400 replies to this topic

[Caliban2]

If the protesters aren't as stupid as stupid as I think they are, why dont they realize they are in control of changing their own situation and will never ave a material effect on whatever they want to affect. I do want to get more color on his from Susan Sarandon.

[Horza]

Caliban2, on 21 November 2011 - 09:01 PM, said:

If the protesters aren't as stupid as stupid as I think they are, why dont they realize they are in control of changing their own situation and will never ave a material effect on whatever they want to affect. I do want to get more color on his from Susan Sarandon.

[Shryke]

Caliban2, on 21 November 2011 - 09:01 PM, said:

If the protesters aren't as stupid as stupid as I think they are, why dont they realize they are in control of changing their own situation and will never ave a material effect on whatever they want to affect. I do want to get more color on his from Susan Sarandon.

Wait, so they are in control of their own situation but they will never have any effect on their situation?

[Caliban2]

Im saying they won't materially effect whatever Ows is attempting to affect. pretty much anybody with a brain knows that.

[sologdin]

Quote

they won't materially effect whatever Ows is attempting to affect. pretty much anybody with a brain knows that.

how is that even knowable?  strikes me as contrary to the history of all protest movements in the history of the world.

[Horza]

You don't know what they're trying to do but 'anybody with a brain' knows they won't do this unspecified, unknown thing?

[Relic]

Drunk posting is full of win.

[Caliban2]

Any movement with efficacy would have a purpose or objective. Jealousy doesn't count. You think a financial system hundreds of years in the making is going to be affected by a couple of months of idiots whining? Maybe a nominal increase in capital gains tax an everybody goes back to being an unemployed art teacher somewhere.

Also I don't have anything to back this up but I'd guess lawyers account for a significantly larger percentage of people in the top income percentile than finance. Doctors perhaps also.

[Caliban2]

Horza, on 21 November 2011 - 09:15 PM, said:

You don't know what they're trying to do but 'anybody with a brain' knows they won't do this unspecified, unknown thing?

I will try to be more specific. What's the purpose of the protests? What's the goal of the protests? Whatever the answer to those questions is is what's no goin to happen.

[Caliban2]

Relic, on 21 November 2011 - 09:19 PM, said:

Drunk posting is full of win.

I don't drink on Monday's. But ive eaten some pills.

[Lord O' Bones]

Caliban2, on 21 November 2011 - 09:23 PM, said:

Any movement with efficacy would have a purpose or objective. Jealousy doesn't count. You think a financial system hundreds of years in the making is going to be affected by a couple of months of idiots whining? Maybe a nominal increase in capital gains tax an everybody goes back to being an unemployed art teacher somewhere.

Except that the current financial system as it exists did most of it's making in the last decade or so.

Quote

Also I don't have anything to back this up but I'd guess lawyers account for a significantly larger percentage of people in the top income percentile than finance. Doctors perhaps also.

I don't have any evidence to back this up either, but I'm totally comfortable promising you that you are mistaken. Given my lack of understanding the vagaries of who are considered in finance.

Edited by Lord O' Bones, 21 November 2011 - 09:36 PM.

[Horza]

Caliban2, on 21 November 2011 - 09:23 PM, said:

Any movement with efficacy would have a purpose or objective. Jealousy doesn't count.

Ah, so they do have a purpose, it's to change the distribution of wealth (or 'jealousy' if you prefer).

Quote

You think a financial system hundreds of years in the making is going to be affected by a couple of months of idiots whining? Maybe a nominal increase in capital gains tax an everybody goes back to being an unemployed art teacher somewhere.

Hang on, if they're all unemployed 'art teachers' (- as if that's a thing! Snerk.) and they aren't going to accomplish anything apart from an increase in capital gains tax (which would form part of a redistributivist agenda) isn't that actually what you said they weren't doing and couldn't do?

Quote

Also I don't have anything to back this up but I'd guess lawyers account for a significantly larger percentage of people in the top income percentile than finance. Doctors perhaps also.

Wrong about lawyers, Doctors are 16% to finance professionals 14%.

[Caliban2]

Lord O, on 21 November 2011 - 09:36 PM, said:

Except that the current financial system as it exists did most of it's making in the last decade or so.

This is just dumb.

[Caliban2]

Horza, on 21 November 2011 - 09:37 PM, said:

Ah, so they do have a purpose, it's to change the distribution of wealth (or 'jealousy' if you prefer).

Wrong about lawyers, Doctors are 16% to finance professionals 14%.

A rollback of bush tax cuts is no goin o hav a sweeping effect on nybod n his count except those bein hit with the tax.

So its doctors then finance then lawyers. I was wrong though I am surprised.

[Horza]

Caliban2, on 21 November 2011 - 09:45 PM, said:

A rollback of bush tax cuts is no goin o hav a sweeping effect on nybod n his count except those bein hit with the tax.

That's debatable, but now you're arguing that their objectives are ineffectual instead of pretending they don't have any, so that's progress, I guess

Quote

So its doctors then finance then lawyers. I was wrong though I am surprised.

It is pretty interesting data.

[Lord O' Bones]

Caliban2, on 21 November 2011 - 09:41 PM, said:

This is just dumb.

Maybe in the macro. Maybe not. Would you care to elucidate?

I'm not hundreds of years old, but I also don't remember most everyone being economically fucked 20 years ago.

[Lord O' Bones]

Horza, on 21 November 2011 - 09:49 PM, said:

It is pretty interesting data.

Again though... I mostly know who are doctors (assuming MD's only), I know who lawyers are, but who exactly are "finance?" Bank tellers? Accountant's? Michael Douglas?

[Crazydog7]

Caliban2, on 21 November 2011 - 09:41 PM, said:

This is just dumb.

Eloquence personified I'm sure, please form a complete sentence or leave the sandbox.

I'm sorry I didn't get a chance to comment on some of FLOW's earlier comments funny how the narrative went from disorganized hippies who had no wide base of support (Friday) to crazy reckless anarchists bent on the destruction of the ports on the west coast(Monday)

[Caliban2]

I think the beef is with those in capital market speculation. So those in Audit, risk management, Personal wealth advisory, tax advisory,commercial banking, personal banking, and a bunch of other segments of the greater finance world should be spared the ire of the occupiers.

[Shryke]

Too bad they all work for the same people most of the time.