Not signed in (Sign In)
This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.

London Zoo: Occupy Wall Street...And Elsewhere

Bottom of Page

341 to 360 of 446

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. ...
  4. 14
  5. 15
  6. 16
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. 19
  10. 20
  11. 21
  12. ...
  13. 23
  14. >
    • CommentAuthorKosmopolit
    • CommentTimeOct 31st 2011
     (10239.1)
    A more accurate statement of the situation Scott would be that Iceland has decided to fuck over millions of British and Irish citizens who had money on deposit with Icelandic banks.
    • CommentAuthorFlabyo
    • CommentTimeNov 1st 2011
     (10239.2)
    Some of the London protestors have decided to cross Millennium bridge and set up a new camp outside the Tate Modern.

    Which isn't even IN the City of London.
    • CommentAuthorRenThing
    • CommentTimeNov 1st 2011
     (10239.3)
  4.  (10239.4)
    A nice summation of things so far from a member of Occupy San Diego.

    Not sure how linking to Facebook notes works on here, so let me know if the link is broken.
  5.  (10239.5)
    @scottbieser

    that is only partially true. We didn't kick out any foreign bankers. all of the bad boys were homegrown. Alas a lot of foreign based madia have portrayed Iceland as this wonderful utopia that has done everything right. alas it's done nothing of the sort.

    Here are two articles to read - A Deconstruction of “Iceland's On-going Revolution" which takes to task the portrayal of Iceland in the foreign media.

    The other one - Iceland’s way – the right way or no way? I very much recommend this site (by the UK correspondent to the State Broadcaster and one of the few people who knows what she is talking about) for a lot of background info on what happened in Iceland.

    TL:DR - Icelandic bankers and politicians practically drove the country into the ground with reckless decision making, cronyism, and criminal banking and lending practices. And NONE of them have faced a day in court, while the nation has had to should a lot of the debt and hassle. In fact, some of them are thriving!
    • CommentAuthorroadscum
    • CommentTimeNov 1st 2011
     (10239.6)
    My earlier cynicism about St Paul's may have been undeserved.
  7.  (10239.7)
    @icelandbob

    Thanks for the clarification. Quite a different situation than most people here think has been going on. States should never assume private debts, it creates a "moral hazard" among bankers, thinking that they can assume as many risks in pursuit of higher profits as they like, for if things go tits-up then their friends in the government will save their sorry asses.

    Someone recently pointed out to me that in 18th-Century England, if a bank failed, not only did it not get bailed out, but the bank's owners could go to debtor's prison. That didn't eliminate skulduggery but it did put a damper on risk-taking.
  8.  (10239.8)
    Let's stir this pot a little.

    America’s corporate tax obscenity on Salon.com:

    Altogether, according to “Corporate Taxpayers & Corporate Tax Dodgers 2008-10,” a blockbuster new report put together by the Citizens for Tax Justice and the Institute on Taxation and Economic Policy that will have you reaching for your hypertension medicine before you finish reading the third page, 37 of the United States’ biggest corporations paid zero taxes in 2010. The list is a blue-chip roll-call.
    • CommentAuthorStefanJ
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2011
     (10239.9)
    @lampcommander: But, but, but, they're JOB CREATORS and if we don't do everything to make them happy they won't give us jobs and maybe they'll come home smelling funny and get angry and start hitting mommy again and coming into our rooms at night so STOP ATTACKING THE CORPORATIONS!
    •  
      CommentAuthorDoc Ocassi
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2011
     (10239.10)
    I remember on one news bulletin around 2008, when someone what preaching how stable and secure the current financial institutions were, one response was, to paraphrase:
    Well, If you are so sure, then become unlimited liability.
    Why not call for that!
    • CommentAuthorRenThing
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2011
     (10239.11)


    Oakland Protestors trying to work against black bloc agitators.
    •  
      CommentAuthorvoyou
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2011
     (10239.12)
    @RenThing - this isn't protestors vs. non-protestors, though - it's a disagreement about tactics between two groups of protestors.
    •  
      CommentAuthorJon Wake
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2011
     (10239.13)
    Ah, anarchists. Fucking it up for the left since 1854.
    • CommentAuthorRenThing
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2011
     (10239.14)
    @Voyou

    I never said that it was. However, I do think that while there might be a place for black bloc's tactics, it's not making the Occupy Movement's message A) any clearer and B) doesn't really do anything to change anyone's minds, ESPECIALLY people from the Bay Area.
  15.  (10239.15)
    okay, I'm really just starting to get read up on the whole movement. I'm sitting in a hotel room after having a couple of beers (Vanilla Porter, thank you Alan for introducing that wonderful beverage to me), so please excuse me if this is a completely ignorant comment.

    Seems to me, the movement as a whole just wants everyone, people and corporations, treated the same. And the overall arguement is that the 1% must be held to the same standard as the 99%. Which seems shockingly reasonable.

    But What if it was turned around? I know the line is "Where's My bailout?" but has anyone actually explored that option. What would it take for an individual to be treated like a corporation? (Obviously that won't happen, cause then the system falls apart....but it is kinda doing that already)

    Has anyone seriously explored that option? Cause I'm thinking even just the attempt to do so would worth it. It would pove the movement's point that the treatment is unfair (and potentially be a good subject for a documentary)
    • CommentAuthorRenThing
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2011
     (10239.16)
    • CommentAuthorStefanJ
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2011
     (10239.17)
    @Peter: Well, if the point of the bailouts was to keep the financial system from unraveling because too many of the underlying assets of a rat's nest of insanely leveraged financial instruments had gone bust . . . you could conceivably had paid off the underlying assets -- mortgages -- rather than the insanely overpriced instruments.

    It might have cost less, kept home values from collapsing, and kept millions of people in their homes.

    But, you know, paying off the mortgages of poor blacks and hispanics would just encourage them to make bad financial choices in the future. Unlike investment bankers, who after getting bailed swore off basing their businesses on over-leveraged complex financial instruments and promised not to take huge bonuses out of respect for all of the people hurt by their past misdeeds.
    • CommentAuthorandycon
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2011
     (10239.18)
    how much of your tongue is left after typing that post up?
    •  
      CommentAuthorAlan Tyson
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2011
     (10239.19)
    @Peter: First off, not a problem sir. If you come to the next meet, I'll see about getting you some more of Breckenridge's Finest.

    Bailouts in general do tend to encourage bad behavior. It's like a dog stealing food off the table and not only not getting punished for it, but being given a treat soon afterwards. I know that people's livelihoods and jobs stood in the balance with the bailouts, and I think that's what pushed a lot of people in government to go through with it, but it did send the message that no matter how badly you screw up, it's fine because you never really have to assume the risk. It's bad enough when corporations do it - if ordinary citizens were treated the same way, not only would governments go bankrupt trying to bail them out, but it wouldn't fix the underlying problem that the people who "need" the bailout are suffering from. That, and only that, is what's going to fix the financial crises.

    I really don't think corporations should be treated as legal persons anymore. That seems to be the root cause of almost all of the financial and legal problems that have sprung up from this. Corporations are, in a sense, a form of self-given bailout - the people who make up a corporation assume all the risk together, and in a way, that means that none of them have to assume any risk at all, it's assumed by this non-entity called the corporation. If every citizen were treated equally, with no legal umbrellas like corporations to hide under, I think we'd have a better country, and better businesses, as well!

    @andycon: I don't entirely agree with Stefan's post or the way he wrote it either, but let's keep our comments civil, please? The protesters aren't sniping at each other, the least we can do is emulate that.
    • CommentAuthorRenThing
    • CommentTimeNov 3rd 2011
     (10239.20)
    @Alan

    And Whitechapel is better than that regardless.

341 to 360 of 446

  1. <
  2. 1
  3. ...
  4. 14
  5. 15
  6. 16
  7. 17
  8. 18
  9. 19
  10. 20
  11. 21
  12. ...
  13. 23
  14. >

This discussion has been inactive for longer than 5 days, and doesn't want to be resurrected.