Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.
Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.
Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
Demand four: Free college education.
Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.
Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.
Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.
Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.
Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.
Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.
Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.
Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.
Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.
These demands will create so many jobs it will be completely impossible to fill them without an open borders policy.
Tuesday, October 04, 2011
Proposed List of Demands from Occupy Wall St.
From here:
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Isn't it easier to just kill them?
ReplyDeleteThis list is absolutely hilarious. I'd be terrified if it weren't so insane.
ReplyDeleteWheres the trillion coming from? we r flat broke?
ReplyDeleteShh, Cymbaline, that makes too much sense.
ReplyDeletePlus, don't worry, the $65 trillion in debt forgiveness is even better.
I had stopped reading after a certain point/
ReplyDeleteProbably better, won't kill as many brain cells. Reading some things CAN make you feel dumber.
ReplyDeleteThis is a good argument against too much leisure time. If these guys were busy with something constructive, they wouldn't be play-acting for the cameras to expose their stupidity.
ReplyDeleteIn other words, let's disband the entire global financial industry and return to living in caves...
ReplyDeleteWho's Lloyd? From the site, it looks like he's just a poster on the forum. I don't think these are actually their demands. Not that I'm following this too closely, but one of the criticisms I heard about he movement was precisely that they have no concrete demands.
ReplyDeleteTruly, though, the general tone of the guy is pretty unhinged, even if not all of the demands are that crazy. The dumbest thing is posting his phone number.
1. $20 min. wage is not upper case crazy, but the tariff idea is pretty stupid.
2. Single payer is not crazy.
3. Not entirely sure what he means. Doesn't this conflict with the new min. wage?
4. 100%
5. Lukewarm on this.
6. 100%.
7. Nah.
8. I think we already have this, but I would support a sexual orientation and identity amendment.
9. Not as crazy as it sounds.
10. I don't think we actually have a problem in this area. We don't have a voter fraud problem. Getting rid of the electoral college is a much better and bigger idea.
11. Bona fide crazy.
12. Stupid.
13. I don't know enough about CB to speak to the wisdom of this.
1) $20 minimum wage is crazy. It would eliminate almost every small business lower-skilled job, and damage a ton of others, while driving the cost of salaries for average jobs way up. $20 min. wage is a $40K salary! It would just create huge inflation while eliminating millions of jobs.
ReplyDelete2) Different issue.
3) Yeah, no clue.
4) 100% crazy? If so agreed. If not, huh? How would you avoid insane costs? What stops people from being perpetual students and never contributing to society?
5) Government shouldn't intervene on this, really.
6) Where? What? Everyone criticized the Bridge to Nowhere (rightfully), but nobody questions what this $1T is going for. Is it just to pad union pockets? Show me plans.
7) Crazy.
8) Pretty sure this already exists.
9) Open borders within the US? Or from outside? I don't think full open borders are wise, but I don't object to raising the counts. I don't know enough about this issue.
10) Meh.
11) Absolutely freaking insane.
12) Stupid. I have many complaints on how it works, but that's just stupid.
13) Also don't know, though pretty sure that the issue is that unions don't always let people opt out easily.
>It would just create huge inflation while eliminating millions of jobs.
ReplyDeleteNot sure. Definitely some inflation. I wonder what effect the first minimum wage laws had.
>2) Different issue.
What do you mean?
>3)How would you avoid insane costs? What stops people from being perpetual students and never contributing to society?
A. How many Van Wilders are there really out there? Weigh the probable costs of Van Wilders against the benefits of anyone in America being able to get a college education.
B. Your problem is with how it would be administered, not the principle. If we want, we can make all sorts of conditions.
C. Idiots borrowing $100,000 to study anthropology benefits no one.
>5) Government shouldn't intervene on this, really.
I don't see why not. At least in principle. We're already involved already.
>6) Where? What? Everyone criticized the Bridge to Nowhere (rightfully), but nobody questions what this $1T is going?
You think there isn't $1T of work to be done here? Start with that broken water main on 110th that added an hour and a half to my commute two weeks ago.
>10) Meh.
I like getting rid of the EC.
Rather not get into UHC on this thread. It's too large of a subject.
ReplyDelete1) I don't see how a 2.5x on minimum wage wouldn't create insane levels of inflation while driving out millions of jobs. Think of it this way: If the uneducated stocking personnel are making $40K/year, what should the billing people make? $60K? And what about the accountants? $90K? It would just set salaries through the roof. But more importantly, think of an industry with a lot of lower level workers: How much will a hamburger cost if personnel costs just went up 200% when personnel are 33% of your costs to begin with? What about cleaning services, where they're 80%? It would be insane.
3) A) If it's free, you'd have a ton. And most of them would be well-meaning folk.
A2) Every time someone can't find a job they would go to college and get another degree. This is inherently wasteful.
B) Yes, the main problem would be how it's administered, and the only way to "manage" it would be to have committees of people deciding what everyone should do. That's horrid.
C) Agreed - but it doesn't cost us much, so long as we don't pardon them for it. If you can make money on that and pay it back? Why not? Better yet, get government out of universities AND loans, and let private companies that want to lend determine who they want to lend to for what. Wouldn't that be interesting?
5) I don't think we should be at all. Government intervention into any area just causes an imbalance from what it should be.
6) I'm not against it, I just don't understand where the number is coming from. If it's a worthwhile project, great. If it's to hand to local governments or whatever to hand to unions or build a bunch of roads that aren't needed, not so great. How about we identify what needs to get done first?
10) Not against getting rid of the EC, just not sure about it.
>It would be insane.
ReplyDeleteOh sure. But fun. We'd have lots on inflation, and will greatly increase my chances of becoming a millionaire. Plus, it'd wipe out our debt! :)
>If it's free, you'd have a ton. And most of them would be well-meaning folk.
Meh. It's not like ice cream. Definitely college enrollment goes up, but it's still years of your life. And you still have to, you know, eat. As do your kids. While I'm not adverse to giving out more than tuition, you're not going to make a comfortable living as a student. Especially when every sharecropper is raking in $20/hr. :)
>Every time someone can't find a job they would go to college and get another degree. This is inherently wasteful.
Again, I doubt it, for the reasons mentioned above. Also, there are worse wastes of money. A guy could lose his job and go on welfare and do nothing. At least here, he's bettering himself, acquiring further skills.
>Yes, the main problem would be how it's administered, and the only way to "manage" it would be to have committees of people deciding what everyone should do. That's horrid.
No. Again, you could pay for more college if you wanted. The difference here is that instead of committees of bankers telling you whether they'll lend you money, it's a committee of legislators telling you what they're willing to give you. Your critique is just like the death panels BS. Also, I'm not suggesting so much conditioning it on what you study, but how many times you go back.
>Better yet, get government out of universities AND loans, and let private companies that want to lend determine who they want to lend to for what. Wouldn't that be interesting?
We had that. It sucked. Institutional lenders are greedy idiots. College kids are greedy idiots. If ever a situation demanded paternalism...
>I don't think we should be at all. Government intervention into any area just causes an imbalance from what it should be.
This assumes an objective "balance" which there isn't. It also assumes the government isn't already doing this anyway, which it is. The question is whether we should do it well.
>How about we identify what needs to get done first?
A. Give me $1T, I'll find you $1T of legitimate stuff to do. And we won't even have to invade any impoverished countries!
B. From my liberal perspective, even $1T on roads to nowhere has stimulative effect. I'd prefer to spend it on stuff we need, but no biggie.
>Not against getting rid of the EC, just not sure about it.
Well, that I can't tolerate. Why the heck not?
Vox,
ReplyDeleteYou are right. Lloyd is just a poster, but given the amount of interviews I have heard from people attending these protests, I would say many of these demands are probably what they would like to see.
Just the $20 minimum wage and his "guaranteed living wage regardless of income" sounds like he isn't even thinking of the results in the long run. As Bob Miller suggests, this is the result of people with way too much time on their hands with a healthy "me" complex.
>I'd be terrified if it weren't so insane.
ReplyDeleteNo, it actually IS terrifying. Scares me more than some terrorist.
>As Bob Miller suggests, this is the result of people with way too much time on their hands with a healthy "me" complex.
ReplyDeleteAs a general rule, I think this describes 99% of people who protest anything.
I say their passports should be taken away from them and they should be thrown over the border into Mexico. Then nullify their passports, SS numbers, etc. Then, refuse to admit them back.
ReplyDeleteVP - Millionaire would be the new middle-class. :)
ReplyDeleteDisagree on college. Plenty of friends would love nothing more than to have minimal costs and sit in college all day... and these are the smart ones.
There's incentive to get off welfare. What's the incentive to stop learning if it's "free"?
I trust bankers more than legislators: At least I know the bankers motives (money). Legislators don't care about the money, since it's not theirs that's being risked.
My Shabbos meal this past week is enough to concern me re: "death panels". Yes, there are plenty of people who don't mind if people die based on various health factors if it saves time and effort and money for hospitals. Many of them will be doctors. (And I'm betting that these are people who are relatively moderate politically.)
What objective balance? I'm saying that the market will decide, period. If there's a market for it, it can be grown. As it grows, it can be shifted to challenge the current market. This is already happening, why force it at the expense of people's choice and money?
A) Give me a detailed plan, I'm happy to give $1T. It's easy to spend money once you have it. It's much better to know what your needs are first. Basic finance, and especially true with government.
B) I should write a simplified view on taxes. Basically, if it doesn't directly positively impact the country, it's not right to take it from the people in the first place.
>Disagree on college. Plenty of friends would love nothing more than to have minimal costs and sit in college all day... and these are the smart ones.
ReplyDeleteLOL, are all these friends in kollel? Because such a life choice exists. Most people don't want the kollel life. Most Jews don't even want the kollel life. I don't even think most people in kollel want the kollel life, but that's another story.
I, personally, would have loved to remain in college forever, but recognized that it's not really practical from a personal growth perspective, aside from the money. Got to move on, got to pursue interests, got to procreate, got to support, want to buy a yacht. Especially if anyone can go to college, sitting in college forever is going to seem pretty not prestigious. Also, it's not as if people sit in elementary school all day failing 8th grade for the rest of their life so they can get free lunch every day.
>There's incentive to get off welfare. What's the incentive to stop learning if it's "free"?
I think something is very perverse about our dialogue if we're already looking for ways to dis-incentivize learning.
>Legislators don't care about the money, since it's not theirs that's being risked.
Well, technically, it's not the bankers' money, either, right? It's the banks. Bankers probably have an incentive to do a good job and maximize legal revenues for the bank (recent evidence to the contrary, notwithstanding). Similarly, legislators are somewhat accountable to the public and act in a somewhat transparent manner. At least, they are more accountable and more transparent than banks.
>I trust bankers more than legislators: At least I know the bankers motives (money).
This strikes me as an absurd principle. If the motive (making as much money as possible) is directly in conflict with the goal (all the education you want) why does the fact that you know their goal make them preferable?
Additionally, what nefarious motive could legislators possibly have in this instance?
Not sure I get your shabbos-death panel point.
>I'm saying that the market will decide, period. If there's a market for it, it can be grown.
Yes, and I'm saying it won't. Or, to put it another way, the market only "decides" based on the incentives and disincentives. A large part of those come from the government. It's inescapable. The status quo influencing of the market that the government does is on the side of fossil fuel. Saying "shev v'al taaseh" isn't being neutral. It's favoring one side.
>Give me a detailed plan, I'm happy to give $1T. It's easy to spend money once you have it.
Okay, we're agreed.
>Basically, if it doesn't directly positively impact the country, it's not right to take it from the people in the first place.
I don't know what this principle means. What would be an example of an indirect positive impact on the country?
And also, stop dodging, you crank! What possible reason could you have to keep the EC?
VP - Re: EC - I just don't want a straight popular vote. I like the idea that different types of areas still have a reasonable say.
ReplyDeleteThe ones who wanted to stay in school were the most serious students: Guys who went to med/grad school, etc. They appreciate learning what I know and other stuff, and if it were free? They'd go forever. Trust me.
It's markedly different from kollel in many ways, and obviously not the same as 8th grade. In fact, the same reasons people want to do more than just 8th in most cases is a good reason why getting more and more degrees would be in vogue, were it free.
I think something is very perverse about our dialogue if we're already looking for ways to dis-incentivize learning.
That's twisting it. More like "I don't think that taxpayers should pay for people to get degrees of their choosing."
Well, technically, it's not the bankers' money, either, right? It's the banks. Bankers probably have an incentive to do a good job and maximize legal revenues for the bank (recent evidence to the contrary, notwithstanding).
Bankers do have incentive, and also legal responsibilities (to an extent). That said, banks keep re-evaluating how they pay their people to make sure the incentives are structured properly. Hedge funds do a much better job IMO.
Similarly, legislators are somewhat accountable to the public and act in a somewhat transparent manner. At least, they are more accountable and more transparent than banks.
I don't think they are more transparent. As for accountability, disagree as well: The more a legislator shares the fruits of the few with everyone else, the more likely he is to be voted back in. Legislators are inherently rewarded for giving out money indiscriminately, so long as it goes to anyone but whomever is currently viewed as being in disfavor.
This strikes me as an absurd principle. If the motive (making as much money as possible) is directly in conflict with the goal (all the education you want) why does the fact that you know their goal make them preferable?
What do you mean? It's perfect. Opposing principles lead to perfect balance in this case: People will only borrow money that makes sense for them to borrow in the long-term. Lenders will only give to people whom it makes sense to give to. And no matter what happens, it won't be on the rest of the country to feel the burden if it goes bad.
Additionally, what nefarious motive could legislators possibly have in this instance?
Why nefarious? Just misguided or shortsighted. Give out loans due in 30 years to people now, those people will like me and vote for me. I won't be in office in 30 years. This is what government has done forever already!
Shabbos death panel
Had to be there. We had some med students over on Shabbos and others. They would be fine letting many, many people die simply because they don't like their dieting habits. I suggested that if people would all have their own insurance it wouldn't be a big deal (not to mention people aren't educated properly while young) - it's only because we've decided government should pay that this is an issue - which they accepted, but since that's how it is, then these people should not be treated. These are reasonable people, not particularly "left" or "liberal", if at all except one who I know is a (Canadian) liberal. I mostly listened to them discussing, but I thought that the claim that nobody would suggest people not be treated is a crock - it will definitely happen, it will simply be put differently: Government won't pay for XYZ procedures because it shouldn't be a cost borne by the people, etc.
Yes, and I'm saying it won't. Or, to put it another way, the market only "decides" based on the incentives and disincentives. A large part of those come from the government. It's inescapable. The status quo influencing of the market that the government does is on the side of fossil fuel. Saying "shev v'al taaseh" isn't being neutral. It's favoring one side.
ReplyDeleteNo, it's allowing things to occur naturally. Take away all government incentives. Don't support fossil fuels or alternative fuels. Let the market slowly determine what it's willing to pay a premium for and how much, and as the demand increases the price will go down.
I don't know what this principle means. What would be an example of an indirect positive impact on the country?
Keynesian theories. :)
Are you two still arguing???
ReplyDeleteToo much to read
>I just don't want a straight popular vote. I like the idea that different types of areas still have a reasonable say.
ReplyDeleteAnd a popular vote would negate this how? Although to be honest, I'm not sure what you mean. If you just want people in Wyoming to have a greater say than people in New York, fine, but I fail to see the public policy grounds there. Do you feel people in Wyoming are under-represented in American society, because there are, well, less of them? If so, you've been mevatel the entire toras democracy.
>The ones who wanted to stay in school were the most serious students: Guys who went to med/grad school, etc. They appreciate learning what I know and other stuff, and if it were free? They'd go forever. Trust me.
Forever ever? I don't think so. And even if, this sounds like a miuta d'miuta. And I got to tell you, if the worst case scenario is a bunch of intellectuals learning all day, I don't really mind. But if this bothers you, we can arbitrarily cap it at 8 years of post-secondary education. Problem solved!
>That's twisting it. More like "I don't think that taxpayers should pay for people to get degrees of their choosing."
I don't see why not. They pay for dumber stuff. I mean, yes, if your de facto assumption about life is that the government shouldn't pay for essential services, okay, sure, I see why not. I'm not burdened by these assumptions. If it works, do it, I say.
>I don't think they are more transparent.
Really? Can I put in a FOIA request with Goldman Sachs or JPMorgan? Will they televise their deliberations on Wall Street? When one of their executives hits on an intern, will I hear about it?
>Legislators are inherently rewarded for giving out money indiscriminately, so long as it goes to anyone but whomever is currently viewed as being in disfavor.
And yet, incumbents lose elections.
>Opposing principles lead to perfect balance in this case: People will only borrow money that makes sense for them to borrow in the long-term. Lenders will only give to people whom it makes sense to give to.
In other news, the economy continued to grow this quarter at a rapid clip, thanks to there being no recession, because the efficient capital markets hypothesis was proven to be completely 100% true in all instances, once it was discovered that, inter alia, lenders are really smart about where they put their money. Also, the EU is totally cool.
Really, Ezzie, arguing with you is like arguing with a Marxist. "I know how it works in practice, but in theory..."
When things are going well, lenders want to lend. That's how they make money. Borrowers want to borrow. Somebody lent all those people money for those bad mortgages. Wasn't me. Chances are it was a lender.
>And no matter what happens, it won't be on the rest of the country to feel the burden if it goes bad.
Also in other news, the bailouts never happened. Also, there is no such thing as social welfare for poor people.
>Give out loans due in 30 years to people now, those people will like me and vote for me. I won't be in office in 30 years.
This is what private sector lenders would do too. The average banker won't be working there 30 years later, either.
>death panels
Seem like a weird crew, but medical students usually are. I would just reject the premise. I think everyone should be treated. Gordian knot cut!
>No, it's allowing things to occur naturally. Take away all government incentives. Don't support fossil fuels or alternative fuels.
ReplyDeleteToo late. Even if you "stop" what you're doing you've already given one side a head start. And given that they're not stopping what they're doing, then you should definitely favor interfering on the other end.
>Keynesian theories. :)
LOL. Here's mine:
Basically, if it doesn't directly positively impact the country, it's not right to take it from the people in the first place.
What "doesn't directly positively impact the country"? - austerity.
Oh vox vox vox
ReplyDeleteVox - Going to write a post on a couple of the subjects, we'll get back to the rest another time.
ReplyDeleteI agree re: the issues with the EC, and agree that minorities are simply going to have less of a voice. The one thing the EC accomplishes is forcing candidates to (at least pretend to) care about smaller states rather than just catering to get as large of a chunk of major cities around the country. I think that's a good thing. Otherwise it's a bad system.
>The one thing the EC accomplishes is forcing candidates to (at least pretend to) care about smaller states rather than just catering to get as large of a chunk of major cities around the country.
ReplyDeleteOr, better, it gets candidates to at least pretend to care small states that could realistically go either way, i.e. Iowa. Nobody campaigns in Wyoming.
I think it's worth pointing out that elections are very close affairs. No one's leaving a million votes on the table. But there's a limited amount of time. Any system that incentivizes pandering to minorities over majorities is democratically perverse.
Hence why I agree with you in general. I don't have an alternative solution.
ReplyDelete"Plus, don't worry, the $65 trillion in debt forgiveness is even better."
ReplyDeleteYou know, Yovel really isn't such a bad idea. Might even bring us the Moshiach. :)