What is the benefit of protesting?

said_aouita;982100 wrote:What is the benefit of protesting?

smh, if you have to ask this question, you will never understand.

said_aouita;982100 wrote:What is the benefit of protesting?

The OWS movement would actually be moderately effective in prompting change if both of these things were to occur. The first thing that needs to be done is a set of demands or a clear message need to be establish. The second is going through the proper politic methods to enact that particular change. This can be done by electing candidates, lobbying politicians for particular bills, fundraising, etc.

The movement in its current form is a complete joke even if some of their points make logical sense.

JU-ICE;978977 wrote:They were told to leave, they did not, they were told to remove their tents, they did not, a crowd surrounded the police, so they did what they felt needed to happen. Don't want to be pepper sprayed, do what the cops ask you to do.

Problems arise when the police are instructing people to disburse when they are peacefully assembling.

If there is clarity about laws they are breaking, then that's one thing. However, the police are not justified in preventing peaceable assembly.

Whether or not this particular group was, I can't say, but the idea that police are justified in giving any order, and that people should have no rights superseding those orders essentially would indeed be a police state.

gut;978138 wrote:If you're a smart, industrious person I don't see how you can't earn a good living. You probably won't make the 1%, but there's no lack of mobility for those types to be confined to the bottom 20%. It's a simple fact that not everyone can be in the top1%, and if you aren't particularly smart of hard-working I doubt there's anyway to improve mobility to take someone out of the bottom 20% who probably, based on talent and effort, IS a bottom 20%er.

To be in the top 1-2% you generally have to be running your own business. I don't see great barriers to doing that, but it does involve much more risk than most people are willing to take on. You can certainly do very well without founding a business, but again most are unwilling to make the sacrifices with regard to investing in education and chasing opportunities to do that. People always ignore the sacrifices many of the 1-2% have made to get there - often when you look at their personal lives it's not all it's cracked-up to be unless you value money over everything else.

There's not going to be massive mobility between the 95% and 5% or however you want to slice it. Basic math says this isn't possible. Some people are lucky, but that's generally the difference between a 10% and 2% or whatever. There's really nothing the govt can do that enables a person with mediocre talent to rise well above the average. The top-5% is always going to command much more salary because, quite simply, they are capable of creating much more value for my business than the guy who puts screws in a car door and is easily replaceable. I guess I should hire the mediocre plant manager and spread the $50k I save to the 200 factory workers, until ultimately everyone is out of a job because the plant is poorly run.

This debate is not and should not be about the wealth gap. The issue is the standard of living and wealth of the median person, and also the bottom 15% or so. And I think redistributive tax policies are just a very ineffective way to do that. Always seek to cut-out the middle man (govt). Increasing the minimum wage is more effective, but the problem is most people employing such are not the 1% but small business owners who make a good living but generally aren't "wealthy".

If my company makes a boatload of money and I pay my employees well, why should I (and my employees) have to subsidize less talented people working at bad businesses? Which exactly do you want more of - good businesses paying employees well or bad business paying employees poorly? Socialism favors the latter and it's why those economies usually suck on the tailpipe.

1. You've mentioned the general maxim that higher taxation rates are a drag on productivity. (I thought it was the post I'm quoting but I don't see it in there). This is a generally accepted principle but in reality GDP per hour worked is nearly as high in France and Belgium as it is in the United States and they have way higher marginal tax rates.



Luxembourg, norway and the netherlands all have higher marginal rates and yet were more productive per hour than U.S. workers. The

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28PPP%29_per_hour_worked

2. Perhaps you'll say "well it's because of the high rates that they work less hours overall and therefore produce less." How awful does that sound? Americans work more hours on average than most OECD countries and yet according to the census bureau's report that came out a couple of days ago 1 out 3 Americans is barely scraping by...either in poverty or a little bad luck away from being there. http://www.nytimes.com/2011/11/19/us/census-measures-those-not-quite-in-poverty-but-struggling.html

How is that good for would-be entrepreneurs?

In the post WWII era, when we had higher marginal rates and fewer tax expenditures we had less income inequality, more economic mobility and faster GDP...with incomes growing for all income groups. Over the last 30 years income mobility has been downward for most Americans...Even though the pie has grown most Americans, despite being more productive, have gotten less of the pie. How do you reconcile that? I can accept the idea of broad base, low rates = larger pie and more prosperity...but most americans got less prosperous despite the pie growing.

I've said before that I'm not a big fan of raising taxes in our currently depressed economy. We definitely should cut the corporate rate. But, this idea that raising taxes as part of our long term budget problem will choke off growth is not supported by the evidence.

According to the IMF, the U.S. economy grew by 2.8% in 2010 whereas say, Sweden's economy grew by 5.5%. And, even if it were true, the the point of growth is so that the people and nation as a whole gets better off. But the fact is the standard of living for most americans (including most Republicans) has been dropping steadily for 30 years.

And ultimately, the only thing that is seriously on the table is 4.6 percentage points. Truly remarkable that people act like that would be the end of the world.

3. Finally, a strong social safety net can foster entrepreneurship and risk taking. People always want to know why Silicon Valley is so successful. It's because they embrace failure and taking risks. How can most industrial americans logically take a risk when they're one bad step away from bankruptcy and their benefits are tied to their employer? If a person was covered by medicare by virtue of being a citizen, the cost of taking a risk and attempting to open his own firm and leaving behind his employer sponsored health insurance is not as high.

gut;978914 wrote: Simply put, everyone can't be in the top 10% and someone has to be in the bottom 20%. "Equal" pay for unequal talent and effort is complete bullshit. Sounds a lot like communism to me. The vast majority of these people, given the opportunity, would not act any differently than the 1% in accumulating their wealth - all the rich being guilted into volunteering to pay more taxes (well, saying rather than doing, which they aren't prevented from doing) yet I don't here many talking about hiring more people or paying their workers more. This is all about punishing the successful.

Yeah but you said yourself, standard of living is key. Drawing a line in the sand over a small increase in marginal tax rates as PART of the solution to the long term debt problem and desiring ONLY cuts in programs that will reduce the standard of living of millions of Americans doesn't seem like that sound of a policy choice.

And, I don't see how the top 1% of income earners "earned" literally all of the increase in the economic pie over the last 30 years when the average worker's productivity increased and surely generated that growth and yet their incomes have fallen. The economy has doubled in size and yet 99% most americans, despite working, saw their incomes and standard of living fall.

Here's why. the system of deciding on how and what with regards to providing those programs is a mess. The programs are not to be provided andy longer unless funds are designated. In addition, a "small increase" in marginal tax is appropriate if directly applied to the debt reduction. Otherwise, there's no reason to approve such an increase when it won't address the true problem but rather simply delay it.

No thanks.

tk421;978912 wrote:I have also gone over the numbers about taxing the rich before. You could take 100% of their money and not have enough to balance the budget. Increasing the top rate less than 5% to 39.6% won't do a damn thing for the deficit. We have a spending problem. No one has said anything about raising taxes on anyone except the rich, and as everyone is aware the rich are unable to pay for the spending that the government does. So, again WHAT ARE THEY GOING TO DO? They will not cut spending, taxing the rich won't do anything. When the evil rich pay more and we still have over a 1 trillion dollar deficit, who will they go after then?

Great post- nailed it.

BoatShoes;982312 wrote:Yeah but you said yourself, standard of living is key. Drawing a line in the sand over a small increase in marginal tax rates as PART of the solution to the long term debt problem and desiring ONLY cuts in programs that will reduce the standard of living of millions of Americans doesn't seem like that sound of a policy choice.

And, I don't see how the top 1% of income earners "earned" literally all of the increase in the economic pie over the last 30 years when the average worker's productivity increased and surely generated that growth and yet their incomes have fallen. The economy has doubled in size and yet 99% most americans, despite working, saw their incomes and standard of living fall.

. . . while 40-something percent of them owe nothing in federal income taxes.

O-Trap;982220 wrote:Problems arise when the police are instructing people to disburse when they are peacefully assembling.

If there is clarity about laws they are breaking, then that's one thing. However, the police are not justified in preventing peaceable assembly.

Whether or not this particular group was, I can't say, but the idea that police are justified in giving any order, and that people should have no rights superseding those orders essentially would indeed be a police state.

there is a time and place though to defend your rights if you think they have been infringed...in a courtroom, not the streets.

[video=youtube;6AdDLhPwpp4][/video]

BoatShoes;982312 wrote:The economy has doubled in size and yet 99% most americans, despite working, saw their incomes and standard of living fall.

That is untrue. At worst income (adjust for inflation) has been flat and the standard of living most certainly has not declined. Cheaper labor in India and Asia is eating the lunch of the unskilled and untalented. What you're advocating is socialism/communism whereby the American workers share in value they don't create merely because they are there. You take away the competition of the global labor pool and things would be quite different. The American worker wants to be subsidized in their paycheck, but don't you dare subsidize corporations or force people to buy more expensive goods to support that worker subsidy.

I can get a free home, free food, free health care and even a free cell phone, among other things, from the govt. And sometimes the quality of living there is better than people who actually have jobs. The class warfare debate is a political tool to exploit jealousy and ignorance because people look at how much Bill Gates makes much more so than they look at how much a janitor makes in France. Nevermind if they do better than someone of equal talent and skill in France, the problem is how much Bill Gates makes. Whatever.

BoatShoes;982286 wrote:1. You've mentioned the general maxim that higher taxation rates are a drag on productivity. (I thought it was the post I'm quoting but I don't see it in there). This is a generally accepted principle but in reality GDP per hour worked is nearly as high in France and Belgium as it is in the United States and they have way higher marginal tax rates.

Ummm, it's one of the most fundamental and basic concepts of economics that has pretty much universal agreement among academics. You want less of something, you tax it. You want more of something, you subsidize it. Basic truths proven again and again in the real world, as well.

Besides, you're confusing the issue - taxes are a drag on productivity (absolute productivity) and citing averages does not refute anything because efficiency gains offsets the economic losses when focusing on averages. The choice and opportunity to work more hours matters. The "idle" or underutilized labor matters, the efficiencies might average about the same but I care more about utilization.

WebFire;982468 wrote:[video=youtube;6AdDLhPwpp4][/video]

One of the most ridiculous things I've seen in a while. That cops career will quickly be down the shitter.

I figured there would be a new cop bashing thread in Serious Business....someone is slacking!

Glory Days;982374 wrote:there is a time and place though to defend your rights if you think they have been infringed...in a courtroom, not the streets.

Peaceful assembly is a protected civic activity. Doesn't matter what you or I would subjectively assert as bad timing or locale. If they break no laws, the police don't have authority superior to constitutionally protected rights.

Police may get annoyed, even agitated, by the gatherings. However, when no laws are being broken, the police have no grounds for dispersing the gatherers, particularly by force. The notion that "it's not the right time or place" doesn't trump constitutional protection.

O-Trap;982651 wrote:Peaceful assembly is a protected civic activity. Doesn't matter what you or I would subjectively assert as bad timing or locale. If they break no laws, the police don't have authority superior to constitutionally protected rights.

Don't you still generally need approval and/or permits? Govt doesn't have a right to arbitrarily prevent you from assembling to protest, but "peaceful assembly" doesn't give people carte blanche to do so with the potential to disrupt or infringe on the rights of others.

Automatik;982645 wrote:One of the most ridiculous things I've seen in a while. That cops career will quickly be down the ****ter.

I figured there would be a new cop bashing thread in Serious Business....someone is slacking!

Kind of sickening to watch. He (and his buddy) do it as nonchalantly as I would spraying a cockroach (although we could draw some comparisons, LOL). To me there are a couple of fairly clear and easy to identify standards to apply:
1) amount of disruption and/or what they may be infringing on. Sitting down on the sidewalk peacefully here would seem to fail miserably.
2) numbers matter, in consideration of the amount of "disobedience" or confrontation. Doesn't appear to be an unmanageable ratio here vs. number of cops to arrest everyone.

gut;982701 wrote:Don't you still generally need approval and/or permits? Govt doesn't have a right to arbitrarily prevent you from assembling to protest, but "peaceful assembly" doesn't give people carte blanche to do so with the potential to disrupt or infringe on the rights of others.

Oh I certainly agree that one man's rights do not give him license to infringe on another man's rights. If such gathering can be shown to infringe on a documented right, then it should be dispersed, by force only if all other possibilities are exhausted.

I don't synonymize rights and conveniences, though. Not saying that there were not those who were infringing on rights, but before a decision to disband a gathering like this, I should think that it should be verified that dispersing the crowd will prevent the further inhibition of others' rights, and not just conveniences.

More or less, my initial response was to the notion that anyone who doesn't jump when the police say jump deserves what the police do. There are errors in judgment by officers that place them in the wrong for even demanding that a citizen jump in the first place (proverbially speaking).

O-Trap;982777 wrote: I don't synonymize rights and conveniences, though. Not saying that there were not those who were infringing on rights, but before a decision to disband a gathering like this, I should think that it should be verified that dispersing the crowd will prevent the further inhibition of others' rights, and not just conveniences.

All true. But if said gathering would require a permit and they don't have one, then they need to disperse. Still doesn't justify the approach taken above, but "inconvenience" is a gray area (because there's a fine line between "inconvenience" and financial harm/individual rights) that only applies to lawfully-permitted protests/gatherings.

In the end, this all only further confirms the fail in this "movement". Getting lots of attention for these arrests and what-not, and still no one knows what they want or are trying to accomplish. Protesting simply because you are poor or merely not as wealthy as you'd like to be is neither admirable nor inspirational.

O-Trap;982651 wrote:Peaceful assembly is a protected civic activity. Doesn't matter what you or I would subjectively assert as bad timing or locale. If they break no laws, the police don't have authority superior to constitutionally protected rights.

Police may get annoyed, even agitated, by the gatherings. However, when no laws are being broken, the police have no grounds for dispersing the gatherers, particularly by force. The notion that "it's not the right time or place" doesn't trump constitutional protection.

of course it is a protected right. but "you" are the not the deciding factor or judge in whether or not everyone was acting properly or inproperly. you cant just say "this is my right" and of course, be right just because you say so(like all of these hippies think they are). doesnt work that way. like i said, if your rights are infringed upon, take legal action in court, not on the streets.

Automatik;982645 wrote:One of the most ridiculous things I've seen in a while. That cops career will quickly be down the shitter.

I figured there would be a new cop bashing thread in Serious Business....someone is slacking!

cops are following policy though. public opinion may not agree. the students were actively resisting by locking arms together and pulling away from the police when they attempt to pull them away from the sidewalk. (also this is the shortened version of the video.)

Glory Days;982919 wrote:cops are following policy though. public opinion may not agree. the students were actively resisting by locking arms together and pulling away from the police when they attempt to pull them away from the sidewalk. (also this is the shortened version of the video.)

You zip tie them and haul them off and let whatever punishment come to them. Pepper spray is considered assault, they did not need to be assaulted.

Automatik;983075 wrote:You zip tie them and haul them off and let whatever punishment come to them. Pepper spray is considered assault, they did not need to be assaulted.

And detaining someone is false imprisonment and/or kidnapping. Different rules apply to cops. Pepper spray is not considered assault if it is justifiable use of force.

Automatik;983075 wrote:You zip tie them and haul them off and let whatever punishment come to them. Pepper spray is considered assault, they did not need to be assaulted.

I would not have used pepper spray at that point. But in order to zip tie them and haul them off it would have had to take a considerable amount of physical force. Pry their locked arms apart, wrestle them to the ground, force their arms behind their backs, and zip them. That scene would have been ugly as well.