8 ms·

Occupy George

153 points by mccooscoos 15y ago

c4urself 15y ago
Very innovative idea. There is probably a law against writing/printing on money in the U.S., though.
- furyg3 15y ago
  It's sad to think that the organizers of this will probably be arrested for "conspiracy to deface government property" or something. Or, since they're also advancing a political message of 'fear', maybe it will be terrorism?
  - maximusprime 15y ago
    The correct course of action for them, is to put up candidates to be elected into office. That's what a democracy is about. You don't get anywhere by whining and moaning on the streets that life isn't fair. You certainly don't get taken seriously by anyone.
    - ErrantX 15y ago
      Or in a slightly more cynical way (as one of my favourite bloggers commented): > If you hold a protest and you aren't throwing rocks it will fail.
    - nknight 15y ago
      A long time ago, some crackpots thought protests were worth protecting. Can't remember who they were, must not have had much impact... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
      - maximusprime 15y ago
        heh "A long time ago" doesn't really exist in America.
  - arcdrag 15y ago
    >Or, since they're also advancing a political message of 'fear', maybe it will be terrorism? I think you're really reaching there. Things are bad, but lets not kid ourselves from pretending that things are that bad. If we mindfuck ourselves into believing that the government wants to label everyone that disagrees as a terrorist, are we really any better than those that believe Obama is a Kenyan born muslim whose sole purpose in life is to invoke Sharia law on the US?
- techsupporter 15y ago
  It seems to require "intent" to run afoul of the defacing statutes, and that you did it to prevent the bill from being reissued: http://www.moneyfactory.gov/historicallegislation.html http://www.moneyfactory.gov/historicallegislation.html
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- srl 15y ago
  _There is probably a law against writing/printing on money in the U.S., though._ There is, mostly. It's illegal to "mutilate" money. A reasonable interpretation could include these infographics, especially if they're not removable. On the other hand, playing the first amendment card isn't even a stretch on this one. So really, it depends more on the creativity of the lawyers (and the political leanings of the judge) than anything else.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
forensic 15y ago
Great hack
iwwr 15y ago
The 1% are hardly representative of the true 'ruling elite'. This group is probably around a few hundred people, no more than a few thousand. Wall Street is also not the center of power, but rather Washington DC and the Federal Reserve.
- sambeau 15y ago
  To quote a recent trader: "Governments don't rule the world; Goldman Sachs rules the world" If you need any more explanation, ponder this question: Who is the national debt owed to? Hint: it's not China
  - maigret 15y ago
    A trader? This guy was proved to be a joke. http://www.businessinsider.com/turns-out-the-trader-who-scared-the-bejeezus-out-of-bbc-viewers-was-just-some-guy-living-in-his-girlfriends-house-2011-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/turns-out-the-trader-who-scar...
    - sambeau 15y ago
      Clearly he wasn't much of a trader. I did read another article where they interviews other traders about what he had said. While they disagreed with some of his other points they were in general agreement about that one.
      - kokey 15y ago
        Goldman Sachs is expected to report a loss at the next results, seems like ruling the world doesn't guarantee profits ;-) It's true that day traders don't care if the market is going up or down, just like many specialists focusing on their domain doesn't care that much about the industry that employs them. Some people make money on volatility (day traders), but a lot of others make their money on trading on certainty (pension funds). Some people have a vested interest in seeing certain markets crash, e.g. if your industry struggles because of materials are getting expensive because of high demand from the building industry.
muon 15y ago
"Votes for Women" movement in 1903 used to deface the penny to spread the word. Suffragette-defaced penny : http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/objects/iVUVhaKVREWjsHrr9IoOOA http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/objects/iVUVhaKVREWj...
Shenglong 15y ago
Can someone brief me on what Occupy Wall Street is trying to do? I can't quite figure it out. If they're mad about being unemployed, marching sure isn't going to fix their situation. If they're mad about government corruption, what exactly would they like done? If they're mad about the economy in general, isn't Wall Street the worst place to be protesting? I feel like the traders on Wall Street would be the first people to want an economic bounce back. Do they just hate rich people? Hmm. I've held back on criticizing this movement, but after all this time, I still can't figure out exactly what they want. It's seeming more and more to me, as just a way to waste peoples' times, and our tax dollars.
- jQueryIsAwesome 15y ago
  They are sick about low taxes for the rich and the inequitable distribution of wealth... But being honest there is nothing they can do about those two.
- bartwe 15y ago
  I would guess they are searching for a more egalitarian society, looking at the specific images they but on the bills.
- gaurav_v 15y ago
  I agree that the movement lacks a coherent message. That being said, one of the large issues in play is that people feel slighted by rising income inequality, which they perceive to have arisen out of a sort of government-industry feedback loop. Certainly this is what the printed dollar bills seem to be about. With regard to your comments about the utility of the protest: I don't think it's a waste in any regard. If you feel something about government (in this country), you have several options: wait for an election and vote, write to your congresspeople, protest, etc. I agree that it's frustratingly difficult to figure out what the movement wants, but (even unaligned) protest is a perfectly legitimate way to express (even general) displeasure with your (perhaps even falsely perceived) current government.
  - Shenglong 15y ago
    Shouldn't you have a viable alternative solution in mind, when you express displeasure? I can understand that they're angry - I just can't understand how they want the government to fix it.
marcamillion 15y ago
The design of the site is awesome...but seriously, this anti-capitalism/populist nonsense is getting ridiculous.
LetBinding 15y ago
They are protesting the casino economy.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
acoster 15y ago
This is more an annoyance to the 99% that gets such bills (many places don't accept defaced banknotes).
- ars 15y ago
  The bill will not be accepted by anyone, so the only one who will see it is the person who printed it. They could deposit it in a bank, but the bank will just send it to the Fed to be destroyed and replaced. (They have automated scanners that look for dirty, worn out, or defaced bills.) So this is pointless if they want these notes to actually circulate - all they are doing is wasting money used to reprint the notes.
  - sixtofour 15y ago
    I used to see decorated bills fairly regularly, back when I mostly used cash. I was never aware of them not being accepted; it never bothered me. One of my favorites, on a $1 bill: "Taxes are revolting; why aren't you?"
  - odge 15y ago
    It's already leading to discussions all over the internet. It's obviously a successful stunt.
  - wahnfrieden 15y ago
    I've been given and have consequently used many defaced bills over recent years. You haven't seen all those bills stamped with things like that bill tracking website, or just random notes scribbled in with pen? If there are rules against accepting these, they're not followed by businesses I've dealt with.
hkmurakami 15y ago
This is alarming to me, because this particular act is appears to be pure sensationalism to me. It also takes the numbers grossly out of context. When I saw the "Richest 400 vs Bottom 150,000,000" 50/50 split on one of the bills, my immediate thought was the following: __Do these people consider how many jobs these top 400 people created over the last decades, and how much better off the world is because they existed?__ Yes, the US tax structure is flawed. Yes, there are some truly corrupt things going on. But depicting the situation as a "me vs you" situation rather than presenting the situation as a structural issue seems very alarming to me. I know I'm sounding like a lot of random Republican talking heads when criticizing the "class divide" issue of this movement, but why on earth would you classify a man like Bill Gates, who created tens of thousands of jobs for this economy and continues to do great deeds for humanity through his foundation, along with the truly corrupt? Generalizations are dangerous, and I'm concerned.
- sixtofour 15y ago
  How many jobs do those 400 create? Who are they, actually? Are they generally captains of industry, steering the ship of employment? Or are they generally trustafarians, doing whatever?
  - robryan 15y ago
    Also would be interesting to know their hiring practices, are they paying the least they can get away with and no job security or are they creating sustainable jobs?
  - georgemcbay 15y ago
    "How many jobs do those 400 create?" As few as possible... the shareholders demand it!
- nknight 15y ago
  Let's assume for a moment that the richest 400 people in the US "create jobs" in some reasonable proportion to their personal wealth. Let's also assume that all of them disappeared tomorrow. Do you believe that half the jobs in the US would go away? Let's assume none of them were ever born. Do you believe the US would have half the jobs it does today? I hope you can see what I'm getting at. That aside, take a look at who the 400 are: http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/ http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/ Just go down the list. Google them and their companies. Take a look at how many people they actually employ. Some of them you might argue made significant contributions to the creation of entire industries, but many are just investors. Hedge fund managers. Bankers. OWS isn't pissed about Bill Gates or Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos or Michael Dell. They're not looking at the guys who started value-creating businesses and contributed directly to their success. That's not who this is about, and it never has been.
scottjad 15y ago
"The richest 1% of Americans control over 1/3 of the wealth, leaving the bottom 80% with less than 1/5." This suffers from the pie fallacy covered in http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html Also if you look at http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html table 3 you'll see that the distribution of wealth between 1% and 99% in 2007 (which I assume is pretty much the same today) was essentially identical to that of 2001, 1989, 1965, 1939 and 1922.
- jamieb 15y ago
  If by the pie fallacy you mean that people are forgetting that the 2011 pie now represents a much greater total number of dollars than the 1920 pie, then I must point out that the simple economic fact that if we just multiplied everyone's bank balance by 1000, nobody would be better off, even though they now had 1000 times as many dollars. And while it is true that a 1920's person could not buy an iPad, this is of scant comfort to a homeless family in 2011.
  - scottjad 15y ago
    Your characterization of the pie fallacy is wrong. pg: "I can remember believing, as a child, that if a few rich people had all the money, it left less for everyone else. Many people seem to continue to believe something like this well into adulthood. This fallacy is usually there in the background when you hear someone talking about how x percent of the population have y percent of the wealth. If you plan to start a startup, then whether you realize it or not, you're planning to disprove the Pie Fallacy."
    - jamieb 15y ago
      Ah, ok. So "Its possible to create wealth without taking wealth from others". Unfortunately, although it is possible to do so without taking it from others, taking it from others is still a viable way to do it. Further, its also possible to destroy wealth. And its possible for the destruction of wealth to be asymmetrical. So is the current financial state an example of wealth creation, wealth transfer, or wealth destruction? I'm looking at the national debt, the median house price, and the DJIA and I'm not seeing "wealth creation". What leads you choose "pie fallacy" as your answer?
ppereira 15y ago
There is a lot of interesting research on wealth inequality in the US and around the world. For those interested in looking at data, I suggest the following as a starting point: A historical database of top incomes in several countries: http://184.168.89.58/sketch/ http://184.168.89.58/sketch/ A nice theoretical starting point on taxation and inequality: http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0002374 http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0002374 Note that the term used to express trade in the first section of the paper could also be used to model progressive/negative tax rates. Plots of the income going to the top 0.1% above a plot of the US top marginal tax rate (a proxy for the progressivity of the tax scheme): http://visualecon.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/percent_income_top_0_1.gif http://visualecon.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads... The top 5-10% of incomes tend to follow a pareto distribution which has a very fat tail. If the share owned by the top 0.01% increases, so will the share of the top 0.1% and the top 1%. Conversely, the share of the bottom 90% will decrease. In comparison to the 1970s, the take home pay of the bottom 90% is probably 30% lower just because of these distributional effects, while the relative income of the top 0.1% has increased 5 or 6 times. The next time you see an exorbitantly high CEO salary, it might be worth wondering how it affects you. Likely, many readers here are in the top 95-99% for whom the effect is somewhat neutral. Some argue that inequality is good for growth, and that a rising tide raises all boats, etc. But the literature regarding the correlation between GINI coefficients and long-term growth is weak and not conclusive. When I looked at the data from the income database cited above, I could see little correlation for developed and undeveloped countries. I seem to remember reading an MIT thesis to the same effect. Perfect redistribution and equality would obviously eliminate economic incentives for growth. Near-perfect inequality, might have the same result. The very small fraction of the population in which wealth has condensed would be economically motivated, but the rest of the population that is living on the welfare state (e.g. welfare, minimum wage + EITC) would have a reduced incentive to earn more. A detailed analysis of the EITC is interesting, but peripheral to my point. Furthermore, when inequality varies like a power law, it is easy to see that a rising tide with reduced Pareto coefficient (increased inequality) could lead to a worse outcome for the majority. The obvious way to address inequality is through progressive or redistributive taxation. The theoretical paper linked above shows how increasing progressivity reduces inequality, but this result is also intuitive. With a 100% redistributive tax, one would have perfect equality. Increasing income tax progressivity alters financial incentives and creates incentives for small business and corporations that target the (more affluent) majority. By contrast, flat or regressive taxes alter the economics to favour larger customers. There is a related but much more complex story for international taxation. When corporations accumulate their income in corporate tax havens and then repatriate that income during a "tax holiday", the result is a highly regressive tax system. Many argue about addressing inequality through "job creation" and "big government projects". I don't have a story related to this, but the Canadian data I have looked at makes me a little suspicious. I guess when you inject funds at a single point in the economy (e.g. corporation) and then allow it to trickle down to employees, portions of those funds would be funnelled off at every level of the corporation and the net result may be an increase in inequality. However, if that corporation is performing a valuable social service to the public, then that may mitigate the inequality. I guess my main point is that the story of income inequality is a complex one that is closely related to taxation. As such, it is a policy choice of the government and the people who elect them. If the "99%" feel that they are not satisfied with the deal that has been struck, then they can voice their opinion in the hope that the government will alter that deal.
thevinnie 15y ago
When I tried to access the site at work (we use Postini for our web filtering), I got the message below. What I found most interesting was the category the site was blocked under. Access Denied The web resource http://occupygeorge.com/ http://occupygeorge.com/ has been deemed by your administrator to be unsafe or unsuitable for you to access. The resource has been blocked. No further action is required. Reason: The category of Hate Speech has been blocked by your System Administrator
dizidoro 15y ago
the problem is mainstream-corporate media is not showing the demands, for those who say the movement has no clear demands, i recommend watching Young Turks : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCiAG7LF7Q4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCiAG7LF7Q4 and Democracy now! :http://www.democracynow.org/ http://www.democracynow.org/

Occupy George

153 points by mccooscoos 15y ago

c4urself 15y ago

Very innovative idea. There is probably a law against writing/printing on money in the U.S., though.

furyg3 15y ago
It's sad to think that the organizers of this will probably be arrested for "conspiracy to deface government property" or something. Or, since they're also advancing a political message of 'fear', maybe it will be terrorism?
- maximusprime 15y ago
  The correct course of action for them, is to put up candidates to be elected into office. That's what a democracy is about. You don't get anywhere by whining and moaning on the streets that life isn't fair. You certainly don't get taken seriously by anyone.
  - ErrantX 15y ago
    Or in a slightly more cynical way (as one of my favourite bloggers commented): > If you hold a protest and you aren't throwing rocks it will fail.
  - nknight 15y ago
    A long time ago, some crackpots thought protests were worth protecting. Can't remember who they were, must not have had much impact... Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
    - maximusprime 15y ago
      heh "A long time ago" doesn't really exist in America.
- arcdrag 15y ago
  >Or, since they're also advancing a political message of 'fear', maybe it will be terrorism? I think you're really reaching there. Things are bad, but lets not kid ourselves from pretending that things are that bad. If we mindfuck ourselves into believing that the government wants to label everyone that disagrees as a terrorist, are we really any better than those that believe Obama is a Kenyan born muslim whose sole purpose in life is to invoke Sharia law on the US?
techsupporter 15y ago
It seems to require "intent" to run afoul of the defacing statutes, and that you did it to prevent the bill from being reissued: http://www.moneyfactory.gov/historicallegislation.html http://www.moneyfactory.gov/historicallegislation.html
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
srl 15y ago
_There is probably a law against writing/printing on money in the U.S., though._ There is, mostly. It's illegal to "mutilate" money. A reasonable interpretation could include these infographics, especially if they're not removable. On the other hand, playing the first amendment card isn't even a stretch on this one. So really, it depends more on the creativity of the lawyers (and the political leanings of the judge) than anything else.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

forensic 15y ago

Great hack

iwwr 15y ago

The 1% are hardly representative of the true 'ruling elite'. This group is probably around a few hundred people, no more than a few thousand. Wall Street is also not the center of power, but rather Washington DC and the Federal Reserve.

sambeau 15y ago
To quote a recent trader: "Governments don't rule the world; Goldman Sachs rules the world" If you need any more explanation, ponder this question: Who is the national debt owed to? Hint: it's not China
- maigret 15y ago
  A trader? This guy was proved to be a joke. http://www.businessinsider.com/turns-out-the-trader-who-scared-the-bejeezus-out-of-bbc-viewers-was-just-some-guy-living-in-his-girlfriends-house-2011-9 http://www.businessinsider.com/turns-out-the-trader-who-scar...
  - sambeau 15y ago
    Clearly he wasn't much of a trader. I did read another article where they interviews other traders about what he had said. While they disagreed with some of his other points they were in general agreement about that one.
    - kokey 15y ago
      Goldman Sachs is expected to report a loss at the next results, seems like ruling the world doesn't guarantee profits ;-) It's true that day traders don't care if the market is going up or down, just like many specialists focusing on their domain doesn't care that much about the industry that employs them. Some people make money on volatility (day traders), but a lot of others make their money on trading on certainty (pension funds). Some people have a vested interest in seeing certain markets crash, e.g. if your industry struggles because of materials are getting expensive because of high demand from the building industry.

muon 15y ago

"Votes for Women" movement in 1903 used to deface the penny to spread the word. Suffragette-defaced penny : http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/objects/iVUVhaKVREWjsHrr9IoOOA http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/objects/iVUVhaKVREWj...

Shenglong 15y ago

Can someone brief me on what Occupy Wall Street is trying to do? I can't quite figure it out. If they're mad about being unemployed, marching sure isn't going to fix their situation. If they're mad about government corruption, what exactly would they like done? If they're mad about the economy in general, isn't Wall Street the worst place to be protesting? I feel like the traders on Wall Street would be the first people to want an economic bounce back. Do they just hate rich people? Hmm. I've held back on criticizing this movement, but after all this time, I still can't figure out exactly what they want. It's seeming more and more to me, as just a way to waste peoples' times, and our tax dollars.

jQueryIsAwesome 15y ago
They are sick about low taxes for the rich and the inequitable distribution of wealth... But being honest there is nothing they can do about those two.
bartwe 15y ago
I would guess they are searching for a more egalitarian society, looking at the specific images they but on the bills.
gaurav_v 15y ago
I agree that the movement lacks a coherent message. That being said, one of the large issues in play is that people feel slighted by rising income inequality, which they perceive to have arisen out of a sort of government-industry feedback loop. Certainly this is what the printed dollar bills seem to be about. With regard to your comments about the utility of the protest: I don't think it's a waste in any regard. If you feel something about government (in this country), you have several options: wait for an election and vote, write to your congresspeople, protest, etc. I agree that it's frustratingly difficult to figure out what the movement wants, but (even unaligned) protest is a perfectly legitimate way to express (even general) displeasure with your (perhaps even falsely perceived) current government.
- Shenglong 15y ago
  Shouldn't you have a viable alternative solution in mind, when you express displeasure? I can understand that they're angry - I just can't understand how they want the government to fix it.

marcamillion 15y ago

The design of the site is awesome...but seriously, this anti-capitalism/populist nonsense is getting ridiculous.

LetBinding 15y ago

They are protesting the casino economy.

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]

acoster 15y ago

This is more an annoyance to the 99% that gets such bills (many places don't accept defaced banknotes).

ars 15y ago
The bill will not be accepted by anyone, so the only one who will see it is the person who printed it. They could deposit it in a bank, but the bank will just send it to the Fed to be destroyed and replaced. (They have automated scanners that look for dirty, worn out, or defaced bills.) So this is pointless if they want these notes to actually circulate - all they are doing is wasting money used to reprint the notes.
- sixtofour 15y ago
  I used to see decorated bills fairly regularly, back when I mostly used cash. I was never aware of them not being accepted; it never bothered me. One of my favorites, on a $1 bill: "Taxes are revolting; why aren't you?"
- odge 15y ago
  It's already leading to discussions all over the internet. It's obviously a successful stunt.
- wahnfrieden 15y ago
  I've been given and have consequently used many defaced bills over recent years. You haven't seen all those bills stamped with things like that bill tracking website, or just random notes scribbled in with pen? If there are rules against accepting these, they're not followed by businesses I've dealt with.

hkmurakami 15y ago

This is alarming to me, because this particular act is appears to be pure sensationalism to me. It also takes the numbers grossly out of context. When I saw the "Richest 400 vs Bottom 150,000,000" 50/50 split on one of the bills, my immediate thought was the following: __Do these people consider how many jobs these top 400 people created over the last decades, and how much better off the world is because they existed?__ Yes, the US tax structure is flawed. Yes, there are some truly corrupt things going on. But depicting the situation as a "me vs you" situation rather than presenting the situation as a structural issue seems very alarming to me. I know I'm sounding like a lot of random Republican talking heads when criticizing the "class divide" issue of this movement, but why on earth would you classify a man like Bill Gates, who created tens of thousands of jobs for this economy and continues to do great deeds for humanity through his foundation, along with the truly corrupt? Generalizations are dangerous, and I'm concerned.

sixtofour 15y ago
How many jobs do those 400 create? Who are they, actually? Are they generally captains of industry, steering the ship of employment? Or are they generally trustafarians, doing whatever?
- robryan 15y ago
  Also would be interesting to know their hiring practices, are they paying the least they can get away with and no job security or are they creating sustainable jobs?
- georgemcbay 15y ago
  "How many jobs do those 400 create?" As few as possible... the shareholders demand it!
nknight 15y ago
Let's assume for a moment that the richest 400 people in the US "create jobs" in some reasonable proportion to their personal wealth. Let's also assume that all of them disappeared tomorrow. Do you believe that half the jobs in the US would go away? Let's assume none of them were ever born. Do you believe the US would have half the jobs it does today? I hope you can see what I'm getting at. That aside, take a look at who the 400 are: http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/ http://www.forbes.com/forbes-400/ Just go down the list. Google them and their companies. Take a look at how many people they actually employ. Some of them you might argue made significant contributions to the creation of entire industries, but many are just investors. Hedge fund managers. Bankers. OWS isn't pissed about Bill Gates or Larry Ellison, Jeff Bezos or Michael Dell. They're not looking at the guys who started value-creating businesses and contributed directly to their success. That's not who this is about, and it never has been.

scottjad 15y ago

"The richest 1% of Americans control over 1/3 of the wealth, leaving the bottom 80% with less than 1/5." This suffers from the pie fallacy covered in http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html Also if you look at http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html table 3 you'll see that the distribution of wealth between 1% and 99% in 2007 (which I assume is pretty much the same today) was essentially identical to that of 2001, 1989, 1965, 1939 and 1922.

jamieb 15y ago
If by the pie fallacy you mean that people are forgetting that the 2011 pie now represents a much greater total number of dollars than the 1920 pie, then I must point out that the simple economic fact that if we just multiplied everyone's bank balance by 1000, nobody would be better off, even though they now had 1000 times as many dollars. And while it is true that a 1920's person could not buy an iPad, this is of scant comfort to a homeless family in 2011.
- scottjad 15y ago
  Your characterization of the pie fallacy is wrong. pg: "I can remember believing, as a child, that if a few rich people had all the money, it left less for everyone else. Many people seem to continue to believe something like this well into adulthood. This fallacy is usually there in the background when you hear someone talking about how x percent of the population have y percent of the wealth. If you plan to start a startup, then whether you realize it or not, you're planning to disprove the Pie Fallacy."
  - jamieb 15y ago
    Ah, ok. So "Its possible to create wealth without taking wealth from others". Unfortunately, although it is possible to do so without taking it from others, taking it from others is still a viable way to do it. Further, its also possible to destroy wealth. And its possible for the destruction of wealth to be asymmetrical. So is the current financial state an example of wealth creation, wealth transfer, or wealth destruction? I'm looking at the national debt, the median house price, and the DJIA and I'm not seeing "wealth creation". What leads you choose "pie fallacy" as your answer?

ppereira 15y ago

There is a lot of interesting research on wealth inequality in the US and around the world. For those interested in looking at data, I suggest the following as a starting point: A historical database of top incomes in several countries: http://184.168.89.58/sketch/ http://184.168.89.58/sketch/ A nice theoretical starting point on taxation and inequality: http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0002374 http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0002374 Note that the term used to express trade in the first section of the paper could also be used to model progressive/negative tax rates. Plots of the income going to the top 0.1% above a plot of the US top marginal tax rate (a proxy for the progressivity of the tax scheme): http://visualecon.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads/percent_income_top_0_1.gif http://visualecon.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-content/uploads... The top 5-10% of incomes tend to follow a pareto distribution which has a very fat tail. If the share owned by the top 0.01% increases, so will the share of the top 0.1% and the top 1%. Conversely, the share of the bottom 90% will decrease. In comparison to the 1970s, the take home pay of the bottom 90% is probably 30% lower just because of these distributional effects, while the relative income of the top 0.1% has increased 5 or 6 times. The next time you see an exorbitantly high CEO salary, it might be worth wondering how it affects you. Likely, many readers here are in the top 95-99% for whom the effect is somewhat neutral. Some argue that inequality is good for growth, and that a rising tide raises all boats, etc. But the literature regarding the correlation between GINI coefficients and long-term growth is weak and not conclusive. When I looked at the data from the income database cited above, I could see little correlation for developed and undeveloped countries. I seem to remember reading an MIT thesis to the same effect. Perfect redistribution and equality would obviously eliminate economic incentives for growth. Near-perfect inequality, might have the same result. The very small fraction of the population in which wealth has condensed would be economically motivated, but the rest of the population that is living on the welfare state (e.g. welfare, minimum wage + EITC) would have a reduced incentive to earn more. A detailed analysis of the EITC is interesting, but peripheral to my point. Furthermore, when inequality varies like a power law, it is easy to see that a rising tide with reduced Pareto coefficient (increased inequality) could lead to a worse outcome for the majority. The obvious way to address inequality is through progressive or redistributive taxation. The theoretical paper linked above shows how increasing progressivity reduces inequality, but this result is also intuitive. With a 100% redistributive tax, one would have perfect equality. Increasing income tax progressivity alters financial incentives and creates incentives for small business and corporations that target the (more affluent) majority. By contrast, flat or regressive taxes alter the economics to favour larger customers. There is a related but much more complex story for international taxation. When corporations accumulate their income in corporate tax havens and then repatriate that income during a "tax holiday", the result is a highly regressive tax system. Many argue about addressing inequality through "job creation" and "big government projects". I don't have a story related to this, but the Canadian data I have looked at makes me a little suspicious. I guess when you inject funds at a single point in the economy (e.g. corporation) and then allow it to trickle down to employees, portions of those funds would be funnelled off at every level of the corporation and the net result may be an increase in inequality. However, if that corporation is performing a valuable social service to the public, then that may mitigate the inequality. I guess my main point is that the story of income inequality is a complex one that is closely related to taxation. As such, it is a policy choice of the government and the people who elect them. If the "99%" feel that they are not satisfied with the deal that has been struck, then they can voice their opinion in the hope that the government will alter that deal.

thevinnie 15y ago

When I tried to access the site at work (we use Postini for our web filtering), I got the message below. What I found most interesting was the category the site was blocked under. Access Denied The web resource http://occupygeorge.com/ http://occupygeorge.com/ has been deemed by your administrator to be unsafe or unsuitable for you to access. The resource has been blocked. No further action is required. Reason: The category of Hate Speech has been blocked by your System Administrator

dizidoro 15y ago

the problem is mainstream-corporate media is not showing the demands, for those who say the movement has no clear demands, i recommend watching Young Turks : http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCiAG7LF7Q4 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCiAG7LF7Q4 and Democracy now! :http://www.democracynow.org/ http://www.democracynow.org/