riiiiiiiight cause the state doesn't control the means of production in communism and socialism

@Anonymous: Yes, the main difference between facism and communism is that in fascism power is wielded by a union of state and corporation (usually with one controlling the other) whereas in communism the state IS the only corporation essentially. In practice they work out about the same.

@Anonymous: with about the same success rate

@Anonymous: Yep. I'm glad we agree. Now if only we still lived in a democracy instead of a corporate-run fascist state.

@Anonymous: A democracy depends on a smart public. We are fucked.
Biggest proof of said state? GM bailouts, government loans to businesses, government backs mortgages banks issue and then GIVES the bank money when they go belly up. Lobbies that make competition impossible and business only possible for the already established businesses, and then loopholes for those only in the properly lobbied group.

meanwhile the houses aren't being liquidated as the people grow more and more homeless as the banks know they can get bailed out till property values recover.

I think occupier or tea party we can all agree this is not smart.

A democracy DOES depend on a smart public. And a smart American public should fight any attempt to reduce the complexities of the American political system to slogans and simplistic ideas.

The Obama Memos: The making of a post-post-partisan Presidency.
http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2012/01/30/120130fa_fact_lizza?currentPage=all

Long article, but an illuminating read. Stay informed, people.

@Anonymous: That is a mischaracterization of the Occupy movement.
Removing government power displaces the power, potentially leaving it in the hands of the Corporations. Nobody wants that, obviously, but when you start tearing down Federal agencies that regulate these industries that is what you are likely to get.
The occupy movement doesn't want a redistribution, so much as a fair scheme. The corporations have undue power over the economy not only through the government but in their own right. The occupy movement wants to make sure that when the economy goes belly-up, these same entities that exercise so much influence will have to bear an equivalent proportion of the responsibilities.
(to be continued)

@Anonymous: (cont)
The tax base has shrunk due to unemployement, leaving less Federal money.
There are two solutions:
1. Cut spending
2. Raise taxes
These are not mutually exclusive.
The people involved in the Occupy movement see the recession as a lack of Federal oversight and an extreme case of the ability of private money being used to blind regulators and garner influence (both true).
The solution then, to them, is clear:
1. Reduce the amount of money being concentrated, and thus its influence over the government, and
2. Increase government regulation/oversight
(to be continued)

@Anonymous: to bad those generalizations don't accomplish the goals. Now the regulations ensure only rich established mega banks can lend and competition is impossible leading to further monopoly abuse. Guess who backs half these regulations? The very large corporate entities that make locally grown food illegal. You can eat raw fish at any mall in the US but raw milk is treated as it's radioactive.

Some regulation helped cause this as they made it illegal to turn down people who really should not have gotten loans and they backed loans that we knew were bad (zero percent down on a 40 year loan with a 680 credit score really?)

Want to stop the growing gap between rich and poor? Get the poor jobs again. The death and export of these left only the business owners holding their now foreign based businesses.

@Anonymous: (cont)
There are historical events influencing this choice as well.
A large portion of the blame is placed on the previous administration, and the Republican party.
The first half of the Bush Presidency, in tandem with a Republican dominated congress, is perceived as culpable for the mutiple "wars" in Iraq, Afghanistan, the housing crisis, and the deregulation of various industries.
In much the same way as the Vietnam war, the backlash has led to a political power shift, creating a generation unable to forget.
aaand you have the diminished modern tax rates being compared to historical tax rates in an age where this information is easily found, graphed, and sent to everyone and their dog.
i'm done/bored now.

@Anonymous: >to bad
is this post even worth reading?
>Now the regulations ensure only rich established mega banks can lend and competition is impossible leading to further monopoly abuse.
Nope, local banks exist everywhere.
Regulations like the FDIC guarantee on deposits help consumers and hurt no one.
We can get into a debate about the usefulness of the Federal Reserve system though, although there are two sides to that, as well.
>Guess who backs half these regulations? The very large corporate entities that make locally grown food illegal. You can eat raw fish at any mall in the US but raw milk is treated as it's radioactive.
A prime example of money in politics.
Some might say that your example implies raw fish should be more regulated, a suggestion not in line with the ideology you put behind that statement.

@Anonymous: >Some regulation helped cause this as they made it illegal to turn down people who really should not have gotten loans and they backed loans that we knew were bad (zero percent down on a 40 year loan with a 680 credit score really?)
Another example that could be interpreted wildly different, some might argue that this was due to lack of regulation.
There was quite a lot of money to be made packaging these bad loans and selling them in a circle, eventually to be dropped on the government.
Many were aware of the whole situation, and were continually ignored by Federal regulators due to the influence of money.

@Anonymous: >Want to stop the growing gap between rich and poor? Get the poor jobs again. The death and export of these left only the business owners holding their now foreign based businesses.
Yet another area in which government regulation (in the form of tarriffs and trade restriction) could potentially be seen to fix the problem.
Higher taxes on these foreign businesses in return for access to the American consumer market lead to a more internalized economy.

@Anonymous: I'll just reply to the first of your series of posts ... and you've given a more eloquent description of the Occupy movement than anyone else I've spoken to ... but I'm still confused on the one point:

How does giving a corrupt government more power lessen its corruption?

@Anonymous: The question you've asked presupposes that the size of the government is the root of the problem of corruption, but perhaps the true cause is the influence of private entities on the government.
Looking back to a time before the minimum wage and the FDA, one can see the folly in an argument for tearing down the government structures completely.
The way I see it, the occupy movement is a reaction to the one sided extreme which was being presented prior to its foundation, that of the tea party:
That the only solution is to cut down the government.
In reality, any solution taken to the extreme becomes a problem.
Whether it's bureaucracy or the gilded age, it's not going to work as advertised. Humans break human systems.

@Anonymous: Why do you suppose anyone who wants to scroll back over reaching totalitarian power to reasonable levels wants to destroy and dismantle something and stop it's existence entirely.

As for the minimum wage when it surpasses the prevailing wage and value the employee adds you have unemployment. It is useful when it takes other factors into play.

@Anonymous: On top of that, regressive cuts are constantly being proposed (and agreed to) as in the case of the supression of the COLA for 2(?) years in a row, or cuts to welfare programs on the grounds that they are subject to abuse.
I concede that they are subject to abuse, but to cut them (especially in a recession, when they are being relied on the most by legitimately needy people) before cutting defense spending, corporate subsidies, and increasing taxes/tarrifs, raises the ire of people in the occupy movement.
Coupled with debate over whether taxes should be increased on the unemployed/underemployed masses, or the people making record profit, the situation is maddening.

@Anonymous: >Why do you suppose anyone who wants to scroll back over reaching totalitarian power to reasonable levels wants to destroy and dismantle something and stop it's existence entirely.
This comment generalizes people opposed to your argument by accusing them of generalizing it. I am (seriously) impressed, but I can't say in a good way.
Everyone has their own definition of reasonable. What's reasonable to you looks like dismantling to another.
If you have a reasonable example of totalitarian power needing to be 'scrolled back', please bring it to the table, and we can discuss it.
In any case, I must ask you to cease making telescoping generalizations.

@Anonymous: >As for the minimum wage when it surpasses the prevailing wage and value the employee adds you have unemployment. It is useful when it takes other factors into play.
Blaming minimum wage for large-scale unemployment bespeaks a great ignorance on your part.

@Anonymous: raise the minimum wage to $20 and see what happens.

And as for generalizing you literally brought up the accusation of wanting to end the FDA. That was your point not mine.

@Anonymous: >The question you've asked presupposes that the size of the government is the root of the problem of corruption, but perhaps the true cause is the influence of private entities on the government.

Not sure how many people are involved in this convo at this point ... guess that's the negative of us all being anon ... but ... I'll respond as best I can:

Would corrupt private entities have reason to influence the government if the government did not have undue power in the first place? Why bribe a politician to make drinking raw milk illegal if they do not have the capacity to make drinking raw milk illegal?

PEOPLE will always be corrupt ... no matter whether they are in government, business, religion, education, or other occupational fields. The trick is to limit the power of --all-- of them in a way that minimizes the impact of their corruption.

@Anonymous: >raise the minimum wage to $20 and see what happens.
No one has done that or even suggested it. So I reiterate that blaming minimum wage for large-scale unemployment is foolish.

@Anonymous: >literally brought up the accusation of wanting to end the FDA
I think what you need to do is look up the definition of the word "literally", and then reread what was written.

@Anonymous: occupywallstreet.org main demands list, $20 minimum wage. And I didn't say it was your suggestion I said it effects things. Even Krugman admits this.

literally said this
>Looking back to a time before the minimum wage and the FDA, one can see the folly in an argument for tearing down the government structures completely.

Lets get back to what we agree on. The government and corporations as one are screwing us. Giving EITHER more power gives the OTHER more power as they are one.

>blaming minimum wage for large-scale unemployment is foolish.

You're right, it is. There are plenty of other things to blame for large-scale unemployment:
1 - An underskilled workforce
2 - A workforce with little to no work-ethic and an entitlement attitude
3 - Pervasive and comfy welfare that prevents people from finding work because it's easier to live on welfare (I've seen it with my own eyes).
4 - Assinine and restrictive government regulations
5 - Oppressive government employment rules, made worse by Obamacare
6 - The sliding tax scale that taxes successful people a higher percentage of their income, providing a negative incentive for wealth increase
7 - The unwillingness of wage-earners to go where the jobs are or accept a job "beneath" them.

Should I go on?

@Anonymous: >Would corrupt private entities have reason to influence the government if the government did not have undue power in the first place? Why bribe a politician to make drinking raw milk illegal if they do not have the capacity to make drinking raw milk illegal?
But the same private entities are simultaneously subject to repercussions for selling products deemed dangerous to the public health.
Also, a clarification, /drinking/ raw milk is not illegal, and to make the sale of it illegal is a power held by State governments, not Federal. Many states have not banned it.
One might also argue that raw milk is not safe to drink, and needs to be pasteurized, and that State laws banning its sale are justified.

@Anonymous: competition in general. Have you seen how foxconn in China operates? The workers are practically slaves they live in dorms on factory campus. How do we compete? tarifs?

@Anonymous: the trolls have arived

@Anonymous: I meant that to point out the same problem on local government scale.

I can eat raw fish which can contain mercury, or parasites at any sushi bar just as long as they post a warning. I can smoke, drink, or do other things to damage my health. But if it hurts a corporate dairy farm, even if I plan on pasteurizing it at home, it's illegal.

Remember the scandal of deadly bacteria in salads? Used to try and pass laws against local organic farmers markets. This was a factory farm not a local one who did this. Otherwise it would have been 3 cities not 7 states. Lobbiests lobby for their corporations. They feed off it. Government and corporations in power as a team.

@Anonymous: >
PEOPLE will always be corrupt ... no matter whether they are in government, business, religion, education, or other occupational fields. The trick is to limit the power of --all-- of them in a way that minimizes the impact of their corruption.
>
I agree with this entirely.
One solution is to severely limit the Federal Governments power, sure.
Another solution is to try over and over to implement effective laws.

@Anonymous: The same website you link to characterizes that movement as "leaderless".
Unfortunately due to the nature of your comments and your inability to have a rational discussion, I will no longer be responding to you, and you will be downvoted.

@Anonymous: or both, as long as laws are fair and apply to everyone.

The occupiers complaints with capitalism seem to REALLY be complaints about crony capitalism, just as tea party complaints about government aren't so much government in general, as government picking and choosing which favorites get corporate welfare which is a mockery of capitalism.

Lets get back to common ground. Our problem is lopsided policies that favor CERTAIN corporations and government abuse of power and over reaching.

@Anonymous: lookout we got a badass over here.

@Anonymous: >
Remember the scandal of deadly bacteria in salads? Used to try and pass laws against local organic farmers markets. This was a factory farm not a local one who did this. Otherwise it would have been 3 cities not 7 states. Lobbiests lobby for their corporations. They feed off it. Government and corporations in power as a team.
>
Laws which block the "revolving door" of politics could be a feasible solution.
Perhaps State Laws (read: ballot propositions) which ban these people running for public office?
Money in politics is clearly the agreed upon problem, but other than a more educated populace pushing for concise laws to prevent these problems, coupled with consumer activism, intelligent voting, et cetera, I can't see an end in sight.

@Anonymous: a few people active in their own issues can "lobby" and "canvas" for whatever issue and injustice comes up. In the meantime voting out people who pass bad laws and making it clear we won't put up with them will help.

Regulation is a testy thing. It must be targeted very delicately so as to fix only the problem at hand, with little side effects and hopefully preserving not hindering liberty.

Always be aware of unintended consequences. For instance tariffs on cane sugar intended to preserve jobs in hawaii and florida. what happened? The companies switched to more expensive corn syrup (which was still less expensive then local sugar) now it costs us about $75 a year per family in the US but these states are vital so no politician would dare touch their cane sugar industry's special little tariff.

@Anonymous: >as long as laws are fair and apply to everyone.
>
The main problem I have with this statement is that it is usually a lead in to regressive taxation ('let's just tax everyone the same amount'). Otherwise, sure.
I also would advocate for heavier regulation proportional to the amount of people served, something which might be construed as unfair/unequal.

>The occupiers complaints with capitalism seem to REALLY be complaints about crony capitalism, just as tea party complaints about government aren't so much government in general, as government picking and choosing which favorites get corporate welfare which is a mockery of capitalism.
>
Exactly.
A great example of ignorant liberals blindly hating corporations and ignorant conservatives blindly hating government.
Let's not let these people speak for either side, I say.
>Lets get back to common ground. Our problem is lopsided policies that favor CERTAIN corporations and government abuse of power and over reaching.
>
Yes.

@Anonymous: a flat percentage is not regressive. the rich would pay more as 20% of a million is a lot more then 20% of a thousand. What if it were charged only on money over a certain amount? like the first 20k is free then after that you get hit a percentage?

The tax system problems go back to lobbies and corruption there are 5000 write-offs. Only 5 apply to the average family. Usually these right offs are so specific only one company can use them giving them unfair advantage over competitors.

In the 90s Newt and Clinton after being at each others throats simplified the tax code to remove some loopholes but also lower the rates. The result is the removed loopholes MORE then made up for the rate change and we had surpluses.

An even playing field with a simple percentage (even if it does rise progressively) would make the playing field more even, allowing competition and maybe even encouraging businesses to set up shop here.

@Anonymous: I think your comment hits on what I believe to be the real issue: Ignorance.
The population is so undereducated that it is easily swayed by propaganda.
I don't blame the education system, however. I blame our society.
We have only recently begun to move out of an era when being perceived as a thug was what was cool.
But what have we moved into? Techno-consumerism? I'm not sure.
I think the future looks bright, though, for the new generation of Internet junkies.
That is, except for all the bad stuff happening :3.

@Anonymous: is it still consumerism if you consume without paying? I mean I watch lots of shows and listen to music on the internet but I don't pay for it.

@Anonymous: >a flat percentage is not regressive. the rich would pay more as 20% of a million is a lot more then 20% of a thousand. What if it were charged only on money over a certain amount? like the first 20k is free then after that you get hit a percentage?
>
A flat rate /is/ regressive. Which, if you'll read, was what I was arguing against.
>The tax system problems go back to lobbies and corruption there are 5000 write-offs. Only 5 apply to the average family. Usually these right offs are so specific only one company can use them giving them unfair advantage over competitors.
>
Ok.
>In the 90s Newt and Clinton after being at each others throats simplified the tax code to remove some loopholes but also lower the rates. The result is the removed loopholes MORE then made up for the rate change and we had surpluses.
>
Yes, times were good. The executive even had line-item veto.
>
An even playing field with a simple percentage (even if it does rise progressively) would make the playing field more even, allowing competition and maybe even encouraging businesses to set up shop here.
>
Sure would.

@Anonymous: Steve Jobs laughs at you from the grave.

@Anonymous: why? I never bought from i tunes or an apple product. he was the ultimate opposite. He charged 400% markup on outdated crap.

@Anonymous: Media companies, made about a century ago, are being castrated.
It makes me lol.
How long did they think they would get away with Transformers and Avatar?

@Anonymous: And yet all the hispter techno-consumers buy apple products ('isn't the point of technology to make life easier'), and the iTunes store is making BANK.
With or without you.
I don't go to the movies, and I don't watch television. I'm free! Except for all this music.
Also,
Isn't the point of a computer to do computations o_0?

@Anonymous: Music has totally changed. you don't NEED a label. You can sell downloads from your site, distro is easy with websites, indie labels are so easy even a teenager can run one.

The only bad part is since the great recession live shows that used to pay $250 for a garage band pay only $50

@Anonymous: All we be better soon :3
I hear it costs 10,000 to have a pro-status recording studio.
That's pretty win.

@Anonymous: please, it cost me less then $2000 to do it in my extra bedroom. plus $600 in software

@Anonymous: a lot less since as a band you usually have the mics cables and soundboards as well as a good PC. All you need is a room soundproofed and set up, that's not very expensive.

For all the people who think our generation is piracy:
MIENCRAFT!
Showing how we just hate dem corps.

@Anonymous: I dunno I still buy more big label games then indie ones.

@Anonymous: yeah I kinda pirated that as well.

f the both of you then

@Anonymous: yes, consumerist culture is as much about the way you passively take in information through tv, music, and movies as it is about buying stuff. popular media is our culture. the people who make the media and who pick what is the popular media of our day are the ones who ultimately are educating our populous. as a culture we have romanticized the idiot and vilified science and education. the most visible example about how media affects how we think would be the corporate news system.

the one thing that has really changed in recent years in media is the computer. the computer, although it can be used as a tool of passive acceptance of media, has liberated us to a degree. we can now respond and interact with our media allowing us to change the message that is being broadcast. canv.as is the perfect example of that. but even our desire to respond and interact with media, to generate unique thoughts is terminated by things like "the like button"

tldr: our culture is whats wrong with this society.