Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie
Hi all! We have been experiencing an issue on site where threads have been missing the latest postings. The platform host Vanilla are working on this issue. A workaround that has been used by some is to navigate back from 1 to 10+ pages to re-sync the thread and this will then show the latest posts. Thanks, Mike.
Hi there,
There is an issue with role permissions that is being worked on at the moment.
If you are having trouble with access or permissions on regional forums please post here to get access: https://www.boards.ie/discussion/2058365403/you-do-not-have-permission-for-that#latest

Worldwide Occupy Movement?

245678

Comments

  • #52
    KyussBishop
    Closed Accounts Posts: 5,797 ✭✭✭KyussBishop


    20Cent wrote: »
    Depends on the situation, leaders did emerge from the tea party they have spokespeople and endorsed candidates. Occupy have not. Leaderless works better for occupy I think. Firstly how could leaders be selected and secondly the media etc would be concentrating on the leaders history clothes and length of hair as opposed to the issues they want to highlight.
    I have not followed Occupy stuff in Ireland at all, but I have read a small bit about it in the US; what happened to the Tea Party in this case was they were co-opted by the republicans, which is why they adopted spokespeople and candidates.

    I am not 100% sure on this, but I think one of Occupy's strong points in the US is that they don't align to a specific set of issues or agenda, so as to not have their movement co-opted/hijacked by the most-aligning party, like happened with the Tea Party.

    Here is a good article on Occupy in the US, which begins to explain the logic of this (half-way through, albeit all is worth a read):
    http://www.salon.com/2011/11/19/heres_what_attempted_co_option_of_ows_looks_like/

    It still begs the question, exactly what are they protesting against, and while I think some kind of generalized answer to that is required in order to try and make people understand/relate, and to legitimize the movement locally, I don't think they should try to put forward specific changes or legislative steps.


  • #53
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    20Cent wrote: »
    No. You just made all that up and applied it to me!

    Well, of course - an occupied society doesn't exist so in order to think about one one has to, by definition, make things up.

    I was extrapolating your attitude to debate and other occupier's attitude to debate to reason that in an occupied society rational argument wouldn't necessarily have an effect on things. If you're willing to ignore Permabear's point, simply because you don't like Permabear. what's to stop you and other occupiers ignoring people in an occupied society?

    More generally, my greatest complaint with Occupy is not the particular left-wing views they promote but rather what I see as a lack of rationality in decision making in the movement. Occupiers make a lot of noise about their common assemblies - but if these assemblies are producing policies that simple reason- and evidence-based arguments can debunk, then these assemblies simply aren't worth that much.
    20Cent wrote: »
    They have things in common with the ULA that is correct, also with FG, FF and Labour. So do most people actually. Private debt being paid by the public is hardly a left wing position. Pretty much anything that questions the status quo is always called "leftist" by some I thought people recognised that spin by now.

    Spin to make FF proud!

    As I said, Occupy supports a number of initiatives that are basically defining characteristics of the Irish hard left. They their rhetoric aligns fully with the Irish hard left. From OC's website,
    A lot of people are suffering while the greedy 1% elite get richer – there are currently more billionaires in the world than in 2008. People must have economic and political control over their own lives – the bonds markets and the corporations are not democratic. The debt must not be socialized, and public goods and natural resources must be kept for all the people.
    Of course that includes politics that people in FG, FF etc. would support, but the key difference is first the rhetorical technique ("greedy 1%") and second the degree to which Occupy subscribes to these views. Here, the movement appears to be calling for corporations to made public and democratic. That is hard-left - and your denial of this point only reinforces the first point I made above about my perception of Occupy's unwillingness to listen to those they dislike.

    So either you concede that you habitually ignore those people you disagree with or you concede that Irish Occupy is hard-left. You can't have your cake and eat it too.


  • #54
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    the movement appears to be calling for corporations to made public and democratic.

    Except it's not. It's calling for them to be kept out of politics, and for government to act in the interests of the population as a whole rather than the corporations.

    Where do you see demands for corporations to be nationalized? In fact, the nationalization of banks is one of the main things we're protesting AGAINST.


  • #55
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    Well, of course - an occupied society doesn't exist so in order to think about one one has to, by definition, make things up.

    I was extrapolating your attitude to debate and other occupier's attitude to debate to reason that in an occupied society rational argument wouldn't necessarily have an effect on things. If you're willing to ignore Permabear's point, simply because you don't like Permabear. what's to stop you and other occupiers ignoring people in an occupied society?
    I seriously have no idea what you are talking about. An occupied society!!!
    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    More generally, my greatest complaint with Occupy is not the particular left-wing views they promote but rather what I see as a lack of rationality in decision making in the movement. Occupiers make a lot of noise about their common assemblies - but if these assemblies are producing policies that simple reason- and evidence-based arguments can debunk, then these assemblies simply aren't worth that much.



    Spin to make FF proud!

    As I said, Occupy supports a number of initiatives that are basically defining characteristics of the Irish hard left. They their rhetoric aligns fully with the Irish hard left. From OC's website,

    Of course that includes politics that people in FG, FF etc. would support, but the key difference is first the rhetorical technique ("greedy 1%") and second the degree to which Occupy subscribes to these views. Here, the movement appears to be calling for corporations to made public and democratic. That is hard-left - and your denial of this point only reinforces the first point I made above about my perception of Occupy's unwillingness to listen to those they dislike.

    So either you concede that you habitually ignore those people you disagree with or you concede that Irish Occupy is hard-left. You can't have your cake and eat it too.

    Its not "hard left" they aren't calling for corporations to be made public where on earth are you getting that idea from ? they are saying that private debt should not be socialised. Simples.


  • #56
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    Fair point. However one could easily interpret the "People must have economic and political control over their own lives" and "public goods and natural resources must be kept for all the people" as a call for increased government owned services in general.


  • #57
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Eliot Rosewater wrote: »
    Fair point. However one could easily interpret the "People must have economic and political control over their own lives" and "public goods and natural resources must be kept for all the people" as a call for increased government owned services in general.

    The people does not equal the government.

    Something doesn't have to be government owned for it to be democratic, it could simply be regulated through legislation.

    For instance, that the government should not be allowed to give away public free space for use by property developers, a la Save Our Seafront in Dun Laoghaire.


  • #58
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Even the governor of the Central Bank "get it".

    The governor also acknowledged that the group goes some way towards representing the views of wider society about the banking sector and the financial crisis:


    "While not everyone is happy with their being there, several people have said to me that their presence symbolises, albeit in a rather ambiguous and even incoherent way, the feelings of a large part of society in regard to what has gone wrong in the financial sector and with the banks."


  • #59
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    20Cent wrote: »
    Even the governor of the Central Bank "get it".

    The governor also acknowledged that the group goes some way towards representing the views of wider society about the banking sector and the financial crisis:


    "While not everyone is happy with their being there, several people have said to me that their presence symbolises, albeit in a rather ambiguous and even incoherent way, the feelings of a large part of society in regard to what has gone wrong in the financial sector and with the banks."

    Lol, more Comical ODS

    He certainly gets that they are ambiguous and incoherent, haven't people on here being saying exactly that for months, asking ODS to try and explain exactly what it is they stand for.

    Half-built houses and half-finished estates in the middle of nowhere also symbolise what has gone wrong in the financial sector. Most sensible people who want the country to get going again want those symbols bulldozed. Now there's an idea for ODS.......:D


  • #60
    wearytraveller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14 ✭wearytraveller


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Posted this on AH a while ago as an example of what should happen and what I would consider a good outcome:

    Let me put this to YOU: What if I got MY way, and no corporate money was allowed in politics, any politician found to have cut a corrupt deal was immediately removed from office and a bye election held to determine if the people would tolerate it, bankers who f*ck up and developers f*ck up didn't get bailed out but had to face the harsh reality of the losses they inflicted on everyone else, and we created a truly democratic society in which each person has one vote, and there are no vested interests whatsoever controlling anything beyond that and overriding the will of the people?

    If there had to be a complete and total disconnect between the corporate world and the political world, and if this was vigourously regulated, with extremely harsh penalties for any politicians violating the rule?

    If accepting middle of the night phone calls from bank managers asking for multi billion euro bailouts without properly consulting the rest of the cabinet were not only outlawed, but resulted in an immediate expulsion from office?

    If white collar crime was vigorously pursued and there was absolutely no question whatsoever of any sweeping under the carpet, as has been the case with Anglo?

    If developers and others who made bad investments were left to deal with the consequences without taxpayer subsidised bailouts, just like any other citizen who chooses to gamble and finds that they gambled badly?

    These are just a few examples, I'm sure I could think of many, many more. What would you say to a society like that though? A society with proper equality, where everyone has to play by the exact same rules, and the penalty for failing to do so is the same - regardless of any personal connections you have or friends in high places? If confidential discussions between corporations and ministers simply weren't allowed? I could go on and on.

    How about it?
    A society of equals. No elite. No cronies. No VIPs. One set of rules for everybody. Politicians who are legally required to serve the nation, not their friends.

    What say you?

    I'd say I'd vote for you!


  • Advertisement
  • #61
    hatrickpatrick
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 17,797 ✭✭✭✭hatrickpatrick


    Godge I'm sure I've probably asked you this before, but all partuisan bickering aside, where do you actually stand on the financial sector? What's your opinion on it?

    Do you regard what went wrong as 'mistakes', or 'deliberate, greedy "as long as I'm ok no one else matters"-ism' on the part of those in charge of it?

    I think that's where our key ideological disagreement is here, you regard it as an accident, I (and other what you define as 'hard left' protesters) regard it as deliberate corruption for which the perpetrators should be penalized.

    Thoughts?


  • #62
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    hatrickpatrick wrote: »
    Godge I'm sure I've probably asked you this before, but all partuisan bickering aside, where do you actually stand on the financial sector? What's your opinion on it?

    Do you regard what went wrong as 'mistakes', or 'deliberate, greedy "as long as I'm ok no one else matters"-ism' on the part of those in charge of it?

    I think that's where our key ideological disagreement is here, you regard it as an accident, I (and other what you define as 'hard left' protesters) regard it as deliberate corruption for which the perpetrators should be penalized.

    Thoughts?

    Yes, I think you have asked me before and I think I have answered but in case it is lost here goes.

    The Irish financial crisis (and this is the one that affects us) was partly caused by the global events. However, and this is the important point, most of it is down to domestic events. Firstly, there was the stupidly over-confident David Drumm and Sean Fitzpatrick who believed they could build a third force in Irish banking and who convinced thousands of shareholders, investers, government ministers and officials and loan customers, mostly businessmen that their stupid foolish dream could come true.

    Secondly, there was the stupid reaction of the other banks who saw the Anglo model, and under pressure from shareholders and borrowers followed suit. They were supported in this endeavour by weak regulation from the Central Bank and the Financial Regulator which were retirement homes for former Department of Finance officials.

    Thirdly, there was the reaction of the average gombeen Irishman who saw a chance to make a buck through property. The result of all of that was an unsustainable property boom in Ireland. When the financial markets went wallop we were at the top of the boom, the closest analogy I can think of is that Coyote character in the Road Runner cartoon who keeps running after the cliff has run out and suddently realises there is a long way to fall.

    Fourthly, there was the incredible stupidity of Cowen, McCreevy, Ahern and Lenihan who attached our government finances both expenditure and tax on to the back of the property boom and said "let the good times roll". Their approach to regulation also played a huge part. What's more, despite being warned about them, the stupid Irish voters (nearly half of them) re-elected this crowd in 2007.

    So most of the mess was created by ourselves which we then proceeded to make even worse by our response to the crisis. The bank guarantee introduced by Brian Lenihan in September 2008 was the single most stupid decision ever taken in the history of the state. There were other solutions available (letting Anglo and Irish Nationwide go bust and take AIB and BOI into state ownership) that would have cost less but it seems that Lenihan was influenced by advice he got from David Mcwilliams (google McWilliams own accounts of their meetings) though the media economist tends to distance himself from that advice these days (wouldn't you?)

    Well, the bank guarantee didn't work, our EU partners were furious with us - read the UK reaction at the time, and already faced with a collapse in property tax revenue and an increasing social welfare bill leaving us with a huge hole in our public finances, we now had added on a bank recapitalisation bill (though this is smaller than the structural deficit problem). As a result of that the country was in sh1t and eventually we had to call in the IMF and the EU to bail us out.

    So who do I blame? I blame the incompetence and stupidity of bankers, politicians, regulators, shareholders, civil servants, borrowers and also the Irish people themselves. We made this mess, the onus is on us to clean it up. Harsh truth but reality. There is nobody who lived in Ireland who didn't benefit from the boom. The kids got higher child benefit than anywhere in Europe, the pensioners got higher pensions, the civil servants got higher pay, anyone on social welfare got better benefits than anywhere else, we had lower income taxes. We all benefitted and joined in apart from a few who warned about the dangers. Those that didn't accepted the democratic outcome and the legitimacy of the decisions made by FF governments - where were the protesters in 2005, 2006 and 2007 about the increases in social welfare and the cuts in taxation? Too busy protesting about snails in Kildare or a couple of kms of pipeline in Mayo. You dropped the ball on the real issues, lads.

    Was there corruption? No, I don't think so in regard to the major decisions. We elected the politicians who took the disastorous decisions on tax and spending, we then re-elected the same crowd with a few Greens and they took the bank guarantee decision. Those are the things that made the mess, nothing corrupt about that.

    Was there something going on in the banks? The Quinn loans, the director loans in Anglo, Fingleton in Irish Nationwide, there may have been breaches of company and/or fraud law in these cases, let us wait and see but I very much doubt that the major decisions that caused the problem were corrupt. They were made by stupid incompetent politicians (or their appointees) who the electorate stupidly elected.

    So yes, I am very angry about what happened, but I also realise that we have made our bed in this situation and we have to sleep in it, uncomfortable and all as that is. What annoys me about the people who end up in groups like the ULA, PfP and ODS, is their point-blank refusal as Irishmen and Irishwomen to accept that this is our own fault and instead of protesting and crying and looking around for someone else to blame, we should just get on with the task on rebuilding this country and economy, something I believe is eminently possible.

    Rant over.


  • #63
    wearytraveller
    Closed Accounts Posts: 14 ✭wearytraveller


    Godge wrote: »

    So yes, I am very angry about what happened, but I also realise that we have made our bed in this situation and we have to sleep in it, uncomfortable and all as that is. What annoys me about the people who end up in groups like the ULA, PfP and ODS, is their point-blank refusal as Irishmen and Irishwomen to accept that this is our own fault and instead of protesting and crying and looking around for someone else to blame, we should just get on with the task on rebuilding this country and economy, something I believe is eminently possible.

    Rant over.

    But surely the average person-on-the-street, maybe with a mortgage, children, maybe about to lose their job if they haven't already, can't do a lot towards rebuilding this country. So you are saying that they should quietly, and without protest, continue to make cutbacks, struggle to pay the bills, pay ever increasing taxes and hope that our leaders (who, as you say, haven't had the best record over the last few decades) will sort it all out in our best interests?
    I would also like to mention that the €1.25bn that was paid to Anglo Irish Bank on 25th January was not covered by the bank guarantee scheme, and had already been sold by the original bondholders at a 50% discount. So the people who received that vast sum of money made an instant, undeserved windfall of €62500000000
    I personally believe that is not something that comes under the heading of 'we all made this bed so we must lie in it'


  • #64
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    wearytraveller wrote: »
    But surely the average person-on-the-street, maybe with a mortgage, children, maybe about to lose their job if they haven't already, can't do a lot towards rebuilding this country. So you are saying that they should quietly, and without protest, continue to make cutbacks, struggle to pay the bills, pay ever increasing taxes and hope that our leaders (who, as you say, haven't had the best record over the last few decades) will sort it all out in our best interests?

    That is not the average person on the street.

    (1) There are 400,000 unemployed but there are 1.8 million employed, the average person is employed (or supported by someone who is employed).

    (2) Figures from the 2006 Census indicated that around 40% of households were in owner-occupied homes that had a mortgage outstanding while 35% of households owned their home outright. The remaining 25% of household were mainly in Local Authority or private rented accommodation. So less than 50% have a mortgage.

    (3) I can't find figures for children, but I would again suspect that less than 50% of households have children under 18 but I may be wrong. Either way, enough above to show your averge household isn't average.

    (4) Our leaders now are different to the leaders who over the last 15 years brought us into this mess. It is something that the ODS people don't seem to have realised - we had a democratic election and threw out the government that made the mess. Just because a small group of people don't like the result doesn't mean that new group don't deserve their five years to have a go at cleaning the mess up.

    wearytraveller wrote: »
    I would also like to mention that the €1.25bn that was paid to Anglo Irish Bank on 25th January was not covered by the bank guarantee scheme, and had already been sold by the original bondholders at a 50% discount. So the people who received that vast sum of money made an instant, undeserved windfall of €62500000000
    I personally believe that is not something that comes under the heading of 'we all made this bed so we must lie in it'


    Those people took a gamble that paid off. You guarantee the banks, it is very difficult to unguarantee them, all of it flows from the stupid FF decision, I just hope the people of this country never forget that.


  • #65
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #66
    Dr Galen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭Dr Galen


    I think the real core of the original Occupy movement ( not the various hangers on and interest groups that have since hitched their sail to the overall mast) would be a lot closer ideologically to the libertarian movement than many ere would like or want to believe tbh.


  • Advertisement
  • #67
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #68
    Dr Galen
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 7,373 ✭✭✭Dr Galen


    I wouldn't suggest that the two movements are identical, but there are similarities as you point out. I would suggest that there would be quite a few within the "core" of Occupy who would quite a bit in common with the libertarians out there, thats all.

    On here particularly, it appears to have become a battle between the Libs and Occupiers and I would say that really thats a bit silly in some ways. From what I've read, it is the various "outsiders" who have since got involved with Occupy who have diluted the message to encompass all sorts of other things, such as Shell to Sea, ULA and others here.


  • #69
    Memnoch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Not this again.

    The problem isn't government. The problem is corruption of government by the wealthy and the powerful.

    Government is a function of democracy. Without it the rule of the powerful and wealthy will only be more absolute and afford people LESS freedom as was seen before democratic revolution around the world. Eliminating government is not and cannot be the solution. Removing corrupting influence from government is what we should all be striving for. This is what the occupy movement stands for.

    Modern libertarianism isn't at all about freedom even though it attempts very skillfully to adorn itself in that cloak. It is only about freedom for the ultra powerful to do whatever the hell they want and if the vast majority of us get screwed in the process, suffer or are limited in our freedoms, that's just too bad.


  • #70
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #71
    Memnoch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    You want to drastically limit the power of government. You want to cut taxes drastically. I'm sure you'd rather if there was no tax at all. Libertarians have argued similarly in the past on boards (i believe). You want to minimise deregulation and give corporations free reign.

    When you want to clamp down on some of the most important purposes government then that is in effect what you are taking about. Please don't drag me into another pointless argument on semantics. But this is what libertarians do. They hide behind semantics because of how ludicrous and antidemocratic their philosophy is repeatedly shown to be when it's exposed under the full light of day.


  • Advertisement
  • #72
    Eliot Rosewater
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 3,745 ✭✭✭Eliot Rosewater


    Dr Galen wrote: »
    On here particularly, it appears to have become a battle between the Libs and Occupiers and I would say that really thats a bit silly in some ways. From what I've read, it is the various "outsiders" who have since got involved with Occupy who have diluted the message to encompass all sorts of other things, such as Shell to Sea, ULA and others here.

    That's probably true, but given Occupy's democratic nature if they're promoting a campaign like Shell to Sea it means a majority involved support it.


  • #73
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #74
    Memnoch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    Like I said, getting caught in semantics again. I'm sure there is a distinction, but the extent to which the libertarians want to 'limit' government is so drastic that in comparison to what we consider government today, what you will have will barely be a husk.

    Libertarian philosophy seems to think that there should be very little actual GOVERNING that should be done by the government. They want to trust individuals to govern themselves.

    For all intents and purposes you're talking about the elimination of government.


  • #75
    Permabear
    Closed Accounts Posts: 39,022 ✭✭✭✭Permabear


    This post has been deleted.


  • #76
    Eggy Baby!
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,142 ✭✭✭Eggy Baby!


    I want motherhood and apple pie. I want children dancing at the crossroads. I want everyone to have their own four-bedroomed house with a large garden somewhere nice in the countryside with fast broadband and public transport every five minutes to take them to work. They should also have two cars, an apartment in Spain and three holidays a year.

    I guess we would all vote for that.

    You sound like a Fine Gael TD.


  • #77
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Occupy will eventually end up being a good thing for investors. Having an industry so dominated by a few players who make up their own rules is distorting the market. The small investment house does not have access to the same information the bigger players have and are subject to the big messes they make. People who want to buy a financial product cannot believe that the product is what the seller and the ratings company claim it is. Proper legislation to make the seller responsible for the product being sold would be a huge boost to the small investor. Same as it is for normal consumers.
    The other investment houses must be sick of seeing the big few constantly bailed out for their mistakes while the smaller places pay the price. If Occupy results in some more legislation to reign in some of the cowboys it will be a good thing for all of society especially people looking to invest.

    These are a few bits of advice from the journalist Matt Tabbi who has been covering the financial crisis from the start. Check out his other articles particularly why isn't wall st in jail.

    http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/my-advice-to-the-occupy-wall-street-protesters-20111012

    1. Break up the monopolies. The so-called "Too Big to Fail" financial companies – now sometimes called by the more accurate term "Systemically Dangerous Institutions" – are a direct threat to national security. They are above the law and above market consequence, making them more dangerous and unaccountable than a thousand mafias combined. There are about 20 such firms in America, and they need to be dismantled; a good start would be to repeal the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act and mandate the separation of insurance companies, investment banks and commercial banks.

    2. Pay for your own bailouts. A tax of 0.1 percent on all trades of stocks and bonds and a 0.01 percent tax on all trades of derivatives would generate enough revenue to pay us back for the bailouts, and still have plenty left over to fight the deficits the banks claim to be so worried about. It would also deter the endless chase for instant profits through computerized insider-trading schemes like High Frequency Trading, and force Wall Street to go back to the job it's supposed to be doing, i.e., making sober investments in job-creating businesses and watching them grow.

    3. No public money for private lobbying. A company that receives a public bailout should not be allowed to use the taxpayer's own money to lobby against him. You can either suck on the public teat or influence the next presidential race, but you can't do both. Butt out for once and let the people choose the next president and Congress.

    4. Tax hedge-fund gamblers. For starters, we need an immediate repeal of the preposterous and indefensible carried-interest tax break, which allows hedge-fund titans like Stevie Cohen and John Paulson to pay taxes of only 15 percent on their billions in gambling income, while ordinary Americans pay twice that for teaching kids and putting out fires. I defy any politician to stand up and defend that loophole during an election year.

    5. Change the way bankers get paid. We need new laws preventing Wall Street executives from getting bonuses upfront for deals that might blow up in all of our faces later. It should be: You make a deal today, you get company stock you can redeem two or three years from now. That forces everyone to be invested in his own company's long-term health – no more Joe Cassanos pocketing multimillion-dollar bonuses for destroying the AIGs of the world.


  • #78
    SupaNova
    Closed Accounts Posts: 788 ✭✭✭SupaNova


    Much easier to avoid conflicts of interest with credit rating agencies if investors relied on their own do diligence or rating agencies funded by investors like the Egan-Jones Ratings Company.


  • #79
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭20Cent


    SupaNova wrote: »
    Much easier to avoid conflicts of interest with credit rating agencies if investors relied on their own do diligence or rating agencies funded by investors like the Egan-Jones Ratings Company.

    Wouldn't that price out the smaller investors who would not have the access or resources to study thousands of individual mortgages for example. What about people who bought shares in something like Anglo, they wouldn't have known about the bread a breakfast deal or golden circle deals. The information they are getting is incorrect much to their detriment. Those in the know can make off like bandits though.
    If you buy a product in a shop and its defective or not what you wanted the seller has to offer a refund why not the same with financial products? If a AAA rated investment turns out to be junk the seller should be held responsible. Lots of investors lost their shirts because of the subprime mortgage scam. The ones responsible got a bailout and carry on regardless. Surely this is unfair.


  • #80
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    20Cent wrote: »
    3. No public money for private lobbying. A company that receives a public bailout should not be allowed to use the taxpayer's own money to lobby against him. You can either suck on the public teat or influence the next presidential race, but you can't do both. Butt out for once and let the people choose the next president and Congress.
    Following this line of thought, would you propose to prevent public sector workers from voting? Considering they use the taxpayer's money to organise through the unions which then exert considerable political pressure; much like corporations lobbying the government with bailout funds, right?


  • #81
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Valmont wrote: »
    Following this line of thought, would you propose to prevent public sector workers from voting? Considering they use the taxpayer's money to organise through the unions which then exert considerable political pressure; much like corporations lobbying the government with bailout funds, right?

    Steps:
    1: Search through post to find something vaguely controversial
    2: Make a wild inference from it even if it is clearly not what is being said
    3: Ignore any other points made

    I'm on to ye libertarians!!


  • Advertisement
  • #82
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    I don't think the point is that people are picking vague or controversial parts of your ideology, but rather the fact that the ideology itself is absolute muck and can't stand up to even the most basic of logical interrogation.

    You still haven't answered me on the situation regarding the severe drop in footfall cause by ODS, and its detrimental effect on local businesses. Am I to gather that they and their opinions simply do not count? So much for equality.


  • #83
    20Cent
    Registered Users Posts: 8,939 ✭✭✭20Cent


    Rojomcdojo wrote: »
    I don't think the point is that people are picking vague or controversial parts of your ideology, but rather the fact that the ideology itself is absolute muck and can't stand up to even the most basic of logical interrogation.
    Though I have some sympathies I wouldn't identify myself as libertarian.
    Rojomcdojo wrote: »
    You still haven't answered me on the situation regarding the severe drop in footfall cause by ODS, and its detrimental effect on local businesses. Am I to gather that they and their opinions simply do not count? So much for equality.

    I don't base my opinions of worldwide movements on badly researched single news stories do you?


  • #84
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    20Cent wrote: »
    Though I have some sympathies I wouldn't identify myself as libertarian.


    I don't base my opinions of worldwide movements on badly researched single news stories do you?



    ....You've lost me. What?


  • #85
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Rojomcdojo wrote: »
    I don't think the point is that people are picking vague or controversial parts of your ideology, but rather the fact that the ideology itself is absolute muck and can't stand up to even the most basic of logical interrogation.

    go on so, show us where it falls to your logical interrogation, because i and everyone else must be missing something ...


  • #86
    [Deleted User]
    Posts: 0 ✭ [Deleted User]


    davoxx wrote: »
    go on so, show us where it falls to your logical interrogation, because i and everyone else must be missing something ...

    No, everyone else gets it too. Hence why you have no support.


  • #87
    Memnoch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    Permabear wrote: »
    This post had been deleted.

    This is why libertarianism is a defunct ideology. You need to have institutions in place to prevent harm. Otherwise it's too late.

    Look at the world. ANYWHERE that corporate regulation and accountability is weak OR where government is corrupted by corporate influence. People suffer and come to harm. That is the reality that libertarians seem utterly blind to and for the life of me I cannot understand why.

    People with power continually infringe on the lives of those with less power than them. That's why we had revolution, that's why we invented democracy. So that the many could not be oppressed by the few elite.

    The more I discuss this the more I'm convinced that libertarians want to dismantle democracy, though I don't think they even realise this is what they are truly advocating for.


  • #88
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    20Cent wrote: »
    Steps:
    1: Search through post to find something vaguely controversial
    2: Make a wild inference from it even if it is clearly not what is being said
    3: Ignore any other points made

    I'm on to ye libertarians!!
    You implied that taking public money and simultaneously exerting a political influence is a bad thing. I'm assuming you were referring to the conflict of interests inherent in bailed out institutions lobbying the American government.

    I believe this principle you have outlined is applicable to other areas such the conflict of interest involved in civil servants being able to vote and organise themselves into a powerful lobby.

    Do you disagree with that analogy? Why is it different?


  • #89
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    Memnoch wrote: »
    OR where government is corrupted by corporate influence.
    I've noticed this meme (to use the Occupy parlance;)) of late; I think 20Cent has mentioned it too.

    How do you know it isn't the state corrupting the corporations? Please explain why you believe the corruption to flow in one direction only.


  • #90
    Valmont
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 5,857 ✭✭✭Valmont


    Memnoch wrote: »
    The more I discuss this the more I'm convinced that libertarians want to dismantle democracy, though I don't think they even realise this is what they are truly advocating for.
    Throw its current form in the bin - mob rule is one thing libertarians are explicitly against. We know it, too.


  • Advertisement
  • #91
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Rojomcdojo wrote: »
    No, everyone else gets it too. Hence why you have no support.
    so i guess it doesn't fall to your logical interrogation nonsense ...


  • #92
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,958 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    davoxx wrote: »
    go on so, show us where it falls to your logical interrogation,

    Look at all the questions over all the different threads that Occupy supporters have avioded answering.


  • #93
    Memnoch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    Valmont wrote: »
    I've noticed this meme (to use the Occupy parlance;)) of late; I think 20Cent has mentioned it too.

    How do you know it isn't the state corrupting the corporations? Please explain why you believe the corruption to flow in one direction only.

    I'm not sure your question makes sense. In what sense is the state corrupting the corporation? What function does the corporation have that the state would stand to gain by preventing it from accomplishing?

    My understanding is that the corporation exists for one purpose and one purpose alone. To create profit for its shareholders and to shield them from consequences of risk and failure as much as possible.

    It CAN be argued that a corporation will often feel forced to bribe an official in order to get preferential treatment or a contract because if they don't someone else will and they will lose out. India is a good example of this where corruption has spread so deep that many investors are wondering whether it is worth the cost.

    It's a vicious cycle.

    But the state has nothing to gain by corrupting corporations. Only corrupt individuals within the state benefit from this. However, the corporation has a whole has a lot to gain by corrupting the functions of government.

    But in the end, it doesn't matter which direction the corporation flows. Except, corrupting government is natural evolution for the purposes of corporate growth, the alternative is not true.

    We want government to serve its purpose, which is representing the interests of those who vote for them. And to do this we must stop corruption.

    Edit: Okay, thinking about it a little more I can see where you are coming from. China for example is one instance where a state is corrupting corporation. By reducing freedom of speech. But China is not a democracy. So I think it's important to keep context in mind when having these discussions.

    My aim is to discuss and encourage stronger democracy. As such the argument you present is a tangent and not really applicable to what we are talking about.


  • #94
    Memnoch
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 4,276 ✭✭✭Memnoch


    Valmont wrote: »
    Throw its current form in the bin - mob rule is one thing libertarians are explicitly against. We know it, too.

    Who is talking about mob rule? The libertarian version is nothing more than a return to times where the rich did whatever the hell they want and the rest of us were little more than pawns in their games.


  • #95
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    PeadarCo wrote: »
    Look at all the questions over all the different threads that Occupy supporters have avioded answering.
    i did, and i saw answers.
    granted some answers are fluffy answers, but then again those were in response to fluffy questions.
    if you feel a question was avoided, can you point it out?

    if the question is "when does someone know that they are in love?" expect a fluffy answer.
    if it is a factually based question and that the answer given failed to meet logical reasoning, and i'd like to hear it.

    otherwise this video (which is neither pro nor con) is very apt, at showing the confusion surrounding it.
    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=j-rxe9Ayb8c


    the media constantly attempts to discredit the Occupy Movement, but that is because it scares them and their owners ...


  • #96
    PeadarCo
    Registered Users Posts: 1,958 ✭✭✭PeadarCo


    davoxx wrote: »
    i did, and i saw answers.
    granted some answers are fluffy answers, but then again those were in response to fluffy questions.
    if you feel a question was avoided, can you point it out?

    if the question is "when does someone know that they are in love?" expect a fluffy answer.

    I'll ask them again. What are Occupys goals? How do they hope to achieve them? Should be reasonably detailed they've had a few months.Why do they do they not practice what they preach(Look a the Occupy Galway Thread). What would Occupy do to reslove our current crisis(again they've had plently of time to come up with a detailed response)

    Others have asked more. None of these are difficult. Any organisation that is any good is capable explaining these to outsiders in a clear and understandable fashion.

    If the people within the Occupy movement want to succeed they have to able to answer these questions.


  • Advertisement
  • #97
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    PeadarCo wrote: »
    What are Occupys goals?
    as a movement that have a clear goal: to make the world a better place, where everyone can live in peace and everyone is equal. (that was paraphrased obviously)

    so that logically stands.
    PeadarCo wrote: »
    How do they hope to achieve them?
    like most movements, by raising awareness. should that fail who knows what their next step is.

    so that logically stands.
    PeadarCo wrote: »
    Should be reasonably detailed they've had a few months.
    they want to remove corruption, inequality, greed, censorship ... they are a movement, movements don't have detailed implementation plans.

    so that logically stands and your point is flawed.
    PeadarCo wrote: »
    Why do they do they not practice what they preach(Look a the Occupy Galway Thread).
    you'll have to be more specific. each sub occupy movement may have their own gaols, demands that are specific to that country or city.
    PeadarCo wrote: »
    What would Occupy do to reslove our current crisis(again they've had plently of time to come up with a detailed response)
    again you are looking for an implementation plan.

    your point is flawed.
    PeadarCo wrote: »
    Others have asked more. None of these are difficult.
    or relevant.

    your point is flawed.
    PeadarCo wrote: »
    Any organisation that is any good is capable explaining these to outsiders in a clear and understandable fashion.
    good as in efficient? good as in morally good? you are mushing different concepts into an incorrect conclusion.

    your point is flawed.
    PeadarCo wrote: »
    If the people within the Occupy movement want to succeed they have to able to answer these questions.
    they have, but people need to understand them and think for themselves rather than following media guided answers.

    your point is flawed.

    conclusion:
    they are a movement, they are not a group of investors, nor a customer with a complaint with a single product.
    they are a group of people who have a broad common complaint and a broad common goal. i think you are confusing them with a political parties campaign ...


  • #98
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    davoxx wrote: »
    as a movement that have a clear goal: to make the world a better place, where everyone can live in peace and everyone is equal. (that was paraphrased obviously)

    ...


    "all we are saying, is give peace a chance"?

    Maybe we will all go to San Francisco and put flowers in our hair?

    Ok, not all cultural references are that old.

    "Heal the world, make it a better place, for you and for me and the entire human race...."


  • #99
    FreudianSlippers
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 20,397 ✭✭✭✭FreudianSlippers


    Everyone is equal... ok, how: Economically? Socially?
    I knew occupy was a secret communist wealth-redistribution network.


  • #100
    davoxx
    Banned (with Prison Access) Posts: 2,539 ✭✭✭davoxx


    Godge wrote: »
    "all we are saying, is give peace a chance"?

    Maybe we will all go to San Francisco and put flowers in our hair?

    Ok, not all cultural references are that old.

    "Heal the world, make it a better place, for you and for me and the entire human race...."
    hey, if you don't want to give peace a chance, that is your opinion.

    i understand that there are people that don't want to heal the world, they'd rather make money from the sick ... but that is your call, just like it is your call to try and mock those that want to make the world a better place ...

    but still it doesn't take away from the fact that the do have a gaol now does it?


  • #101
    Godge
    Closed Accounts Posts: 21,727 ✭✭✭✭Godge


    davoxx wrote: »
    hey, if you don't want to give peace a chance, that is your opinion.

    i understand that there are people that don't want to heal the world, they'd rather make money from the sick ... but that is your call, just like it is your call to try and mock those that want to make the world a better place ...

    but still it doesn't take away from the fact that the do have a gaol now does it?

    Should have included the roll-eyes icon, you might have understood the post better then.

    The point of my post, obviously lost on you, is that the give peace a chance goal has been around for nearly 50 years as a part of the hippie movement and just begs the question once again, isn't ODS just the same old story from the same old tired protesters? I just used artistic licence in using lyrics from various songs from the last 50 years.

    might strap on my guitar and head down for a singalong some night in Dame Street:D.


  • Advertisement
Advertisement