Total Posts:117|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

Occupy Wall Street, Capitalism's Swan Song?

charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 9:29:46 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Revolutionary history in the making? It just perhaps might be that what we're witnessing in the mass social phenomenon being called "Occupy Wall Street" are the early signs and portents of the meltdown of the moonshiny mythology of capitalism – the moonshiny mythology that capitalism is a system that can be safely and self-correctingly left to its own devices and the devices of its corporate and financial stewards atop the establishments of big business and banking.

That is, we may at long last be waking up from the collective false consciousness of our capitalist civilization. A collective false consciousness that would have us uncritically accept capitalism as the ultimate stage in man's socioeconomic evolution, and our lot under capitalism as natural and inescapable.

The culture, the media, and the powers that be of a capitalist society of course all collude, as it were, to manipulate us into such a false consciousness, and breaking our minds out of it is not an easy proposition. Not at all an easy proposition. And in fact there are still plenty of die-hard dogmatists of free-marketarianism who earnestly if lamely believe that the cure, the surefire panacea for the ills of 21st century capitalism is more old-time laissez–faire capitalism.

But it would appear, if the "Occupy Wall Street" movement is any indication, that there's a dawning realization in the land that free-market ideology is a reeking heap of rationalizing rubbish and that it's about time that we, as a society, begin to realistically face up to the serious flaws and pernicious pathologies of capitalism.

If anything good has come of The Great Recession it's that it's starkly outed, albeit in a painfully cruel way for many working-class people, the lies and lousiness of capitalism; and delivered us to a readiness to speak the taboo truth of our system. The taboo truth that a system that socially approves of materialism and greed, that grounds economics in a jaded view of human nature, deeming consumerism and self-interest to be a sufficient ethos to guide the life of individuals and society, is a precariously unsustainable system ever on the edge of catastrophic disequilibrium – economic, social, environmental, and spiritual.

In our present episode of recession (The Great Recession) what's of course happening is that the global economy is teetering over the edge of the precipice and staring down at the demise of capitalism. In the Depression of 1929 the world's economy toppled over but was able to grab hold of the edge and eventually pull itself up, with a helping hand from Keynesian policies. Now as you might expect, the close call of the Depression caused a great many folks to turn their backs on capitalism, but a misguided patriotic loyalty to the heritage of American "free enterprise" prevented the working class from doing so en masse. The result has been that we've remained in the cruel cycle of capitalism, and are once again going through a severe "downturn".

But the current downturn also once again presents us with an opportunity, an opportunity to rethink our economic system and culture. To reassess the rationale and supposed rationality of capitalism – from an axiological and humanistic as well as an economic point of view. That is, there's nothing like a little ole recession or depression to make people ask about capitalism the question "How's that working for you?".

Well, how is capitalism working for us, on a human and a societal level? On a human level we see evidence all around us that capitalism is a monumental loser of a system. The materialistic values, or should I say anti-values, of capitalism leave human beings with a gaping and grievous "inner void", a spiritually hurting lack of "meaning" and existential fulfillment. Modern man is pathetically devoid of an awareness of the sacredness of existence, bereft of any sense of how to cultivate such an awareness and how to find authentic fulfillment, and bombarded by the capitalist media with the shallow-making message that the "meaning of life" lies in making money, owning stuff, and gratifying one's libidinal urges.

Is it any wonder then that legions of our neighbors are profoundly unhappy and resort to pharmacology, legal or street pharmacology, to "medicate" their unhappiness and spiritual poverty? Is it really any wonder at all that our society has such a raging addiction problem? The capitalist ethos tells people that they can buy joy, in the form of consumer goods or chemical substances, and it shows them no other or better way to "follow their bliss", so naturally millions of us annually shell out billions of dollars to pharmaceutical companies and south-of-the-border cartels to acquire a shabby substitute for happiness!

This, our society's drug habit, in turn massively contributes to various crime statistics and other markers of social pathology. Like an individual junkie whose life is in a wretchedly shambolic state, our society is becoming increasingly dysfunctional all around us. By directing people away from spiritual satisfaction and an inner intoxication with life, and toward a heavy dependence on external and quick fixes for their existential anguish, capitalism has devolved us into a socially dysfunctional crackhead of a civilization.

Our crack takes a variety of forms. That is, in our capitalist culture there are many different shallow desiderata that displace deeper yearnings. There's money itself, many people's lives are completely taken up with the sturm und drang of making money. There's acquisitiveness-consumerism, the active coveting of the latest iPhone, widescreen TV, or SUV. And when we're not busy striving to keep up with those trend-setting Joneses (or Kardashians), there's escapism galore to be had in sex, drugs, video games, the internet, and television. Whether we choose to make a fetish of money or sex or what have you, we've become a society of people seeking consolation, release, and euphoria in externals. We respond to our desire for ecstasy by popping a pill called Ecstasy, not by seeking self-transcendence!

And of course the results are both disappointing and deleterious to the moral-spiritual fabric of society. And if this all isn't bad enough, capitalism insidiously works against our spiritual well-being in other ways as well. For instance, under capitalism workingpeople are reduced to prostituting their talent, their productivity, their very creativity for money from an employer. Mm-hmm, we're conditioned to accept the spiritual outrage of no longer owning our own creativity; rather, it's sold to and expropriated by our capitalist masters – thus and so are we alienated from our inner reality and birthright, i.e. our creativity, exchanging it for a mess of pottage.

And oh yeah, there's the little spiritual injury of being debased from human beings into mere economic actors. After all, in the capitalist scheme of things that's all we really are, economic actors and commodities. And that's even how we come to unconsciously relate to one another. The dismal truth be told, much of the time we only connect to people outside of our immediate family through the "cash nexus", e.g. we transact our business with a checker at the market or cashier at the bank not as a human being connecting with another human being, but as a customer being serviced by a functionary of a firm. In other words, capitalism dehumanizes individuals and their relationships with one another in favor of crass economic relationships.

The conclusion is located directly below
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 9:30:23 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Conclusion

Certainly our humanity takes a major hit from this, but then there's all the bread and circuses, reality TV and Prozac that capitalism uses to divert our attention from the harsh reality of our waningly human condition. But can anything really distract us from the fact that capitalism robs us of personal authenticity and autonomy, placing us under the social dominance and ability to enforce conformity of bosses and bourgeoisies?

And what about the aggrieving and demoralizing psycho-spiritual effects of being subjected to the inherent injustice of a system in which a favored few systematically expropriate most of the wealth produced by our labors? What about the paining of our hearts caused by witnessing the want and hardship of our neighbors, or perhaps our own children, in this double-dipping recession? I could go on, but the fundamental question is how, once our awareness of the social, moral and spiritual evils of capitalism is raised, how can we justify remaining passive and apathetic victims?

Apparently the answer of the thousands of men and women taking part in the "Occupy Wall Street" movement is that they can't justify remaining passive and apathetic victims. No, they've decided that they will no longer be impotent victims of a system that gives a few Wall Street firms and fat cats the power to instigate a global recession with impunity, and to objectify us all into mere (insufficiently) salaried cogs of an economic machine that really only gives up its bounty to those who already have overflowingly and obscenely too much wealth. And so they are taking action, hopefully effective action, which perhaps will force some real change. Kudos to them all. Let's bring down capitalism like the peoples of the Middle East are bringing down their own corrupt and rotten systems, with the mobilization of people power.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Wnope
Posts: 6,924
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 9:33:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
The Declaration of Independence is about 1,300 words. In that document, we actually declared a revolution, explained the reasoning, and gave legal notice.

You just took over 1,500 words to make a commentary about a possible revolution stemming from, at most, an analogue to the Boston Tea Party.

Brevity is...wit.
DetectableNinja
Posts: 6,043
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 9:36:29 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/11/2011 9:33:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
The Declaration of Independence is about 1,300 words. In that document, we actually declared a revolution, explained the reasoning, and gave legal notice.

You just took over 1,500 words to make a commentary about a possible revolution stemming from, at most, an analogue to the Boston Tea Party.

Brevity is...wit.

Said it better than I could.
Think'st thou heaven is such a glorious thing?
I tell thee, 'tis not half so fair as thou
Or any man that breathes on earth.

- Christopher Marlowe, Doctor Faustus
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 10:55:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/11/2011 9:33:29 PM, Wnope wrote:
The Declaration of Independence is about 1,300 words. In that document, we actually declared a revolution, explained the reasoning, and gave legal notice.

You just took over 1,500 words to make a commentary about a possible revolution stemming from, at most, an analogue to the Boston Tea Party.

Brevity is...wit.

Thanks for your ad hominem reply concerning the wordiness of my post. Having gotten that out of your system would you perhaps now care to add some thoughts about its topic? Btw, sometimes brevity is the soul of wit, but then again sometimes it's merely the refuge of those who are incapable of eloquently expressing themselves at length.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/11/2011 11:02:00 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Wall Street is a conglomeration of big business and government intervention via bailouts and anti-small business regulation. From its failure, you assume that the free market is a failure. That would be like assuming that a car won't drive down the road properly by testing it in your swimming pool.

You also claim that the market caused the Great Depression, and Keynesian intervention ended it. Milton Friedman is rolling in his grave as we speak.
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 3:06:46 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
I've been on facebook going to various webpages dedicated to this movement asking if there would be one person who would be willing to come on our site and articulate and defend their positions. Not one would do anything other than bloviate like Charles. Remove the rhetoric of these people, remove the tired emotional pleas, and you have a vacuous group of hypocrites that are unable to sustain a critical look at what they think they are doing.

Then there's Charles who really embodies the movement. My two biggest problems with Charles is that his posts are so long no one reads them, and secondly, he won't engage in a serious discussion of what he believes, which makes me believe that his beliefs are fairly fragile and cannot bare up to any critique.
Lasagna
Posts: 2,440
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 10:28:18 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/11/2011 10:55:58 PM, charleslb wrote:
Btw, sometimes brevity is...the refuge of those who are incapable of eloquently expressing themselves at length.

Charles, The Eloquent Bugbear.
Rob
Ragnar_Rahl
Posts: 19,297
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 10:48:58 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
Loquacious maybe, but eloquent? Fluent, forceful and appropriate speech?

http://images4.wikia.nocookie.net...
It came to be at its height. It was commanded to command. It was a capital before its first stone was laid. It was a monument to the spirit of man.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 10:53:29 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/11/2011 11:02:00 PM, mongeese wrote:
Wall Street is a conglomeration of big business and government intervention via bailouts and anti-small business regulation. From its failure, you assume that the free market is a failure. That would be like assuming that a car won't drive down the road properly by testing it in your swimming pool.

It has been big business that has pushing for much of the corruption in government and poor regulation. So yes, it is a free market fault.


You also claim that the market caused the Great Depression, and Keynesian intervention ended it. Milton Friedman is rolling in his grave as we speak.

He can roll away, doesn't change the facts. A lack of governmental action after the stock market crash allowed to get worse, rather than nip it in the bud. Lack of regulation in farming caused the Dust Bowl which prolonged the depression by cutting off food, which was the heart of the american economy (at the time, something like 1/3 of americans worked on farms). The few big government actions taken were staunchly anti-keynesian.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 12:51:21 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/12/2011 10:53:29 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/11/2011 11:02:00 PM, mongeese wrote:
Wall Street is a conglomeration of big business and government intervention via bailouts and anti-small business regulation. From its failure, you assume that the free market is a failure. That would be like assuming that a car won't drive down the road properly by testing it in your swimming pool.

It has been big business that has pushing for much of the corruption in government and poor regulation. So yes, it is a free market fault.


You also claim that the market caused the Great Depression, and Keynesian intervention ended it. Milton Friedman is rolling in his grave as we speak.

He can roll away, doesn't change the facts. A lack of governmental action after the stock market crash allowed to get worse, rather than nip it in the bud. Lack of regulation in farming caused the Dust Bowl which prolonged the depression by cutting off food, which was the heart of the american economy...

Thank you for making some intelligent and informed points.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Cerebral_Narcissist
Posts: 10,806
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 1:21:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/11/2011 9:29:46 PM, charleslb wrote:
Revolutionary history in the making? It just perhaps might be that what we're witnessing in the mass social phenomenon being called "Occupy Wall Street" are the early signs and portents of the meltdown of the moonshiny mythology of capitalism – the moonshiny mythology that capitalism is a system that can be safely and self-correctingly left to its own devices and the devices of its corporate and financial stewards atop the establishments of big business and banking.

That is, we may at long last be waking up from the collective false consciousness of our capitalist civilization. A collective false consciousness that would have us uncritically accept capitalism as the ultimate stage in man's socioeconomic evolution, and our lot under capitalism as natural and inescapable.

The culture, the media, and the powers that be of a capitalist society of course all collude, as it were, to manipulate us into such a false consciousness, and breaking our minds out of it is not an easy proposition. Not at all an easy proposition. And in fact there are still plenty of die-hard dogmatists of free-marketarianism who earnestly if lamely believe that the cure, the surefire panacea for the ills of 21st century capitalism is more old-time laissez–faire capitalism.

But it would appear, if the "Occupy Wall Street" movement is any indication, that there's a dawning realization in the land that free-market ideology is a reeking heap of rationalizing rubbish and that it's about time that we, as a society, begin to realistically face up to the serious flaws and pernicious pathologies of capitalism.

If anything good has come of The Great Recession it's that it's starkly outed, albeit in a painfully cruel way for many working-class people, the lies and lousiness of capitalism; and delivered us to a readiness to speak the taboo truth of our system. The taboo truth that a system that socially approves of materialism and greed, that grounds economics in a jaded view of human nature, deeming consumerism and self-interest to be a sufficient ethos to guide the life of individuals and society, is a precariously unsustainable system ever on the edge of catastrophic disequilibrium – economic, social, environmental, and spiritual.

In our present episode of recession (The Great Recession) what's of course happening is that the global economy is teetering over the edge of the precipice and staring down at the demise of capitalism. In the Depression of 1929 the world's economy toppled over but was able to grab hold of the edge and eventually pull itself up, with a helping hand from Keynesian policies. Now as you might expect, the close call of the Depression caused a great many folks to turn their backs on capitalism, but a misguided patriotic loyalty to the heritage of American "free enterprise" prevented the working class from doing so en masse. The result has been that we've remained in the cruel cycle of capitalism, and are once again going through a severe "downturn".

But the current downturn also once again presents us with an opportunity, an opportunity to rethink our economic system and culture. To reassess the rationale and supposed rationality of capitalism – from an axiological and humanistic as well as an economic point of view. That is, there's nothing like a little ole recession or depression to make people ask about capitalism the question "How's that working for you?".

Well, how is capitalism working for us, on a human and a societal level? On a human level we see evidence all around us that capitalism is a monumental loser of a system. The materialistic values, or should I say anti-values, of capitalism leave human beings with a gaping and grievous "inner void", a spiritually hurting lack of "meaning" and existential fulfillment. Modern man is pathetically devoid of an awareness of the sacredness of existence, bereft of any sense of how to cultivate such an awareness and how to find authentic fulfillment, and bombarded by the capitalist media with the shallow-making message that the "meaning of life" lies in making money, owning stuff, and gratifying one's libidinal urges.

Is it any wonder then that legions of our neighbors are profoundly unhappy and resort to pharmacology, legal or street pharmacology, to "medicate" their unhappiness and spiritual poverty? Is it really any wonder at all that our society has such a raging addiction problem? The capitalist ethos tells people that they can buy joy, in the form of consumer goods or chemical substances, and it shows them no other or better way to "follow their bliss", so naturally millions of us annually shell out billions of dollars to pharmaceutical companies and south-of-the-border cartels to acquire a shabby substitute for happiness!

This, our society's drug habit, in turn massively contributes to various crime statistics and other markers of social pathology. Like an individual junkie whose life is in a wretchedly shambolic state, our society is becoming increasingly dysfunctional all around us. By directing people away from spiritual satisfaction and an inner intoxication with life, and toward a heavy dependence on external and quick fixes for their existential anguish, capitalism has devolved us into a socially dysfunctional crackhead of a civilization.

Our crack takes a variety of forms. That is, in our capitalist culture there are many different shallow desiderata that displace deeper yearnings. There's money itself, many people's lives are completely taken up with the sturm und drang of making money. There's acquisitiveness-consumerism, the active coveting of the latest iPhone, widescreen TV, or SUV. And when we're not busy striving to keep up with those trend-setting Joneses (or Kardashians), there's escapism galore to be had in sex, drugs, video games, the internet, and television. Whether we choose to make a fetish of money or sex or what have you, we've become a society of people seeking consolation, release, and euphoria in externals. We respond to our desire for ecstasy by popping a pill called Ecstasy, not by seeking self-transcendence!

And of course the results are both disappointing and deleterious to the moral-spiritual fabric of society. And if this all isn't bad enough, capitalism insidiously works against our spiritual well-being in other ways as well. For instance, under capitalism workingpeople are reduced to prostituting their talent, their productivity, their very creativity for money from an employer. Mm-hmm, we're conditioned to accept the spiritual outrage of no longer owning our own creativity; rather, it's sold to and expropriated by our capitalist masters – thus and so are we alienated from our inner reality and birthright, i.e. our creativity, exchanging it for a mess of pottage.

And oh yeah, there's the little spiritual injury of being debased from human beings into mere economic actors. After all, in the capitalist scheme of things that's all we really are, economic actors and commodities. And that's even how we come to unconsciously relate to one another. The dismal truth be told, much of the time we only connect to people outside of our immediate family through the "cash nexus", e.g. we transact our business with a checker at the market or cashier at the bank not as a human being connecting with another human being, but as a customer being serviced by a functionary of a firm. In other words, capitalism dehumanizes individuals and their relationships with one another in favor of crass economic relationships.

The conclusion is located directly below

I found this difficult to masturbate to.
I am voting for Innomen because of his intelligence, common sense, humility and the fact that Juggle appears to listen to him. Any other Presidential style would have a large sub-section of the site up in arms. If I was President I would destroy the site though elitism, others would let it run riot. Innomen represents a middle way that works, neither draconian nor anarchic and that is the only way things can work. Plus he does it all without ego trips.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 1:38:15 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/12/2011 3:06:46 AM, innomen wrote:
I've been on facebook going to various webpages dedicated to this movement asking if there would be one person who would be willing to come on our site and articulate and defend their positions. Not one would do anything other than bloviate like Charles. Remove the rhetoric of these people, remove the tired emotional pleas, and you have a vacuous group of hypocrites that are unable to sustain a critical look at what they think they are doing.

Is Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winning economist, an inarticulate, bloviating fuzzy thinker? I seem to recall him participating in the movement as a speaker recently. Mr. Stiglitz and I'm sure a good many others who are involved in or supportive of Occupy Wall Street have much more than mere empty rhetoric to back up their disgruntlement with capitalism. To disparagingly and generalizingly opine about Occupy Wall Streeters as you do, based upon your limited and unsuccessful efforts on Facebook to find someone who would debate their movement's merits, is as lame as any bit of allegedly lame opining that I've ever engaged in.

Then there's Charles who really embodies the movement. My two biggest problems with Charles is that his posts are so long no one reads them, and secondly, he won't engage in a serious discussion of what he believes, which makes me believe that his beliefs are fairly fragile and cannot bare up to any critique.

Translation: My posts are too long for folks with attention spans conditioned by Twitter and television; and I won't be pinned down within the doctrinal framework of free-marketarianism and libertarianism, i.e. I won't obligingly do intellectual battle on your theoretical turf. This isn't because I'm a cowardly contrarian disinclined to concede an advantage to you-all, it's because you don't deserve such an ideological home field advantage, i.e. the doctrinal framework of right-libertarianism is a bunch of rubbishy dogmatism. I've in fact engaged in serious and good faith discussion with some of my philosophical foes at DDO, I just refuse on principle to accept the terms of argumentation that some of them would like to dictate. That is, libertarian logicasters would much prefer that I accept their fundamental premises and proceed from there in a linear and hamstrung defense of my own anti-capitalist views. But I don't acknowledge the validity of the fundamental premises of free-marketarianism. Sorry libertarians, but I don't. I find the core ideology of capitalism and its apologists to be a rather stenchy load of BS, and if it makes me polemical to say so, so be it. If debating politely and fairly means playing along with my opponent's rationalizing BS, then I shall never be a polite and fair and rule-abiding debater and will always predictably lose all of my forensic jousting matches at this site. But at least I'll be fulfilling the ethical imperative to speak truth to those who identify with the capitalist powers that be and wish to unconscionably perpetuate a socioeconomic system that's painfully flawed on every level.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 1:43:04 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/12/2011 1:38:15 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/12/2011 3:06:46 AM, innomen wrote:
I've been on facebook going to various webpages dedicated to this movement asking if there would be one person who would be willing to come on our site and articulate and defend their positions. Not one would do anything other than bloviate like Charles. Remove the rhetoric of these people, remove the tired emotional pleas, and you have a vacuous group of hypocrites that are unable to sustain a critical look at what they think they are doing.

Is Joseph Stiglitz, a Nobel Prize winning economist, an inarticulate, bloviating fuzzy thinker? I seem to recall him participating in the movement as a speaker recently. Mr. Stiglitz and I'm sure a good many others who are involved in or supportive of Occupy Wall Street have much more than mere empty rhetoric to back up their disgruntlement with capitalism. To disparagingly and generalizingly opine about Occupy Wall Streeters as you do, based upon your limited and unsuccessful efforts on Facebook to find someone who would debate their movement's merits, is as lame as any bit of allegedly lame opining that I've ever engaged in.

Well, we've asked them to come on to DDO to share the light. So far nothing. Heck, even racist stormfront members came on to argue racism, I didn't think that this thing would get zero responces.




Then there's Charles who really embodies the movement. My two biggest problems with Charles is that his posts are so long no one reads them, and secondly, he won't engage in a serious discussion of what he believes, which makes me believe that his beliefs are fairly fragile and cannot bare up to any critique.

Translation: My posts are too long for folks with attention spans conditioned by Twitter and television; and I won't be pinned down within the doctrinal framework of free-marketarianism and libertarianism, i.e. I won't obligingly do intellectual battle on your theoretical turf. This isn't because I'm a cowardly contrarian disinclined to concede an advantage to you-all, it's because you don't deserve such an ideological home field advantage, i.e. the doctrinal framework of right-libertarianism is a bunch of rubbishy dogmatism. I've in fact engaged in serious and good faith discussion with some of my philosophical foes at DDO, I just refuse on principle to accept the terms of argumentation that some of them would like to dictate. That is, libertarian logicasters would much prefer that I accept their fundamental premises and proceed from there in a linear and hamstrung defense of my own anti-capitalist views. But I don't acknowledge the validity of the fundamental premises of free-marketarianism. Sorry libertarians, but I don't. I find the core ideology of capitalism and its apologists to be a rather stenchy load of BS, and if it makes me polemical to say so, so be it. If debating politely and fairly means playing along with my opponent's rationalizing BS, then I shall never be a polite and fair and rule-abiding debater and will always predictably lose all of my forensic jousting matches at this site. But at least I'll be fulfilling the ethical imperative to speak truth to those who identify with the capitalist powers that be and wish to unconscionably perpetuate a socioeconomic system that's painfully flawed on every level.



Did this just become a religious movement?
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 1:46:16 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/12/2011 1:21:32 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

I found this difficult to masturbate to.

Try visualizing a young Melina Mercouri, she was a sexy socialist who would certainly have supported the Occupy Wall Steet protests.

http://www.fest21.com...
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
charleslb
Posts: 4,740
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 2:01:51 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/11/2011 11:02:00 PM, mongeese wrote:
Wall Street is a conglomeration of big business and government intervention via bailouts and anti-small business regulation. From its failure, you assume that the free market is a failure. That would be like assuming that a car won't drive down the road properly by testing it in your swimming pool.

You also claim that the market caused the Great Depression, and Keynesian intervention ended it. Milton Friedman is rolling in his grave as we speak.

Capitalism is a socioeconomic system terminally linked to an ethos of egoistic individualism and materialism that are making a tragic train wreck of both the economy and moral-spiritual fabric of our civilization. You can try to assign responsibility for all the economic and sociological maladies of modernity to "crony capitalism" and big government, but you're really just intellectually masturbating to your own ideological pet peeves. Alas, for your point of view, a more trenchant and no-holds-barred analysis reveals the economics and ethos of capitalism to be chief among the ultimate etiological factors in the sundry pathologies of our society. As the colloquialism goes, deal with it. Or then again, you can continue to retreat into the refuge of facile & prefabricated free-marketarian arguments.
Yo, all of my subliterate conservative criticasters who find perusing and processing the sesquipedalian verbiage of my posts to be such a bothersome brain-taxing chore, I have a new nickname for you. Henceforth you shall be known as Pooh Bears. No, not for the obvious apt reasons, i.e., not because you're full of pooh, and not because of your ursine irritability. Rather, you put me in mind of an A.A. Milne quote, "I am a Bear of Very Little Brain, and long words bother me". Love ya, Pooh Bears.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 2:07:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/12/2011 1:46:16 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/12/2011 1:21:32 PM, Cerebral_Narcissist wrote:

I found this difficult to masturbate to.


Try visualizing a young Melina Mercouri, she was a sexy socialist who would certainly have supported the Occupy Wall Steet protests.

http://www.fest21.com...

creepy........
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
innomen
Posts: 10,052
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 3:17:07 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Charles you completely miss the point. It isn't any big trick to get one of these people to bloviate as you do into a camera. There's loads of very humorous footage of these people explaining how the world should work.

The trick is to have them put their passion to a critical test of analysis. They fail in engaging with other people when they are removed of their rheteroric. Sound familiar?

It is this second point where you disappoint the members of this site. You are incapable of engaging beyond your rhetoric, which is really a tiresome and repetitive message that you pull out and dust off over and over and over. It is obvious that you would fail in any real economy because you don't understand economy of words.

If your ideas were good and strong they would bare up to critical analysis, but you will not even present them in such a way.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 4:32:50 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/12/2011 2:01:51 PM, charleslb wrote:
At 10/11/2011 11:02:00 PM, mongeese wrote:
Wall Street is a conglomeration of big business and government intervention via bailouts and anti-small business regulation. From its failure, you assume that the free market is a failure. That would be like assuming that a car won't drive down the road properly by testing it in your swimming pool.

You also claim that the market caused the Great Depression, and Keynesian intervention ended it. Milton Friedman is rolling in his grave as we speak.

Capitalism is a socioeconomic system terminally linked to an ethos of egoistic individualism and materialism that are making a tragic train wreck of both the economy

Unfounded. Even with the boom and bust cycle implemented created by the Federal Reserve, the economy has been consistently growing for centuries.

and moral-spiritual fabric of our civilization.

Unfounded. There is no evidence that economic systems determine people's morality in any way.

You can try to assign responsibility for all the economic and sociological maladies of modernity to "crony capitalism" and big government, but you're really just intellectually masturbating to your own ideological pet peeves.

Argument from intimidation? Ad hominem? I'm not quite sure how that should be categorized.

Alas, for your point of view, a more trenchant and no-holds-barred analysis reveals the economics and ethos of capitalism to be chief among the ultimate etiological factors in the sundry pathologies of our society.

Then the analysis is flawed. Your claims are unfounded.

As the colloquialism goes, deal with it.

Deal with... what? The reality that you won't back up your claims with any more evidence than Geo?

Or then again, you can continue to retreat into the refuge of facile & prefabricated free-marketarian arguments.

From another frame of reference, you're just hiding in your ivory tower without fully realizing the consequences of the actions you propose.
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 4:37:11 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/12/2011 10:53:29 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/11/2011 11:02:00 PM, mongeese wrote:
Wall Street is a conglomeration of big business and government intervention via bailouts and anti-small business regulation. From its failure, you assume that the free market is a failure. That would be like assuming that a car won't drive down the road properly by testing it in your swimming pool.

It has been big business that has pushing for much of the corruption in government and poor regulation. So yes, it is a free market fault.

The free market would not have allowed the poor regulation that subsidized home ownership to create a housing bubble. Government corruption interfering in the economy is by definition not a free market.

You also claim that the market caused the Great Depression, and Keynesian intervention ended it. Milton Friedman is rolling in his grave as we speak.

He can roll away, doesn't change the facts.

Nor does charles' claims.

A lack of governmental action after the stock market crash allowed to get worse, rather than nip it in the bud.

Nip what in the bud? Itself?

Lack of regulation in farming caused the Dust Bowl which prolonged the depression by cutting off food, which was the heart of the american economy (at the time, something like 1/3 of americans worked on farms).

Tragedy of the commons. Not free market.

The few big government actions taken were staunchly anti-keynesian.

Labor regulation is anti-Keynesian?
http://www.universityofcalifornia.edu...
PARADIGM_L0ST
Posts: 6,958
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 4:44:05 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
Then there's Charles who really embodies the movement. My two biggest problems with Charles is that his posts are so long no one reads them, and secondly, he won't engage in a serious discussion of what he believes, which makes me believe that his beliefs are fairly fragile and cannot bare up to any critique.:

That pretty much sums it up.
"Have you ever considered suicide? If not, please do." -- Mouthwash (to Inferno)
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 7:49:43 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/12/2011 4:37:11 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 10/12/2011 10:53:29 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Lack of regulation in farming caused the Dust Bowl which prolonged the depression by cutting off food, which was the heart of the american economy (at the time, something like 1/3 of americans worked on farms).

Tragedy of the commons. Not free market.

Actually, the government decided to subsidize a lot of land for farming, despite that it was completely awful for that purpose. This led people to farm where they shouldn't have, because the government paid them to. This caused the Dust Bowl.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
jimtimmy
Posts: 3,953
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/12/2011 11:00:17 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/11/2011 9:30:23 PM, charleslb wrote:
Conclusion

Certainly our humanity takes a major hit from this, but then there's all the bread and circuses, reality TV and Prozac that capitalism uses to divert our attention from the harsh reality of our waningly human condition. But can anything really distract us from the fact that capitalism robs us of personal authenticity and autonomy, placing us under the social dominance and ability to enforce conformity of bosses and bourgeoisies?

And what about the aggrieving and demoralizing psycho-spiritual effects of being subjected to the inherent injustice of a system in which a favored few systematically expropriate most of the wealth produced by our labors? What about the paining of our hearts caused by witnessing the want and hardship of our neighbors, or perhaps our own children, in this double-dipping recession? I could go on, but the fundamental question is how, once our awareness of the social, moral and spiritual evils of capitalism is raised, how can we justify remaining passive and apathetic victims?

Apparently the answer of the thousands of men and women taking part in the "Occupy Wall Street" movement is that they can't justify remaining passive and apathetic victims. No, they've decided that they will no longer be impotent victims of a system that gives a few Wall Street firms and fat cats the power to instigate a global recession with impunity, and to objectify us all into mere (insufficiently) salaried cogs of an economic machine that really only gives up its bounty to those who already have overflowingly and obscenely too much wealth. And so they are taking action, hopefully effective action, which perhaps will force some real change. Kudos to them all. Let's bring down capitalism like the peoples of the Middle East are bringing down their own corrupt and rotten systems, with the mobilization of people power.

The free exchange of goods and services (what you call the "Free Market") is not the issue, the issue is the state.

The state, through the Central Bank and Poorly Placed Distortions, manufactures the Business Cycle as we know it... And, it gives priveledges to certain firms... This, not freedom, is the issue
President of DDO
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 11:49:47 AM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/13/2011 7:05:52 AM, MarquisX wrote:
Someone explain this protest to me. Much too lazy to look it up.

A bunch of college students pissed their money on alcohol and a liberal arts major and realized that all they got out of it was debt and liver poisoning. Now their taking to the streets to say "hey, look at all these rich 1%ers, I want their money". So the take to the street to protest that they made sh!tty life choices and want a scapegoat to blame for it. Oh yea, and their are also topless boobies at the protests as well, cause well the protestors are kind of attention whores.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 12:56:28 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/12/2011 7:49:43 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 10/12/2011 4:37:11 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 10/12/2011 10:53:29 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Lack of regulation in farming caused the Dust Bowl which prolonged the depression by cutting off food, which was the heart of the american economy (at the time, something like 1/3 of americans worked on farms).

Tragedy of the commons. Not free market.

Actually, the government decided to subsidize a lot of land for farming, despite that it was completely awful for that purpose. This led people to farm where they shouldn't have, because the government paid them to. This caused the Dust Bowl.

False, the land was homesteaded (a libertarian concepted, not government), not subsidized. There was a long wet period that made the land appear better than it was. When the climate returned to normal, the land dried up. However, this only accounts for a small portion of the land. Much of the land was still usable after the climate reverted back to being dryer (since many place got dryer, but not so much that farming could not be done), but their farming practices of not rotating crops and tilling away the top soil ultimately did it in.

The market decided that it was better to make more money today, and none tomorrow, than to make some money today and tomorrow. This is because people are notorious for not thinking things through (and the free market is no exception).
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 6:07:58 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/13/2011 12:56:28 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/12/2011 7:49:43 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 10/12/2011 4:37:11 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 10/12/2011 10:53:29 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Lack of regulation in farming caused the Dust Bowl which prolonged the depression by cutting off food, which was the heart of the american economy (at the time, something like 1/3 of americans worked on farms).

Tragedy of the commons. Not free market.

Actually, the government decided to subsidize a lot of land for farming, despite that it was completely awful for that purpose. This led people to farm where they shouldn't have, because the government paid them to. This caused the Dust Bowl.

False, the land was homesteaded (a libertarian concepted, not government), not subsidized. There was a long wet period that made the land appear better than it was. When the climate returned to normal, the land dried up. However, this only accounts for a small portion of the land. Much of the land was still usable after the climate reverted back to being dryer (since many place got dryer, but not so much that farming could not be done), but their farming practices of not rotating crops and tilling away the top soil ultimately did it in.

The market decided that it was better to make more money today, and none tomorrow, than to make some money today and tomorrow. This is because people are notorious for not thinking things through (and the free market is no exception).

"The Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909 gave 320 acres (1.3 km2) to farmers who accepted more marginal lands that could not be irrigated. A massive influx of new farmers eventually led to massive land erosion and the Dust Bowl of the 1930s."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

http://www.cracked.com...
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.
Ore_Ele
Posts: 25,980
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 6:24:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/13/2011 6:07:58 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 10/13/2011 12:56:28 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/12/2011 7:49:43 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 10/12/2011 4:37:11 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 10/12/2011 10:53:29 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Lack of regulation in farming caused the Dust Bowl which prolonged the depression by cutting off food, which was the heart of the american economy (at the time, something like 1/3 of americans worked on farms).

Tragedy of the commons. Not free market.

Actually, the government decided to subsidize a lot of land for farming, despite that it was completely awful for that purpose. This led people to farm where they shouldn't have, because the government paid them to. This caused the Dust Bowl.

False, the land was homesteaded (a libertarian concepted, not government), not subsidized. There was a long wet period that made the land appear better than it was. When the climate returned to normal, the land dried up. However, this only accounts for a small portion of the land. Much of the land was still usable after the climate reverted back to being dryer (since many place got dryer, but not so much that farming could not be done), but their farming practices of not rotating crops and tilling away the top soil ultimately did it in.

The market decided that it was better to make more money today, and none tomorrow, than to make some money today and tomorrow. This is because people are notorious for not thinking things through (and the free market is no exception).

"The Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909 gave 320 acres (1.3 km2) to farmers who accepted more marginal lands that could not be irrigated. A massive influx of new farmers eventually led to massive land erosion and the Dust Bowl of the 1930s."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Right, because the government giving away federal land into private ownership for them to succeed or fail on their own is the government's fault. If the government says "you know what, we're done with the DMV, some private companies can just come and take over, all rules and everything is up to them" you're going to still blaim the government if those companies fail, aren't you?

The homestead act.

You get up to 160 acres land to do whatever you want with so long as you improve the land (that means farming, ranching, starting a business, whatever, so long as it is improvement). Up to 320 acres in select areas for farming only (you can still apply for 160 arces for non-farming), added in 1909. Up to 640 acres in select areas for ranching only (you can still apply for the 160 acres for non-ranching).

The fact still remains that the government was de-centeralizing and allowing the market to take over, and the market failed.
"Wanting Red Rhino Pill to have gender"
mongeese
Posts: 5,387
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 7:11:12 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/13/2011 6:24:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/13/2011 6:07:58 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 10/13/2011 12:56:28 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/12/2011 7:49:43 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 10/12/2011 4:37:11 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 10/12/2011 10:53:29 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Lack of regulation in farming caused the Dust Bowl which prolonged the depression by cutting off food, which was the heart of the american economy (at the time, something like 1/3 of americans worked on farms).

Tragedy of the commons. Not free market.

Actually, the government decided to subsidize a lot of land for farming, despite that it was completely awful for that purpose. This led people to farm where they shouldn't have, because the government paid them to. This caused the Dust Bowl.

False, the land was homesteaded (a libertarian concepted, not government), not subsidized. There was a long wet period that made the land appear better than it was. When the climate returned to normal, the land dried up. However, this only accounts for a small portion of the land. Much of the land was still usable after the climate reverted back to being dryer (since many place got dryer, but not so much that farming could not be done), but their farming practices of not rotating crops and tilling away the top soil ultimately did it in.

The market decided that it was better to make more money today, and none tomorrow, than to make some money today and tomorrow. This is because people are notorious for not thinking things through (and the free market is no exception).

"The Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909 gave 320 acres (1.3 km2) to farmers who accepted more marginal lands that could not be irrigated. A massive influx of new farmers eventually led to massive land erosion and the Dust Bowl of the 1930s."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Right, because the government giving away federal land into private ownership for them to succeed or fail on their own is the government's fault. If the government says "you know what, we're done with the DMV, some private companies can just come and take over, all rules and everything is up to them" you're going to still blaim the government if those companies fail, aren't you?

The homestead act.

You get up to 160 acres land to do whatever you want with so long as you improve the land (that means farming, ranching, starting a business, whatever, so long as it is improvement). Up to 320 acres in select areas for farming only (you can still apply for 160 arces for non-farming), added in 1909. Up to 640 acres in select areas for ranching only (you can still apply for the 160 acres for non-ranching).

The fact still remains that the government was de-centeralizing and allowing the market to take over, and the market failed.

By limiting that land to farming, they pretty much failed.
mongoose
Posts: 3,500
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
10/13/2011 7:13:32 PM
Posted: 5 years ago
At 10/13/2011 7:11:12 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 10/13/2011 6:24:12 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/13/2011 6:07:58 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 10/13/2011 12:56:28 PM, Ore_Ele wrote:
At 10/12/2011 7:49:43 PM, mongoose wrote:
At 10/12/2011 4:37:11 PM, mongeese wrote:
At 10/12/2011 10:53:29 AM, Ore_Ele wrote:
Lack of regulation in farming caused the Dust Bowl which prolonged the depression by cutting off food, which was the heart of the american economy (at the time, something like 1/3 of americans worked on farms).

Tragedy of the commons. Not free market.

Actually, the government decided to subsidize a lot of land for farming, despite that it was completely awful for that purpose. This led people to farm where they shouldn't have, because the government paid them to. This caused the Dust Bowl.

False, the land was homesteaded (a libertarian concepted, not government), not subsidized. There was a long wet period that made the land appear better than it was. When the climate returned to normal, the land dried up. However, this only accounts for a small portion of the land. Much of the land was still usable after the climate reverted back to being dryer (since many place got dryer, but not so much that farming could not be done), but their farming practices of not rotating crops and tilling away the top soil ultimately did it in.

The market decided that it was better to make more money today, and none tomorrow, than to make some money today and tomorrow. This is because people are notorious for not thinking things through (and the free market is no exception).

"The Enlarged Homestead Act of 1909 gave 320 acres (1.3 km2) to farmers who accepted more marginal lands that could not be irrigated. A massive influx of new farmers eventually led to massive land erosion and the Dust Bowl of the 1930s."
http://en.wikipedia.org...

Right, because the government giving away federal land into private ownership for them to succeed or fail on their own is the government's fault. If the government says "you know what, we're done with the DMV, some private companies can just come and take over, all rules and everything is up to them" you're going to still blaim the government if those companies fail, aren't you?

The homestead act.

You get up to 160 acres land to do whatever you want with so long as you improve the land (that means farming, ranching, starting a business, whatever, so long as it is improvement). Up to 320 acres in select areas for farming only (you can still apply for 160 arces for non-farming), added in 1909. Up to 640 acres in select areas for ranching only (you can still apply for the 160 acres for non-ranching).

The fact still remains that the government was de-centeralizing and allowing the market to take over, and the market failed.

By limiting that land to farming, they pretty much failed.

I posted that.
It is odd when one's capacity for compassion is measured not in what he is willing to do by his own time, effort, and property, but what he will force others to do with their own property instead.