The Occupy Movement

[Propagate11235]

So, I am American, and I would really like to hear all you PD posters' opinions on this whole Occupy movement that has been going on.

My personal opinion is that, though the cause is righteous, the way they are executing it is completely stupid.

[Adun]

I've only seen protests work when it's on a very large scale, which in this case probably means that the entire 99% have to be on the streets for it to have progress.

[Ali Radicali]

I haven't heard enough about the occupy movement's antics to have a well-informed opinion about them. From what I hear their methods aren't that effective and most people have lost interest, which is a damn shame.

The cause behind the movement is vitally important to the USA: By most measures of societal and/or economic health, the USA is the largest third-world country in the world, and without radical changes in spending and taxation, I don't see how the US could avoid the pending socioeconomic disaster.

[OrNy]

The ''movement'' is dead.People got bored.

[Mazoku]

So, I am American, and I would really like to hear all you PD posters' opinions on this whole Occupy movement that has been going on.

What occupy movement? Im American too but i dont remember hearing or reading about such thing. Maybe it is my english failing?

I've only seen protests work when it's on a very large scale, which in this case probably means that the entire 99% have to be on the streets for it to have progress.

With a couple hundred people you can pretty much hinder a country (or big region) economy pretty badly for a day and get the attention you need.

I have seen people do this hundreds of times already and they get good results most of the time.

[Propagate11235]

Originally Posted by Ali Radicali

I haven't heard enough about the occupy movement's antics to have a well-informed opinion about them. From what I hear their methods aren't that ineffective and most people have lost interest, which is a damn shame.

The cause behind the movement is vitally important to the USA: By most measures of societal and/or economic health, the USA is the largest third-world country in the world, and without radical changes in spending and taxation, I don't see how the US could avoid the pending socioeconomic disaster.

i couldn't agree more to this statement. America is in a depressingly terrible state right now, and I also think that the only thing that will truly change it all is a straight up revolution.

[Mazoku]

America is in a depressingly terrible state right now

It pretty much has always always been that way.

and I also think that the only thing that will truly change it all is a straight up revolution.

America is much better than "yesterdady" but much worse than "tomorrow". You must be focusing to much on the future to realize america is not even close to beeing in bad shape if you look at the past.

[InvokerofTime]

Originally Posted by Mazoku

It pretty much has always always been that way.
America is much better than "yesterday" but much worse than "tomorrow". You must be focusing to much on the future to realize America is not even close to beeing in bad shape if you look at the past.

I would argue that the rise of China is making the world a worse place in the long term, but i would agree that American (I am not american btw) standards of living will probably continue to rise. That is after food shortages (but most of american food prices are labor and transport costs), fuel (US shale gas reserves), global warming, and finally helium shortages (this one is a real problem :P)

But occupy might have a point, i dont pay ANY attention to inequality, it is too subjective, but they have a point that it is too hard to come from a poor family and be rich. But all their chosen methods seem to be stupid, ie the Tobin tax, which has been tried by Sweden and disregarded. I don't know about the american branch, but the UK part seems to have managed to be branded hippies, don't know how much truth there is to this. But they did manage to bring their demands into the public debate, so I suppose they did achieve their objective.

The main difference between them and the tea party (fairly equivalent movement, albeit at the other end of the scale), is that they stayed political, and thus got hold of real power. The extreme Left's general distrust of the political system prevents them from getting any real power (take not Propagate11235). Or at least reduces their political power gained per supporter. Compared to the right, who view the government as too big, but generally a benign institution.

[Mazoku]

That is after food shortages (but most of american food prices are labor and transport costs), fuel (US shale gas reserves), global warming, and finally helium shortages (this one is a real problem :P)

America isnt short on food production and most certainly will not run low on fuel (brazil).

[InvokerofTime]

Originally Posted by Mazoku

America isnt short on food production and most certainly will not run low on fuel (brazil).

No but the growing global population, means that food production cannot keep up it's called the Malthusian Trap.

N.B. America is part of the World (I hope)

[Mazoku]

No but the growing global population, means that food production cannot keep up it's called the Malthusian Trap.

In countries with little population it is in fact quite the oposite due to sinergy and specialisation. You are talking about a saturated country with overpopulation in wich each aditional individual hardly increases the food production due to land beeing limited.

However, in america we do not have that problem in fact i expecto quite the oposite. I expect food prices to rise internationaly and food prouduction to rise tremendously on America.
As you can see overpopulation isnt a real problem in America (population distribution might be though) and what you mentioned is in fact a good thing for them.

[InvokerofTime]

Originally Posted by Mazoku

In countries with little population it is in fact quite the oposite due to sinergy and specialisation. You are talking about a saturated country with overpopulation in wich each aditional individual hardly increases the food production due to land beeing limited.

However, in america we do not have that problem in fact i expecto quite the oposite. I expect food prices to rise internationaly and food prouduction to rise tremendously on America.

You do realise that the world is connected, and while it is true, that the US is responsible for 1/2 the world's grain exports, it is NOT the case that the US can be isolated from the worlds food markets (thank you globalisation), as if there is a shortage in say China, then they will be willing to buy more food, at a higher price, raising world wheat prices. It is also true that most of Americas farmers are heavily subsidised, which will be hurt by the current public sector financial trouble.

tbh i doubt food security will be a big problem, as prices rise, farmers decide to plant more crops, BUT it is a fact of life that prices WILL rise bar some senator passing export quotas or something similar, which would likely be ineffective.

[Mazoku]

You do realise that the world is connected, and while it is true, that the US is responsible for 1/2 the world's grain exports, it is NOT the case that the US can be isolated from the worlds food markets (thank you globalisation), as if there is a shortage in say China, then they will be willing to buy more food, at a higher price, raising world wheat prices. It is also true that most of Americas farmers are heavily subsidised, which will be hurt by the current public sector financial trouble.

I was talking about America, not USA. You seem to think that a rise in the price of grains (for example) on a country whos exportations are 90% based on grains will be a bad thing for that country wich makes absolutely no sense.

[InvokerofTime]

Originally Posted by Mazoku

I was talking about America, not USA. You seem to think that a rise in the price of grains (for example) on a country whos exportations are 90% based on grains will be a bad thing for that country wich makes absolutely no sense.

I am not saying that the rise in the price of wheat would be bad for america, I am merely saying that the price would rise for consumers (and for farmers who would be happy), but i would point out that competition for fertiliser (and other things) would go up. If you don't believe me, think like a farmer, would you rather sell your grain to the middle east for $400,000 or to america for $300,000. This 'diverts' some grain from America to other countries.

I should also like to point out, as i said in a previous post, that rising costs of raw food, do not make up most of the retail price of food in America, therefore its impact will be limited (apart from meat). In south america, price rises are very important, look at the political complaints over when corn made wraps too expensive for the poor as food costs make up a small expense in less developed countries (wraps are to mexico what burgers are to americans but healthier) http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2008/0..._n_105415.html

n.b. I did not say that grains made up 90% of Americas exports.

[Mazoku]

I am not saying that the rise in the price of wheat would be bad for america, I am merely saying that the price would rise for consumers (and for farmers who would be happy), but i would point out that competition for fertiliser (and other things) would go up. If you don't believe me, think like a farmer, would you rather sell your grain to the middle east for $400,000 or to america for $300,000. This 'diverts' some grain from America to other countries.

Actualy it greately depends on many factors and there are plenty examples in wich the raise on international prices might make local sustitutes price go down. Price of the meat is quite a good example of that in my country as there are plenty parts from the cow you cant sell abroad.
However, the goverment can always chose to absorb that raise by giving an subsid for internal consumers. A raise in this case would mean internal prices will remain the same and the higher amount sold abroad will not only compensate this money spent by the goverment but suprass it.

n.b. I did not say that grains made up 90% of Americas exports.

No, just a random number i throw in to make it clear that if you export a high amount of things, a raise in their price will benefit you.

[InvokerofTime]

Originally Posted by Mazoku

Actually it greatly depends on many factors and there are plenty examples in which the raise on international prices might make local substitutes price go down. Price of the meat is quite a good example of that in my country as there are plenty parts from the cow you cant sell abroad.
However, the government can always chose to absorb that raise by giving an subsidy for internal consumers. A raise in this case would mean internal prices will remain the same and the higher amount sold abroad will not only compensate this money spent by the government but surpass it.

Your meat example is a valid one, however i disagree with you on your example. As a general rule, the more something is demanded, the higher the price. The only exception to this rule (usually) is with government intervention, e.g. the banning of the import of certain parts of a cow. However, people from 'your country', will therefore likely buy more of this meat, and push the price up again. What you have to remember, is while there are local exceptions, staples (wheat, rice, corn etc) are pretty much the same the world over (homogenous), they are also generally cheaper, and therefore the poor buy more of them, meaning their rising price has a disproportionate effect, again the 99% vs 1%. ie plants (cheaper) do not really change in quality (i know organic but its a niche market), so it is easy to export.

It is also probably worth noting that if wheat prices rise too much, the USA will ban food exports, to make the internal price lower, which will drive the price higher everywhere elsehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7323713.stm. This has happened before with rice and India, i found this really interesting http://castroller.com/Podcasts/TheEc...lained/2672606

nb farming subsidies in the long run are unsustainable financially

[Mazoku]

Your meat example is a valid one, however i disagree with you on your example. As a general rule, the more something is demanded, the higher the price. The only exception to this rule (usually) is with government intervention, e.g. the banning of the import of certain parts of a cow. However, people from 'your country', will therefore likely buy more of this meat, and push the price up again.

Lets take my example again. You kill a cow and you get A+B to sell. A cant be sold abroad only B can.
Price of B goes up (international price of meat rises), ppl that raise cows will be whiling to raise and kill more cows. Now you have 2xA+2xB. 2xA cant be sold abroad, so now you got B prices raising international (and localy) but the sustitute A price going down.

On countries that have high cow meat exportation this will cause A price to touch rock bottom if the price of B climes up.

What you have to remember, is while there are local exceptions, staples (wheat, rice, corn etc) are pretty much the same the world over (homogenous), they are also generally cheaper, and therefore the poor buy more of them, meaning their rising price has a disproportionate effect, again the 99% vs 1%. ie plants (cheaper) do not really change in quality (i know organic but its a niche market), so it is easy to export.

Yet if Exportations of that product > Local consumtion then you will get to tax it and you can neutralize the efect and even end up with spare cash.

Example:

1)A country sells 400$ of product C abroad and consumes 400$ of product C.
2) Price of C goes up to 800$.
3)The country decides to tax exportation of product C by 400$ and use it to subside local consume.
4) The avarage person will buy 800$ of product C (and get 400$ via subsides) and the person that export product C will sell it for 800$ (paying 400 Tax). Production will remain constant.

OFC this isnt a neutral efect as it causes the country to have superhabit wich is desirable on some scenarios (as 800$ will enter the country instead of 400$).

If you move that bar away from 50% consume 50% exportation to something like 30% consume and 70% exportation (wich seems reasonable for a country to be better at something) not only the goverment has enough $ to pay subsides but he can even get some extra income or decide not to absorb the hole rise of price to increase the profit of the productor.

As you can see, as long as exportations>Consume it apears that the efect is always positive. In the scenario where Exportation=Consume it will be a good thing as long as the country requires a to have a superhabit.

It is also probably worth noting that if wheat prices rise too much, the USA will ban food exports, to make the internal price lower, which will drive the price higher everywhere elsehttp://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/7323713.stm. This has happened before with rice and India, i found this really interesting

Actualy that happened in my country not even 5 years ago (and still happens so you can see the evolution), and the efect is was the complete oposite because meat is not like rice.

There are plenty parts from a cow that you cant sell abroad and you sell in the local markets. If you shut down the exportation the production simply falls apart.

However i cant be sure about the case of USA because im not realy aware of their tastes in meat. I saw a pice of meat that here is worth no less than 15 bucks beeing sold there for just 1 buck (even better quality) on a supermarket. I was surprised to see they do not buy that tasty part wich OFC you canot export because it rots in less than a week even in a refrigerator.

[InvokerofTime]

1. America, will never be able to tax farmers poltically
2. The vast majority of food consumed in the world is vegetables, which are homogenous, so that cow example does not apply. I know it works, but it is quite small part of global markets
3. export tariffs are banned by the WTO
4. which country are you from? (interested in the example)

[CynthiaCrescent]

Originally Posted by InvokerofTime

1. America, will never be able to tax farmers poltically
2. The vast majority of food consumed in the world is vegetables, which are homogenous, so that cow example does not apply. I know it works, but it is quite small part of global markets
3. export tariffs are banned by the WTO
4. which country are you from? (interested in the example)

I'm pretty sure he said he's from the US

[Banned]

China buys arable land from places like australia and africa farm there and export the shit back to them.

Many americans complain about the high cost of raw food ever wondered why?

Tax subsidized farms paid for by tax payers have their produce bought by fast food corporations wholesale and cheaper and sell it back to consumers with all the preservative goodness in it.

Then anything that remains are exported

Then anything that remains after that are sold locally at inflated prices, I mean dem oranges are rare after going through that process.


On topic.

Some kids screaming equality(socialism), which they couldn't find in a place filled with equal opportunities.

But still seeing these white entitled kids with their iphones and beats by dre headsets protesting is just a shameful display, ask them to share everything they have and watch and be amused by their ramble.

EDIT
Absolutely hilarious
HAHAHAHAHA