http://www.nydailynews.com/news/politics/2011/10/05/2011-10-05_herman_cain_to_occupy_wall_street_protesters_if_youre_not_rich_blame_yourself.html Surely this guy can't be serious? It's not the fact that he's out of touch (he clearly is) but rather that he's just making an incendiary claim for the sake of it being an incendiary claim. Well that and he makes that statement with the disclaimer that obviously he doesn't know the entire story. This is American politics, the idiots leading the blind telling the intelligent that they're wrong. God this place sucks.
Not everyone is blessed with luck. Or motivation. I've come to the conclusion ages ago that rich people aren't necessarily the most intelligent. That and luck really does play into it, but semantics aside, touche. Regardless, it's not like ALL intelligent people have the resources and luck to become right.
So you think that the man who started and ran a successful business, building it into a national franchise, then sold it for gobs of money is less intelligent then 2,000 people who have nothing better to do then wander around downtown NYC?
There's no need for great intelligence to become rich. Plently of people have worked their way up from nothing to wealthy, just from jobs as simple as cleaning... there's probably more than a few of these type of people working away, cleaning up the rubbish left behind by the protesters.
Exactly! Another way of saying it, is that the protesters are a bunch of lazy, whining, rude fcukers.
You know, at first I was just going to troll this thread because you linked to a Daily News article. And anyone who links to a rag like that deserves to be trolled. But then, I got to thinking. While it's true the banks offered less then ethical financial instruments; I truly feel that it's the consumers not knowing what variable rate means, along with general financial over extension, that crashed the system. We are where we are because we lived large and then shat the bed. Blaming banks is like blaming McDs for being fat when you eat it daily. WE DID IT TO OURSELVES. Protesting on wall street because your unemployed after your very actions crashed the economy shows just how arrogant and insular we really are as Americans. I hope they water canon and tear gas those asshats until they are defense contractors wet dream, along with every other whining person that tries to pin this fiasco on everyone and anything else.
I agree, it's a matter of self-righteous protesting. Admittedly the banks never really explained this well, but I just had to point out the arrogance of both sides of the rich and the ones who are not so rich. The consumers have screwed themselves over quite often as it is (housing crash) but at the same time you can also somewhat blame the banks for trying to yank every dollar out of their customers. Then again, capitalism apparently is the greatest philosophy so I don't know. Perhaps I'm just an idealistic marxist who decided to use a less than reputable news source to prove a point, but the real problem lies in both the consumers and the producers. Well that and the protesters will just be losing out on more money in a protest that really isn't sensible anyhow.
Sometimes I read threads on here and am thankful that these boards are host to some, at least mildly, independent thinking skills. Then other times I read posts and realise what a bunch of shiny object dick rubbers some computer geeks can be. Please bear in mind that not everyone, 'intelligent' or otherwise, sets out to get rich in the first place.
True, most people are happy with going to work so they are able to support themselves. It's annoying seeing people capable of work, that would rather ask for a hand out, whilst the other one is rubbing their dick/clit.
I think part of the problem with the whole 'occupy Wall Street' movement is that they don't have a single, clear objective. Some of them seem to be protesting because they're lazy and want handouts. Some are protesting because they're dirty commies and want to bring the entire capitalist system down. Then again, there seem to be a lot of people with legitimate grievances: for example, a system that will throw billions at risky investment banks without imposing reasonable regulation yet allows millions to go without health insurance does seem unjust, and worth protesting. The issue is that amongst the well thought out but fragmented complaints concerning real injustices*, there are a huge number of people who either want a free lunch or just want to watch the world burn, and they take away the credibility of the whole movement (or, they take away the possibility of a unified movement being formed). *To be clear, I favour small government and am generally against handouts and special treatment. However, this should include banks, defense contractors, farmers, oil-rich allies and political backers as much as it does drunks living in caravans and unemployed art students
Lots of good points sb1991 The thing about handouts to businesses is to save or even just to give them a boost, is that unfair as it seems, it's more of a short term loan, which is repaid over and over again to the government. It's not just from tax revenue out of the business's future profits, but also from the tax revenue out of all the employees, and depending on the type of business, there's even tax revenue from sales. If all that wasn't enough, there's also a lower unemployment rate, boosted economy, etc... bailing out companies is a gift that usually just keeps on giving back as far as the government is concerned. Sure we'd all like to just work for someone else's business and receive the same tax breaks the business does... but then that would be unfair on the businesses... what incentive would there be for business owners taking the risk of running a business? If a government doesn't offer businesses any help, then development/infrastructure/economy/advancements in technology/etc will all suffer, dramatically. Take a look at any large company... they would not be anywhere near as large, advanced, or successful as they are today, if it were not for their government helping them.
Is that such a good thing, though? Government intervention often does little more than encourage monopolies, prolong the death of non-viable industries and reduce competition (see Lloyds/HBOS, US automotive industry, common agricultural policy etc). If would be nice if the government really did know what was best, all the time, but they don't. There's a difference between a generally business-friendly fiscal regime and specific subsidies and bailouts for selected companies and industries. I would argue that the former is usually a good thing (provided companies don't become too big either to compete or to fail), but the latter almost always harms the economy in the long term. With that said, certain companies have become too important to be allowed to fail, and I'd be fine with bailing out banks if it meant that they'd be reformed in such a way that they (or their riskier arms) could go under in future without too much collateral damage. Sadly, this doesn't seem to be happening in the US. I have more hope for the UK's banking reforms, but the fate of the global economy is so tied up with the American financial system that their reforms (or not) really do matter.
Yes, that's a big dilemma governments try to deal with, but it's a bit difficult to regulate everything without coming across as communist. I'd have sympathy for the protesters, if they were exploited workers asking for a fair deal... but no, their demands add up to nothing short of poorly attempting to exploit the government
I agree completely. The trick, I suppose, is putting just enough regulation in place that you don't have to resort to the really communist-leaning measures like nationalising large corporations. Somehow, I doubt this is the aim of the occupy Wall Street protesters...
The real issue is the proper amount of regulation. Unregulated you will end up with a monopoly, regulated you end up with an oligopoly. It's a lose lose really. Look at the the telecommunications in the last 30 years. In the US they've split up the regions into a literal oligopoly. The issue with government regulation is not the fact that it creates monopolies, but rather that if done ineffectively, it creates oligopolies. But with deregulations you just end up with an economy that makes the rich only richer. Fairness of course is not even possible.
You make a good point, to a degree; but it isn't the whole story. As a society we did live it large, but partly as a result of financial professionals telling us everything is fine. If we did it to ourselves, then I cannot honestly remember using someone else's pension fund to capitalise a risky venture; but then, I don't work in investment banking.
