Occupy Wall Street kitchen staff protesting fixing food

[Jakeiscrazy]

http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manh ... F.facebook

[gunderwood]

A security volunteer added that the cooks felt “overworked and underappreciated.”

Many of those being fed “are professional homeless people. They know what they’re doing,” said the guard at the food-storage area.


Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manh ... z1c0yYeyyX

Sounds like the workers are fed up of supporting the slackers...wonder of wonders!

[RugerJoe]

I've read so many fun news articles related to the Occupy Wall Street protests, that I hope they never end.

[OakRidgeStars]

The irony from this story is pure comedy gold. Something tells me that they probably don't get it.

They are the 0.99%

[SHMIV]

I wonder how many of these protesters will have some light dawn upon them?

The "bizarre no snitching rule" also made me snicker... I can see that rule being put into effect:
"Hey guys, quit reporting these rapes and robberies; it makes us look bad"

I shake my head in awe and amazement....

[Kreutz]

Snitches get stitches works. Its how people can be shot or stabbed in broad daylight or a crowded store yet miraculously no one sees a thing.

[Reverenddel]

(shakes head) Un-frakin'-believable...

No words... shoulda sent... a community organizer.

[Mindflayer]

The movement needs more cohesion and a better message so people don't think it's just slackers whining about their job. The movement really should have focused on the oligopoly of power that Wall Street and Congress - and the Administration - share, to the detriment of the freedoms of the common American. You know, citizens like you and I. Unfortunately, the press focused on the slackers, which drew in more slackers.

I'd say working citizens like you and me can make a difference in November... but we don't have any real choices.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - we will see mass civil disturbance in these Unites States of America within my lifetime.

[gunderwood]

The movement needs more cohesion and a better message so people don't think it's just slackers whining about their job. The movement really should have focused on the oligopoly of power that Wall Street and Congress - and the Administration - share, to the detriment of the freedoms of the common American. You know, citizens like you and I. Unfortunately, the press focused on the slackers, which drew in more slackers.

There were a handful of people with real, legitimate issues such as:

• Bailouts
  Federal Reserve
  Regulations
  Exemptions
  Etc.

However, for the most part the movement is a bunch of far left-wing nut jobs. The media actually seems to be attempting to portray them in the best lighting possible...which is really hard apparently.

I'd say working citizens like you and me can make a difference in November... but we don't have any real choices.

Most likely true as it seems the Republicans are all set to vote the lesser of two evils again, despite the fact if they ran a principled candidate they'd clean up. So afraid of Obama that they'd vote for Satan himself if that's what it took.

I've said it before, and I'll say it again - we will see mass civil disturbance in these Unites States of America within my lifetime.

Unfortunately, you're probably correct.

[SHMIV]

Mass civil disturbance? Everything's already falling in place for it. It'll happen soon enough.

[wpoppert]

Mass civil disturbance? Everything's already falling in place for it. It'll happen soon enough.

That's why investing in gold may be a good idea, but one should really diversify one's precious metals portfolio to include a significant percentage of lead. (Disclaimer: I am not a financial advisor!)

[Kreutz]

Sounds like the workers are fed up of supporting the slackers...wonder of wonders!

Kinda like those tea partiers protesting rampant government spending and growth but demanding their medicare and social security continue untouched?

[Riposite]

Sounds like the workers are fed up of supporting the slackers...wonder of wonders!

Kinda like those tea partiers protesting rampant government spending and growth but demanding their medicare and social security continue untouched?

I don't think its any secrets that all baby boomers whether righties or lefties are a bit hypocritical on those two topics lol

[Riposite]

well i shouldn't say all, let's say a lot

[gunderwood]

Sounds like the workers are fed up of supporting the slackers...wonder of wonders!

Kinda like those tea partiers protesting rampant government spending and growth but demanding their medicare and social security continue untouched?

Yes, and it's that sort of hypocrisy that gives me very little confidence that we can actually fix the spending problem. You've been on this forum long enough to know that I've blasted the boomers for just that, as well as defense spending. It's better for us to make the tough choices and fix it ourselves, but if we don't, the universe has a way of fixing it for you...

[Kreutz]

Yes, and it's that sort of hypocrisy that gives me very little confidence that we can actually fix the spending problem. You've been on this forum long enough to know that I've blasted the boomers for just that, as well as defense spending. It's better for us to make the tough choices and fix it ourselves, but if we don't, the universe has a way of fixing it for you...

Have to admit, no, never seen you mention it (may have been buried in one of your doctorals somewhere ) but it seems we've reached one of those rare phases of agreement.

On my end I will readily admit the Occupiers are typical of my generation in that they demand instant gratification and have seriously unrealistic expectations of how reality and correspondingly money work.

Yes I agree with them the income gap is unfair (fairness of course being morally subjective) and in reality untenable (I have no desire to see this boil over into a Russian revolution-ya never know), however it has always existed and America may be a kleptocratic plutocracy now, BUT you can still make it here if you have some brains, some ambition, and are willing to work for it; hell, I did.

It wouldn't surprise me if some of these people my age doing this are just pissed no one offered them a 250k a year job the second they graduated with their masters in medieval interpretive puppet dance (with minor in queer economic theory).

Such is the dept of our sense of entitlement.

You mentioned somewhere "actual capitalism" as "fair" and such, can you please elaborate on that? Never heard of "actual capitalism".

[SHMIV]

Kreutz, sometimes I think that you are a bit more conservative than you may want to admit, lol.

[OleMan]

On the issue of boomers not wanting to loose their Social Security and Medicare.

I am retired and necessarily have to be a recipient of both. That is NOT because I want to and not because I haven't wanted to have both retirement savings and medical insurance for retirees privatized with minimal government involvement or control. It is because Socialists posing as Democrats have mandated first that my parents' generation, and then my generation pay, pay and pay for these programs. More conservative political elements have repeatedly argued against government control (including confiscation of worker's money) and tried to pass legislation to graduate away from Social Security and Medicare, generation by generation. From first hand experience, I could write a massive treatise about the problems and shortcomings of both.

Who stopped the repeated attempts at privatization? Answer: the same type of Soclialist fools who started it to begin with; and strongly supported by a predominantly ultra left wing press.

If Conservatives can win and maintain control of Congress for a generation or half-generation, it can still be changed to graduate away from both Social Security and Medicare. If so, I will support those efforts as I have in the past, because I don't want my children and granchildren to suffer the same problems that the Socialists have imposed on my grandparents, my parents and myself. I say the US government FORCED suceeding generations of Americans, and their employers, to surrender 15.7% of their pay to support a scheme of the type that put Bernie Madoff in jail. That is a de facto CONTERACT and government CAN and SHOULD the same power to fix it - but it will have to be common sense Conservatives to fix it.

Oleman

[Kreutz]

Kreutz, sometimes I think that you are a bit more conservative than you may want to admit, lol.

Socially I am very right-wing, probably close to libertarian...I really think the government should have no say in what adults do amongst themselves.

It is on on the fiscal/economic front, where I strongly believe a limited number of industries should be collectively/government owned.

Chiefly roads, utilities, defense, maaaybe education, and healthcare.

The last stems purely from my real world experience in healthcare finance and keen familiarity with the dysfunction of the current system and has no moral or ethical basis.

I used to favor nationalizing banks but someone on here had a better idea, wish I could remember who.

[gunderwood]

You mentioned somewhere "actual capitalism" as "fair" and such, can you please elaborate on that? Never heard of "actual capitalism".

I know I've explained this one to you specifically before, but you have a habit of not reading.

The system we have today isn't capitalism by a long shot. The confusion arises because of the manipulation of words and a lack of analysis of first principles. People generally view certain words as good or bad and then attach their schemes to them, even when their schemes are actually contrary to the meaning of the word.

A good example of this is the "free trade" agreements such as NAFTA. What part of "free" trade requires hundreds to thousands of pages to define? They are not free trade at all, but rather government manged trade. It's an agreement to manipulate and limit trade between countries with the intention of accomplishing some political goal. Those participating in the trade (I.e. the people) are hardly free to do as they wish. Those who perceive free trade as a good thing jump on the bandwagon despite the fact it's anything but free. Those who perceive free trade as a bad thing generally deride it despite the fact it's actually heavily managed trade, which is what they are for anyways. Generally these "free" trade agreements are political tools with politically chosen winners and losers depending on how your donations compared during the last election. It's the same old government manipulation and corruption using free trade as a cover.

Actual free trade is simple. You, I, and anyone else can exchange our goods, services, and money for any other good, service, and money in any quantity we deem fair without the government telling us what we can and can not do. A fair trade is one where both parties agree to the trade without fraud, force or coercion. In this type of an exchange, both parties win every time because they will only make the trade when both parties value the exchange more than they value what they currently possess. It's simple, both parties gain.


Comparison
Let's go to Wikipedia for a comparison of "capitalistic" systems. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism

The BBC apparently has never read the works of the classical economists, nor of the capitalists so wikipedia uses that as a source to say there is no definition, but even they state this:

There is, however, little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices, wages and competition are elements of capitalism.

Let's look at the systems that are suppose to capitalistic.

Merchantilism

A nationalist form of early capitalism where national business interests are tied to state interests, and consequently, the state apparatus is utilized to advance national business interests abroad. Mercantilism holds that the wealth of a nation is increased through a positive balance of trade with other nations.

Sounds a lot like those free trade agreements, eh? By "national business interests" they mean those who buy off politicians have more rights than those who don't or can't. You get wealthy by having the government mandate that others must trade with you and under the terms which they must. In short, state interests trump private property rights unless you have the money to make your interests the states. Mechantilism may use certain capitalistic tools such as markets/prices, but it's anything but private property rights.

Social Market Economy

A social market economy is a nominally free-market system where government intervention in price formation is kept to a minimum, but the state provides for moderate to extensive provision of social security, unemployment benefits and recognition of labor rights through national collective bargaining schemes. The social market is based on private ownership of businesses.

How can you have private property rights, which leads to a free market, when there is any government price "formation," aka manipulation? If the government can tell you for what you must exchange your property for, you don't really own it! It's a tacit acknowledgement that the government actually owns everything and it simply allows you to manage the property under it's rules. That logic is then used to extend the idea to certain "necessities" or "social goods" which the government then takes full ownership of; social security, unemployment, unions, etc. Again, the government is used to favor some peoples property rights over others and again, it violates the central premise for which their is "little controversy" over.

State Capitalism

State capitalism consists of state ownership of profit-seeking enterprises that operate in a capitalist manner in a market economy...

Ya, simulate a capitalistic market system without the property rights. Yet another attempt to get the good outcomes when people are allowed to own property unhindered without the state loosing control over the people.

Corporate Capitalism

Corporate capitalism is a free or mixed market characterized by the dominance of hierarchical, bureaucratic corporations, which are legally required to pursue profit. State monopoly capitalism refers to a form of corporate capitalism where the state is used to benefit, protect from competition and promote the interests of dominant or established corporations.

No citation for this one, but the same idea as State Capitalism, but now with profit.

Mixed Economy

A largely market-based economy consisting of both public ownership and private ownership of the means of production. In practice, a mixed economy will be heavily slanted toward one extreme; most capitalist economies are defined as "mixed economies" to some degree and are characterized by the dominance of private ownership.

Again, no citation. If the public owns something than by definition private citizens can not...governments hate competition. This really isn't a system so much as it is an observation that systems are rarely ever implement purely. In some way or another, a society doesn't quite believe in the economic principles upon which it was founded and seeks alternatives.

Etc.


Summary
That's the problem with our "capitalistic" system today, it's not capitalism, but it sure masquerades as such. The first principle's of capitalism is the ethics of private property rights. Everything else is more or less a tool or a description of that ethic in action. E.g. a free market is nothing but two or more property owners exchanging their rights over their property without fraud, force or coercion. Capitalism is nothing more than an logical, economic argument or system whose central ethical premise is property rights. If you have a problem with it you must argue against property rights. That's exactly what the anti-capitalists do. They hate how much some people have acquired, they hate how some people use their private property, etc. They want the private property rights of others defined in such a way that they are actually controlling that property, thus, making it not private anymore, but state controlled.

Private property rights are an essential aspect of liberty and freedom. The government exists to punish people when they use unethical actions such as fraud, force or coercion to manipulate the terms of the trade. The government itself becomes the unethical aggressor when it attempts to regulate that trade; regulation of trade is the governments tools of force and coercion to manipulate the terms of a trade or even to prohibit it, so that the trade is agreeable to the government (aka a third party). When this occurs the system ceases to be capitalism because you have violated it's central premise of ownership. Under such a perverted system the people no longer own that which they have worked for, they merely possess it at the whim of the government. When the government can take your property for not continually paying it's mandated taxes, it's not capitalism. When it can dictate to whom and how you can trade that property or even how much you can have, it's not capitalism. Etc.

In all such cases the "owner" is nothing of the sort. If you had such an arrangement with a corporation or individual you would not consider yourself to own anything, but merely to have possession of it temporary until and upon the terms of your lease. Incidentally this is exactly the type of unnatural ownership the software/entertainment companies have been trying to get the courts to give them. They desire to "sell" you their product, but still retain the ownership rights over it so they can dictate how you utilize it. Furthermore, they don't want the responsibility that comes with merely leasing their property to you. They want seller prices with leaser legal responsibilities. You can't have it both ways, you either own it or you don't.

Saying that there is "little controversy" that capitalism is private property rights and then saying it covers systems which violate that premise by having non-free markets is an oxymoron. Just as qualifying capitalism as free market capitalism is redundant. Free markets are nothing but private property owners exercising those rights, you can't have one without the other. If you manipulate the market in someway you are removing the property rights of the people. At which point you have violated the central premise of capitalism and can not have free markets or free trade (which by now should be obvious that the two are really the same thing, but just different views of it...two sides to a coin if you will).