Everyone made fun of them for camping out and making noise, and when they left everyone called their movement a failure, myself included. But now we're looking at the very real possibility of our country electing a self-avowed democratic socialist to the most powerful office in the nation, whose entire campaign revolves around taking power away from the billionaires and giving it back to the working class. Occupy got people's attention, it just took a while to digest. Despite all the mockery and dismissal, they changed the way Americans think. It's been very interesting to watch this unfold.
Any economic system involves:
1) The collective creation of wealth
2) The distribution of that wealth to the individual actors within that collective in specific quantities
You just like the individual players who get awarded the highest percentages of the collectively created wealth by a capitalist system of distribution. And I can't really begrudge you your preference if you are one of the few who can arrive at a condition of legitimate material prosperity through that system.
But make no mistake... Your position has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with self-interest.
Uhh what? I am confused, this makes no sense. We are about to elect Trump, and he is the definition of 1%er. Our current president is a socialist, not even a democrat. Just a socialist. His approval rating is low, and the economy is at an all time low. The occupy movement was a bunch of ignorant lemmings being funded by 1%ers like George Soros, to spread propaganda...
Your post honestly doesn't make sense. What you are describing is the exact opposite of what is happening. Again, right now the leading candidate for PotUS is Donal Trump. He has said that we are going the wrong way, he is the definition of a 1%er, and he is not a politically correct little bitch. He is the exact opposite of what the Occupy movement was about. Yet, the country is rallying. My democratic aunt and uncle that adored Obama are fed up with him, and they sent photos from the Iowa state fair yesterday wearing Trump pins. People are disgusted...NO ONE WITH HALF A BRAIN supported the occupy people. Nothing good came of it, and it had literally no influence.
It was kind of a joke, like people coming out after that guy in Missouri...you can find a video of that "gentle giant" guy beating the hell out of some old guy over nothing. He was a criminal and a thug, and he died for attacking a cop.The same exact people that came out in occupy, were the ignorant, uninformed, racist thugs that ignore the facts and riot in the streets...these criminal thugs make up something to be offended about, and then use it as a justification for them to break the law. Haha it is hilarious, and Soros is rubbing his grubby little paws in glee.
Posts like this reassure me that I do the right thing by abstaining from posting in threads I don't understand.
No, there is only one source of all wealth, individual human intelligence.Any economic system involves:
1) The collective creation of wealth
Only a coercive economic system, not a voluntary one.2) The distribution of that wealth to the individual actors within that collective in specific quantities
No, I don't like people initiating force against peaceful people to steal their property in the name of a false altruism. When in reality the goal is self enrichment at the expense of others.You just like the individual players who get awarded the highest percentages of the collectively created wealth by a capitalist system of distribution. And I can't really begrudge you your preference if you are one of the few who can arrive at a condition of legitimate material prosperity through that system.
The reason you feel the need to minimize the moral argument I'm making, is because it gets to the very heart of all the supposedly "moral" arguments of those who support forced wealth redistribution. If the billionaire is somehow "immoral" or "greedy" for keeping the wealth that he/she accumulated over their lifetime (by invention, sales, production, service, inheritance, gifting, speculating, hedging, and whatever other ways a wealth is accumulated, keep in mind an individual human intelligence was required to be the source of any of the forms of accumulation listed or could be listed), what makes the socialist redistributors and all they pay off with others money, any less greedy when they decide to take and receive the wealth of others?But make no mistake... Your position has nothing to do with morality and everything to do with self-interest.
Our current president is a socialist, not even a democrat. Just a socialist.
The overwhelming majority of Americans are pro establishment.
In reality what you (and every other socialist/statist) actually want is to take some (if not all) of the Billionaires money and give a portion to yourself,...
...while telling yourself your motivations were altruism because you also gave a portion of someone else's money to others
OWS did succeed in bringing the issue of income inequality into the public conscious. People here may be saying that they were failures but even here you see people use the terms 1%/99%. Of course those terms may have been used before but OWS popularized them along with the issue,
And where did that "someone else's" money come from in the first place if not, as is often the case, from the productivity of the workers themselves? Perhaps that "someone" else is siphoning off others' money via the wage system, not too mention massive tax breaks for the wealthy and billions in bailouts for large companies. You don't seem too bothered by that.
yeah it succeeded in making me want nothing to do with that side of the Left.
a bunch of dirty college graduates who picked sociology or race theory as their majors and quickly realized all that crap adds nothing of value to the economy.
all they were left with was sleeping in the bushes, shitting in the corners, and gathering around dumpsters fires at night.
all while regurgitating the lessons of their leftist professors - who had also never held a real job. this is why, no matter what school they went to, they all walk in lock step with the same narrative : 99% v 1%, white privilege, social justice, blah blah blah.
seeing those bums cry and complain provides more motivation than any Anthony Robbins type speaker can give you. i will NEVER end up alongside those hippies
Everyone made fun of them for camping out and making noise, and when they left everyone called their movement a failure, myself included. But now we're looking at the very real possibility of our country electing a self-avowed democratic socialist to the most powerful office in the nation, whose entire campaign revolves around taking power away from the billionaires and giving it back to the working class. Occupy got people's attention, it just took a while to digest. Despite all the mockery and dismissal, they changed the way Americans think. It's been very interesting to watch this unfold.
Teaching is not a real job now, nice.
No, he doesn't, but I will be flabbergasted if when the actual election comes we have anything other than a Hillary vs. Jeb showdown.Trump has a bigger chance of becoming president.
Everyone made fun of them for camping out and making noise, and when they left everyone called their movement a failure, myself included. But now we're looking at the very real possibility of our country electing a self-avowed democratic socialist to the most powerful office in the nation, whose entire campaign revolves around taking power away from the billionaires and giving it back to the working class. Occupy got people's attention, it just took a while to digest. Despite all the mockery and dismissal, they changed the way Americans think. It's been very interesting to watch this unfold.