Occupy Wall Street
0
First time caller.
Fiery Penguin of Doom and Flaser both make interesting points. Just on opposite sides of the road I am afraid.
I have to sympathize with Flaser a bit more though. Although I don't think the US can tolerate a full on Social Democratic system like they have in certain European countries, I do think we need to move away from certain aspects of Reaganism (deregulation). Individual freedom naturally is wonderful and important, but I can't imagine the idea of not having a strong Federal government, otherwise we might as well break up the whole country into many smaller ones.
As for the occupy Wall Street.
Meh, my friend is at it's DC equivalent. He says that he met many anarchists there. Frankly I think that there are many types of people there. Not just a bunch of "rich, dissaffected, white neo-hippies". It is true though that many people just "can't afford" to protest, cause they'll loose their bread money.
As for it's success........I dunno. As opposed to the Tea Party, the message isn't as focused. Nor has it been coopted by wealthy interests (impossible in America as the political left is relatively weak). I am afraid that at least some will pull out once it gets really cold.
Plus I have no faith in any party channeling this anger because both are too tied to Wall Street. My gramps says it's always been like that but in my opinion, it's probably become more pronounced since the late 70s/early 80s when corporations merged, regulations lessened and the world became much more interconnected financially.
Compared to what's happening in the Mediterranian, we Yanks have been pinched due to a contraction in private money. Lack of jobs being created, higher bank fees and such. In Greece and Spain they're being pinched by a contracting of PUBLIC dollars. Many workers on the public docket are being squeezed out because the gov. can't pay them. Leading to the austerity strife and protests. We have had that here but much more localized and diffuse because we don't have the same kind of benefits that some European countries have. Sure we have had layoffs from state enterprises but they seem less prevalant than they do in some EU nations.
I read an interesting article in the Washington Post (I'll see if I can drum it up) talking about the "top 5% meme". It's only half of the story. More wealth is contracted and certain people at the very top HAVE gotten some sweet tax breaks. But since the 80s, it has been overshadowed by the sheer amount of tax breaks the middle class has gotten. You can read from that what you will, but if that is the case then I really don't expect anything to get better under any major party because whatever policies necessary to enact would naturally hurt the "middle class" at least in the short term.
Fiery Penguin of Doom and Flaser both make interesting points. Just on opposite sides of the road I am afraid.
I have to sympathize with Flaser a bit more though. Although I don't think the US can tolerate a full on Social Democratic system like they have in certain European countries, I do think we need to move away from certain aspects of Reaganism (deregulation). Individual freedom naturally is wonderful and important, but I can't imagine the idea of not having a strong Federal government, otherwise we might as well break up the whole country into many smaller ones.
As for the occupy Wall Street.
Meh, my friend is at it's DC equivalent. He says that he met many anarchists there. Frankly I think that there are many types of people there. Not just a bunch of "rich, dissaffected, white neo-hippies". It is true though that many people just "can't afford" to protest, cause they'll loose their bread money.
As for it's success........I dunno. As opposed to the Tea Party, the message isn't as focused. Nor has it been coopted by wealthy interests (impossible in America as the political left is relatively weak). I am afraid that at least some will pull out once it gets really cold.
Plus I have no faith in any party channeling this anger because both are too tied to Wall Street. My gramps says it's always been like that but in my opinion, it's probably become more pronounced since the late 70s/early 80s when corporations merged, regulations lessened and the world became much more interconnected financially.
Compared to what's happening in the Mediterranian, we Yanks have been pinched due to a contraction in private money. Lack of jobs being created, higher bank fees and such. In Greece and Spain they're being pinched by a contracting of PUBLIC dollars. Many workers on the public docket are being squeezed out because the gov. can't pay them. Leading to the austerity strife and protests. We have had that here but much more localized and diffuse because we don't have the same kind of benefits that some European countries have. Sure we have had layoffs from state enterprises but they seem less prevalant than they do in some EU nations.
I read an interesting article in the Washington Post (I'll see if I can drum it up) talking about the "top 5% meme". It's only half of the story. More wealth is contracted and certain people at the very top HAVE gotten some sweet tax breaks. But since the 80s, it has been overshadowed by the sheer amount of tax breaks the middle class has gotten. You can read from that what you will, but if that is the case then I really don't expect anything to get better under any major party because whatever policies necessary to enact would naturally hurt the "middle class" at least in the short term.
0
chriton wrote...
All I see you doing on other threads and this one is act childish. And cursing is childish in a debate would you curse in political debate or a debate in a college class. It's childish and a marker that YOU can't think of an intelligent way of continueing a debate. Another marker is nitpicking on grammer. It is like your trying to say I win because I'm smarter than the other guy, because I can write better.
...I'm nitpicking grammar because you nitpicked my cursing.
If my cursing makes you cry, simply say so, otherwise, be aware that cursing in no way detracts from a person's argument.
I don't contemplate and agitate the cornucopia of complexities in the english language to find the accurate semantics to provide for all of my postings because not all of them call for such superflous and gratuitous preceedings.
So if I were to perhaps embark on a tirade of angry cursings at an inane and inadequate argument for being exactly that...then that's what I shall do.
Also. I have never, ever, given the argument that I'm intelligent, and therefore right. If you think I've ever made such an argument, you're not paying attention to anything I say. It's never about the fact that I can write better...it's about the fact that I can argue better.
0
BigLundi wrote...
chriton wrote...
All I see you doing on other threads and this one is act childish. And cursing is childish in a debate would you curse in political debate or a debate in a college class. It's childish and a marker that YOU can't think of an intelligent way of continueing a debate. Another marker is nitpicking on grammer. It is like your trying to say I win because I'm smarter than the other guy, because I can write better.
...I'm nitpicking grammar because you nitpicked my cursing.
If my cursing makes you cry, simply say so, otherwise, be aware that cursing in no way detracts from a person's argument.
I don't contemplate and agitate the cornucopia of complexities in the english language to find the accurate semantics to provide for all of my postings because not all of them call for such superflous and gratuitous preceedings.
So if I were to perhaps embark on a tirade of angry cursings at an inane and inadequate argument for being exactly that...then that's what I shall do.
Also. I have never, ever, given the argument that I'm intelligent, and therefore right. If you think I've ever made such an argument, you're not paying attention to anything I say. It's never about the fact that I can write better...it's about the fact that I can argue better.
You really can't from what I seen. I guess it's a liberal thing to cry side tracking an arguement for they're own purposes. It's your condescending toward those you don't agree which I don't like. You can't argue better you can write snide remarks better.
Though back on topic You guys hear about china's support of the "Occupy" movement
0
chriton wrote...
BigLundi wrote...
chriton wrote...
All I see you doing on other threads and this one is act childish. And cursing is childish in a debate would you curse in political debate or a debate in a college class. It's childish and a marker that YOU can't think of an intelligent way of continueing a debate. Another marker is nitpicking on grammer. It is like your trying to say I win because I'm smarter than the other guy, because I can write better.
...I'm nitpicking grammar because you nitpicked my cursing.
If my cursing makes you cry, simply say so, otherwise, be aware that cursing in no way detracts from a person's argument.
I don't contemplate and agitate the cornucopia of complexities in the english language to find the accurate semantics to provide for all of my postings because not all of them call for such superflous and gratuitous preceedings.
So if I were to perhaps embark on a tirade of angry cursings at an inane and inadequate argument for being exactly that...then that's what I shall do.
Also. I have never, ever, given the argument that I'm intelligent, and therefore right. If you think I've ever made such an argument, you're not paying attention to anything I say. It's never about the fact that I can write better...it's about the fact that I can argue better.
You really can't from what I seen. I guess it's a liberal thing to cry side tracking an arguement for they're own purposes. It's your condescending toward those you don't agree which I don't like. You can't argue better you can write snide remarks better.
Though back on topic You guys hear about china's support of the "Occupy" movement
No I havent heard about china supporting the movement....
but tell me about it
0
Legendary_Dollci wrote...
chriton wrote...
BigLundi wrote...
chriton wrote...
All I see you doing on other threads and this one is act childish. And cursing is childish in a debate would you curse in political debate or a debate in a college class. It's childish and a marker that YOU can't think of an intelligent way of continueing a debate. Another marker is nitpicking on grammer. It is like your trying to say I win because I'm smarter than the other guy, because I can write better.
...I'm nitpicking grammar because you nitpicked my cursing.
If my cursing makes you cry, simply say so, otherwise, be aware that cursing in no way detracts from a person's argument.
I don't contemplate and agitate the cornucopia of complexities in the english language to find the accurate semantics to provide for all of my postings because not all of them call for such superflous and gratuitous preceedings.
So if I were to perhaps embark on a tirade of angry cursings at an inane and inadequate argument for being exactly that...then that's what I shall do.
Also. I have never, ever, given the argument that I'm intelligent, and therefore right. If you think I've ever made such an argument, you're not paying attention to anything I say. It's never about the fact that I can write better...it's about the fact that I can argue better.
You really can't from what I seen. I guess it's a liberal thing to cry side tracking an arguement for they're own purposes. It's your condescending toward those you don't agree which I don't like. You can't argue better you can write snide remarks better.
Though back on topic You guys hear about china's support of the "Occupy" movement
No I havent heard about china supporting the movement....
but tell me about it
Well first I have to take the statement back becuase the article that I read states that china thinks that the debates sparked by the protests are worth looking over to pormote global economic growth. It was I beleive 6 in the morning when I saw the article and I should have read it more carefully.
0
Well I don't get it.. If Tea Party's no good now, form a new party?
Also, one of your opponents would be Biden cuz of this link. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9974
Only read part of it, but it seems like he supports the ruling elite.
And if Lobbying's that bad, have them march into the buildings and call for removal of lobbying. I'm not so hot on politics but seems like those basic steps gotta be taken but isn't being taken.
Also, one of your opponents would be Biden cuz of this link. http://www.globalresearch.ca/index.php?context=va&aid=9974
Only read part of it, but it seems like he supports the ruling elite.
And if Lobbying's that bad, have them march into the buildings and call for removal of lobbying. I'm not so hot on politics but seems like those basic steps gotta be taken but isn't being taken.
0
This is were I believe it might be a little too late for the government to do much. Big corporations control a large sum of money and money is what controls the government. It might be too late for the government to set any rule that limits the amount of the economy a corporation can control. Even if they can set rules to keep corporations from controlling a majority of the income it will be nearly impossible to apply it or for people to stay quite and follow. Every type of government has a flaw and I hate to admit it but this is were a democratic government. The educated and crafty ones make all the money and get away with things legally while the rest straggle to make ends meet. I will suggest the government should lose a little of its pride and adapt some of the communist government ways but then everyone will start calling me a communist.
0
chriton wrote...
Legendary_Dollci wrote...
chriton wrote...
BigLundi wrote...
chriton wrote...
All I see you doing on other threads and this one is act childish. And cursing is childish in a debate would you curse in political debate or a debate in a college class. It's childish and a marker that YOU can't think of an intelligent way of continueing a debate. Another marker is nitpicking on grammer. It is like your trying to say I win because I'm smarter than the other guy, because I can write better.
...I'm nitpicking grammar because you nitpicked my cursing.
If my cursing makes you cry, simply say so, otherwise, be aware that cursing in no way detracts from a person's argument.
I don't contemplate and agitate the cornucopia of complexities in the english language to find the accurate semantics to provide for all of my postings because not all of them call for such superflous and gratuitous preceedings.
So if I were to perhaps embark on a tirade of angry cursings at an inane and inadequate argument for being exactly that...then that's what I shall do.
Also. I have never, ever, given the argument that I'm intelligent, and therefore right. If you think I've ever made such an argument, you're not paying attention to anything I say. It's never about the fact that I can write better...it's about the fact that I can argue better.
You really can't from what I seen. I guess it's a liberal thing to cry side tracking an arguement for they're own purposes. It's your condescending toward those you don't agree which I don't like. You can't argue better you can write snide remarks better.
Though back on topic You guys hear about china's support of the "Occupy" movement
No I havent heard about china supporting the movement....
but tell me about it
Well first I have to take the statement back becuase the article that I read states that china thinks that the debates sparked by the protests are worth looking over to pormote global economic growth. It was I beleive 6 in the morning when I saw the article and I should have read it more carefully.
Ahh yes them smart chinese people....
people can always profit from events and use it to their advantage...
just like those governments profiting from war and that they gain billions of dollar from it which is why some people believe war is the biggest profit yet
well please continue with what the article wrote....
im kinda curious now.
0
People having a higher income means more demand of consumer goods made in China, basically.
Or that's what i think at least.
Or that's what i think at least.
0
Legendary_Dollci wrote...
chriton wrote...
Legendary_Dollci wrote...
chriton wrote...
BigLundi wrote...
chriton wrote...
All I see you doing on other threads and this one is act childish. And cursing is childish in a debate would you curse in political debate or a debate in a college class. It's childish and a marker that YOU can't think of an intelligent way of continueing a debate. Another marker is nitpicking on grammer. It is like your trying to say I win because I'm smarter than the other guy, because I can write better.
...I'm nitpicking grammar because you nitpicked my cursing.
If my cursing makes you cry, simply say so, otherwise, be aware that cursing in no way detracts from a person's argument.
I don't contemplate and agitate the cornucopia of complexities in the english language to find the accurate semantics to provide for all of my postings because not all of them call for such superflous and gratuitous preceedings.
So if I were to perhaps embark on a tirade of angry cursings at an inane and inadequate argument for being exactly that...then that's what I shall do.
Also. I have never, ever, given the argument that I'm intelligent, and therefore right. If you think I've ever made such an argument, you're not paying attention to anything I say. It's never about the fact that I can write better...it's about the fact that I can argue better.
You really can't from what I seen. I guess it's a liberal thing to cry side tracking an arguement for they're own purposes. It's your condescending toward those you don't agree which I don't like. You can't argue better you can write snide remarks better.
Though back on topic You guys hear about china's support of the "Occupy" movement
No I havent heard about china supporting the movement....
but tell me about it
Well first I have to take the statement back becuase the article that I read states that china thinks that the debates sparked by the protests are worth looking over to pormote global economic growth. It was I beleive 6 in the morning when I saw the article and I should have read it more carefully.
Ahh yes them smart chinese people....
people can always profit from events and use it to their advantage...
just like those governments profiting from war and that they gain billions of dollar from it which is why some people believe war is the biggest profit yet
well please continue with what the article wrote....
im kinda curious now.
That's basically it in a nutshell but I post A link
China
0
chriton wrote...
Legendary_Dollci wrote...
chriton wrote...
Legendary_Dollci wrote...
chriton wrote...
BigLundi wrote...
chriton wrote...
All I see you doing on other threads and this one is act childish. And cursing is childish in a debate would you curse in political debate or a debate in a college class. It's childish and a marker that YOU can't think of an intelligent way of continueing a debate. Another marker is nitpicking on grammer. It is like your trying to say I win because I'm smarter than the other guy, because I can write better.
...I'm nitpicking grammar because you nitpicked my cursing.
If my cursing makes you cry, simply say so, otherwise, be aware that cursing in no way detracts from a person's argument.
I don't contemplate and agitate the cornucopia of complexities in the english language to find the accurate semantics to provide for all of my postings because not all of them call for such superflous and gratuitous preceedings.
So if I were to perhaps embark on a tirade of angry cursings at an inane and inadequate argument for being exactly that...then that's what I shall do.
Also. I have never, ever, given the argument that I'm intelligent, and therefore right. If you think I've ever made such an argument, you're not paying attention to anything I say. It's never about the fact that I can write better...it's about the fact that I can argue better.
You really can't from what I seen. I guess it's a liberal thing to cry side tracking an arguement for they're own purposes. It's your condescending toward those you don't agree which I don't like. You can't argue better you can write snide remarks better.
Though back on topic You guys hear about china's support of the "Occupy" movement
No I havent heard about china supporting the movement....
but tell me about it
Well first I have to take the statement back becuase the article that I read states that china thinks that the debates sparked by the protests are worth looking over to pormote global economic growth. It was I beleive 6 in the morning when I saw the article and I should have read it more carefully.
Ahh yes them smart chinese people....
people can always profit from events and use it to their advantage...
just like those governments profiting from war and that they gain billions of dollar from it which is why some people believe war is the biggest profit yet
well please continue with what the article wrote....
im kinda curious now.
That's basically it in a nutshell but I post A link
China
Wow deep stuff... these days anybody can make a profit off of anything
0
Greedy evaders must pay up
Of all the posters being waved during the Occupy protests, our favourite was one about un-screwing up the world.
It was more profane, of course, but not wrong.
The damage can be undone.
What needs to happen is for the International Monetary Fund to engage a global collective of relentless taxmen to levy a tithe on all the trillions avoiding taxation in anonymous off-shore tax havens.
In other words, go after the greediest of the greedy.
The result -- simply by collecting modest 10% from these tax dodgers -- would put much of the world back on track.
Yet this has never been done. It has been tried, yes, with Canada leading the way in trying to get Swiss banks to cough up the names connected to these anonymous accounts.
But it has never been accomplished.
According to the Boston Consulting Group, mega-rich individuals and companies are hiding approximately $10 trillion in secret off-shore banks in venues such as Luxembourg, Cayman Islands and Singapore, and paying not a dime in taxes.
This amounts to $2 trillion more than can be found in all the banks in the U.S. and, if taxed at 10% to 11%, would produce an instant trillion dollars, a lesser penalty than if taxed at home.
Compliance, therefore, would get little or no pushback from those who are tracked down by this new tax squad.
What would a trillion dollars do?
It would bail out all of Europe's debt, and keep Greece, Italy and Spain from bankruptcy *-- all which would go a long way in easing the strain on other countries fighting the recession.
Because of leaked documents surrounding Britain and Germany's attempt to get the Swiss banks to stop protecting tax evaders, it is known upwards of 6,000 Britons and even more Germans have untaxed money stashed in Swiss banks that would rival the economy of most European countries.
More perspective?
The poor countries of our world lose $1 trillion a year to tax-free off-shore accounts -- which equals 10 times the world's foreign aid, and five times the annual sum experts say would bring an end to poverty and help "unscrew-up" the world.
All from tithing the greediest of the greedy.
Of all the posters being waved during the Occupy protests, our favourite was one about un-screwing up the world.
It was more profane, of course, but not wrong.
The damage can be undone.
What needs to happen is for the International Monetary Fund to engage a global collective of relentless taxmen to levy a tithe on all the trillions avoiding taxation in anonymous off-shore tax havens.
In other words, go after the greediest of the greedy.
The result -- simply by collecting modest 10% from these tax dodgers -- would put much of the world back on track.
Yet this has never been done. It has been tried, yes, with Canada leading the way in trying to get Swiss banks to cough up the names connected to these anonymous accounts.
But it has never been accomplished.
According to the Boston Consulting Group, mega-rich individuals and companies are hiding approximately $10 trillion in secret off-shore banks in venues such as Luxembourg, Cayman Islands and Singapore, and paying not a dime in taxes.
This amounts to $2 trillion more than can be found in all the banks in the U.S. and, if taxed at 10% to 11%, would produce an instant trillion dollars, a lesser penalty than if taxed at home.
Compliance, therefore, would get little or no pushback from those who are tracked down by this new tax squad.
What would a trillion dollars do?
It would bail out all of Europe's debt, and keep Greece, Italy and Spain from bankruptcy *-- all which would go a long way in easing the strain on other countries fighting the recession.
Because of leaked documents surrounding Britain and Germany's attempt to get the Swiss banks to stop protecting tax evaders, it is known upwards of 6,000 Britons and even more Germans have untaxed money stashed in Swiss banks that would rival the economy of most European countries.
More perspective?
The poor countries of our world lose $1 trillion a year to tax-free off-shore accounts -- which equals 10 times the world's foreign aid, and five times the annual sum experts say would bring an end to poverty and help "unscrew-up" the world.
All from tithing the greediest of the greedy.
http://www.torontosun.com/2011/10/17/greedy-evaders-must-pay-up
0
@ the unknown hmm...you might on to something as far as I can remember communism is government having direct control of state you as a citizen have no say on any of the governments affairs unless you become a problem to the government then the government usually pays attention to an individualor group (in the bad way). Capitialism is as simple as this "Everybody owes everybody." That is what America is suppose to be about however how can you pay someone back with no legal tender/bank note. Now here is the problem capitialism is majorly relient on money. Since there is no money in the the federal goverment capitalism cannot work. So power shifts to the next source with all the money... banks. What most people do not understand is that banks are cutthoart speaking metaphorical like a pirate that was an anology on how indirect they are at being ruthless. Heck most businesses like Apple, Sony, Microsoft, Nintendo, and etcetera rely on banks things like online pass is not only to combat piracy but also these corporations can not afford too lose money because they have to pay back these banks. The fact that most businesses are becoming million dollar industries is a testament to false scales and balances. Example shoe manufactures usually use twelve dollar materials to make up a pair of shoes. The shoes themself are unreasonably priced because most shoes I see cost eighty dollars or above. These people running these businesses usually are focused not on the quality of a product but the quality of how much of a profit they can make off people. Hell Uwe Boll who directed House of the Dead (that awful mess)the budget was twelve million dollars. That movie sure did not feel or look like a twelve million dollar movie. I feel a bit off subject overall this is what the movement is all about in my opinion (minus the excess crap I went on about) I accept all replies to what I stated.
0
Anesthetize I like your comics you posted but the protesters aren't unified except the fact that they're pissed off unless they magically unified without me knowing about it. But coporate welfare is something America needs to get rid of.
1
the unknown wrote...
I will suggest the government should lose a little of its pride and adapt some of the communist government ways but then everyone will start calling me a communist. Provide evidence of a communist state that has not suffered a drop in the living standard, resulted in a centralized government that ignored the rights of it's people or resulted in mass killing and genocide.
The final step of the communist manifesto can not be implemented because once the power is allocated to the Government. The politicians will resist giving that power up.
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
the unknown wrote...
I will suggest the government should lose a little of its pride and adapt some of the communist government ways but then everyone will start calling me a communist. Provide evidence of a communist state that has not suffered a drop in the living standard, resulted in a centralized government that ignored the rights of it's people or resulted in mass killing and genocide.
The final step of the communist manifesto can not be implemented because once the power is allocated to the Government. The politicians will resist giving that power up.
Not only that, it's just fundamentally impractical.
I mean, yes. If every single step to the manifesto were followed to a T, the economy would be solid.
The problem is, that's such an unrealistic standard. It requires SO many things to happen that are simply counter intuitive to basic human nature. People deciding they're ok with not ascending to high places of import, those in power deciding actively to give it up, money becoming a second thought to work...There's a reason communism has never actually been SEEN in the world. Not pure communism anyhow. Even China hasn't been able to pull it off.
0
Fiery_penguin_of_doom wrote...
Provide evidence of a communist state that has not suffered a drop in the living standard, resulted in a centralized government that ignored the rights of it's people or resulted in mass killing and genocide.
The final step of the communist manifesto can not be implemented because once the power is allocated to the Government. The politicians will resist giving that power up.
To counter that, provide one capitalist nation that hasn't suffered or isn't suffering economically. What I was implying by "some of the communist government" was for government to gain more control over large industries so the industries don't end up controlling the government instead. I guarantee you that if the government gain more control of large corporations, it will not resulted in mass killing and genocide. It fact it might close the gap between the rich and the poor...which in my point of view is a great thing.
BigLundi wrote...
Not only that, it's just fundamentally impractical.
I mean, yes. If every single step to the manifesto were followed to a T, the economy would be solid.
The problem is, that's such an unrealistic standard. It requires SO many things to happen that are simply counter intuitive to basic human nature. People deciding they're ok with not ascending to high places of import, those in power deciding actively to give it up, money becoming a second thought to work...There's a reason communism has never actually been SEEN in the world. Not pure communism anyhow. Even China hasn't been able to pull it off.
It is not unrealistic, the government can choose to have more power on business if the want. An example is regulated monopolies. The government does not allow anyone to compete against them and the government watches over them so that they don't over price things. Also how the government doesn't allow a monopoly. But as I mention in my post "Even if they can set rules to keep corporations from controlling a majority of the income it will be nearly impossible to apply it or for people to stay quite and follow." But then again, it might be too late for this to work properly if applied since now most business aim for unlimited profit. If this however had been applied let's say right after Wall Street crashed, people would have been more adaptive to it. And do you know China is a proud communist nation that has adapted some of the capitalist ways...go figure.
0
the unknown wrote...
To counter that, provide one capitalist nation that hasn't suffered or isn't suffering economically. What I was implying by "some of the communist government" was for government to gain more control over large industries so the industries don't end up controlling the government instead. I guarantee you that if the government gain more control of large corporations, it will not resulted in mass killing and genocide. It fact it might close the gap between the rich and the poor...which in my point of view is a great thing.No capitalist society has existed since the early 1900's. The United states stopped being Capitalist when FDR signed the New Deal. One could argue that we stopped being a Capitalist society before then but, I don't feel like writing a college thesis at this particular point in time. America is "officially" a capitalist state much like Cuba & China are "officially" a Republic.
Anyways, I did a quick Google search and you may findthis little FAQ to be helpful in understanding what Capitalism really is. If you wish for more general info talk to Flaser for Communism (Proclaimed Marxist) or you can talk to me (Former Laissez-Faire Capitalist, Libertarian).
It is not unrealistic, the government can choose to have more power on business if the want. An example is [b]regulated monopolies
That is Socialism not Communism. Within Communism the state would own all means of production thus it would be the monopoly and not regulating them.
The government does not allow anyone to compete against them and the government watches over them so that they don't over price things.
The first part is an aspect of Corporatism aka Crony Capitalism where the government enacts laws to limit competition of larger businesses. Overpricing is a subjective term. What is overpriced to you or me may not be overpriced to someone else. I look at luxury vehicles and think they are overpriced, yet some people think the prices are just fine considering people still buy them. You may have meant to say "To prevent price gouging" which again is still subjective since it only comes about when shortages of goods occur. An example of such shortages would be generators during Florida's Hurricane season. Now, according to laws I couldn't rent a truck, buy lots of generators, drive down to Florida and sell them to people who need them at a price that covers my expenditures because of "Price gouging" laws in other words due to these "price gouging" laws people who want generators prior to a hurricane must go without because local store quickly sell out. If you wish, I can also list an example for hotel rooms and how they work with price gouging.
"Even if they can set rules to keep corporations from controlling a majority of the income it will be nearly impossible to apply it or for people to stay quite and follow."
Yeah, we American's are much for shutting up and falling in line. We're just silly that way.
And do you know China is a proud communist nation that has adapted some of the capitalist ways...go figure.
China is "officially" communist but, in practice it's more of a mixed economy. The Communist Manifesto does not permit private ownership of the means of production. Capitalism does not permit the public ownership of the means of production. Therefore it is a mixed economy a.k.a. socialism.
0
Some links:
http://occupywallst.org/
http://www.occupyoakland.org/
http://occupysac.com/
I added the CA ones because that's where I'm from.
also:
the reason given for the police actions was that the protesters camp had become unsanitary and unsafe. i like the logic that says hitting people with sticks is for their safety.
i'm surprised that it's been allowed to go on so long with out much harsher police action.
http://occupywallst.org/
http://www.occupyoakland.org/
http://occupysac.com/
I added the CA ones because that's where I'm from.
also:
the reason given for the police actions was that the protesters camp had become unsanitary and unsafe. i like the logic that says hitting people with sticks is for their safety.
i'm surprised that it's been allowed to go on so long with out much harsher police action.