We are the 1%

[Boilerduff]

http://www.fool.com/investing/general/2011...-of-the-1-.aspx

 

I thought this was an interesting read.

 

$34,000 puts you in the top 1% of the world.

[delusions of grandeur]

This was pretty much the only part of the article that I thought was fair:

 

This isn't to disparage the occupiers' message. Protestors are, I think, upset because so many of America's top 1% are perceived to have earned their income unjustifiably -- think bankers and bailouts. Most are not against inequality of wealth; they're against inequality of opportunity. As they should be.

 

That the majority of the world faces worse living conditions and lower wages are global issues and explain things like outsourcing, but does little to understand the issues within America... So just because our poor live better than most in other countries, does that mean that we should just be complacent and not care about important issues like corruption and cronyism in our own country? If communism were able to guarantee all of those things mentioned in the article to the poor, would that make it a better system?

 

All these articles seek to do is marginalize the movement by focusing on the shortcomings of the group, who frankly are "occupied" by a bunch of over-entitled, over-idealistic punks, but people shouldn't be standing with them because they necessarily side with them or their "solutions". People should side with them because of the message, the catalyst, the issue: that "too big to fail" has only contributed to the long-standing practice of the grossest offenders getting off scott-free and in many cases rewarded for their corruption, while the rest of us pay for it and reap none of the benefits.

 

You don't have to identify with the protestors or believe that their "solutions" are realistic, to realize that there is a reason behind why they are pissed. You don't just wake up one day and decide to rally because you're bored (or most don't anyway..). They're not policy-makers, they're saying enough is enough, and that's where I resoundingly agree with those over-entitled punks.

[Yukon Cornelius]

WWJD

[Boilerduff]

I wasn't bashing OWS. I don't nessisarily agree with them or thier methods and the hypocracy I see is IMO pretty astounding, but that is another matter.

 

I just thought that this brought some perspective to the situation, and while it may not be perfect, The USA is still the best out there.

[Ursa Majoris]

So just because our poor live better than most in other countries, does that mean that we should just be complacent and not care about important issues like corruption and cronyism in our own country?

This is exactly right. The whole issue of "our poor people would be kings in Basutoland" is a completely irrelevant red herring.

[bpwallace49]

I just thought that this brought some perspective to the situation, and while it may not be perfect, The USA is still the best out there.

 

It really doesnt bring perspective at all. It is a hollow justification of why the poor in the US should be happy and content about being poor because they can feel superior to the poor people in Haiti.

 

The second part is exactly right. The USA IS the best out there . . . . maybe we should start acting like it?

[delusions of grandeur]

I wasn't bashing OWS.

To be fair, I didn't mean to direct that towards you either... I jsut get sick of this whole "us vs. them" mentality, where you either have to be for or against groups, just because you don't identify with them or share their political affiliation...

 

To me, the good that comes out of protests is often not their "solutions" or personal views, but rather raising awareness for the issues causing that revolt...

[Brentastic]

This was pretty much the only part of the article that I thought was fair:

 

 

 

That the majority of the world faces worse living conditions and lower wages are global issues and explain things like outsourcing, but does little to understand the issues within America... So just because our poor live better than most in other countries, does that mean that we should just be complacent and not care about important issues like corruption and cronyism in our own country? If communism were able to guarantee all of those things mentioned in the article to the poor, would that make it a better system?

 

All these articles seek to do is marginalize the movement by focusing on the shortcomings of the group, who frankly are "occupied" by a bunch of over-entitled, over-idealistic punks, but people shouldn't be standing with them because they necessarily side with them or their "solutions". People should side with them because of the message, the catalyst, the issue: that "too big to fail" has only contributed to the long-standing practice of the grossest offenders getting off scott-free and in many cases rewarded for their corruption, while the rest of us pay for it and reap none of the benefits.

 

You don't have to identify with the protestors or believe that their "solutions" are realistic, to realize that there is a reason behind why they are pissed. You don't just wake up one day and decide to rally because you're bored (or most don't anyway..). They're not policy-makers, they're saying enough is enough, and that's where I resoundingly agree with those over-entitled punks.

This is a very intelligent post.

[CaP'N GRuNGe]

This is exactly right. The whole issue of "our poor people would be kings in Basutoland" is a completely irrelevant red herring.

 

Unless you are a poor person living in Basutoland. I guess they'd see us as we saw the NFL vs the NFLPA, fighting over our riches.