Occupy Wall Street Baloney

[arfink]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1322890225' post='2343978']
Investing money is a perfectly legitimate way to make money, and is in fact crucial in order to arrive at and maintain the standard of living and quality of life we currently enjoy. There are a lot of things to criticize under the American corporatist system, but investing of capital is not one of them.

C[color=#000000]r[/color]ap, this isn't Reddit. I can't downvote fools.
[/quote]

I'm not saying it's illegitimate- I'm saying it's the exclusive privilege of the wealthy to make money in this fashion. To say that they earned that privilege is dubious in my mind. Sure, investment is razzle dazzle, and I'm not against people doing it, but it's not like making a wage, where you actually WORK to do it, instead of simply finding someone else who's going to do the work and then pay you back.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1322933371' post='2344066']

I'm not saying it's illegitimate- I'm saying it's the exclusive privilege of the wealthy to make money in this fashion. To say that they earned that privilege is dubious in my mind. Sure, investment is razzle dazzle, and I'm not against people doing it, but it's not like making a wage, where you actually WORK to do it, instead of simply finding someone else who's going to do the work and then pay you back.[/quote]
It is not a 'privilege' to be able to invest money, at least not any more than it's a privilege to work. You're forgetting that without investments very few people would even have work.

[dominicansoul]

I know some extremely wealthy people who serve the Lord and use the money HE has given to them to help the poor, feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, provide for those less fortunate... employ the unemployed, donate to charitable organizations, ...and especially in this time of year, give to those who are lonely and desolate and need to know someone out there cares...

I say more power to these wealthy people...

[arfink]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1322935956' post='2344081']
It is not a 'privilege' to be able to invest money, at least not any more than it's a privilege to work. You're forgetting that without investments very few people would even have work.
[/quote]

You're continuing to miss my point, which is not that investment is bad, but that only rich people are actually able to do it. It's an alternative means of producing wealth without doing work which is not accessible to everyone, simply because it has as a prerequisite that you have large amounts of money to invest. Investment is good and necessary, but the return is not "earned" in the same sense as those who exchange labor for wages. It is not an "earning" but a "profit." The same is true for usery, only more so, since any perceived "work" of finding people who need to use your money is reduced still further.

This is why I do not think that investment and usery deserve to be treated in the same way as other kinds of work, especially work wherein good and services are rendered for payment. Investment of money is not offering goods or services in exchange for payment, but offering payment in exchange for more payment.

Edited December 3, 2011 by arfink

[arfink]

[quote name='dominicansoul' timestamp='1322936544' post='2344088']
I know some extremely wealthy people who serve the Lord and use the money HE has given to them to help the poor, feed the hungry, shelter the homeless, provide for those less fortunate... employ the unemployed, donate to charitable organizations, ...and especially in this time of year, give to those who are lonely and desolate and need to know someone out there cares...

I say more power to these wealthy people...
[/quote]

Yes, and you're missing my point that this isn't about all wealthy people being bad, but simply about wealthy people who are bad. Some bad wealthy people =/= all wealthy people.

[Nihil Obstat]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1322938319' post='2344094']

You're continuing to miss my point, which is not that investment is bad, but that only rich people are actually able to do it. It's an alternative means of producing wealth without doing work which is not accessible to everyone, simply because it has as a prerequisite that you have large amounts of money to invest. Investment is good and necessary, but the return is not "earned" in the same sense as those who exchange labor for wages. It is not an "earning" but a "profit." The same is true for usery, only more so, since any perceived "work" of finding people who need to use your money is reduced still further.

This is why I do not think that investment and usery deserve to be treated in the same way as other kinds of work, especially work wherein good and services are rendered for payment. Investment of money is not offering goods or services in exchange for payment, but offering payment in exchange for more payment.
[/quote]
I disagree. The interest is certainly earned. The investor stands a serious risk of losing his entire investment. More risk means higher rates of interest, and greater likelihood of losing everything. It may not be as romantic as ploughing a field, but it's every bit as necessary. They earn their money (or lose it) by being willing to risk what they own.
They're rendering present money in exchange for future money which they may, in fact, never get. If you don't understand that, then that's fine, but it's a bit juvenile to look down on it just because you don't understand.

[Winchester]

Actually, anyone with a retirement account is an investor.

[arfink]

[quote name='Nihil Obstat' timestamp='1322940500' post='2344109']
I disagree. The interest is certainly earned. The investor stands a serious risk of losing his entire investment. More risk means higher rates of interest, and greater likelihood of losing everything. It may not be as romantic as ploughing a field, but it's every bit as necessary. They earn their money (or lose it) by being willing to risk what they own.
They're rendering present money in exchange for future money which they may, in fact, never get. If you don't understand that, then that's fine, but it's a bit juvenile to look down on it just because you don't understand.
[/quote]

"Looking down on" investment is not the same as saying "Investment is fundamentally different from work."

It's not about the "romance" of plowing a field. The difference between investment and work lies in the fact that goods and services have actual intrinsic value, while money does not. The value of goods remains the same relative to other goods. For example, a piece of land will always be considered more valuable than a plate of food, simply because of what they both are. The value is considered to be intrinsic because even though it's derived from the needs and wants of human beings, human beings do not substantially change. Humans will always need a place to live, food to eat, etc.

Money on the other hand, does not have intrinsic value. The dollar is not worth more than the yuan simply because of what it means to be a dollar. It's worth more because people assign the value to it, not because people actually need the money itself. Money's value stems ultimately from the idea that it will be eventually exchanged for something that does have intrinsic value: goods and services.

Production of real wealth then requires the production of good and services, since the money ultimately does not have worth except to get such goods and services. Investment is thus an inherently different way to produce wealth from work.

In American English we have a tendency of associating the word "earned" with the concept of "worked for," and we associate "profiting" with "worked for." Earning does implies work, while profiting implies the returning of wealth without work. In reality, investment is not about "earning" but about "profiting."

This does not mean I am for or against investment. I am pointing out that it is intrinsically different from actual work, not because of any perceived difficulty that takes place, but because work is different from profit.

[Socrates]

[quote name='Jesus_lol' timestamp='1322803141' post='2343573']
Well, if we are all ok with labeling all the OWS protestors and issues based on the actions of a few, then I am left with no other option than to assume that everyone supporting the Tea Party is a racist hillbilly.

I can cite sources, and by this metric, this makes you all card carrying members of the KKK.




[/quote]
Since this baloney is still going on . . .

The vast majority of the Wall-stock crowd are in fact far-leftists who want forced government redistribution of wealth to varying degrees.

From a poll of OWS protesters from the liberal "New York" magazine:

[quote][b]Rank yourself on the following Scale of Liberalism:.[/b]
Not liberal at all: 6
Liberal but fairly mainstream (i.e., Barack Obama): 3
Strongly liberal (i.e., Paul Krugman): 12
Fed up with Democrats, believe country needs overhaul (i.e., Ralph Nader): 41
Convinced the U.S. government is no better than, say, Al Qaeda (i.e., Noam Chomsky): 34[/quote]

So by their own admission, about 85% are solidly to the left of Barrack Obama, and 34% place America on the same level as a terrorist organization.

Virtually all want more government control over the economy, and a very solid minority want to get rid of "capitalism" altogether (i.e. are socialist or communist):

[quote][b]Pick one: Capitalism …[/b]
Isn’t fundamentally evil; it just needs to be regulated: 46
Can’t be saved; it’s inherently immoral: 37
Didn’t answer: 17[/quote]


[url="http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/topic/occupy-wall-street-2011-10/"]http://nymag.com/news/intelligencer/topic/occupy-wall-street-2011-10/[/url]

See also: [url="http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop"]http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html?mod=WSJ_Opinion_LEADTop[/url]

Extreme leftists aren't just a small fringe of the protesters, but the bulk of them. They hardly represent 99% of Americans. (Or if they do, God help the USA!)


And, btw, what's wrong with hillbillies? Whenever you can get a rap sheet of Tea Partiers anywhere close in length to that of OWS, let me know.

[Socrates]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1322888871' post='2343969']
We've been over this by now. You say that anyone can become as rich as the 1% through hard work, and I disagree. The 1% get rich by the following means:

-inheriting money: (they didn't earn it, it was given to them)
-investing money they already had: (they didn't earn the returns, someone else did all the work and had to pay them back)
-investing money they don't actually have: (still getting a fat return, but don't have to put forward your own money)
-printing money
-usery
-taxation
-giving themselves raises while all the other people who work for them get nothing, not even enough to cover inflation

[/quote]
"Printing money," "taxation" and "giving themselves money" apply to the government that we're supposed to look to to save us from "Capitalist Greed," so I'll overlook those for now and go for the first three.

There's nothing inherently wrong with making money through investments, and usually to have money to put into smart investments requires first hard work. There are plenty of people who are rich who started out dirt poor. My wife has an uncle who's a millionaire who started out with nothing, but earned his fortune through hard work and smart investments. Money made through good investment creates wealth; it doesn't take it away from anyone else.

And I read somewhere that the vast majority of the rich in this country did not earn their wealth through inheritance or other such means, but earned it through smart work and investments. And, yes, luck plays a role too, but that's life.

Whether it's "fair" or not, it's simp not the place of government to determine who has deserved, or worked hard enough for, their money, or what they must do with it. The idea that politicians or government bureaucrats know best what to do with everyone else's money is, quite frankly, moronic. The involvement of government-backed financial entities in creating this mess should illustrate that point.

As long as money is not gained by actual theft or fraud, how people earn and invest their money is their business, not the federal government's.

[Nihil Obstat]

Straight up inheriting a fortune is kind of difficult because of the double whammy of inheritance tax and inflationary tax. An inherited fortune doesn't stay a fortune for long.

[dominicansoul]

[quote name='arfink' timestamp='1322939466' post='2344101']

Yes, and you're missing my point that this isn't about all wealthy people being bad, but simply about wealthy people who are bad. Some bad wealthy people =/= all wealthy people.
[/quote]

oh, I thought you were saying all people who have the privilege of investing were not really worthy of their profit, because they don't really "earn" it.

I took that as an insult, I was wrong...

[kamiller42]

Wall St. on Trial

[media='']http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1IL6r_Sizs[/media]

[Socrates]

[quote name='kamiller42' timestamp='1323190369' post='2345545']
Wall St. on Trial

[media='']http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=X1IL6r_Sizs[/media]
[/quote]
+1,000,000

[Ice_nine]

bahaha that video is great.