由买买提看人间百态

boards

本页内容为未名空间相应帖子的节选和存档,一周内的贴子最多显示50字,超过一周显示500字 访问原贴
USANews版 - What Exactly Is The Occupy Wall Street Movement All About?
相关主题
Nazi Party and Communist Party Support Occupy Wall Street好消息:Texas voter-ID law reinstated
ows后面果然又是acornMark Steyn: ‘Occupy’ is anarchists for Big Government
After tent cities fade, Occupy turns to specificsCapitalism in Crisis? Surely You Jest!
Occupy 2.0? Church leaders join movement占领运动抱怨错了对象
Deciphering the Occupy Wall Street MovementTime to Give Thanks for the Police Who Must Deal With Occupiers
Democrats attack Lieberman, saying he lied to delegatesoccupiers now sueing each other
ZT Real Fix fo this CountryOccupiers要自己开银行了.
Looks like The Donald was right once again.Former Proud Occupier Admits That Occupy Is A “Crime-Ridden Shanty-Town”
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: what话题: wall话题: street话题: trade话题: do
进入USANews版参与讨论
1 (共1页)
l****z
发帖数: 29846
1
by Kyle
The Occupy Wall Street movement has gotten a lot of press lately. Basically,
the movement amounts to a mass of people who are pissed off about the
direction the country is taking and have decided to set up shop not only
near Wall Street but all over the nation. And that’s fine, so far as it
goes. I understand and share some of their frustrations. But what I don’t
particularly like is their approach. Who exactly are they trying to
influence? Congress? State governments? Then why are they protesting on Wall
Street? The movement is bound to fail unless they can focus their message
much more efficiently and direct their ire towards people who can actually
do something about it.
What’s The Message, Exactly?
But what is their message, exactly? I’m not entirely sure, other than the
general consensus among protesters that “enough is enough.” That’s great
and all, but you aren’t going to persuade anybody to come around to your
point of view if you can’t even collectively define what exactly that point
of view is. Thus far, I’ve see a pretty wide range of “demands” put
forth by by protesters ranging from the absurd (you do realize eliminating
free trade but then opening your borders are completely contradictory ideas,
right?) to the reasonable, from the overly-generic to the specific.
Since nobody can seem to agree, I’ll do my best to try to synthesize the
most common demands I personally have heard to the best of my ability.
Reinstate the Glass-Steagall Act – This is one I can definitely get behind.
The Glass-Steagall separated investment banks (which took risks with
investors’ capital in the financial markets) from commercial banks (which
accepted deposits from consumers). The 1999 repeal of this act made it legal
for investment banks to essentially use deposits to gamble in the market.
This clearly violates one of the key tenants of free trade capitalism: that
is, the parties involved in a financial transaction should bear the full
brunt of any negative potential consequences of said transaction.
Unfortunately, in the current system consumers themselves bear the brunt of
any disasters, not the banks. A deregulated banking system is clearly
contrary to the ideals of free-trade capitalism. Thus, free trade should be
restored by way of intelligent bank regulations. And to those of you who
believe free trade means no regulations, please go read an economics
textbook.
Punish the “criminals” – This one is both stupid and childish. For the
most part, what bank executives did was not illegal. If you want to make it
illegal and enforce it going forward fine, but prosecuting executives who
acted in good faith (or even not-so-good faith) is counter-productive.
End free trade – I do not think ending “free trade” is an intelligent
response to the current economic climate. I could write dozens of posts
about why ending free trade isn’t a good idea (and I probably will in the
near future), but all I’ll say here is that I believe tariffs on principle
should be as low as they reasonably can be and that we should demand
transparency and fair dealing from our trading partners. Selective tariffs
can absolutely be used to force trading partners to do what we want them to
do, but for the most part I think that’s a bad idea.
Open Borders - Yes, this idea does completely contradict the one above.
Whether you’re locating manufacturing facilities in cheaper countries or
allowing anybody to immigrate to the United States, you’re going to get the
exact same economic result: lower productivity, lower wages, and social
turmoil. If you want to be protectionist, you have to close your borders.
Similarly, if you want free trade, you’ve got to open your borders. Why
both Republicans and Democrats can’t understand this simple fact is beyond
me. You can’t have both!
Guaranteed living wage – I have no idea what this means. Guaranteed no
matter what? What about people who just don’t want to work? I agree there
should be some sort of social safety net, but this demand is just stupid.
You have no moral right to receive compensation higher than the value you
provide.
Universal healthcare – I would love to see a public option. I don’t think
that means you need to completely do away with the private system, though.
Immediate debt forgiveness for everyone – I have actually heard this from
several different sources and the fact that anybody could possibly think
this is a good idea quite frankly disturbs me. The financial crisis was a
result of a very small percentage of individuals, businesses, and
governments who couldn’t afford to pay back what they owed. What do you
think would happen if EVERYBODY stopped paying off their debt? Silly.
Limit the ability of corporations to contribute to political candidates –
Amen. In fact, this limit should be extended to rich individuals as well. No
man, woman, or company should be allowed to exert undue influence on the
political process. Then again, even if protesters get their way on this
point, companies will figure out another way to accomplish the same thing,
so the point is probably moot.
Eliminate corporate personhood – I think this one stems from a common
misconception that the law recognizes corporations as “people.” It doesn’
t and never has. What it does do is recognize corporations as independent
legal entities, meaning passive investors can’t be held legally responsible
for corporate actions beyond that represented by their ownership stake in
the corporation. Think about it: if it wasn’t for corporate personhood, if
a company you owned through a mutual fund in your 401k did something illegal
, the FBI could seize your home and private assets even though you had
nothing to do with the illegal acts committed. That’s an extreme example,
but the point is that eliminating corporate personhood would make saving for
retirement practically impossible for most Americans of modest means
because the financial markets just wouldn’t work all that well. And since
corporate officers can still be held personally liable for illegal acts
committed in the service of a corporation, I see no real need to bother with
this at all. It’s a straw man issue.
1 (共1页)
进入USANews版参与讨论
相关主题
Former Proud Occupier Admits That Occupy Is A “Crime-Ridden Shanty-Town”Deciphering the Occupy Wall Street Movement
Occupy Wall Street Had A Murderer In Their MidstDemocrats attack Lieberman, saying he lied to delegates
War on Women: Mostly Peaceful OWS Thug Rapes Fellow OccupierZT Real Fix fo this Country
讨论一下这个观点,是否赞同?Looks like The Donald was right once again.
Nazi Party and Communist Party Support Occupy Wall Street好消息:Texas voter-ID law reinstated
ows后面果然又是acornMark Steyn: ‘Occupy’ is anarchists for Big Government
After tent cities fade, Occupy turns to specificsCapitalism in Crisis? Surely You Jest!
Occupy 2.0? Church leaders join movement占领运动抱怨错了对象
相关话题的讨论汇总
话题: what话题: wall话题: street话题: trade话题: do