Because if you hate wall st, you hate capitalism, and if you hate capitalism, you're a communist, hence leftist

>>3101128
>thinking occupy wall street is partisan
>thinking they won't welcome you if you share their disdain for wall st. jacking up politics
>thinking they're all hipsters
Turn off that MSM, brah.

>>3101171
This.

If you are telling wall street to fuck off, chances are you already have skinny jeans, a scarf, an iPad and parents to drop you off, you commie fuck.

>>3101128

>inb4 all the poltards flame about anonymous pic

You can criticize "Wall Street" very comfortably from a free market perspective.

>>3101227

Indeed. Just tell them you want your tax dollars back.

>>3101227
or even as a SME owner or other "capitalist"

>>3101240

Or criticize their bailouts, libertarian style.

>>3101201
Yes, the V for Vendetta mask rustled my jimmies. Fucking poser.

OP here, bump. I just want any answer. I just don't see why Occupy Wall St. HAS to be leftist.

Maybe the entire Occupy cultural Marxist movement has to be, but I honestly don't see why non-liberals who aren't insane and don't live with their parents, can't stand up and create a huge ruckus like they did.

Is it because we truly know that we need to start shooting some cops to get what we want? The Jews were able to take control of society without using their own violence. So there must be some way

They don't understand the problem goes beyond wall street; beyond capitol hill. The problem lies in this intertwined system of capitalism and statism that has evaded abolition for most of human history.

>>3101285
Yea, people having to work themselves to death is a symptom of a healthy nation

The National Nurses United, a union of registered nurses, is providing free bus rides to Chicago from many locations all over the country (SF, LA, NYC, Atlanta, etc), so your parents will be spared that bother.

http://www.nationalnursesunited.org/

I have no doubt some of those nurses wear skinny jeans and scarves and own iPads, so what? That hardly makes them commies, or even leftists. Even right-wingers own iPads. Who cares?

Next time you're in the emergency ward, say thanks for the ride to the nice nurse.

>>3101128
you don't
but why would you tell Wall St. to fuck off?
how do idiots finally realize they're being fucked over?
does it get painful being that stupid for so long?
does your hatred of common sense finally take an unbearable toll on you too?

>>3101308
And...people who think they don't have to work aren't even wondering where the money for their 'everything-free' handouts will come from...

>>3101260
You lost me at
>Jews were able to take control of society

>>3101362
Taxing the rich

>>3101362
yea OP needs to work hard or apples won't grow on trees.
cows won't eat , chickens won't lay eggs unless everyone else has a shitty factory job, right?

>>3101285
>mfw he seems to be proud of being a wage slave former jarhead
Ooorah?

>>3101362

This. If you think you are entitled to something, it just means that other person has to work to pay for what you want.

REV UP THAT MISINFORMATION BECAUSE I SURE LOVE DISCREDITING ANY MOVEMENT THAT SUGGESTS IMPOSING TIGHTER REGULATIONS ON FINANCIAL MARKETS

>>3101285
>work 60-70 hours a day 8 years to pay way through college
Hahaha holy shit, is he fucking serious? What was he doing, whoring himself out to hobos while paying for a meth habit?

>>3101362
Free market will fix it.

>>3101285

>8 years in college
>working 2 jobs
>STILL can't afford health insurance

Wow, I sure wish I could achieve the American dream just like him!

Seriously, sombody should make a little animation that shows occupyters that someone has to work, to pay taxes, to give to the government, so the government can give it to them for their entitlement monies. Maybe they wont hate on the people who work hard so much, if they realize that the people who work hard, are already the people supporting them. (student loans and grants etc). If nobody works, there is no money for the government to give away or run on (Greece). Someone must work so that someone can freeload. That marine is your best friend, Occupy. Without him, there wouldn't be any money for you to demand for yourselves.

>>3101507
Maybe someone should make an animation about the occupy movement so people would know that the problem isn't that people just don't want to work.

>>3101600

The problem with having a movement with no leader is no one is sure what their message is.

>>3101647
Oh please. Everyone knows what the leftist/marxist message is by now.

>>3101600
No, it's that they want to steal. They are entirely willing to work for that.

canadian here
long story short, alberta gets about 1% of the profit from the tar sands oil
the high oil dollar is distroying the rest of the canadian economy.
and yet these self righteous bible thumping albertian's would rather give away the oil than help their fellow canadians
also if they were to burn all this oil it will likely destroy the planet, so fucking the rest of canada and killing the planet for 1 % of the profit probably looks wonderful

>>3101647
So we just project whatever we feel onto it?

I honeslty just wish these tickets would just start rioting and killing cops by now

>>3101670

>>3101669
It's not stealing, it's raising the price of doing business in America on the people who profit most on doing business in America.

>>3101686
Why? And what do you mean by "tickets?"

>>3101665

I really, really don't. I'm not a USian, which probably doesn't help.

Is ows even helping anything? If im a politician and I see a bunch of fags fagging up some public place why would I give a shit? Also all the ows tards will just vote in another sack of dickshit into office so they can get free stuff which will solve nothing.

the cunts are hypocrites while they circle jerk around protesting money in politics they fully accept unions participation who also spends millions annually persuading elections.

>>3101678
Its socialist to think the state should do something about it. You are in the driver's seat now.

>>3101678

>that pic
>implying mortgages should always be less than a houses value
>How do I into yield

>>3101285
Former marine, working to pay for college and no health insurance?

I'm confused. Was he dumb enough not to get the gi bill?
No health insurance? What is the VA?

>>3101670
http://albertathedetails.blogspot.ca/2007/04/75-for-oil-only-25-for-alberta.html

these fucking morons love other people's profits more than their childrens lives
it's like collective suicide for everyone so someone that wouldn't piss on them if they were on fire can profit

>>3101285

>Former Marine

Marine core won't pay for college?

>>3101727
Well yes, it does do something. You may not listen to the OWS people, but other voters do. Voters see what they're talking about and why they're upset and that starts a conversation. This conversation leads to ideas such as putting a higher tax on the 1% while making cuts to social programs.

OWS protestors: Modern Day Hippies
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C2fxUvbHzoo

>>3101807
*corp

I doubt this was a Marine. Marines don't identify themselves as former Marines, just Marines.

>>3101128

If you do go, watch out for the rapists that the NYPD sent there to rape people and make OWS look bad.

>>3101821
We aren't going to raise taxes on the productive. Deal with it bitch.

If you try, we will ASSASSINATE the faggot politicians that press for it.

>>3101737
There are a lot of things we enjoy that are socialist in nature. You may think that socialism is always bad, but I disagree.

>>3101171
>>3101199

Corporatism vs. Capitalism

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Corporatocracy

>>3101835

>*corp

Haha shows how much I know about our military. I really wanted to be a soldier when I grew up.

>I doubt this was a Marine. Marines don't identify themselves as former Marines, just Marines.

Forgot about that.

>>3101844
Who's this we? Why are you so attached to the idea that people who have wealth deserve all of it and need to have it or society will collapse?

>>3101821
Well yes, it does do something. You may not listen to the OWS people, but other voters do. Voters see Occupy being violent and harming the 99 and that starts a conversation. This conversation reinforces old ideas that its not ok to block roads and subways to keep normal people from going to work, and its not ok to damage small business shops. Hence Occupy loses more support because they might SAY they don't like the rich, but they GO AFTER the little people.

FTFY

>We aren't going to raise taxes on the productive. Deal with it bitch.

Well they'll just have to work 1% harder, won't they? The poor dears.

>>3101821

Put higher taxes on someone that busted ass to get where they are. Makes sense. Why don't I just decide not to contribute to society and reap benefits for being a lazy trailer dwelling deadbeat?

Wtf is the government planning to do with all this extra money anyway? They sure as hell aren't going to put it towards the deficit that much is clear.

>>3101887
I hate conservatives. They're always killing black people for being black.

>>3101898

>The poor dears.

>Implying most successful people didn't work 60-70 hour weeks while their businesses were getting started

>Implying most successful people didn't live in shitty houses and drive shitty cars when all their available money was invested in their business they just started

>Implying one can't enjoy the spoils of owning a successful business after eating shit sandwiches for 20 years.

problem is we have too many idiots that would sacrifice everyone’s future for the short term profit of strangers

>>3101887

inb4

"The damaged store fronts were insured. What is the problem?"

>>3101902
If you're smart enough and you're in the top 1%, you can pay a smaller percentage than someone in the middle class.

How about we fix the charity system? There are some good charities out there, but how about we see what qualifies as a charity and the benefits one gets for donating to certain institutions? Just throwing it out there.

>>3101902
>Put higher taxes on someone that busted ass to get where they are.

Really, the >implication that all wealthy people got wealthy by hard work alone is one of the most sickening things in America. For every Bill Gates or Steve Jobs you have some asshole that became CEO of a company, ran it into the ground, and still got a huge bonus for it. Things like high-frequency trading systems (algorithmic computer systems designed to buy millions of shares of a stock and then sell it half a second later when it goes up by a penny due to all of the previous purchases the computer made) rake in free money for whatever asshole can afford to have a server closest to the NYSE.

>>3101935
>>Implying one can't enjoy the spoils of owning a successful business after eating shit sandwiches for 20 years.

So they get 1% less of their spoils. Oh gosh, how terrible for them.

Waiting for the
>hurr durr all poor people are lazy
bit now, since we've already had
>rich people all worked 70 hour weeks, bootstraps, gumption

>>3101128
>Why do I need to be a leftist to tell Wall St. to fuck off?
You don't. Seems if you want to get along with the crowed, you'd want to hide your rightism.

>>3101260
>I just don't see why Occupy Wall St. HAS to be leftist.
You have to accept their claim to it.
>Maybe the entire Occupy cultural Marxist movement has to be, but I honestly don't see why non-liberals who aren't insane and don't live with their parents, can't stand up and create a huge ruckus like they did.
They can (for part of their time), but why should they?
>Is it because we truly know that we need to start shooting some cops to get what we want?
You're not supposed to shoot cops unless they're battering somebody instead of subduing him/her, or if they're just outright committing violent crime.
>The Jews were able to take control of society without using their own violence.
Well, their control is limited, and they don't always agree with each other. They just happen to produce more stereotypes of successful kikes.

>>3101930
I hate liberals. Theyre always praising black people for being black.

>>3101973
>BAWWW THEY GOT MONEY IN A WAY I DONT LIKE, SO LET'S STEAL FROM THEM


Left wingers are nothing but jealous greedy niggers. Their whole philosophy boils down to "they have stuff that I don't have, this is wrong, so we should get the government to take it from them and give it to us!"

>>3101965

Donations to certain organizations are tax deductible I thought..
We have a wealthy person here in down that makes a large donation to the school each year for tax purposes.

>>3101973
mit romney busted his ass to get where he is.
oh wait no, he busted other people's asses, his dad gave him his money,

>>3101997

I concur.

>OWS against greedy people

BAWW I DON'T HAVE AS MUCH MONIES AS MY NEIGHBOR THAT'S NOT FAIR

>>3101986
And so we learn about sweeping generalizations and why it's bad to associate an entire ideal with the actions of a few assholes.

>>3102015

Of course there are exceptions to everything. But most millionaires and billionaires are self made. You can look it up.

Why fuck a bunch of honest people over because you're jealous of someone's inheritance?

>>3102015
And he bullied people who weren't like him along the way.

>>3101997
mo'fo this
>DONT WANNA WORK. WANNA BANG ON DE DRUM ALL DAY

Is probably pot that caused all this amovitational syndrome in all these young people.

>>3101997
If your referring to the HFT systems, you would have to be a moron to think they are legitimate ways to make money. Any time someone suggests a small .01 cent tax stock sales that would impact no normal trader, the HFT guys go "MUH ALGORITHMIC EXPLOITATION OF THE WAY THE STOCK MARKET WORKS". They are leeches, pure and simple. Their trades add no value to the stock market. They do not invest in a company, they simply skim pennies a couple million times a second. The only reason they can do this is because they have the money to rent a server right next to the trading floor.

This is the kind of asshattery OWS is protesting.

>>3102046

Aww did people make fun of you in High School?

>>3101902

>busted ass
>not sucked cock

Yes, because the top earners are most productive and not just leeching off the astronomic overhead in finance, whereas those actually working hard are already paying taxes and welfare.

Divide and conquer.

>>3102000
They are, but you can donate money to a good college to get your kid in. Not the best charity.
You can donate to the Mormon church and get a tax deduction. An even worse charity.

>>3102033
>few assholes

>implying every single Occupy protest hasn't resulted in some level of destruction.

everyone suggesting we just tax the rich more fail to ignore even if we took all of their income in taxes it still wouldn't fix the issue.

>>3102073
I'm just saying that he's a terrible candidate. Possibly President.

>>3102077

True. I think that's the angle that should be played here. Find a way encourage donations that actually help the good of our society, not special interests like churches or fraternities.

>>3102090
"A drop in the bucket," right? Let's see the numbers, label it "a drop in the bucket" then look to social programs we want to cut to save money and see how it compares.
It all adds up. Every bit helps.

It's also an issue of fairness.

>>3102045

Asking someone to pay a few % more of their annual income in taxes is "fucking them over"?
Those poor, poor people. We should start a political party to defend their human rights.

>>3102095

Um.. never said he was a good candidate. I thought we were discussing OWS here..

>>3102116
We got to this point by seeing a broken system highlighted by OWS protesters.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UGL-Ex1CD1c

just look at this shit, I mean half these people are stoned out of their minds.

>>3102000

so, he donates X money in order to pay X times tax rate less in tax?


Well, better than nothing I guess.

Still, if people think safety net could operate on charity alone are deluded. If they save that much on money, how much of this will they use for their personal consumption and how much on charity? It won't even come close, and is only good to silence one's conscience.

>>3102125

They already pay more in taxes than the rest of the classes combined.

Why would I want to work hard and become successful if I knew the govt was just going to take it all an give it people who just make babies and smoke pot?

>>3101986
I concur.
I'm black and it gets to the point you can't even tell if you've genuinely done well or you just surprised them by being black and not completely fucking it up. Or maybe that's just my insecurity speaking.

>>3102155
>Why would I want to work hard and become successful if I knew the govt was just going to take 40% of it and give it people who weren't as successful as I was for various reasons?

FTFY.

>>3102150

I'm not sure exactly how the math works out but his accountant advises him to do it.

WHY DON'T PEOPLE WHO ARE UNEMPLOYED JUST GET A JOB?

OWS STATUS:
[ ] NOT TOLD
[X] TOLDTROPOLIS PT. 2: THE TOLD AND THE BUTTHURT

Lets just imagine im a high paid ceo of a huge company and I got the job with almost no hard work and its basically a do nothing job. What makes you entitled to the money the company I "work" for pays me? Sure its unfair but its my money.

>>3102180

>various reasons

Including?

>>3101285

>i work 50 hour work week in assembly factory
>vodka is my health insurance.
>like my comrades, i wait in line my week bread ration
>jealous capitalist pigs?
>ALL GLORY TO MOTHER RUSSIA.

basically the same sign,

>>3102204

McDonalds and Kwik Shop are always hiring.

>>3102155

Amount of taxes in nominal terms that they pay is not the issue when social justice is involved. It's the average rate, that should be AT LEAST identical to that of working class. And that's including social security contributions, in case that wasn't clear. I'm pretty sure nobody with half brain would suggest 100 or more percent marginal rate on high income, although I personally can imagine 70-90 on some income past an obscenely high threshold, such as thirty million dollar.

>>3102180
Yep, I think I'll quit my 7 figure job and go on welfare because of taxes. BAWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWWW

>>3102210

I require specific examples of people walking into companies and instantly taking over the top position.

>>3102210
>im a high paid ceo of a huge company and I got the job with almost no hard work and its basically a do nothing job

We really need to just ban left wingers from voting.

I fully support a right wing military coup and suspending Democracy, then rounding up all Democrat voters and putting them in death camps.

>>3102210

Assuming you're the CEO of a US based company, then both you and the company are benefiting directly and indirectly from government spending.
Tax dollars don't just go towards da poor and da military.

Leftism is a mental disorder.

>>3102246

>I disagree with someone's position so I want to kill them for the betterment of society
Typical rightwinger.

>>3102210

If it's that damn easy why don't you do it? Why doesn't everybody?

>>3102155
probably because you're very selfish and a liar that doesn't really work that hard
don't know if running a scam is considered hard work

>>3102218
>McDonald's

BUT BUTThurt #1 a McDonald's job is beneath me
BUT BUTThurt #2 a McDonald's job isn't going to pay enough to pay back my student loans
BUT BUTThurt #3 I want a 100k/year job because I have muh degree in minorgenlib studies.

>>3102237

This is what liberals actually believe that conservatives believe.

>>3102155
Because after they take it 'all' you still have more than the other 80%

>>3102240
Thats not the point. What im trying to say is why should people feel entitled to my money even if I get it unfairly.

>>3102246
No U

>>3102276
Protip: even McDonald's doesn't have enough jobs to cover all of the unemployed. But keep fucking that chicken, righttard.

There is supposed to be some world wide protest today

http://occupywallst.org/article/watch-live-12m-global-actions-over-30-countries/#comments

>>3102288
Because "Those people" are the only reason you have a job at all.

Walmart wouldn't be successful unless it had poor people to buy shit from it.

>>3102283

BAWW THEY HAVE MORE MONEY THAN US. TAKES IT FROM THEM AND GIVES IT TO US

Who is anyone to put a cap on how much money one can earn?

How would OWS like it if the govt put a huge tax on iPads to go towards buying one for people that couldn't afford one? It's the same thing.

Taxing a specific group "just because" is wrong no matter what.

>>3102314

No one forces anyone to work for anyone. If you don't like your job you have the power to change jobs.

>>3102211
>various reasons

Seriously? Oh alright then.
-laziness
-stupidity
-mild to severe disabilities or illnesses, acquired at birth or through some accident
-having a shitty childhood due to absent or crappy parent(s)
-having bad luck with business investment decisions
-the fact that almost by definition, there have to be some working class people in society to do menial jobs, even if they've all got gumption and bootstraps coming out of their eyeballs

>>3102306

Yes but it's a start in the right direction. If people would stop leeching off of the system and start contributing to it somehow we might get out of this slump.

>Being a Leftist is about the clothes you wear! I agree with all their positions, but they're all young people who dress fashionably, which means I'm not one of them!
I seriously hope you don't decide your political affiliation on fucking aesthetics.

>>3102246
That was an extreme hypothetical you obviously missed the part where I said lets just imagine. Reread it.

>>3102371

The first two would account for the majority of people who refuse to work. So they should get off their asses and contribute or be deported for being an unnecessary burden to the rest of us.

>>3102343
Luxury Tax?
Fine with me.

Just saw a student debt report on RT

Makes you wonder why they went to expensive schools. Did they think they would get better job opportunities?

Guess that didn't work out so well

>>3102408
They'll kill you if you try. There's a whole lot more of them then they are of you, sure you could use the military, but by the time it was done half the country would be in flames and there would be no customers to move the economy.

>>3102448
Yeah they should have stayed at home and collected welfare amirite? How dare they try to get a useful job outside of "Do you want fries with that"
>inb4 ALL GOT LIBERAL ARTS OR WOMENS STUDIES

>>3102408

>The first two would account for the majority of people who refuse to work.

How do you know?

>>3102461
Or you know, they could have gone to cheaper schools

I also never hear financial aid or scholarships mentioned

>>3102508
Two job offers come in.
The people have the same degree but one is from a very important expensive school and the other is from a little know nothing community school.

Which person do you think will get the job?

>>3101887
I like what Occupiers say in principal, but in practice a worrying large number of them seem to fit every negative stereotype.

They wreck things, they disrupt things, and this tends to be at the expense of middle- or working-class people they're supposedly defending.

Oh, and quite a few seem moronic.

>>3102525
So basically you need the more expensive school.

Then quit bitching and find a way to pay for it ahead of time

Also, if you mean community college for community school, you can't get anything more than an Associate's degree

>>3102525

If its just a McJob, I don't really care.
If its a proper job, we can afford to do some more rigorous interviews and tests to see if the more expensive school has left its mark or not.

>>3102469
That's what Rush Limbaugh said.

>Then quit bitching and find a way to pay for it ahead of time

Like, by taking a...loan?

>>3102589
Figuring a way to pay off the loan

>>3102544

they have no independent billionaires to fund a media campaign like the koch brothers did for the tea party

their stated goals put them in opposition with the wealthy and powerful, of course they will be vilified

alot of the shit they support is non-partisian and benefits democracy like reducing the influence of money in elections or ending socialism for the rich

if you cant engage the arguments just post pics of hobos or troll them till you get footage of an obvious retard

>>3102685
I'm not an American, so the Tea Party isn't much of an issue for me.

I wouldn't vilify them, nor do I aim to. My views are based on talking to the local occupiers, and interviews I've heard on local radio. They seem to be made up mostly of professional protestors, who act with no real regard to anyone. There is a ton of infighting in their group, and they really don't seem have any kind of answers.

>THERE IS NOT ENOUGH SOCIAL HOUSING
There's likely some truth in that – most people know it can be a problem.

>UNIONS ARE ALWAYS RIGHT GIVE CIVIL SERVANTS MORE MONEY
We don't have unlimited money. Pensions are already are biggest expenditure.

>The UK government have money to fund bombing the Middle East!
Separate issue, but I agree that our involvement in the Middle East should be limited to non-existent. Don't cloud the issue, please.

>The rich are always bad and it's all their fault
There are plenty of rich scumbags, but there are plenty of working-class scumbags who defraud the system too. Neither group can claim any moral high ground. Blaming one group for all problems without reservation might be convenient, but it's far from useful.

>Tax the rich more!
A bit more, yes. We should close loopholes to make sure they pay what they're meant to right now.

If you raise tax on the rich to something ridiculous, though, they'll just move their money out of the country. They didn't get rich by being bad with money/without having very, very good accounting and legal people.

>>3102685

>Implying it's okay to destroy property and rape women when you don't have billionaire support

Liberals actually believe this

>>3102855

good, good, eat that propaganda, serf.

>>3102884

Enjoy sitting in your trailer house with 90 kids.

When there is a clear message out of the OWS mob I usually can find some agreement with it.

the problem is I have mostly heard them say whats wrong with the system and such without any idea on how to fix it I don't care what a group or movement talking points are I want to know what change or policy they would like to see enacted and then I can judge if i support them or not.

do the OWS ppl have any proposals to actually do something about the problems they bitch about.

>>3103232
the sound of crickets chirping

>>3103232
Like, down with the man and stuff

>>3103232
>implying anyone has any idea what to do

>>3103524
then why back a candidate or movement that has no idea what to do about it.

>>3103232
Lower taxes on the working- and middle-classes, end ALL bailouts and subsidies to big business, audit the federal reserve.

Also, increase capital gains tax to match income tax, raise taxes on highest income bracket, reduce student loan interest.

>reduce student loan interest.

Are you sure? Giving out ultracheap credit to people whose ability to repay is doubtful, again, seems unwise.

>>3103749
"ability to pay"? The government will go as far as garnishing a person's Social Security checks to recover owed student loan money. It is as secure as the US Government and, as such, should carry an interest rate equivalent to the one the US would get with IT'S credit rating.

>>3103749

it should be alright as long as SOME PEOPLE don't wrap it up in financial products upon which SOME OTHER PEOPLE put mark AAA+++ ultra safe nothing can go wrong with this.

Really, information imbalance seems to be the main issue with finmarkets

>>3103709

All of those things sound perfectly sensible. Except they would hurt income side of sovereign budget more than even more tax cuts for the rich would. But that should be alright with paulfags, no?

>>3103812
Well the libertarians aren't too keen on raising the upper tax bracket and capital gains tax rates. But other than that, I'd say it would all be liberty-compliant, especially if it's done at the expense of the federal budget

>>3103709
>end all bailouts and subsidies
Most of the time, corporate welfare actually works.

The bailouts where far from palatable, but nationalising large failing companies was the most practical idea. I can sympathise with the opposition, and just letting them fail sounds fair, but the knock-on effects of a big bank going down would be pretty awful.

I don't want to "punish" shitty companies, if it involves screwing over millions more people even more in the process.

>>3103902

I concur, I only wish there was more personal responsibility for the executives involved.

>>3103709
sure we can try a middle class tax cut then see if helps the economy

bail out gone I can deal with that

but not all subsidies at lest not in the agricultural sector (agri needs a audit tho) or in alternative power generation

auditing the fed ok just like when some slob gets an IRS audit

setting cap gains to the same rate as income it too much too fast i don't think our economy could take it. I'm not against raising cap gains just not that much that fast

upping taxes on the highest of earners is ok depending on how much you want to raise it to and if there are exceptions for small businesses

and do whatever to student loans as of now there is no way to force people to pay them back. I have student loans but will never plan to pay them.

>>3103902
>Most of the time, corporate welfare actually works.
Define "works".

>I don't want to "punish" shitty companies, if it involves screwing over millions more people even more in the process.
This is why we wind up with inefficient megacorporations in bed with the State dominating the economic landscape.

Peasant farmers din't probably want to let land lie fallow for a growing season, either, when they were hungry, or eat the worst of their crop and replant the best. But such sacrifices and crunches were necessary for survival.

>>3103953
agribusiness subsidies are one of the worst forms of economic intervention. They lead to unsustainable high-tech growing that destroys the soil, wastes ENORMOUS tracts of land, and destroys the nutritional value of a good deal of food products.

>>3103953

>small businesses
>personal income tax

I think you've mixed some taxes up, friend

>>3104026

don't they make import of food and consequently deforestation in third world less attractive, however?

>>3101285
>be a wageslave
>be proud
lmao americunts
the jews divided you so hard, you love working like a slave, just to spite the leftists.

>is this pic fake? maybe, but theres alot of related talk going on here every day.

>>3102608

They did have a plan for paying the loan. It was called, get a well paying job with the college degree they were paying for with the loan.

Really its little different than a business that takes out a loan, then can't pay it back due to poor sales.

>>3104069
The idea isn't to scale back America food production in terms of output, but rather to encourage a return to intensive cultivation.

You can quadruple food output per acre, improve (rather than deplete) the soil and crop health, remove dependence on patented seeds and pesticides, and reduce the price of most fresh crops by drastically cutting down their time-to-market and transport costs if you switch from automated (vehicular) to skilled manual farming. Drastic reductions in pollution and capital expenses too, but those are just a bonus.

Automated high-tech farming is absolutely SHIT except in terms of yield by labor cost. By subsidizing large-scale agribusiness you encourage those forms of agriculture which economize on labor cost best by offsetting all of the diseconomies on the taxpayer.

>>3104026
didn't say they don't need a good audit
also they need to focus on small farm not corporate farms but yes I like the idea of food production getting a bump form uncle sam I guess i just like food.

if done right they could also be used to keep farms form going under during bad crop years or would you rather the farm goes under so a big agri corp can buy it out cheep.

>>3103981
Just so it's said, I'm not American, meaning that I'm not liberal in the "I voted Obama" sense. But most of what I say should still apply. It does work. Lowering corporate tax, and providing subsidies for a business that's willing to move in to your country/state/region, will provide more jobs. So long as it's done sensibly – say, giving a few million to the likes of Google/Apple/Microsoft in an area where you've got lots of software grads – it will get more people working, and the subsidies can be recovered.

I did once despise the idea, but it works. Helping out a company doesn't seem morally correct or in line with free-market thinking, but if it gets people working and the gub'mint usually gets its money back, I see no reason not to do it.

>This is why we wind up with inefficient megacorporations in bed with the State dominating the economic landscape.
You're right, this does happen. It's the downside to letting the government fiddle around in the economy, but that doesn't need we mean to swing completely to the other end.

For something like a full bail-out, I would recommend nationalising the entire bank. It's the only fair thing to do. That way, the state can swallow the losses and prevent one toxic company fucking up the marketplace for everyone else. The goal would be keeping the thing going long enough that it won't collapse the market, then carving it up and selling it to the highest bidder when it's profitable.

>>3104204
(Contd.)
Vince Cable, an economist in the UK Liberal Democrats, is of the "orange book" (economic liberal) segment of that party, recommended full nationalisation for banks like Royal Bank of Scotland that the UK bailed out around the same time Obama bailed out Freddie and co. It's the most sensible solution I've heard so far from anyone.

I get why US libertarians would prefer we let 'em fail, but due to big banks' actions and entanglement with other more sensible businesses, it would have been far too painful to swallow. You'd end up with a lot of people, who did nothing wrong, simply not getting paid. Companies relying on money from these banks were paying wages using money that a collapsing banks would've consumed – nobody wants that.

The free market's awesome, but it's unable to fix this. Maybe it wouldn't have happened if we'd always had one, but we don't and we didn't, so a sudden shift to a free market solution is unlikely to have made things better.

>>3104041

Not every business has to be set up as a limited company and paying corporation tax.
The extra regulatory requirements often make it impractical. Small businesses are all too often shit at the record keeping required. Trust me, I know.

>The government will go as far as garnishing a person's Social Security checks to recover owed student loan money.

They can do that!?
Oh, carry on then.

>>3104041
under the laws a small businesses are treated as a person and pays taxes on it's income. sorry if think a small business that provides jobs should not be tax at the same rate as a single person who made the same amount of cash without providing jobs and income for the middle class.

>>3104200
The subsidies make big agra artificially competitive.

Have some Kevin Carson:
"The market gardens of [18th century Paris] ... produced [up to] 44 tons of vegetables per acre; by way of comparison, in 1979 America, the average output per acre was 15 tons of onions (onions being the most productive crops in terms of weight per unit area)"

Small farms don't have a "labor cost" per se, so that enormous increase in output is pure competitive profit. BUT, the main strength is in field diversification; by subsidizing crops like corn, the type of single-crop machine-harvestable fields that waste space but save labor become artificially competitive by offsetting the costs associated with overproduction of single crops.

That's also true of subsidies to overgrowing (the US government buys up surplus crop), because it prevents the natural discouraging of monocropping by means of hedging against fluctuating demand for given produce.

>>3104148
so you don't have an issue with giving cash to farmers if they adhere to a set system of farming like the one you described?

>>3104216
>>3104204
Corporate welfare may "create jobs" but it does so by way of massive crowding-out.

The NYT once ran an analytical article about American entrepreneurship... Its conclusion was "when Americans can't find jobs, they make up their own".

Banks collapse... We're fucked for a little while. But then there's a rapid switch to more responsible forms of financing like credit unions. That effect can't happen until the market sends signals to the average person that read "stay the hell away from banks".

>>3104325
I do indeed have an issue with giving cash to farmers who adhere to such a system.

>>3104274
don't worry by the time you are old enough to get it there will not be any SS money left for them to take

>>3104148

That sounds like a great idea. But why aren't they doing it now? Do the subsidies help the great agrarians so much? Non-american here.

>>3104277

I see... well, given extra responsibility self-employed bear compared to employees, one would expect them to have their tax burden lessened

>>3104319
again it sounds like you don't have a problem with farm subsidies just how they are currently used

and if that is the case i agree with you the system of who get the funds and why should be changed but just because funds are not being allocated properly is not a reason to end it outright but a call to fix what was once a good idea.

>>3104408
Yes, the subsidies help big agra.

The reasons are that the subsidies are designed to sustain otherwise uneconomical farming methods. Traditional farming works from the following presumptions:
1) you cannot transport food long distances because of rot concerns and transport costs associated with preventing rot on long travel. You must therefore supply for primarily local or regional markets.
2) You cannot secure large tracts of land with ease. Better to maximize every square foot of land possible growing a good deal of crops; this means you generally have to use manual labor rather than machines, because you need to plant diverse crops to maximize output per acre
3) diversification is doubly important because of demand changes. You never know when a crop might fall in price, and if your entire income is based on one crop you might wind up broke.
4) if you don't care for your soil and keep it balanced, you'll wind up depleting it so bad you have to let it lie fallow, and that can kill you by way of zero income.

>>3104381
so no money for farmers who farm they why you want them to. Is your position no money to farmers for any reason?

>>3104445
agreed.

>>3104526

You're an idiot.

The only reason statism is still holding humanity back is because of plebeians like him. It would seem as though compulsory state schooling is paying for itself tenfold in securing the state's power.

>>3104485
Here's how subsidies fuck that up:

1) transport subsidies (federal highways and such) reduce the cost of transport and make it viable to raise a few "cash crops" for market, thereby maximizing revenue per fertilizer and soil inputs by reducing marketing expenses for many diverse crops
2) government land grants enable you to secure large tracts of land for agricultural development and subsidies to utility make irrigating such a wide chunk of land competitive. This enables you to use more spacious growing methods that cut down on labor cost
3) subsidies to specific plants (like corn) make diversification a bad ROI prospect given the above two considerations. Better to monocrop entire fields using high-tech machinery and the tax subsidies to capital expenses that offset it to reduce labor costs and deskill your farm help.
4) because of the above machinization, it is now cheaper to use chemical fertilizers and damage-resistant GMOs to offset the depletion of your land's natural resources.

Thus, farms switch to industrial monocropping because the state makes capital-intensive, labor-scarce production artificially competitive relative to capital-scarce, labor-intensive production. This, over time, creates barriers to entry because of the capital costs, leading to a loss of labor skills in the economy as a whole that could supplant you. And then, when a resurgence of those techniques occurs in urban areas, you can lobby to zone out household farming and use your FDA connections (lookin at you, Monsanto) to silence farmers advertising certain local, organic aspects of their processes.

>>3104485
and what is so bad about subsiding farmers that use a system of agriculture like the one you just put forth.

>>3104479
But I do have a problem with subsidies.

How do you remove the state highway subsidy without sticking a toll on all the roads?

>>3104557
ad hominem that doesn't add anything to the discussion.

>>3104583
Because subsidies entrench.

Okay, so suppose we subsidize the practices I've just described. Great, as far as it goes towards that superior system. But then that, in turn, makes marginal improvements in the system uncompetitive because of the risk of lost subsidies.

Plus, it also crowds out other, potentially MORE efficient systems which are also emerging, like indoor farming and aquaculture. Aquaculture is, to me, just as promising, if not moreso, than intensive soil farming because it requires virtually NO labor, the capital expenses are near-zero because so much of it is open-source, and it can be practiced ANYWHERE. Subsidizing intensive cultivation would then make, for example, indoor farms in Manhattan artificially noncompetitive, and discourage local or backyard decentralized production of food like the folks at GardenPool have achieved.

And sure, we could subsidize that too. But then what happens when some other farming technique I can't concieve of, like underground farming or something, starts to emerge? You wind up trying to subsidize all the good ideas... Why not just stop subsidizing the bad ones instead? Cut the subsidies and efficiency emerges.

>>3104656
Here's an answer to your trollishly stupid strawman question: No.

>>3104587
even if they are set up to support restructuring agriculture in all they ways you have set out in this thread?

>>3104674
>Aquaculture
Should be "aquaponics", excuse me.

>>3104692
Yes, see
>>3104674

>>3104583

Because he just walked you through why subsidies are bad in the first place you raging statist aspie. Things don't have to be paid for through the barrel of a gun, especially not to special interest groups who don't give a shit about you.

>>3104692

Subsidies completely defeat the purpose of that system and would make subsidization irrelevant to begin with.

>>3104714
u mad?

>>3101128
You don't, I just have a problem with you wanting to replace a corrupt government with effectively no government or Jesus. I'd prefer a more transparent, less corrupt, more accountable government.

But I think we can agree that corrupt government caused by corporatocratic infiltration is the problem.

different anon here, but subsidizing a startup for a new technology sounds reasonable to me. It wouldn't have to be permanent thing for the given industry, and it could take some risks off investors' minds

>>3104758
some on here think that if the powers that been where dragged down in rebellion it would all be lollipops and rainbows

>>3104756

let's keep this particular sort of retardation out of what was unfolding like a reasonable discussion, shall we?

>>3101285
>I am a former marine.

Oh here we go. The whole "I-served-in-the-military-and-am-therefore-automatically-right." You can divide the military up into discrete groups. Idiots, Criminals and radicals looking for military training, actual patriots (some overlap with idiots), violent sociopaths, and whores looking for college money. Only one of these groups is respectable, and it's the smallest.

tl;dr murdering brown people for Haliburton does not make your political opinion automatically right

>>3104793
he stared it :)

>Why do I need to be a leftist to tell Wall St. to fuck off?

You don't. You can be against bail outs/corporations controlling the governments regulatory power and still be a right winger.

Here's how you do it. Participate in a tea part rally.

>>3104789
I don't think many people seriously think that. I think the main disconnect, honestly, is how malevolent different political groups see large corporate cartels.

One need only look to our very own history - let alone to the history of Europe or modern China - to see what poor or corrupt corporate oversight results in for the worker (that is, almost everyone not born into wealth).

>>3104765
>tfw Paul Krugman won a Nobel Prize for that post
The thing is, subsidizing startups has its own issues. For example, it encourages revolution over evolution. That leads to massive capital expenses as old machinery is made obsolete rather than marginally improved. It also discourages modularity; that is, the ability to upgrade or repair machinery one part at a time, rather than wholesale, because modular design using existing parts tends to mean layers of marginal change rather than new change.

I mean yeah, there's some exciting stuff, like those carbon nanotubes that can convert motion into electricity when they bend and can be woven into clothes and laid down on floors and stuff. But if developing that tech gets subsidiszed, it crowds out or extracts capital from potentially more EFFICIENT, if less EXCITING, fields like improving energy retained by solar panels or reduction in electrical consumption using high-efficiency devices.

I think Kickstarter and the like are ideal here; crowdsourcing provides a great way for EXCITING, INNOVATIVE technology to secure startup funds outside the standard venture capital streams, which helps such ideas gain equal footing relative to more predictable improvements and innovations in technology.

>>3104823
the solution you are looking for is called limited government

>>3104833
>I mean yeah, there's some exciting stuff
Not to mention throwing money at something doesn't suddenly making appear in the average mans home, or making it worth while. Solar panels are a good example of that

>>3104833
thanks for the real discussion. I see your point of view and find it well though out. also good on you for being able to speak you mind with someone who doesn't agree on all your points with out being this guy.
>>3104557
>>3104676
>>3104714

>>3104370
That's a fair point – but even banks constantly collapsing won't keep enough people away. When Bad Bank X gets back on its feet after bailouts, it's likely enough that "$1BAZILLION CREDIT NOW 0% INTEREST THIS MONTH NO MONEY DOWN!!!1 IGNORE THE HUGE BALOON PAYMENT WE HAVE FREE COFFEE A++++ RATED!!!1" will lure some unfortunate soul in.

The market, in any sense of the word, requires good information to work. Maybe making financial education (and political education, democracy's important!) mandatory at publicly-funded schools, which to my knowledge is not the case either here in the UK or in the US, would help a lot.

Currently, Average Joe Citizen will come out of school knowing little to nothing about politics or economics. They won't know how loans work. They won't read the small print. They will, in many cases, get swindled.

The free market, by any interpretation, will not work fairly if most of us are unable to use it. Whilst some people, probably you and me included, will try to educate themselves, we're pretty abnormal in doing so. Most people don't have the time, or won't see the need.

So, would high-class economic and political education from an early age help us out? Maybe it's more of a lefty idea, and I assume you'd prefer more market-ised education, but I feel that if people have the tools of knowledge needed to succeed in a world of mostly-free enterprise, it's a good thing.

IMO, without this, libertarian approaches will fall down. Not on their lack of merit, but on the people's ignorance.

>>3104915
>When Bad Bank X gets back on its feet after bailouts
don't bail them out. They should be responsible for their success and failure. It wouldn't end banking all together. Bad people would be gone and the good ones would stay

>come out of school knowing little to nothing about politics or economics
and that is why many of us on this board advocate cutting funding to the shit schools. They produce no results and all we are currently doing is subsidizing failure

In the US we are supposed to have a decentralized government (states rights) to prevent the whole country catching a case of the stupids. By mandating things at the federal level we have destroyed that check and balance

education or a lack there of is a big problem

no one shroud graduate high school without knowing how to make a budget, balance a checkbook, and have at lest a basic understanding of how personal finance (loans) work.

>>3104915
>it's likely enough that "$1BAZILLION CREDIT NOW 0% INTEREST THIS MONTH NO MONEY DOWN!!!1 IGNORE THE HUGE BALOON PAYMENT WE HAVE FREE COFFEE A++++ RATED!!!1" will lure some unfortunate soul in
I lol'd. But yeah, SOME people will do it. But then SOME people also buy crystals to align their chi when they have a cold. SOME people buy those stupid homeopathic remedies. You can't kick an economy in the balls to deal with idiots; sorry, but that's just life.

And I'd like to see financial and political knowledge spread... Puts me in a tricky situation though, as I hate public schools and especially hate their potential as indoctrination mills. The internet is our friend here; I really think we need a bottom-up consciousness-raising movement to fix the problem of ignorance.

Of course, market education would probably mean that schools which taught valuable life-lessons on things like economics would be more profitable. But IMO letting the State-capitalist collusion be in charge of teaching people how not to get fucked over by the State and the capitalists is ASKING for trouble.

>>3104861
Solar panels are promising tech for a lot of reasons, but the current models aren't efficient enough relative to capital costs. I do believe that will change though, there's a LOT of research work being done there.

But me, I'd also love to see the hoverbike and in vitro meat hit market. If we dumped money into them we could see that VERY soon, and I think both would solve a lot of contemporary problems.

But I also understand that it's logically not a good idea (plus, ethics, what with me being an Anarchist) to do so, no matter how revolutionary and close the tech is.

>>3105022

but private schools have just as much potential to serve as indoctrination mills. Public schools under public oversight should be at least less susceptible to that. Same problem with internet, nobody is forcing you to confront others opinions, you can easily shut yourself in with (facebook) group of like minded people and reinforce your own convictions in that manner.

>the state is good
>the state is evil

pick one

answer: non of the above

>>3105056
they are promising no doubt, but the subsidies fuck up the pricing and have been put in place to push solar panels for years with little result. They definitely aren't a bad idea all I'm saying is the massive amount of money being poured into them hasn't suddenly made them the holy grail of energy production that lefties make them out to be.

>>3105095
It seems less likely with private schools, because they don't have uniform programs.

And yes, people can wall themselves up in the echo chamber. BUT, we discourage that kind of behavior when we let them understand the consequences of their actions, rather than protecting them for their own good.

>>3105108
the issue is more with the storage of the power (batteries) than with the panels.

>>3105130
private or public a good part of the weight falls on the parents.

>>3105095
>Public schools under public oversight
then they serve the whims of the masses. You get the education the "community" thinks you need

>>3105134
I'm pretty sure the actual energy transfer is piss-poor too... I think the RECORD for solar panel efficiency is held by Semprius with 34% energy transfer.

>>3105178
and private serves the whim of those with money. unless you want to pay for people who can't afford private schools and once you start using state money for that then it might as well be a public school.

a + for private if you don't like it you can take you kid somewhere else.

>>3105180

34% energy transfer is pretty good considering the source.
And we can't keep digging up stuff and burning it forever.

>>3105178

You say that as if that were a bad thing. Certainly better than learning what a private entrepreneur thinks you need to know.

>>3105180
the transfer rate is poor but if you have no use at the moment for the power or the source of the power (the sun) is not constant than storage becomes an issue too

You can only be critical of "Wall Street" from two ideological positions

A radical position, and a populist position

The radical position is that Main Street and Wall Street cannot exist without one another within a capitalist society, and that working people don't really have a "street"

The populist position are people that think financiers and bankers are manipulating the system to their own ends and if the bad guys were made to pay, the system would work just fine

The Occupy movement borrows language and ideas from both and mish mashes it all together

They're essentially a liberal social reform movement, despite using some radical language. It's easier to tell they are a social reform and not a revolutionary movement because they offer no positive programme for change, and are incapable of doing so because they're movement is so decentralized

They are "asking for a new master" by not making themselves masters together, and they will get what they ask for

Revolutionary leftists has a lot of hope for this movement and the wider global movement it models itself after, at least initially, especially the more libertarian strains - anarchism, council coms, left coms - because of it's decentralized nature and formation of proto-worker councils, and it is a tough, bitter pill for them to swallow that this praxis is not more successful or radical

To me, it calls for a radical reexamination of theory - who or what is the revolutionary agent, are the contradictions and antagonisms in capitalism the same as we have seemingly always believed they have, and eventually developing a theory of revolution and a communist praxis which can connect with the revolutionary agent (which is almost certainly the proletariat, but may also be the precariat or permanently excluded workers as well, or some combination of all)

>>3105233
And those with money are the customers.

Also, what is it with people presuming that if the government doesn't give it out for free, only the richest motherfuckers on the planet will be able to afford it? The government doesn't give out free beer but even the homeless can get shitfaced FFS.

>>3105272

There's kinetic and thermal storage systems currently available. Use the surplus solar power to heat liquid or push a cart up a slope, release the energy as needed.

It may not be as fancy schmancy as fusion power, but it actually works now, and not in 30(lol) years from now.

>>3105300
no the richest mo fos are not the only ones that can afford private schools but private schools are by no means cheep like beer.

>>3105284

I fail to see what is populist in wanting to slash the overhead of what has evolved into decentralised central planning commission that determines allocation of resources

>>3105022
>Indoctrination mills
I think some of the criticisms of public schools that focus on indoctrination, especially over in the US, border on the insane.

But, that doesn't mean it's an entirely invalid point. Schools should encourage independent learning, and importantly, independent thought.

Kids shouldn't be afraid to stick up their hand and tell the teacher they think differently, or that they have an idea, even if it's dumb.

>>3105236
Yes but in many cases it's not practical.

Solar and hydro can be more readily transformed into USE than we might think. You can construct buildings intelligently and generate climate control using zero electricity (and zero moving parts for that matter).

The problem is, our economy and technology treat electricity as the prime mover. If the sun can do X, most of us would still find it easier to use the sun to generate electricity and use the electricity to generate X, even though that's stupid-inefficient.

Solar might actually be viable if we only used it to generate electricity for when electricity was actually NEEDED, rather than for anything and everything.

>>3105315
hopefully those system will move into the current infrastructure along with any other innovation that come along.

IMHO a mix of may types of power generation is a good way to get off our fixation on limited stuff that burns.

>>3105344
They could be. They aren't NOW because of crowding-out, so that the only market for private schools is for people who can afford to pay the taxes that fund a public school and still send their kids to a private one.

Also homeschooling.

>>3105394
>Solar might actually be viable if we only used it to generate electricity for when electricity was actually NEEDED, rather than for anything and everything.

Well unfortunately a lot of electricity needs are either
-constant, like in industrial usage
-pretty much directly opposite to sunlight levels, like much lighting and heating usage

Oh well, its still better than bloody windpower.

>>3105402
Or Thorium power.

But like, you can capture heat and CO2 from factory smokestacks that just gets dumped out. It's wasted energy. Factories could supply much of their own electricity, and sometimes even all of it PLUS selling some to nearby buildings, just by installing shit on smokestacks.

>>3105433
That's why batteries, and alternatives like Thorium, are a useful supplement.

>>3105300
>The government doesn't give out free beer but even the homeless can get shitfaced FFS.
I don't agree with every position you hold, but that's a bloody brilliant analogy. I'm stealing it for IRL.

>>3105412
yes they could be. they just are not at this point in time.
it is an issue that should be addressed but will most likely get bogged down with the "how" part of fixing thing and the debadte on the 'how' could go indefinitely.

>>3105450
Take, take! I am the lord of analogies, or so /pol/ has told me.