Occupy Wall St/Boston

Lurker said:
That said we should be cutting taxes and onerous regulations across the board to bring manufacturing and investment back to the US. Right now our rates and regulations do so much to drive capital overseas it isn't funny. Even driving down energy costs through nuclear power and domestic energy exploration would bring industry back to the US. Cutting the cost per KWh is huge to the manufacturing sector alone. Doing this, as when Kennedy and Reagan did it, will grow the economy large enough to offset the revenue dip from lower tax rates.

Infrastructure, educational, and military spending is a boondoggle and need to be reigned in massively. Not because of the merits of that spending, but because there's no efficiency in it. Prevailing wage laws, union monopolies, pet projects, procurement red tape, and outright fraud are eating up most of this spending. We are overpaying for basic labor, material, and accounting costs. The debt service alone borrowed to pay for a lot of this ineffective crap is going to eventually cripple the country. For all the harping about government spending helping the GDP, it actually hurts it when the money is borrowed and even more money gets siphoned away from effective spending to pay the interest.

We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Get spending under control before asking the hurting taxpayers to bail out the government even more. Then work on making what spending is left highly efficient such that we get the best bang for our buck.
Click to expand...

Modern nuclear is by no means cheap, you can build wind and natural gas together much cheaper than a single kwh of nuclear. And if you want to build a nuclear plant and cut gov't spending and infrastructure, you're blind to how the entire energy industry. Nuclear has historically, and will continue to need massive federal support to ever get built (see $8.8 billion loan guarantee to Southern Company's long dormant nuclear plant as part of ARRA). And have you ever see the power lines coming out of a nuclear plant, that is what you call massive infrastructure investment.

Things cost money, and for too long this country did not pay the fair share to maintain itself. The baby boomers are the absentee landlords of the modern era. They built all this nice things, used them, and now pawn off the crumbling mess to the next generation while complaining how gov't is intruding on their medicare and social security.
 
Justin7 said:
Less raving lunacy and more numbers. I'm not really interested in your thoughts on "Barney Frank and his boy brothel in the basement of his house" or your capitalized calls to "ABOLISH THE FEDERAL RESERVE." I understand you are upset, but take a deep breath and try to stay coherent.

Take a moment to look over http://projects.propublica.org/bailout/main/summary. Your 2008 numbers add up to over a trillion dollars:

2008 Bear Stearns $30 Billion
2008 AIG $122.8 Billion
2008 FNM-FRE $200 Billion +
2008 No Banker Left Behind Bailout $700 Billion +

But of this only $580 billion has been spent. $278 billion has been paid back and $67 billion has been earned in interest. It is important to remember that most of this money was in the form of loans, not gifts. The government is currently out about 235 billion dollars, not $1 trillion+.

I don't want to trivialize $235 billion. It's an absurd number. I'm not knowledgeable enough to know if the bailouts saved us from a depression as many claim, though logically it seems to have saved us from further financial meltdown. We'll never know exactly what would have happened if these banks had failed, but I think it's fair to say that things would have been pretty bad for a while. Much worse than they are right now. You can argue that this would have been better for the country in the long run as some do.

I will point out that the Dodd-Frank Act that you seem so adamantly against reduced the bailout funds (which you seem so adamantly against) from $700 billion to $475 billion. What is in the bill that makes it a problem for you? Have you actually read it?

Are you a Libertarian? Are you in favor of a laissez-faire approach? Are predatory lending practicing all right in your opinion?
Click to expand...


#1 The numbers are irrelevant. The govt. doesn't even know how much the final number will be for the Bailouts it is definitely in the TRILLIONS between Bailouts and the Federal Reserve giving the banks interest free money so they can buy govt. debt.

#2 Libertarianism is the political philosophy that holds individual liberty to be the basic moral principle of society. Libertarianism includes diverse beliefs, all advocating the minimization of the state or the complete annihilation of government while sharing the goal of maximizing individual liberty and political freedom.[1] Too a point.........Conservative also.

#3 Have I ever actually read the Dodd & Frank act? NO.
The reason why I crucify Barney Frank and Chris Dodd is this scenario.
***Fannie & Freddie did not file financials for 3 years on the NYSE, The NYSE never filed criminal charges against the executives who bankrupted these govt organizations and continued to reap millions in bonus's as the company never filed financials. This is outright FRAUD. Why didn't the SEC step in and start arresting people?
Click to expand...
That scenario alone allows me to believe that BARNEY FRANK is the biggest POS on the planet and anytime Chris Dodd and Barney Frank right a bill it is not in the best interest of the American Public.
Not one person has been held accountable for this situation. Fannie & Freddie will cost the taxpayers at least a TRILLION of dollars.

The Bailouts & Stimulus packages are Unconstitutional.
What if the next market crash actually made the depression look good?

I hope I answered your questions?:confused:


This link is a good understanding on whats going on.
http://www.businessinsider.com/what-wall-street-protesters-are-so-angry-about-2011-10?op=1
 
Lurker said:
That said we should be cutting taxes and onerous regulations across the board to bring manufacturing and investment back to the US. Right now our rates and regulations do so much to drive capital overseas it isn't funny. Even driving down energy costs through nuclear power and domestic energy exploration would bring industry back to the US. Cutting the cost per KWh is huge to the manufacturing sector alone. Doing this, as when Kennedy and Reagan did it, will grow the economy large enough to offset the revenue dip from lower tax rates.

Infrastructure, educational, and military spending is a boondoggle and need to be reigned in massively. Not because of the merits of that spending, but because there's no efficiency in it. Prevailing wage laws, union monopolies, pet projects, procurement red tape, and outright fraud are eating up most of this spending. We are overpaying for basic labor, material, and accounting costs. The debt service alone borrowed to pay for a lot of this ineffective crap is going to eventually cripple the country. For all the harping about government spending helping the GDP, it actually hurts it when the money is borrowed and even more money gets siphoned away from effective spending to pay the interest.

We have a spending problem, not a revenue problem. Get spending under control before asking the hurting taxpayers to bail out the government even more. Then work on making what spending is left highly efficient such that we get the best bang for our buck.
Click to expand...

I just want to add that no foreign country will invest in a nation with a crippled infrastructure and cutting funding to it is shooting us in the foot.

Yes I do believe that basic labor may be overpaid, but I don't believe the crap that these wage laws and union monopolies and w/e is the problem. Average income for the middle class and lower have been dropping since 1970s. Only the top income-earners have seen gain since then. What's eating out wages are the CEO-level workers who are getting benefits after benefits, pensions after pensions, and bonuses after bonuses. Remember the top 1% controls 42% of financial wealth and its these top 1% who are shifting work abroad. Deregulation only seeks to benefit corporations who's goal are to maximize profit. Sure they would hire more workers with de-regulation but they sure won't be hiring American workers. Not when there are much much cheaper labor elsewhere.
 
choo said:
Modern nuclear is by no means cheap, you can build wind and natural gas together much cheaper than a single kwh of nuclear. And if you want to build a nuclear plant and cut gov't spending and infrastructure, you're blind to how the entire energy industry. Nuclear has historically, and will continue to need massive federal support to ever get built (see $8.8 billion loan guarantee to Southern Company's long dormant nuclear plant as part of ARRA). And have you ever see the power lines coming out of a nuclear plant, that is what you call massive infrastructure investment.

Things cost money, and for too long this country did not pay the fair share to maintain itself. The baby boomers are the absentee landlords of the modern era. They built all this nice things, used them, and now pawn off the crumbling mess to the next generation while complaining how gov't is intruding on their medicare and social security.
Click to expand...

I'm actually doing a literature review on the nuclear industry and I can provide some insight. Yes, the upfront cost of building a nuclear plant is significantly higher than any fossil fuel plant, wind or solar farm. This is due in part to the complex equipment that is needed. However, another large contributor to the cost are the NIMBYs, who would often block progress in development and construction that lead to cost overruns. However in the long-run (but probably not in the long long run), Nuclear Power can be cheaper overall because unlike oil and gas prices, uranium prices doesn't fluctuate a lot. As oil and gas prices rises while supply diminishes, the cost becomes more and more competitive.

Another reason is that, when run effectively, nuclear power plants are much cleaner. Solar and wind, while clean, are inconsistent, relying on weather to generate power and in small increment. These two alternative energy is not enough to fill the gap in supply and demand. Nuclear however is consistent and can produce electricity at a large-scale. Solar and wind serves as worthy supplements however.
 
Re: Rose Kennedy Greenway

whighlander said:
Kent...
I suggest you acquaint yourself with the facts before you stand on the proverbial soap box and vituperate about tax cuts

First both US Federal, and total (Fed, State and local) expenditures as a fraction of Net National Income (or GDP if you are careful as GDP includes government) are at all time highs, as of course is the size of the deficit (excepting WWII period) and in nominal $ the total debt and debt as percentage of NNI or GDP.

There is just no more that can be squeezed out of the economy -- if you increase the tax burden or the equivalent means of siphoning assets from the private sector (e.g. borrowing, or inflating the currency) you will just depress the economy causing tax revenues to fall further.

On the other hand if you cut the marginal tax rates and cut spending to get closer to a balanced budget -- you will spur the economy and seemingly paradoxically you will actually increase the tax revenues -- and eventually you might even be able to get back to the current total of spending -- but at a much smaller fraction of a much bigger economy

Take a look at the effects of the 1981 tax cut which slashed marginal rates and doubled the tax revenues and despite the failure of Congress to make the promised cuts in spending -- ERTA (i.e. the Kemp-Roth tax Cuts) initiated the greatest gain in employment and longest lasting expansion in US history.

This same prescription can be as effective today as it was after the wasted decade of the 1970's culminating in the "Carter disaster," despite the greater impact today of the Obama administration's oppressive regulation of the private sector.

from the wikipedia article -- The Economic Recovery Tax Act of 1981 (Pub. L. No. 97-34), also known as the ERTA or "Kemp-Roth Tax Cut," was a federal law enacted in the United States in 1981. It was an Act "to amend the Internal Revenue Code of 1954 to encourage economic growth through reductions in individual income tax rates, the expensing of depreciable property, incentives for small businesses, and incentives for savings, and for other purposes".[1] Included in the act was an across-the-board decrease in the marginal income tax rates in the U.S. by 23% over three years, with the top rate falling from 70% to 50% and the bottom rate dropping from 14% to 11%. This act slashed estate taxes and trimmed taxes paid by business corporations by $150 billion over a five year period. Additionally the tax rates were indexed for inflation, though the indexing was delayed until 1985.
The Act's sponsors, Representative Jack Kemp of New York and Senator William V. Roth, Jr. of Delaware, had hoped for more significant tax cuts, but settled on this bill after a great debate in Congress. It passed Congress on August 4, 1981 and was signed into law on August 13, 1981 by President Ronald Reagan at Rancho del Cielo, his California ranch.
[edit]Summary of provisions

The Office of Tax Analysis of the United States Department of the Treasury summarized the tax changes as follows[2]:
phased-in 23% cut in individual tax rates over 3 years; top rate dropped from 70% to 50%
accelerated depreciation deductions; replaced depreciation system with ACRS
indexed individual income tax parameters (beginning in 1985)
created 10% exclusion on income for two-earner married couples ($3,000 cap)
phased-in increase in estate tax exemption from $175,625 to $600,000 in 1987
reduced Windfall Profit taxes
allowed all working taxpayers to establish IRAs
expanded provisions for employee stock ownership plans (ESOPs)
replaced $200 interest exclusion with 15% net interest exclusion ($900 cap) (begin in 1985)
Click to expand...

I'm pretty aware of that and I'll even tell you the name of this theory to show you I do check/know my stuff.

What you described is the Laffer Curve and if you have ever read any of my economic post, then you would have known that I explained this multiple times, so do your homework before you ask me to do mines.

First off, you only explained half of the behavior. The Laffer curve is possibly a parabola shaped curve in its simplest form and I'll explain to you why it is that shape. Laffer theorizes that there's a tax in which can maximize revenue. To explain this, he states that at 0% tax rate, the government receives 0 tax revenue. At 100% tax rate, the government also receives 0 revenue. Thus he concludes that at one point, there's a peak.

Of course, tax revenue would increase if that tax rate is pass that peak, but I believe we are not on that side of the curve, not with all the tax cuts the government made in recent years. From this graph, revenue has not increased due to the tax cuts. Whether this if the tax cut is the only one at fault, I cannot say because there are other contributing factors such as a drop in consumption.


ba-taxrevenue04__SFCG1249341909.jpg


But I stand firm with the fact that we are not at the point where cutting tax will increase revenue by spurring consumption. I believe that even with the growth of consumption due to tax cut, revenue will still decrease. There's nothing from the graph that shows tax cuts has increased revenue and thus no prove showing that any further tax cut will boost revenue.

You know what can also increase tax revenue? Government spending. This increases consumption and thus increase revenue. Seeing how tax cut hasn't increased revenue in the least bit, I believe by spending and putting more people to work while taxing them you will be able to gain more tax revenue without sacrificing the quality of life. And do you know why I prefer spending more via government funded project? Because with tax cut, corporations will be using the money saved either for cautionary purposes or to pay back existing debt. Only people that are earning income will enjoy all the benefits of a tax cuts and most of them will sock away the extra money in a safe. Those without a job might see the effects of a tax cut if the state decides to lower taxes on their purchases. With government funded projects, the money goes directly into creating jobs and thus directly into the employees pocket. And I'll tell you why this is significant.

Just having a job is confidence building. Being employed gives a sense of financial security for the workers, something unemployed people waiting to be hired from a tax cut on business won't feel. This encourages them to spend more. And by spending more, this means other businesses will see an uptick in demand and will hire more. I'm not saying tax cuts don't work because they do but it's much less effective than spending.

And also, check your facts on the 2nd paragraph. The new deal was a larger expenditure as part of gdp. During that period in 1945, spending was 53% of gdp. Today annual spending is around 45% so no it isn't an all time high.

http://www.usgovernmentspending.com/past_spending
 
Last edited:
I hate "pop-economists" like Roubini and Shiller, but if you want to know what's wrong with the US economy and how to fix it, I think this paper pretty much covers the entire topic. At least it's a blueprint for what could be done to fix things ... and not just for now, but for the future.

The Way Forward
Moving From the Post-Bubble, Post-Bust Economy to Renewed Growth and Competitiveness

By Daniel Alpert, Westwood Capital; Robert Hockett, Professor of Law, Cornell University; and Nouriel Roubini, Professor of Economics, New York University

Notwithstanding repeated attempts at monetary and fiscal stimulus since 2009, the United States remains mired in what is by far its worst economic slump since that of the 1930s.1 More than 25 million working-age Americans remain unemployed or underemployed, the employment-to-population ratio lingers at an historic low of 58.3 percent,2 business investment continues at historically weak levels, and consumption expenditure remains weighed down by massive private sector debt overhang left by the bursting of the housing and credit bubble a bit over three years ago. Recovery from what already has been dubbed the “Great Recession” has been so weak thus far that real GDP has yet to surpass its previous peak. And yet, already there are signs of renewed recession.
Click to expand...

http://newamerica.net/publications/policy/the_way_forward
 
Will Occupy Boston survive the winter? The wind makes that area very cold.
 
They will probably keep some sort of presence, though it will likely be much smaller.

Just a guess.
 
If they make igloos, I might actually join them, just to go in a freakin' igloo!
 
Police investigate graffiti near Occupy Boston
By Associated Press
Monday, October 24, 2011 - Added 3 hours ago

BOSTON -- Boston police are investigating a rash of graffiti in the city’s financial district that appears to be in support of the nearby Occupy Boston movement.

Police say nearly two dozen locations, including banks, were hit over the weekend by spray-painted messages that say things such as "End the Fed" and "Tax the Rich." Some of the graffiti includes a capital A in a circle, a symbol used by anarchists.

Police say they have made no arrests but are looking at surveillance video from the area.

Protesters from Occupy Boston are living in a tent city on the edge of the financial district.

Some protesters say vandalism is counterproductive to their goals and they don’t condone the graffiti.
Click to expand...

http://www.bostonherald.com/news/re..._near_occupy_boston/srvc=home&position=recent


If you want to protest go to Boston City Hall and setup Tents, Why are you destroying private property? Graffiti all over City Hall that area needs some art decor.
 
There's always a couple of bad eggs. These are the ones that need to be arrested.
 
If I want to see the brutality inherent in the system, I just look at my 403(b) account with Fidelity...
 
^That was funny! I still don't believe relying on the market 100% to do the "right" thing is the way to go. Socialism is okay if you dilute it with capitalism.
 
Everybody should be Occupying Washington and demanding the end of the FED. " Audit of the Federal Reserve has revealed that the Fed has ripped us off to the tune of $16 trillion"


http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=9e2a4ea8-6e73-4be2-a753-62060dcbb3c3


The news of the Fed audit below comes from the website of Sen. Bernie Sanders. The above link will take you to this site where you will find a link the the complete GAO Report.
‘The first top-to-bottom audit of the Federal Reserve uncovered eye-popping new details about how the U.S. provided a whopping $16 trillion in secret loans to bail out American and foreign banks and businesses during the worst economic crisis since the Great Depression. An amendment by Sen. Bernie Sanders to the Wall Street reform law passed one year ago this week directed the Government Accountability Office to conduct the study. "As a result of this audit, we now know that the Federal Reserve provided more than $16 trillion in total financial assistance to some of the largest financial institutions and corporations in the United States and throughout the world," said Sanders. "This is a clear case of socialism for the rich and rugged, you're-on-your-own individualism for everyone else."
Okay, folks, here’s what this means to you and I. It means that the Fed has run it’s electronic printing press and created 16 trillion dollars worth of new currency. This has the effect of diluting the value of the currency we are already holding.

They gave this money away to banks and corporations in the form of zero interest loans, taking as collaterral worthless toxic assets that include bad loans and financial derivitives that have lost all or most of their value.. They did this without Congressional oversight or approval. To put this bluntly, they ripped us off. As you watch the price of food and other things go up even though your income stays the same or goes down, you are witnessing the results of this ripoff.

How badly have we been ripped off?

The magnitude of this ripoff is mind boggling! To try to get a perspective on this, consider the following:

--The federal government’s annual budget is 3 1/3 trillion dollars. Yes, this is the same budget that has the 1 ½ trillion deficit we are all so concerned about.

--Our annual GDP (Gross Domestic Product – the total value of all the goods and services produced in our country) is 14 trillion dollars.

--Our National Debt (the total debt accumulated by the federal government over our 200 year existance) is 14 ½ trillion dollars.
--Prior to 2008, the Fed was printing abouit 9 cents of every dollar spent by the federal government. This resulted in anywhere from 3 to 8 percent inflation depending on whose numbers you believe. Since 2008, the Fed has been printing 30 cents for every dollar spent by the federal government. Now, with this 16 trillion, the Fed has printed more that $7 for every dollar spend this year by the government! How much price inflation will this cause? I really don’t want to think about it. And when prices skyrocket, especially the prices of food, the result will be that most Americans will have to eliminate the purchase of almost everything else in order to put gas in their car to go to work and to put food on the table. This, my friends, is called POVERTY. And, this is the magnitude of the ripoff by the Fed.

To add insult to injury, the Fed not only ripped us off, but they gave a very large chunk of our money that they printed to foreign banks and corporations.

This wholesale creation of currency by the Fed is no different that any other crook using his computer to print counterfiet money. If people were allowed to do this, it would trash the value of our currency. And, this is exactly what the Fed has done. The owners of the Federal Reserve should be stripped of their assets and put in prison like any other white collar crook.

For any of you who still do not understand that the Fed is a private corporation,
owned by private individuals dedicated to their own enrichment at the expense of the American people, I have attached my essay; The Federal Reserve: How it operates and why it must be abolished. This essay will provide you with a summary. After you read it, I urge you to watch the video called The Money Masters. This video is very interesting and will give you a detailed account. Here is a link to this video;

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JXt1cayx0hs


Here is a partial list of institutions that received the most money from the Federal Reserve. This list can be found on page 131 of the GAO Audit.

Citigroup: $2.5 trillion ($2,500,000,000,000)
Morgan Stanley: $2.04 trillion ($2,040,000,000,000)
Merrill Lynch: $1.949 trillion ($1,949,000,000,000)
Bank of America: $1.344 trillion ($1,344,000,000,000)
Barclays PLC (United Kingdom): $868 billion ($868,000,000,000)
Bear Sterns: $853 billion ($853,000,000,000)
Goldman Sachs: $814 billion ($814,000,000,000)
Royal Bank of Scotland (UK): $541 billion ($541,000,000,000)
JP Morgan Chase: $391 billion ($391,000,000,000)
Deutsche Bank (Germany): $354 billion ($354,000,000,000)
UBS (Switzerland): $287 billion ($287,000,000,000)
Credit Suisse (Switzerland): $262 billion ($262,000,000,000)
Lehman Brothers: $183 billion ($183,000,000,000)
Bank of Scotland (United Kingdom): $181 billion ($181,000,000,000)
BNP Paribas (France): $175 billion ($175,000,000,000)
 
This is the thread for of Occupy X. Can we perhaps restrict discussion concerning the Occupy movement to this thread before the whole of aB is more deeply mired in political bullshit? Please?
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Back
Top