainly don't.

I expect business to apply sound marketing principles and strive to better serve and provide value to the customer at a profit. I don't expect them or even want them to be social agencies, environmental activists or anything other than a business.

I suspect some may be, but not all. Most of the outsourcing with which I am familiar was done for lower priced labor and the shipping is not a major issue. Example: textile and telephone tech support.

Understanding that both Dell and Microsoft have returned the vast majority of telephone support to the USA due to poor performance in and by India.

Even in textiles, I wonder how much was actually due to labor costs? Adidas cited locality of resources as the reason for opening a plant in Singapore, that the leather and rayon used in their shoes was produced in South East Asia and that manufacturing there actually reduced over all logistics costs. New Balance and Nike both claim this to be bullshit, and continue to manufacture their shoes in the USA. But note, no one cited labor cost as a factor. Nike is particularly a good study as their use of automation negates any concept of labor as a factor. Human hands don't touch the shoes during the manufacturing process.

We unfortunately cannot control that.

In fact, we can control it, through tariffs and import duties.

But I believe that the natural economic revolution will eventually do just that.

The time period for third world nations isn't reasonable.

Polluted water in a stream will eventually purify as it passes over rocks a sand, but I wouldn't include it in my drinking water.

Competition with lower labor costs or lack of regulation is certainly a problem, and again, we can't control the laws in other countries. Only their growing up in a free market which will eventually reject their products will force those governments to control their own negative issues.

Why?

If compliance to certain standards isn't the price of admission, why would they ever comply?

When I went back to school for my MBA, the university said that college trigonometry was required. I had trig in high school, and had no desire to take it. But it was required, they simply didn't hand out a Masters degree to anyone who didn't pass the class. These were the basic standards. If I wanted the benefits of an MBA, I had to yield to the established norms.

The same is true of nations that want to trade in the Western Markets, if they want the benefits of entrance, they must comply with the standards.

It is the only thing that does makes sense. As long as we resist the exportation of jobs, no matter the reason, be it cheap labor or lower taxes and less regulation, there will be no growth of industrial ethics in the 3rd world.

And yet we have tremendous growth. Even with the economic pessimism that is the norm, our economy is growing. We stand at the brink of one of the biggest economic growth spurts in history, biotechnology. This will dwarf even the digital revolution, and the United States is the undisputed leader.

That is what an economic revolution is all about, the growth of industrial ethics and parity in standards of living. As the people in other countries start to enjoy their economic parity they will demand reforms of work place safety and environmental controls.

To the extent that they can. In many situations, that will require political revolution.

As I said, " What I do believe is that the wealth will gradually move as labor forces the world over create a market place the world over".There is no doubt that some countries have a better education system and that their citizens are better able to cope with the explosion of knowledge and technology.

Those nations will join the first world quickly. Poland already has, for all intents and purposes.

India is a country which 60 years ago was a country of virtually no middle class.

They still don't have much of one.

Their education system has improved significantly of this half century to the point their literacy has spread even to the villages.

India still maintains the caste system. Those born "Untouchable" (Pariah) will never rise beyond menial labor, Sudras will never be allowed in positions of technical skill or any authority. The overwhelming majority of the country still lives on less than $10 a day.

Economy of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Their manufacturing capability has improved drastically and as a result they now have a burgeoning middle class which is becoming a major market.

The Indian economy is indeed growing, in a hundred years it will probably reach Western levels. Currently though, a great deal of the people are excluded from the economy. The two lower castes have zero economic growth nor hope for it.

Their labor force was instrumental in this change and will continue to pull them kicking and screaming into the modern world. With well over 300 million new middle class Indians enjoying the fruits of their labor their country is modernizing rapidly.

Such modernization is limited to a select few in the larger cities.

I have personally experienced the old India (I lived there and graduated from High School there in 1952. I have returned to India and experienced the major changes in their society. I believe the people in other 3rd world countries can advance too; and I believe it is time we stop putting road blocks in their way.

I'm not sure that we put road blocks up by not moving our manufacturing to India.

Like to admit it or not, the industrialized world has definitely intervened against this development for reasons which are not all clear; fear of their catching up? Maybe, more likely the fear of competition for scarce resources as their economic revolution takes over.

No one has stopped India from developing save India. That seems to be slowly changing, but even this has been spurred by Western companies doing business in India rather than India developing products and capacity on it's own.

You do remember that the Bhopal incident had wide ranging impact in India besides the horrendous loss of life and destroying the health of many more. That one incident caused significant growth of awareness where before it was laissez faire; but hardly the same since 1984.

I hope you're right about this, but I'm not convinced. And perhaps India has wised up, but what of Cambodia, Peru and a thousand other backwaters?

BTW, don't you think it is time to apply a little supply side economics and call a tax holiday so as to repatriate all that money being kept offshore so as not to pay exorbitant taxes?

To what purpose?

Maybe even double taxes? The IRS does not give full tax credit for taxes paid overseas now do they?

Corporate taxes are almost always double taxes, even domestically. The same dollar is taxed twice in most cases. The corporation is a legal entity, therefore taxed on EBIT. The same dollar is taxed when paid in dividends to shareholders or when stock is sold and the appreciation is taxed as a capital gains.

Tax reform is desperately needed.

 

[dnsmith35]

Perhaps, but don't you think it is time for some good intentions other than profit motives?

No, I certainly don't.

We obviously disagree. Business which does not consider environmental factors may make more profit now, but will eventually lose out when people the world over expect and demand better industrial citizenship. Not just environmentally, but social as well.

I expect business to apply sound marketing principles and strive to better serve and provide value to the customer at a profit. I don't expect them or even want them to be social agencies, environmental activists or anything other than a business.

Again I disagree. Unless business chooses to be social and environmental agencies over the long haul they will be put out of business; either from consumer demand or governmental crack down.

I suspect some may be, but not all. Most of the outsourcing with which I am familiar was done for lower priced labor and the shipping is not a major issue. Example: textile and telephone tech support.

Understanding that both Dell and Microsoft have returned the vast majority of telephone support to the USA due to poor performance in and by India.

There is still a lot of tech support for some industries overseas.

Even in textiles, I wonder how much was actually due to labor costs? Adidas cited locality of resources as the reason for opening a plant in Singapore, that the leather and rayon used in their shoes was produced in South East Asia and that manufacturing there actually reduced over all logistics costs. New Balance and Nike both claim this to be bullshit, and continue to manufacture their shoes in the USA. But note, no one cited labor cost as a factor. Nike is particularly a good study as their use of automation negates any concept of labor as a factor. Human hands don't touch the shoes during the manufacturing process.

Van Huesen has moved all of its manufacturing overseas because of cheaper labor costs. Labor intensive jobs do well in 3rd world countries.

In fact, we can control it, through tariffs and import duties.

Kind of defeats the free market theory. But I do agree in the case of massive environmental issues.

The time period for third world nations isn't reasonable.

Your opinion! My opinion is we need to speed it up within our capacity while preserving the competitive situation for home manufactured goods.

Polluted water in a stream will eventually purify as it passes over rocks and sand, but I wouldn't include it in my drinking water.

water filtering removes some contamination, but not all that which is in a solution with the same density as water.

If compliance to certain standards isn't the price of admission, why would they ever comply?

I'll answer your question with a question. How did it come about in the Western industrialized world? By citizenry demanding a cleaner environment. As an economy matures the people choose to improve conditions. The living standard eventually breeds choice.

When I went back to school for my MBA, the university said that college trigonometry was required. I had trig in high school, and had no desire to take it. But it was required, they simply didn't hand out a Masters degree to anyone who didn't pass the class. These were the basic standards. If I wanted the benefits of an MBA, I had to yield to the established norms.

The choice was yours, as the choice must be made by the people exposed to the environmental and safety conditions as the economy matures. When I wanted to get an Ed.S, I had to have a satisfactory performance record in my Masters program. All things have prerequisites, even if it is a plumber's license to provide specific services here in the US.

The same is true of nations that want to trade in the Western Markets, if they want the benefits of entrance, they must comply with the standards.

I think our closing our markets to countries which do not meet our standards would stymie world trade. Sure, we can insist that the most egregious situations be corrected, but even there we could be limited in our isolation standards. If we required China to come up to our standards of pollution control we would be years before we could afford all the products they now sell here; and we likely would lose them as a market for what they now buy from us. That is an awfully large market to scratch off demanding compliance. I think a little more pragmatism is necessary.

And yet we have tremendous growth. Even with the economic pessimism that is the norm, our economy is growing. We stand at the brink of one of the biggest economic growth spurts in history, biotechnology. This will dwarf even the digital revolution, and the United States is the undisputed leader.

Good for us. But the growth has yet to stimulate our economy into job market improvement. Until the impact of the tax and regulation policies and Obama care is completely understood and accepted hiring will continue to be slow.

To the extent that they can. In many situations, that will require political revolution. Those nations will join the first world quickly. Poland already has, for all intents and purposes.

I believe economic revolution will be followed by political revolution in the 3rd world.

They still don't have much of one. India still maintains the caste system. Those born "Untouchable" (Pariah) will never rise beyond menial labor, Sudras will never be allowed in positions of technical skill or any authority. The overwhelming majority of the country still lives on less than $10 a day.
Economy of India - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

That is not completely true. Education has begun to play a bigger role than caste. I think Wikipedia is behind the times. Of the 4 house servants we had in India, the sweeper was the lowest caste, actually an outcast, not even considered 50 years ago as high as a Sudra. Yet he was the most educated, and advanced well beyond the other servants over the years. I think if you want to discuss India and its rapidly growing economic importance, you need to experience it first hand. I have read wide variations about what people here and in the industrial world believe about the Indian society and its economics. There still are 3 to 4 hundred million villagers whose primary living is agrarian, but that is changing as education is improving. Even since I was there 11 years ago, huge progress in highways have been made.

The Indian economy is indeed growing, in a hundred years it will probably reach Western levels. Currently though, a great deal of the people are excluded from the economy. The two lower castes have zero economic growth nor hope for it.

I disagree, as do many of the more familiar with the Indian condition. They already have a middle class with more people than in the US and their villagers are being educated to basic literacy at a rapid pace. You really need to expand your view of India and other 3rd world countries.

Such modernization is limited to a select few in the larger cities.

Fully 1/3 of a billion people have lifted themselves out of a survival mode and are now a huge market.

I'm not sure that we put road blocks up by not moving our manufacturing to India. No one has stopped India from developing save India. That seems to be slowly changing, but even this has been spurred by Western companies doing business in India rather than India developing products and capacity on it's own.

Again, I disagree. India's own entrepreneurs are moving forward. And yes, we have put up many road blocks to slow down 3rd world development. One such road block is the way we drive up the cost of oil and other resources.

I hope you're right about this, but I'm not convinced. And perhaps India has wised up, but what of Cambodia, Peru and a thousand other backwaters?

To each his own time in his own way. BTW, did you know that the Indian Rail system is the most highly developed in the world by many standards.

"BTW, don't you think it is time to apply a little supply side economics and call a tax holiday so as to repatriate all that money being kept offshore so as not to pay exorbitant taxes?"

To what purpose?

Money to upgrade, to expand, and even to start manufacturing things which are always in demand. That requires some hiring thus improving the economy

Maybe even double taxes? The IRS does not give full tax credit for taxes paid overseas now do they?

Corporate taxes are almost always double taxes, even domestically. The same dollar is taxed twice in most cases. The corporation is a legal entity, therefore taxed on EBIT. The same dollar is taxed when paid in ntdividends to shareholders or when stock is sold and the appreciation is taxed as a capital gains.Tax reform is desperately needed.

I agree. As to capital gains, capital gains tend to be only gains in actual dollars, not true value because of inflation. But what I meant about double taxation would then actually be triple taxation unless all foreign taxes are a credit against US corporate taxes. Personally I believe all corporate taxes should be eliminated as the manipulation of those taxes by congress allows some favored industries to pay less than others. Tax incidence suggests that Capital pays corporate taxes on when demand is elastic, and even then some or all is passed on to labor if capital is mobile and can be moved to a lower tax environment. Thus confirming your contention that taxes are part of the issue if outsourcing; that is if the capital is moved out of the country. Then there are the occasional corporate taxes passed on to the consumer when supply is elastic or demand is inelastic.

 

[dnsmith35]

This was written to justify "the protester" as Times Magazine's person of the year. I agreed until I got to the last sentence. How dare any major media outlet compare the wieners who camped out in various US cities making huge messes in the same vein as the protestors for freedom in the middle east. The US OWS people are poor excuses for human beings and don't deserve to be considered as on par with the real protestors who risked their lives for human rights. The OWS are puny little asses who aren't satisfied with their own productive abilities and want a hand out.

"Over the past year, “the protester” has voiced dissent against authoritarian leaders, first in Tunisia, and then in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain. The protester in Spain and in Greece, which even had its own protest dog, struggled with a floundering economy. The protester voiced anger over possibly rigged elections, in countries as diverse as Russia and the Democratic Republic of Congo."

Adding the following is an insult to the real protestors of the world. "In the U.S., the Occupy Wall Street protester began demonstrating first in New York, and then in Washington, Chicago, and cities as small as Trenton, N.J".

 

[Big Fitz]

This was written to justify "the protester" as Times Magazine's person of the year. I agreed until I got to the last sentence. How dare any major media outlet compare the wieners who camped out in various US cities making huge messes in the same vein as the protestors for freedom in the middle east. The US OWS people are poor excuses for human beings and don't deserve to be considered as on par with the real protestors who risked their lives for human rights. The OWS are puny little asses who aren't satisfied with their own productive abilities and want a hand out.

"Over the past year, “the protester” has voiced dissent against authoritarian leaders, first in Tunisia, and then in Egypt, Libya, Syria, Yemen and Bahrain. The protester in Spain and in Greece, which even had its own protest dog, struggled with a floundering economy. The protester voiced anger over possibly rigged elections, in countries as diverse as Russia and the Democratic Republic of Congo."

Adding the following is an insult to the real protestors of the world. "In the U.S., the Occupy Wall Street protester began demonstrating first in New York, and then in Washington, Chicago, and cities as small as Trenton, N.J".

Of course not. The Occupados were not Islamofascists trying to create theocracies across the middle east while throwing off the bonds of more secular often brutal and possibly insane dictators.

 

[American_Jihad]

Former union boss at Occupy event: Our goal is to ‘overthrow the capitalist system and build communism’ [VIDEO]

8/20/12
By Matthew Boyle


Former Amalgamated Transit Union local 689 president Mike Golash, now an “Occupy” movement organizer, was caught on tape Sunday revealing his political goals: overthrowing capitalism in the United States and instituting a communist government.

“Progressive labor is a revolutionary communist organization,” Golash said during an Occupy DC “People’s Assembly” on August 19.

“Its objective,” he added, “is to make revolution in the United States, overthrow the capitalist system and build communism.”

---
[ame=http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sBVT6JhWGfQ&feature=player_embedded]God Bless The Occupy Movement? - YouTube[/ame]
---

Read more: Former union boss at Occupy event: Our goal is to 'overthrow the capitalist system and build communism' | The Daily Caller

 

[oreo]

Heck all you've got to do is go see Dark Knight Rises to see what Occupy Wall Street represents.

The movie that no liberal likes--LOL

"When you don't have a record to run on, you need to paint your opponent as someone people should run from"--Barack Obama

 

[Liability]

Ironically, the people who LEAST understand what moccupy really is tend to be those who start idiotic threads defending it for what it isn't.