It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

To OWS: what you/we should be demanding

page: 1
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 12:40 PM
link   
First, an excellent set of charts from the Business Insider that summarizes the problem:

What the protesters are angry about

A lot of people complain that OWS isn't focused enough and lacks a set of coherent demands.

I offer these for your consideration:

1. We demand responsible behavior. Cap individual global wealth at $1 billion per person, and global corporate market share at 10%.

In kindergarden we learned not to hog all the cookies, and were taught to leave enough so everyone got some. There is no moral, ethical, or legal ground to sustain an assertion of the right to unlimited wealth for an individual. Capping individual wealth is necessary for the betterment of all. One billion dollars of wealth should be sufficient to satisfy the cravings of any individual who isn't addicted to wealth-building. Neither should corporations, collections of individuals, be allowed to destructively compete to gain a monopolistic hold on economies. To ensure non-destructive competitive capitalism that breeds true innovation, some limits must be imposed on the size of corporations: none must be allowed to become "too big to fail".

2. We demand accountability. Investigate the global financial sector, publish the results, and prosecute lawbreakers.

The global economic crisis has been brought about because frauds have gone unpunished. Audit the Fed, and the banks completely and publish all the information publicly. Prosecute every single banker, financial executive, employee, or lawyer who violated laws, strip the convicted of their ill-gotten wealth and forbid them from ever working in finance again after serving their prison terms at hard labor. NO deals.

3. We demand control of our own money.

Taxes may be inevitable, but it is OUR money, and we should retain the right to say where it goes. Establish secure tax payment centers in every city, town, and municipality of country of the world so that its citizens may decide which government departments, agencies, and programs they want their money to go to. Legislatures, parliaments, and congresses may decide which programs, bills, etc are to be put before the people to choose to fund, but it is up to the citizenry to decide which of those they want their money to fund.

It can be done, and deprives no one of anything they have a right to. There are 1,210 billionaires in the world at latest count, and even some of them think they have too much. To allow their addiction to wealth-building to outweigh the interests of the rest of humanity any longer is unconscionable.

I strongly believe that implementing these will stave off the violent revolution we all feel building in the wings.
edit on 27-10-2011 by apacheman because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 12:43 PM
link   
Who are you to say how much someone can work for and make. If i want to work my butt off and make 10 billion bucks i have the right to do so!



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
How do we cap global wealth? Impossible, just calling it now, this, without a doubt, will never happen. I'm sorry, I have the right to make as much money as I want. If I'm not hurting people to do it, no one will tell me how much of it I'm allowed to have. The same goes for the cookies.

This is not something they should be demanding, we should try to keep it realistic.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 12:47 PM
link   
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


No, you don't.

From where do you derive this "right"?



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 12:49 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


Birth. Rights aren't granted, you are born with them.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 12:52 PM
link   
reply to post by GringoViejo
 


Explain why it is impossible.

I happen to know a few forensic auditors who are quite capable of tracking billions in corporate funds and telling you where the money went.

So don't just make a bald assertion of impossibility without providing some facts to back it up.

You folks who assert a "right" to unlimited wealth (which you will never attain, btw) remind me of screaming children: "I wanna, I wanna, you can't make me".

Grow up please, and be responsible citizens.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 12:53 PM
link   
reply to post by GringoViejo
 


So I have a right to enslave you then, if I have the strength to do so?

What of other people's right to a decent life?



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 01:05 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


There are a lot of things wrong with your "demands".

First of all, two out of the three things you are asking for are GLOBAL demands. How exactly are you going to get every country to follow this? Are you advocating a one world government?

Or do you just want America to do this...don't you think that would put us at a huge disadvantage?


But let's go through your requests one by one.


1. We demand responsible behavior. Cap individual global wealth at $1 billion per person, and global corporate market share at 10%.


So what are you going to do with the current multi-billionaires? Are you just going to take their money...who gets it? And since it is "individual"...there are so many work arounds for this it is ridiculous. And is this $1 billion in all assests? Can a single corporation have more than $1 billion in assessts?

And how are you going to enforce this "market share". Right now, Microsoft dominates the market share in operating systems. So if you have your way...who gets to use Microsoft and how doesn't? You are creating a system where innovation and superior products are being punished.

If I really want to use Microsoft...but they just hit their 10% market share cap...am I screwed? Did you just take away my right to be able to pick the products I want to use?

I really don't think you thought this out very well.


2. We demand accountability. Investigate the global financial sector, publish the results, and prosecute lawbreakers.


Who is going to do this investigation and what laws are we going to hold them to?

Is America going to go investigate Chinese bankers? Can the Chinese come investigate American bankers? Can the Chinese apply their own laws to our bankers?

Or are you saying we need a global one world government that rules all countries?


3. We demand control of our own money.


You do this already...you vote intelligently for representatives that you trust will vote the way you want them to. If they don't...vote them out. Simple enough.

I actually don't disagree with this as much as the others...but I realize that it isn't realistic and will never work in the real world. For one, you can't pass laws or create a budget while being blind to where the money is going to fall. You can't create any long term plan if you let people change where they want their money to go whenever they feel like it.



So two out of three of your demands are completely unrealistic and actually very very bad...the third is just very unrealistic.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 01:06 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by GringoViejo
 


Explain why it is impossible.


It is impossible to cap wealth globally. Its a pretty naive thought, actually. If I actually need to explain, well, then the explanation wouldn't do you any good anyways.


I happen to know a few forensic auditors who are quite capable of tracking billions in corporate funds and telling you where the money went.

Good for you. This has nothing to do with my reply


So don't just make a bald assertion of impossibility without providing some facts to back it up.

A wise man once said: "ditto"


You folks who assert a "right" to unlimited wealth (which you will never attain, btw) remind me of screaming children: "I wanna, I wanna, you can't make me".

Well, my wealth certainly isn't limited compared to the average, but its definitely not unlimited. And I'm sorry that you're jealous of other people's wealth, but just because you want it doesn't mean you get it. I worked for my money, I earned it, why should I have to involuntarily share it? You have no right to demand the property of others, to think otherwise is rather childish.


Grow up please, and be responsible citizens.


Would that responsibility include paying my own debts, including my student loans, taxes, and having the common sense to plan for the future?

Or does it include demonizing anyone who isn't financially destitute?




edit on 27-10-2011 by GringoViejo because: (no reason given)

edit on 27-10-2011 by GringoViejo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 01:08 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


No, you don't.

From where do you derive this "right"?


Where do i disserve the right? It is my god given right to work from the sweet of my brow and reep the fruits of my labor. What rights do you have to take that way from me!!!


wow! are you kidding me right now??? your whats wrong with america
edit on 27-10-2011 by camaro68ss because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 01:09 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by GringoViejo
 


So I have a right to enslave you then, if I have the strength to do so?

What of other people's right to a decent life?


Anyone who has at least a basic understanding of the constitution would have never asked that question

13th amendment

But maybe this is why you think that you can cap wealth (globally at that
) and tell people how much money they can have.
edit on 27-10-2011 by GringoViejo because: (no reason given)



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 01:10 PM
link   
if I had 10 billion and had to give up 9 billion for a better world for my kids to live in than so be it...

the cost and use of gas is also killing the economy and quality of life...

our systems should allow people to own or rent electric vehicles for around 150$ per month...

the electric car could be the most important need we have right now...cleaner air=less cancer...less climate change...more money going into the economy... instead of up in toxic smoke...less wars over oil...



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 01:11 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by camaro68ss
 


No, you don't.

From where do you derive this "right"?

Simply enough responded to - from whence do you derive the right to impose limits as such?

Better to leave this at a means of ensuring as much wealth as a person can accumulate is accumulated fairly or otherwise legally, instead of supposing some moral superiority allowing you to dictate what and how much someone else can accumulate.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 01:12 PM
link   

Originally posted by answerisquestion
if I had 10 billion and had to give up 9 billion for a better world for my kids to live in than so be it...

the cost and use of gas is also killing the economy and quality of life...

our systems should allow people to own or rent electric vehicles for around 150$ per month...

the electric car could be the most important need we have right now...cleaner air=less cancer...less climate change...more money going into the economy... instead of up in toxic smoke...less wars over oil...


Thats your right to give your money up, but dont force your views onto others



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 01:15 PM
link   
A plan that sacrifices rights for the "greater good" is not a plan for a better world.

/thread



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 01:35 PM
link   
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


1. Current billionaires should be given four years to voluntarily divest themselves of their excess. They get to choose what wealth they take into retirement with them. The divestiture should be tax-free transfers. Allow them to give up to $200 million to any non-profit, non-violent organization of their choosing, and allow any such organization to receive up to four such gifts. Allow $250 million for a new startup non-profit, and allow it to receive the same four donations. Allow them to give up to $5 million to any individual they choose.

2. The corporate limit, once reached, enables those within (or without) the parent company with the vision, drive, and ambition to have the market space to create new companies to compete with the old. Personally, I'd rather be using AmigaDos, or even the Atari OS, but Microsoft drove them from the marketplace using monopolistic practices for which they were prosecuted successfully in Europe. Do you really want Goldman-Sachs to have a 50% market share? How else can we curb the "too big to fail" syndrome?

3. In the US, it would merely require the Justice Department to stop turning a blind eye to financial fraud and uphold the laws on the books. I'm pretty sure the same applies to most other countries. The financial crisis isn't all that complicated: junk assets were described, rated and sold fraudulently as good investments by people who not only knew better, but cashed in on their failure.

4. 95% of the US was against the bailouts, but our "representatives" ignored us. A person who "represents" more than three or four hundred thousand people is free to do whatever they like. They represent no one but themselves. If the system was responsive, we wouldn't be seeing these protests. I'd much prefer direct control of my tax dollars. If the people choose not to fund certain things, perhaps they feel those things aren't a wise expenditure of their money? Taking control of our tax dollars will stimulate far greater participation in governance by the citizenry.

On the contrary, I have thought this through for many, many years, and most arguments against it are as simple and unthought-through as yours: mostly along the lines of "it's impossible" without ever really thinking through the process of real change in the world.

Until we cap wealth, we will always be at the mercy of wealth-addicted sociopaths whose only desire is for more, more[/], MORE, regardless of the damage they do to others in their insatiable quest.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 01:36 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


Im glad your no where near holding any type of high office.



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 01:46 PM
link   
reply to post by Praetorius
 


I derive the right to set financial limits from the same place we derive the right to be secure in our persons.

From the same place that sets limits on our public behavior, that limits our "right" to drive drunk, or to set fire to our neighbor's house because we're cold.

Your rights stop were they negatively effect other people's lives: you have no "right" to be a multi-billionaire when it means the starvation or diminished lives of others.

Please explain to me why a billion-dollar limit is too onerous to contemplate.

What purpose does it serve the community to allow it?

What is denied to someone by it?

So far No one has ever once answered those two questions with anything other than a juvenile, nay infantile, response of "but I want it".



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 01:49 PM
link   
reply to post by apacheman
 


# 2...is all i agree with you

what we should do is clawback all those taxpayer funds used to make-good the CDS' and other paper that AIG & Leahman had to pay to the likes of Goldman, BoA, ML, JPM and all the others that was some hundreds of Billion$ not including the $150-180 Billion in Bonuses

the EU just yesterday, nullified at least 50% of the CDS paper that their investment banks was owed, specifically on the Greek sovereign debt...
why should we American taxpayers pay the full amount of casino bets, the high roller/ gambler banks had in place?

it was the banks/investors/gamblers risk not the greater populations responsibility... As Europe just determined...albiet only by giving up 50% to the debt holders....which is a lot better deal than the Americans who paid 100% of the banks risks

hooray for Europe for pressing for that 50% haircut



posted on Oct, 27 2011 @ 01:57 PM
link   

Originally posted by apacheman
reply to post by OutKast Searcher
 


1. Current billionaires should be given four years to voluntarily divest themselves of their excess. They get to choose what wealth they take into retirement with them. The divestiture should be tax-free transfers. Allow them to give up to $200 million to any non-profit, non-violent organization of their choosing, and allow any such organization to receive up to four such gifts. Allow $250 million for a new startup non-profit, and allow it to receive the same four donations. Allow them to give up to $5 million to any individual they choose.


You keep using the word "allow." Which is odd, because you have no right to designate how much money people have, or how they use it.



3. In the US, it would merely require the Justice Department to stop turning a blind eye to financial fraud and uphold the laws on the books. I'm pretty sure the same applies to most other countries. The financial crisis isn't all that complicated: junk assets were described, rated and sold fraudulently as good investments by people who not only knew better, but cashed in on their failure.
Yeah, merely
Did it ever occur to you to try and fix our political structure before infringing on everyone's rights? If the representatives don't listen to us, why will the Justice department?


4. 95% of the US was against the bailouts, but our "representatives" ignored us. A person who "represents" more than three or four hundred thousand people is free to do whatever they like. They represent no one but themselves. If the system was responsive, we wouldn't be seeing these protests. I'd much prefer direct control of my tax dollars. If the people choose not to fund certain things, perhaps they feel those things aren't a wise expenditure of their money? Taking control of our tax dollars will stimulate far greater participation in governance by the citizenry.
Cap campaign spending and put term limits in place for congress. You don't even have to use oppressive actions to do it.


On the contrary, I have thought this through for many, many years, and most arguments against it are as simple and unthought-through as yours: mostly along the lines of "it's impossible" without ever really thinking through the process of real change in the world.
I'd say that is up for debate as you obviously didn't include a copy of the constitution as any sort of reference in your many, many years of thought. Maybe that's why your plan is simple, and not all that well thought out.


Until we cap wealth, we will always be at the mercy of wealth-addicted sociopaths whose only desire is for more, more[/], MORE, regardless of the damage they do to others in their insatiable quest.

Well, wealth will never have a cap. Globally or nationally. So, your point is moot.



new topics

top topics



 
4
<<   2  3  4 >>

log in

join