Occupy Protests now trying to shut down Ports...
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
Prove that its only 9% who are fed up with the current system, then you might have a point.
_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.
Irrelevant.
Those American truck drivers are trying to earn a living, too. As are the American dockworkers.
Why does the "Occupy" movement hate working-class Americans?
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
Irrelevant.
Those American truck drivers are trying to earn a living, too. As are the American dockworkers.
Why does the "Occupy" movement hate working-class Americans?
I think the Occupy movement has more of an issue with the exploitation of working class americans, hence the reason many of the protestors are working class americans.
_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.
Irrelevant.
It clearly says "Jobs" on the trucks. I don't see how that is an accurate picture, unless they are going to the port.
I have questions that I think should be considered.
1. What was the founding father's interpretation of our inalienable rights?
2. Is the current situation that is going on today a violation of any inalienable right based upon question one.
3. If two is yes, which rights specifically?
4. If two is no can these rights ever contradict when certain conditions happen? For example, Typhoid Mary.
5. If four is yes, how can these rights truly remain inalienable at all times?
You said 99% of the wealth is controlled by one percent right?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljac ... -equality/
Quit exaggerating
If this is so, then 20% of the population controls 85.1% of the wealth. This means 1/4 of the population controls most of the wealth. Is it true that he who owns most of the gold makes the rules? Does this mean the top 20% make most of the rules? If a person is not happy with the rules the 20% make is it possible to leave and expatriate themselves from the 20 percentager's influence? If it is possible to leave and expatriate and get from under their influence then why can't we all just leave? This means I would have to believe Fnord, reuven, inuasha and others are correct. If it is not possible to leave then I will have to side with the protesters and this means statistics wise the protesters are inaccurate with their numbers.
My question is before we decide any rights are being violated is is it possible for any person in the bottom 80% to expatriate themselves and leave? If we can, then I ask why can't we simply leave and vote with our feet?
Last edited by cubedemon6073 on 13 Dec 2011, 3:32 pm, edited 1 time in total.
Sweetleaf
Veteran
Joined: 6 Jan 2011
Age: 36
Gender: Female
Posts: 35,278
Location: Somewhere in Colorado
1. What was the founding father's interpretation of our inalienable rights?
2. Is the current situation that is going on today a violation of any inalienable right based upon question one.
3. If two is yes, which rights specifically?
4. If two is no can these rights ever contradict when certain conditions happen? For example, Typhoid Mary.
5. If four is yes, how can these rights truly remain inalienable at all times?
You said 99% of the wealth is controlled by one percent right?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljac ... -equality/
Quit exaggerating
If this is so, then 20% of the population controls 85.1% of the wealth. This means 1/4 of the population controls most of the wealth. Is it true that he who owns most of the gold makes the rules? Does this mean the top 20% make most of the rules? If a person is not happy with the rules the 20% make is it possible to leave and expatriate themselves from the 20 percentager's influence? If it is possible to leave and expatriate and get from under their influence then why can't we all just leave? This means I would have to believe Fnord, reuven, inuasha and others are correct. If it is not possible to leave then I will have to side with the protesters and this means statistics wise the protesters are inaccurate with their numbers.
My question is before we decide any rights are being violated is is it possible for any person in the bottom 80% to expatriate themselves and leave? If we can, then I ask why can't we simply leave and vote with our feet?
Well there are quite a few reasons it could be hard for one in the bottom 80% to leave the country...I for instance doubt I would get approved for citizenship in another country and I only speak english and have a hard enough time functioning as is I would have no real way to survive in another country. Unless I had friends there who could help.
What is wrong with wanting to make a stand and improve things rather than just run away anyways?
_________________
Tis the time to melt the Ice.
Divide the number of people actually involved in the "Occupy" movement by the number of people who don't care enough to take time off from work to be involved, and you'll likely have a number that is much, much less than 9%.
Link: U.S. Employment Picture at a Glance
Now, let's do the math...
16.6 million unemployed, divided by 139.3 million employed (full- or part-time), then multiplied by 100% yields 11.9%.
Assuming that all of those who are unemployed are "fed up", then that is still far below the "99%" figure, oft-quoted by the "Occupy" movement.
Even if you assume only the 113 million full-time employees are not "fed up", then that is still only 40.0%, which is still less than half of that magical 99% that the "Occupy" movement loves to throw around.
1. What was the founding father's interpretation of our inalienable rights?
2. Is the current situation that is going on today a violation of any inalienable right based upon question one.
3. If two is yes, which rights specifically?
4. If two is no can these rights ever contradict when certain conditions happen? For example, Typhoid Mary.
5. If four is yes, how can these rights truly remain inalienable at all times?
You said 99% of the wealth is controlled by one percent right?
http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljac ... -equality/
Quit exaggerating
If this is so, then 20% of the population controls 85.1% of the wealth. This means 1/4 of the population controls most of the wealth. Is it true that he who owns most of the gold makes the rules? Does this mean the top 20% make most of the rules? If a person is not happy with the rules the 20% make is it possible to leave and expatriate themselves from the 20 percentager's influence? If it is possible to leave and expatriate and get from under their influence then why can't we all just leave? This means I would have to believe Fnord, reuven, inuasha and others are correct. If it is not possible to leave then I will have to side with the protesters and this means statistics wise the protesters are inaccurate with their numbers.
My question is before we decide any rights are being violated is is it possible for any person in the bottom 80% to expatriate themselves and leave? If we can, then I ask why can't we simply leave and vote with our feet?
Well there are quite a few reasons it could be hard for one in the bottom 80% to leave the country...I for instance doubt I would get approved for citizenship in another country and I only speak english and have a hard enough time functioning as is I would have no real way to survive in another country. Unless I had friends there who could help.
What is wrong with wanting to make a stand and improve things rather than just run away anyways?
What if we didn't have to make a stand? Is it possible to buy land or is there land on the entire earth that is unclaimed? If there is land that is unclaimed then why can't those who are unhappy claim this land, build their own communities, and improve things in this way? If all of the land if claimed then is it possible to pool some of our resources that we do have, buy land, and see if there way to get the 20 percentagers out of our lives? Is there a way those who wanted out and were unhappy could form a new community that was self-sufficient or mostly self-sufficient? If resources are able to be pooled for OWS then why isn't this possible as well? Yes, it will be hard and we may have to give up some creature comforts.
If my secnario is possible and we can leave then I believe Fnord and others are overall correct. If not, I believe we do have a case. Is it possible to leave and get the 20% percentagers to leave us alone? Is it possible to have honesty and decency but within our own communities and outside of the 20 percentager's influences. If it is possible then let's get the heck out and agree Fnord and others are correct.
If you actually want to be listened to produce an actual graph that says it.
Produce an actual graph that disproves it...the point is a rather small amount of people own/control most of the worlds wealth & resources and have a lot of influence on various governments including the U.S federal government. I have never claimed its a perfectly accurate statistic, I have however more than once explained what it means.
You said 99% of the wealth is controlled by one percent right?
the top one percent of the country owns 34.6% of the wealth in total net worth; the next 19% owns 50.5%; the bottom 80% owns 15%.
http://www.forbes.com/sites/deborahljac ... -equality/
Quit exaggerating
I said the worlds wealth & resources, and yes I think its around 1% controlling around 99% of the worlds wealth & reasources.
quit making accusations, if you have something that disproves it I will gladly look at it....but don't try and act like i am trying to exagerate to get a point across because there would be no reason for me to do that.
99% of the world's wealth and resources isn't controlled by one percent either.
http://escholarship.org/uc/item/3jv048hx
According to this it's 40%
Oh yeah, and Fnord you're not being clever. Nice try equating the unemployed with the occupy protestors but I have seen enough employed amongst them to know that your fancy figures don't mean a damn anyway.
Sweetleaf, let's assume Fnord's stats and calculations are sound. This makes me wonder what are the 11 percentagers doing wrong. I assume you are unemployed as well am I correct? I am as well. My question is this, is it something about us? It can't be ASD or NT. There are NTs who are having problems as well. There are ASDs who do work. One case in point is Fnord. What is the commonality amongst us all? What is the factor or factors holding us all back? If we can discover the factor is it fixable and if not and no one will help or can help us whatsoever then my thoughts still stand. If we can't help ourselves in this society either then maybe it is time to walk away. If we truly can't get anywhere in our location then let's simply leave.
Last edited by cubedemon6073 on 13 Dec 2011, 4:19 pm, edited 1 time in total.
That really depends upon the type of item. Consumer electronics for example currently are, probably without exception, produced outside of the United States. Contrast this with tools, which are often still made here and are usually of higher quality than their foreign "equivalents."
"Humanity as a whole" is composed of individuals. Do you propose we treat it as an analog of a multicellular organism, where individuals are the "cells"?
The market works in a fashion similar to biological evolution. Most consumers select based on price, where the lowest price wins. In other words products with the lowest price are "fittest." Corporations will therefore do whatever they can to lower prices while still maximizing profit.
There are other abundant and inexpensive energy sources, e.g., uranium. The idea that our industrial society will collapse due to peak oil is nothing but fantasy.
Leave? What? How?
Not that Fnord's statistics are worth a damn. He equated the unemployed with the protestors. That's a pretty foul assumption
That really depends upon the type of item. Consumer electronics for example currently are, probably without exception, produced outside of the United States. Contrast this with tools, which are often still made here and are usually of higher quality than their foreign "equivalents."
"Humanity as a whole" is composed of individuals. Do you propose we treat it as an analog of a multicellular organism, where individuals are the "cells"?
The market works in a fashion similar to biological evolution. Most consumers select based on price, where the lowest price wins. In other words products with the lowest price are "fittest." Corporations will therefore do whatever they can to lower prices while still maximizing profit.
There are other abundant and inexpensive energy sources, e.g., uranium. The idea that our industrial society will collapse due to peak oil is nothing but fantasy.
Yes, it is based upon consumer demand. Employers have to cater to consumer demand or they go out of business. What do consumers want today. They want their products at a low cost and as fast as possible. If things were to change the consumers would have to voluntary change their mindsets and let's say they buy from those who only sell good quality products. This means they may have to pay higher costs or have a longer wait time. Consumers would have to accept either secenario.
If things were to change, maybe it is time to attack the demand instead of the supply. We would have to change the consumer's mind. I don't see this happening though.

