Dubstepforum.com

For the sake of preserving space i'm gonna refrain as much as I can on the quotes.

Genevieve wrote: All of these supposed regulations only made the economy worse and the currency weaker.

Generalizing regulations together is one of the biggest points of contention I have. It gives the impression all rules are inherently bad, which is simply not true.

Also the "strength" of the dollar is quite a misnomer. Having such a strong dollar is part of the reason we have a trade deficit, because our goods and services are inherently more expensive, and that's a whole other can of worms. From your argument and Hayek reference it's clear you're arguing against inflationary practices. But, in the real world a steady dose of inflation (~3%) is actually very healthy, and indicates a growing economy. Your graph is quite alarmist and misleading, and using chained data across almost 400 years is taking things WAY out of context. The main factor in that spike in prices is unchaining our dollar to gold, which is one of the single biggest factors in our recovery of the great depression, but that's a separate conversation.

On the point again, how can you say it's irrelevant? A few loans going bad aren't supposed to cripple an entire economy. The fact that investment banks could own commercial banks, buy their assets and securitize them to be sold on the market is precisely the reason the bursting bubble had the impact it did, because people would pile on credit just to invest in those securities. It isn't a crisis about home loans, but debt in general, which has only been seen before in the great depression. Had the glass-steagall act (enacted in 1933 to recover us from depression) hadn't been repealed, we would not be talking about this right now and the crisis would've been another small blip on the radar like the tech bubble.

Genevive wrote:Government itself is a failed experiment. Might as well limit it if it has to exist.

Thinking about it so simply is ignoring the substance of what government is. The government is the representative bank and body of the people at large. Maybe you've heard of the Social Contract? There was a time in American history, namely after WW2, that we were indisputably the most industrial and productive country on the planet. Young people went to college almost free of charge, unemployment was simply not a problem, all the technology and machinery being used around the world was invented and built here in the states, and our middle class was the envy of the world. The government wasn't deeply divided into two like it is today. Even if there were points of contention, politicians would "do whatever it takes" to go forward, compromised and actually delivered on its promises.

It may seem all cool and edgy to sit in your chair and say government should just disappear, but the idea is laughable and simply doesn't equate into the real world.

While many of these protestors are ridiculous in so many ways, this is definitely a step in the right direction. Considering the danger, it seems appropriate to disrupt society a bit to bring attention to this. The real danger now, just as it was at the start of the depression, is catastrophic debt deflation, and we've only just started digging that hole. This is private outstanding debt as a percentage of GDP:

Government CAN enact policies to ease the pressure this presents on consumers and more importantly the middle class, who hold the brunt of this debt, and an example was the recovery act (stimulus bill). But it simply was not far reaching or comprehensive enough and will keep us on life support for only so long. We know our congress is willing to take steps in this direction, and movements like occupywallstreet can help change public opinion, putting some amount of pressure on politicians to write the best policy. All you have to do is point out the shift in unemployment trends after the stimulus bill was passed:

To show policies like this CAN work, and while not easy in the slightest, it is politically feasible for our politicians to do this. Basking in unrealistic self-satisfying anarchic thought is not going to help the problem or even move the conversation into the right direction.


TL;DR: The only thing that can solve the problem is government policy, and it's actually quite possible it may be willing to do that, we just have to put the right pressures on it.

AllNightDayDream wrote:
TL;DR: The only thing that can solve the problem is government policy, and it's actually quite possible it may be willing to do that, we just have to put the right pressures on it.

This is where I fundamentally disagree. I think our government is grossly neglectful and is beyond repair. IMO the only way to solve our financial situation is to create an environment where this type of behavior does not facilitate profit.

Our government has shown a profound ability to ignore the American people and still get elected... why exactly would they change their ways? Out of guilt? lolololol

Things like this, however, does not help their cause in the slightest.

pkay wrote:

AllNightDayDream wrote:
TL;DR: The only thing that can solve the problem is government policy, and it's actually quite possible it may be willing to do that, we just have to put the right pressures on it.

This is where I fundamentally disagree. I think our government is grossly neglectful and is beyond repair. IMO the only way to solve our financial situation is to create an environment where this type of behavior does not facilitate profit.

Our government has shown a profound ability to ignore the American people and still get elected... why exactly would they change their ways? Out of guilt? lolololol

The government has already enacted policies going in the right direction, so they've shown themselves fully capable. It's just a matter of sparking national conversation about what has worked and what hasn't, and the coming dangers.

This earth needs more billionaires. If everyone was a billionaire, people would be so chill.

pkay wrote:I think our government is ... beyond repair.

deeeeeep brah.

AllNightDayDream wrote:For the sake of preserving space i'm gonna refrain as much as I can on the quotes.

Genevieve wrote: All of these supposed regulations only made the economy worse and the currency weaker.

Generalizing regulations together is one of the biggest points of contention I have. It gives the impression all rules are inherently bad, which is simply not true.

Who decides what rules are good and which rules are bad? The government? What makes them authorities on this? The same people who made American Idol a toprated tv show decide who gets elected. Something as individual and unpredictable cannot be regulated according to people's needs.

AllNightDayDream wrote:Also the "strength" of the dollar is quite a misnomer. Having such a strong dollar is part of the reason we have a trade deficit, because our goods and services are inherently more expensive, and that's a whole other can of worms. From your argument and Hayek reference it's clear you're arguing against inflationary practices. But, in the real world a steady dose of inflation (~3%) is actually very healthy, and indicates a growing economy. Your graph is quite alarmist and misleading, and using chained data across almost 400 years is taking things WAY out of context. The main factor in that spike in prices is unchaining our dollar to gold, which is one of the single biggest factors in our recovery of the great depression, but that's a separate conversation.

On the point again, how can you say it's irrelevant? A few loans going bad aren't supposed to cripple an entire economy. The fact that investment banks could own commercial banks, buy their assets and securitize them to be sold on the market is precisely the reason the bursting bubble had the impact it did, because people would pile on credit just to invest in those securities. It isn't a crisis about home loans, but debt in general, which has only been seen before in the great depression. Had the glass-steagall act (enacted in 1933 to recover us from depression) hadn't been repealed, we would not be talking about this right now and the crisis would've been another small blip on the radar like the tech bubble.

28 minutes and on.

And they wouldn't be able to invest in those securities if the government didn't regulate the market to the point where people were rewarded for risky behavior?

AllNightDayDream wrote:It may seem all cool and edgy to sit in your chair and say government should just disappear, but the idea is laughable and simply doesn't equate into the real world.

It may make you think like you're more intelligent than me by putting words in my mouth and trying to turn me into a loony idealistic caricture of myself based on things I haven't said. But I already said that we live in a society with a statist mindset, twice, and therefore I don't see it as a realistic, pragmatic or even probably goal. So be respectful and argue against my points, not against a strawman.

AllNightDayDream wrote:While many of these protestors are ridiculous in so many ways, this is definitely a step in the right direction. Considering the danger, it seems appropriate to disrupt society a bit to bring attention to this. The real danger now, just as it was at the start of the depression, is catastrophic debt deflation, and we've only just started digging that hole. This is private outstanding debt as a percentage of GDP:

Government CAN enact policies to ease the pressure this presents on consumers and more importantly the middle class, who hold the brunt of this debt, and an example was the recovery act (stimulus bill). But it simply was not far reaching or comprehensive enough and will keep us on life support for only so long. We know our congress is willing to take steps in this direction, and movements like occupywallstreet can help change public opinion, putting some amount of pressure on politicians to write the best policy. All you have to do is point out the shift in unemployment trends after the stimulus bill was passed:

To show policies like this CAN work, and while not easy in the slightest, it is politically feasible for our politicians to do this. Basking in unrealistic self-satisfying anarchic thought is not going to help the problem or even move the conversation into the right direction.

Because expecting the exact same system that created the problem to fix it clearly is.

Genevieve wrote:
Because expecting the exact same system that created the problem to fix it clearly is.

Exactly

i Dunt get itt?

i have only read 2 posts on the first page of this thread so please feel free to insult me on my stupidity or answer my question

pkay wrote:lol you're expecting the same government that bailed these fucks out to regulate them.... do you not see the flaw in that logic?

I'm not quite sure which bit of "WE WANT THINGS TO CHANGE" you understand. Change includes changing the way government interacts with corporations as much as it does with how corporations interact with the market. The system needs strengthening because abuses are too easy. Arguing against change by insulting the status quo is great for making you feel good and absolutely ridiculous in the context of a constructive discussion - try harder.

Your dope analogy would be a little closer if you'd said crack dealer. A mortgage isn't something you can give up over night... it's your home, having a home is pretty addictive... it's not a luxury you can give up overnight once you commit to it. Selling people bad mortgages whilst in your "Financial Advisor" uniform is an enormous abuse of trust and should be made much more difficult. It's akin to doctors prescribing unnecessary addictive drugs... if the doctor says so, people tend to trust them... and if a "Financial Advisor" says it'll be ok, a lot of people will believe them.

magma wrote:

pkay wrote:lol you're expecting the same government that bailed these fucks out to regulate them.... do you not see the flaw in that logic?

I'm not quite sure which bit of "WE WANT THINGS TO CHANGE" you understand. Change includes changing the way government interacts with corporations as much as it does with how corporations interact with the market. The system needs strengthening because abuses are too easy. Arguing against change by insulting the status quo is great for making you feel good and absolutely ridiculous in the context of a constructive discussion - try harder.

Your dope analogy would be a little closer if you'd said crack dealer. A mortgage isn't something you can give up over night... it's your home, having a home is pretty addictive... it's not a luxury you can give up overnight once you commit to it. Selling people bad mortgages whilst in your "Financial Advisor" uniform is an enormous abuse of trust and should be made much more difficult. It's akin to doctors prescribing unnecessary addictive drugs... if the doctor says so, people tend to trust them... and if a "Financial Advisor" says it'll be ok, a lot of people will believe them.

please re-read. I'm pro change, against the method chosen.

Some people are so shocked that someone opposes them that they ignore the context of their argument because they're used to a stereotypical counterpoint. I'm not arguing against changing wall streets effect. I'm against adjusting outgoing finances in an attempt to keep a flawed market and simply adjust the profit margins.

That is a bandaid for a gunshot wound

magma wrote:

pkay wrote:lol you're expecting the same government that bailed these fucks out to regulate them.... do you not see the flaw in that logic?

I'm not quite sure which bit of "WE WANT THINGS TO CHANGE" you understand. Change includes changing the way government interacts with corporations as much as it does with how corporations interact with the market. The system needs strengthening because abuses are too easy. Arguing against change by insulting the status quo is great for making you feel good and absolutely ridiculous in the context of a constructive discussion - try harder.

Yeah but you're kinda asking a fish to walk on land here.

Genevieve wrote:

magma wrote:

pkay wrote:lol you're expecting the same government that bailed these fucks out to regulate them.... do you not see the flaw in that logic?

I'm not quite sure which bit of "WE WANT THINGS TO CHANGE" you understand. Change includes changing the way government interacts with corporations as much as it does with how corporations interact with the market. The system needs strengthening because abuses are too easy. Arguing against change by insulting the status quo is great for making you feel good and absolutely ridiculous in the context of a constructive discussion - try harder.

Yeah but you're kinda asking a fish to walk on land here.

If you provide the correct environment, I'm sure you could force fish to walk on land. If you force politicians to obey codes and to be transparent in their actions and business dealings, you can clean up politics. It feels like you've written off any chance of politicians and business men acting "clean"... I disagree with that, it's a long road... but that's no reason not to walk it. The government should work for us.. that's their reason for existence, that's why we all innately "buy into" the idea of democracy. We must set the guidelines for how they act on our behalf... democracy can be so much better than it currently is in most of the world.

We're still babies at this type of civilisation... 300 years-ish experience? It's a long curve to forge a society and it never stops evolving... but it's certainly never a hopeless case. We've been forcing our leaders to be better for centuries, I don't see why we'd give up pushing for more now when there's still so much to fight for. Sitting back and saying "Bad people will be bad... prepare yourself and deal with it" just seems a bit... lame in the context of achievements such as civil rights or women's suffrage - the move towards economic fairness (not equality, I'm perfectly happy for people to make themselves rich through entrepreneurial endeavour, it's how we built all this shit!) is just as important.

This is our generation's struggle... it might not be glamorous, but it's ours. Our world will be better for it.

pkay wrote:

magma wrote:

pkay wrote:lol you're expecting the same government that bailed these fucks out to regulate them.... do you not see the flaw in that logic?

I'm not quite sure which bit of "WE WANT THINGS TO CHANGE" you understand. Change includes changing the way government interacts with corporations as much as it does with how corporations interact with the market. The system needs strengthening because abuses are too easy. Arguing against change by insulting the status quo is great for making you feel good and absolutely ridiculous in the context of a constructive discussion - try harder.

Your dope analogy would be a little closer if you'd said crack dealer. A mortgage isn't something you can give up over night... it's your home, having a home is pretty addictive... it's not a luxury you can give up overnight once you commit to it. Selling people bad mortgages whilst in your "Financial Advisor" uniform is an enormous abuse of trust and should be made much more difficult. It's akin to doctors prescribing unnecessary addictive drugs... if the doctor says so, people tend to trust them... and if a "Financial Advisor" says it'll be ok, a lot of people will believe them.

please re-read. I'm pro change, against the method chosen.

Some people are so shocked that someone opposes them that they ignore the context of their argument because they're used to a stereotypical counterpoint. I'm not arguing against changing wall streets effect. I'm against adjusting outgoing finances in an attempt to keep a flawed market and simply adjust the profit margins.

That is a bandaid for a gunshot wound

Tbh, I'm not sure where you've got that being their overriding aim from... they're a pretty disparate group and I imagine individuals getting interviewed believe all sorts of mental shit, there's probably people down there that believe in God or that think Bush knocked down the twin towers, it doesn't really matter... what matters is that they are calling the world's attention to how the financial markets interact with the rest of society. Their protest is to have a mass of people, human beings, people with lives, jobs, pensions, kids, drug habits and credit cards all feeling disgruntled enough to take time out of their lives to sit in front of bankers and express disapproval at the way they conduct themselves. Satre would be proud... in a Godless world man's judge is his fellow man.

I work in the City of London for an investment bank. During the week, there is pretty much nobody in this square mile but people that work in the financial services industry. Everywhere you go, you could tell the most obscene story of greed, corruption and negligence and be rewarded with a round of drinks or, at best, a promotion and a million pound bonus. It's a bubble... they never have to interact with anyone that doesn't agree. That's made a certain "flexible morality" the norm... the City has it's own morality, it's not part of society.

It should be part of society and until it is, it's really not a terrible thing that a few people take time out of their day to force it a little closer.

Individual protesters are generally fairly unimportant, uninteresting and even a little sheep-like. The Protest itself, though, as an expression of public disapproval is very important and should be taken as a cue for at the very least a serious conversation.

Genevieve wrote: Who decides what rules are good and which rules are bad? The government? What makes them authorities on this? The same people who made American Idol a toprated tv show decide who gets elected. Something as individual and unpredictable cannot be regulated according to people's needs.

... This is basically how you approach all the points I make. This is such a dumb comparison i'm not going to bother, since you didn't bother addressing any of my actual points.

Genevieve wrote:

28 minutes and on.

And they wouldn't be able to invest in those securities if the government didn't regulate the market to the point where people were rewarded for risky behavior?

The guy is halfway correct, but allowing investment banks to own commercial ones gave free reign over their assets, and allowed their speculation to inflate prices and create this incentive to destroy lending standards, which set up all the dominos i've probably outlined in this thread a few times now. It confounds me that you'd cite a CPAC for your argument. It was their school of thought that facilitated this whole thing. Yet again you make zero sense in your statement, i'm assuming because you don't understand the stock market. Risk is matched by reward, that's a natural function of the capitalist system and has nothing to do with government regulation.

Genevieve wrote:It may make you think like you're more intelligent than me by putting words in my mouth and trying to turn me into a loony idealistic caricture of myself based on things I haven't said. But I already said that we live in a society with a statist mindset, twice, and therefore I don't see it as a realistic, pragmatic or even probably goal. So be respectful and argue against my points, not against a strawman.

You're gonna quote one sentence I made about your unrealistic opinion only held by teenage RATM fans out of the context of that whole post, and accuse me of strawman?

Statist society? Simply having a government can make you a statist society. How is that even something you can argue against? If having a stable government bothers you so much, burn all of your cash and build a tree house for you to live in, and don't bother calling the police, fire department, or paramedics if you have a serious problem. Your wildly individualistic philosophy will solve all your problems for you.

Genevieve wrote: Because expecting the exact same system that created the problem to fix it clearly is.

you know if you don't know what you're talking about, you shouldn't talk about it. Why even reply if you had zero substance to add for your argument other than some video of a CPAC of all things?

i stand by my feeling this is so fucking stupid
when you have people asked why the protest saying no clue it loses its cause, but it had none to begin with

pkay wrote:

test recordings wrote:

pkay wrote:As long as we demand superficial shit, as long as we ask to live outside our means, someone is going to provide it because there is a dollar to be made.

You already have all the control to stop wall street on the consumer end. The solution already exists.

You might think that people are manipulated in to following false desires and confuse 'wants' with 'needs'... The book 'Affluenza' by Oliver James outlines how it's mostly a problem with the English-speaking world (e.g. including Singapore) due to the ubiquity of marketing and the amount of money going about in the respective economies. Though it is not common to all English-speaking nations, e.g. citizens of New Zealand and Denmark do not have an incessant materialistic drive and have more pro-social values, it is generally the case that the phenomenon is being more frequently observed and to a greater extent where it is present.

Of course we could deal with consumer end but then we would be dealing with the symptom, not the cause, and so we would be wasting a lot of effort.

I think your argument works exactly towards what I'm saying. If were willing to change materialistic we are as a society the stock market would be less influential on our lives. But we don't want to be New Zealand or Denmark. We want to be the USA with the same result as NZ and Denmark which isn't going to happen.

Writing it off as 'not going to happen' will mean it probably won't happen as you're not trying! Ethical advertising regulation would work well... to quote my friend: "Fashion works by making you feel worthless"

Right but we don't want to regulate. We want to be douchebag america with a different result... see insanity

pkay wrote:Right but we don't want to regulate. We want to be douchebag america with a different result... see insanity

You seem to be making a lot of pretty crude assumptions about a massive number of people based on the opinions of a couple of them and then whitewashing the whole movement with your prejudice. The important bits are the things they agree on and the fact that they're causing us to have this conversation at all.

You can't expect a mass protest to have perfect communication - it's made up of thousands of individuals who all have personal agendas and opinions. It's important to not lose the significance of it happening at all though - people are disgruntled enough that an occupation protest has started in Wall St and shows no particular sign of abating - this alone means your country needs to have a conversation with itself.

It definitely doesn't mean that those on the sidelines should be pointing and laughing at people who are motivated enough to try and change their country for the better.... that's just ignorance and wilful unpleasantness. Not the behaviour expected of a person who respects his fellow man. You should always look to engage with protests, even if you don't agree with them - they happen for reasons that almost always need addressing somehow or other (even if it's not in the way that's called for on the placards).

http://www.facebook.com/photo.php?v=10150311478847717

A Rant Worth Listening To.