A little antidote to all of this Occupy Wall Street nonsense
- Thread starter whoisjohngalt
- Start date
I understand that this is what some versions of an MBA are supposed to equip you to do, but my understanding is that MBA holders have not produced measurable outcomes - apart from what Hank mentions - that differ from those who do the jobs who do not have MBAs.
Again, I don't think there is research that demonstrates the worth of an MBA. You seem to have been great at your job and that's cool, but, you know, there are also people who are bad at their jobs. One guy is a very small data set.
No, that is not the data set, that is a search for True Scotsmen. Shouldn't I expect more from the holder of an MBA?
Does anyone discuss tailing any more on this board.
It would be nice to see some solid reviews of SP's before a buck is only
With 25 cents
It would be nice to see some solid reviews of SP's before a buck is only
With 25 cents
He completely understands the problem. The "little guys" have problems because they spend more than they make and then wonder why they are getting into trouble.
I came from a poor family, but we never made debt, that was not my parents culture and those were the values they passed on to us kids. We paid our own way through University, saved for bad times, didn't build debt. None of my siblings have/had financial trouble.
On the other hand I see people maxing credit cards, buying fancy toys they don't really need and can't afford, buying houses at the top of a bubble at minimum interest rates etc etc etc. They live on a financial knifes edge by choice, and when the bad times come they fall on their faces and say "what happened?". Well I can tell you what happened, they were stupid and greedy. It has nothing to do with Wall street or rich people, those are just scapegoats.
The problem with the "Occupy Wallstreet" crowd is they don't seem to understand one fact,
Love it or hate it....... Capitalism still provides the highest standard of living to the most people of any system going.
Many of the airheads who show up for these protests have little or no understanding of what they protest other than the fact someone told them that it not fair that the other guy has more than them. Many are young, barely out of school and feel the world has treated them poorly because they see the middle aged fellow who drives a Mercedes and lives in a big home. What tends to get lost in their reasoning is the fact that this middle aged individual has been in the work force for 20-30 years, possibly worked his ass off, maybe took some big risks, all the young individual sees is the results, not the effort.
Unfortunately this attitude is prevalent in our "Nanny State" and to a large degree is encouraged by both the government and the media. Governments like nothing better than the"average man on the street" developing an animosity towards the wealthy, it makes it just that much easier to justify raising taxes on "the elite" while at the same time asking for their support in getting re-elected.
It's a strange world we live in, the Communist countries of old (China, Russia) are embracing free enterprise as a way to improve their standard of living and are moving away from Communism (not necessarily by choice). While the shining example of Capitalism and free enterprise, North America ( and many European nations) seem to be tripping over themselves to move toward Socialism and for a few Communism.
Love it or hate it....... Capitalism still provides the highest standard of living to the most people of any system going.
Many of the airheads who show up for these protests have little or no understanding of what they protest other than the fact someone told them that it not fair that the other guy has more than them. Many are young, barely out of school and feel the world has treated them poorly because they see the middle aged fellow who drives a Mercedes and lives in a big home. What tends to get lost in their reasoning is the fact that this middle aged individual has been in the work force for 20-30 years, possibly worked his ass off, maybe took some big risks, all the young individual sees is the results, not the effort.
Unfortunately this attitude is prevalent in our "Nanny State" and to a large degree is encouraged by both the government and the media. Governments like nothing better than the"average man on the street" developing an animosity towards the wealthy, it makes it just that much easier to justify raising taxes on "the elite" while at the same time asking for their support in getting re-elected.
It's a strange world we live in, the Communist countries of old (China, Russia) are embracing free enterprise as a way to improve their standard of living and are moving away from Communism (not necessarily by choice). While the shining example of Capitalism and free enterprise, North America ( and many European nations) seem to be tripping over themselves to move toward Socialism and for a few Communism.
In Canada we never gave a dime to the banks? Uhuh...
http://www.wellingtonfund.com/blog/2009/12/10/no-canadian-bank-bailouts-says-who/
http://greenparty.ca/blogs/467/2010-11-26/canadas-bank-bailout
http://trivcap.wordpress.com/2010/06/01/the-massive-canadian-bank-bailout-by-stealth/
http://rabble.ca/blogs/bloggers/mur...lout-not-bailout-response-bankers-association
http://www.cbc.ca/news/business/story/2008/10/10/flaherty-banks.html <--- they sorta admitted to something
In my opinion, thats a bail out.
However, i readily agree on stimulus being spent on the consumer. We are the ones that drive the economy, that eventually creates jobs.
Oh and the point about losing their fico score due to closing of accounts. I doubt most people even know how the score is calculated. So yea people are dumb.
Ali I love learning from your posts. Peaceguy capitalism was never the problem what they have in the states since the 60's was crony capitalism. If only the protesting people knew the difference.
Not that I am disagreeing with you, however a lot happened during that time the CBC article was posted including: purchasing of US T-bills using taxpayer funds and a increase in lending capital to the banks.
Whether or not Harper or Obama did it the right way, they still did it.
Comes down to socializing Corporate losses (or the possibility of a loss). I just don't like hearing the phrase, "we didnt bail out any banks"
Yea American banks have a lot of bad rep. But then again, so would ours if they had more deregulation.
A few of the criticisms of the protests seem to be along the lines that the protestors are just idiots who advocate communism and don't take personal responsibility. As I have mentioned, the wall street thing is primarily about large financial institutions that pushed for deregulation, and then engaged in criminal activity on a massive scale. When the chickens came home to roost, the government stepped in to insure the perpetrators kept their profits, but taxpayers allowed the losses to all be socialized. So this is a pretty interesting application of free enterprise.
With respect to the whole personal responsibility argument, I think this is a great concept but you do have to take into account some external issues like high unemployment, real wages being stagnant or declining, predatory lending by financial institutions, a lack of consumer protection with respect to dealings with financial institutions, etc.
Incidentally, the CBC's O'Leary is a real piece of work. On the Occupy Wall Street issue, he started off his questions towards the one guest by referring to him as a "left wing nut bar". In previous episodes of the Lang -O'Leary exchange he has advocated making membership in a union a criminal offense, and has said anyone who believes in progressive taxation should also be incarcerated.
With respect to the whole personal responsibility argument, I think this is a great concept but you do have to take into account some external issues like high unemployment, real wages being stagnant or declining, predatory lending by financial institutions, a lack of consumer protection with respect to dealings with financial institutions, etc.
Incidentally, the CBC's O'Leary is a real piece of work. On the Occupy Wall Street issue, he started off his questions towards the one guest by referring to him as a "left wing nut bar". In previous episodes of the Lang -O'Leary exchange he has advocated making membership in a union a criminal offense, and has said anyone who believes in progressive taxation should also be incarcerated.
Give me a break. If you don't think the gap between rich and poor is expanding at an alarming rate then you're either misinformed or just brain dead. No one is saying there can't be rich people and we don't want to take what's theirs but we want them to stop taking from us and give back what they've already taken. You're problem is that you've been brainwashed into believing that you've got more in common with the rich when you've got more in common with someone who is homeless. Give your head a shake!!! This movement is for everyone.
Hopefully, we'll be protected from the unions whose main goal seems to be turning Canada into the Greece of the 80s.
My belief is that there are a certain percentage of the protesters that understand the cause (whatever it may be), however many are simply along for the ride. Lets face it, it is a pretty easy sell when you tell "99%" of the people that they are getting the shitty end of the stick. Unfortunately many have jumped on board without knowing what they are buying into. If this is truly about governments using taxpayers funds for bailouts why has this same attitude never been applied to the the billions upon billions that have been pored in to social programs, many of which are nothing more than "bail outs" at the individual level.
As for personal responsibility, if you "take into account" predatory lending by financial institutions, a lack of consumer protection with respect to dealings with financial institutions aren't you in fact negating personal responsibility?
Well, if we are going to say social programs are "bail outs", then perhaps the lack of protest may be related to the fact that the tax revenues for social programs are redirected towards a good portion of taxpayers as opposed to a bail out of Goldman-Sachs.
As for the second point, you are correct as I am largely discounting personal responsibility. I think there are lots of mitigating factors.
As for the second point, you are correct as I am largely discounting personal responsibility. I think there are lots of mitigating factors.
The call is to close banks accounts with the major banks and open them with credit unions. They are just calling on people to transfer their holdings.
I would say it has been prevented because our banks didn't give out mortgages to every Tom, Dick, and Harry that wanted to buy a house even if they couldn't. Heck, I make a great income and I had to jump through some serious hoops to get a very modest mortgage (before the housing bubble burst in the States). I can only imagine the banks are even more gun shy now.
This continuous need that some feel to have the government intervene in every aspect of society and our individual lives is beyond understanding to me. I fully understand the need for any society to look after the truly needy (needers, not takers), however where I draw the line is this constant demand by much of society for the government to provide more and more social services.
While a certain level of social services are both desirable and required, the more you provide the more you reduce the need for individuals to accept personal responsibility. Lets see.....
- Employment Insurance - Why have a "rainy day fund", if you lose a job the government will step in
- Health Care - Hey its "free", why not use it. After all that fever could just as likely be Ebola as it could be the start of a common cold
- Canada Pension Plan - No point in saving for retirement, live while you can. After all the government will look after me when I retire.
- Welfare - I already have 3 kids and don't know how to cross my legs, beside they pay more based on head count.
These are just the big ones that eat up large chunks of taxation. I could devote my life to listing the thousands of social programs across this country maintained by all levels of government,
While a certain level of social services are both desirable and required, the more you provide the more you reduce the need for individuals to accept personal responsibility. Lets see.....
- Employment Insurance - Why have a "rainy day fund", if you lose a job the government will step in
- Health Care - Hey its "free", why not use it. After all that fever could just as likely be Ebola as it could be the start of a common cold
- Canada Pension Plan - No point in saving for retirement, live while you can. After all the government will look after me when I retire.
- Welfare - I already have 3 kids and don't know how to cross my legs, beside they pay more based on head count.
These are just the big ones that eat up large chunks of taxation. I could devote my life to listing the thousands of social programs across this country maintained by all levels of government,
Who writes these scripts?
First it's allowed that some social safety net is needed. Then all it's major elements are rejected. Plus there's the usual sexist or other caricature thrown in to appeal to the more educated elements of the "hoist the ladder, Jack, I'm alright" vote.
