Job applications dropped on occupy Chicago protestors

Post Reply New Topic

What? That contradicts basic economic theory. Have you ever heard of the circular flow of income? It certainly doesn't mean what you are saying.

Agreed, but why exactly are they cutting programmes that help lead to jobs and so forth? It makes about as much sense as trimming muscle to reduce your weight whilst ignoring the pounds being packed on.

I don't thin travelling the world is Sweetleaf's concern, or in the slightest bit relevant.

No it isn't. A more productive use of their time is digging out an entrenched and dangerous system that eventualy collapses in on itself because of the collective incompetence that is part and parcel with personal greed which then needs a bailout from US taxpayers, which is wasted money. To say that protests do nothing is a hilarious assertion, especially in this day and age. The object is not jobs, but a system that doesn't nearly die every decade and push down the people below into economic insignificance.

Yes the messege is very clear the citizens of this country are not as important as fueling the economy or producing products...and I never described how it would be to work there just that it does not solve anything. People have to express their dissatisfaction with the system some how and protesting is one of the legal ways to do that.....so why shouldn't they? Everyone just wants people to shut up and get on with their lives which I find a little disturbing.

Not to mention its kind of hard to live on minimum wages, which is what they would get.......I guess the most productive thing people can do is shut up and ignore all the flaws in the system because the system is apparently our god now.

Last edited by Sweetleaf on 11 Nov 2011, 5:46 pm, edited 1 time in total.

How does the circular flow of income support the idea that putting loads of money into public services a good idea?



I don't particularly agree with all US economic policy, and if they really are cutting programs that help create jobs then that is indeed stupid.



He inferred people would work at McDonald's then "sit in their boxes watching TV ignoring the outside world." That was to prove this bit false.



Socialism still does this. Socialism has collapsed on itself every single time it has been implemented, in fact. It's not that protesting itself is useless, but the thing they're advocating is rubbish, and it'll never happen.

They have the right to protest and are, of course, free to use it. But they'd get listened to a lot more if they were advocating something more sensible and clear.



Again, I've said that the current system isn't ideal, but socialism is in fact worse.

She didn't? Or did you not read what Sweetleaf said?

One can say the same thing about believing them for the same reason.

Of course, because there aren't any sensible complaints like unrestrained imperious banks, too much corporate involvement in politics, the dangers of unrestrained crony capitalism upon people who aren't at the top, the dissapearance of the middle class, the general disgust at the banks' greed over sub-prime mortgages or anything else... Oh wait, there are? Of course.

I never advocated such a system at all. Indeed what I advocate are low corporate taxes and moderate albeit important regulations. The fact is that one is not dealing with capitalism here, they are dealing with self-righteous snot-buckets who think they can look down on the little people, make some gutless insinuation about them being jobless idiots because it's their own fault and then as a joke throw McDonald's forms on them just to twist the knife a little for their own entertainment.


I doubt all of them, or indeed most of them are. They're angry at the top. They aren't articulate or united and I am sure a good many are ideologically bound to a system that has been proven ineffectual but like any crowd of angry NTs what they are angry at is a system they don't feel is working for them.

And to accuse what is said above of advocating extreme socialism is an extremely tenuous supposition. It's disagreement with a fact. I an an economic liberal.

You can't simply try to fudge the equation free market=incompetent crony capitalism

and all this time I thought I was a she...that is what my physical body would suggest.

Gedrene, if we agree that capitalism with regulations is the ideal, why are we arguing?

Well they are fed up with the system because more then a few people are pissed off that 1% of the population controls most of the wealth and its starting to look kinda like they're screwing the majority over which should anger people. And if socialism where ran correctly it would actually have quite a few benifits but humans give in pretty easy to corruption which is usually why it ends up not working. So if neither system is ideal, logic says maybe its time to try some new ideas or something...because the current captialist system we have is not doing such a great job either.

Surely the logical solution is regulated capitalism, then?

That is what we have, and it does not seem to be working for the majority of people.

But surely, the whole issue is lack of regulation? That's the argument I've heard. The banks were allowed to screw us over because they were not regulated, right?

Yes and how are they to be properly regulated when we have a corrupt government who see's no reason to regulate the banks.

Precisely, so tighter regulation should be the aim of the protestors. Far more reasonable and it has far wider support, and it's also more likely to happen (though still difficult, of course).

What exactly is it more reasonable than? I thought there where more than one reason for the protests so which goal is it more reasonable than? Also, when the government says tighter regulations and then gives the very banks and corporations who helped put us into this mess a break while cutting public services it does not look too good.

What's reasonable is getting to the root of the issues of the US implementation of capitalism rather than advocating the abandon of the system altogether. Simple.

That said, banking regulation which is too strong isn't too good either. There needs to be enough to protect people, but not too much that the banks think they're better off moving to Hong Kong or something.

Yes the have so much power the government sort of has to do what they want or that is exactly what they'll do. So yeah I won't be dissapointed if the system collapses. I mean as much as I support the idea of protesting in all that, chances are it wont influence any positive changes soon enough and I doubt there are many people in the government who are looking to do much either......so chances are it will collapse