Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
We kick the ass of the ruling class

Yes, "Entitlements" Are A Problem

Posted 7 months ago on Dec. 7, 2013, 2:27 p.m. EST by OccupyWallSt
Tags: nationalization, military, food stamps, entitlements

"As an active duty airman married with two kids. I qualified for food stamps, even though I was living on base. I would have been one of the 47% the GOP classifies as a freeloader even though I was serving my country in Desert Storm. If you work full time and are unable to make a living for your family that is the fault of the company not the worker."

Is nationalization of companies really that bad of an idea?

(image via Occupy Posters)

13 Comments

13 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 9 points by beautifulworld (21292) 7 months ago

Well said. Corporations are the ones ripping off American taxpayers not those in need who are being exploited with low wages while the fat cats run off with all the loot.

No, the nationalization of companies is not a bad idea, just scary to those who have been on the take.

[-] 7 points by Nevada1 (4464) 7 months ago

Nationalization! Might be a World Saving Event.

[Removed]

[-] 6 points by rocket88doowop (29) from Brooklyn, NY 7 months ago

I agree with you. It is not fair that even people who work overtime have no food because the rent, property tax, homeowner's insurance, and all of the other costs of having a roof over one's head cost too much and go up faster than salaries do no matter what one does.

[-] 5 points by shadz66 (17627) 7 months ago

Nationalise The Banks ... & break those cartels of private Banksters - The US Federal Reserve and The Bank Of England .. and see how we can turn our societies around !! Further to this important news post and in compliment to bw's comment above, see :

''We already pay dearly for energy, medicine, banking, and telecommunications services. But a little research reveals that we're paying more - much more - in a variety of ways that our business-friendly mainstream media won't talk about''.

fiat justitia ruat caelum ...

[-] 4 points by shooz (18022) 7 months ago

It's actually a fantastic idea, even if only to give those corporations with an "entitlement" issue, time and impetus to restructure until their employees are no longer suffering.

Can you hear us Wallyworld?

Micky D's?

[-] 3 points by BearDickinson (125) from Ewing, VA 7 months ago

"It does not require a majority to prevail, but an irate, and tireless minority to set brush fires in peoples minds." - Sam Adams

[-] 1 points by ZenDog (13707) from South Burlington, VT 7 months ago

That is correct, the entire ENTITLEMENT MINDSET is a significant problem

and interestingly enough, THAT CONVERSATION was hijacked LONG BEFORE it ever became an issue . . .

clever mutherfukers

just keep your eye on the Welfare Queens over here and never you mind those Entitlement Kings over there

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 months ago

money is created power and influence,

leverage requires others have less

if everybody got food stamps less money would be controlled by private interest

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 months ago

leverage card

the rules to games determine how it is played

but if we forget we are playing a game

we loss sight that the game can be changed

[-] 0 points by Brynin (39) 7 months ago

I don't understand why people, groups, organizations never address the system of operation as a whole. systematically going through the the many lawyers that allows for our society to operate. What keeps the gears turning. Everything we do or use and the cost of it all. Energy puts a cost on everything. Transportation, shipping, cost of operating, making goods, running machines, powering your home, growing food, shipping food. Storing food, chemicals we use, powering cars... and so on..It all needs energy. I would say addressing energy is step one of many. Address unused as well as outdated energy methods. The cost of living is basically nothing more then energy constraint or a raising cost of as well as artificial scarcity of. Not to mention how contemporary values among our culture and how those values create an artificial cost of living and a verity of problems.

Uneducated consumerism or materialism..Waste or over production that just get's tossed out..meaning the many tons of product and food we just throw out or misuse or don't recycle. Nor do we have the necessary updated facilitates built to even recycle waste in the first place. I will never understand why we can't just give way over produced goods. Yeah let's just tossed it out. fking morons.

Stupidity is what i call it. Waste has value. Can be reused or given to people. Reproduce goods and lowering the cost. As well as produce energy. Putting more money in people's pockets. Money they no longer have to spend. . Money is a fucking joke.

Simply..

In reality the cost of living at this point in time is a complete fabrication when you incorporate into the argument what we are now able or capable of or have the technological capability of doing. Innovating how we operate.

Like going from bows to guns. Rubbing sticks for fire to lighters or matches.

Use other forms of energy that will not have or have a much lower cost to consume. Only cost really being the needed resources to construct the newer methods. We can use the same advancements for agriculture, travel, housing, education, public transportation systems, air travel, boats....

No i don't mean GMO.. GMO is not a technology it's a mistake is what it is.

As far as agriculture i'm talking vertical farms. Built right on top or next to your local grocery stores, your apartment complex, your schools, your house, in down-up or mid town where ever you live. These farms would grow natural product all year round no issues with seasons changes.

If something like a vertical farm plan was drawn up, wish it already is. Used around this country and/or planet it would cut the middle man costs. Lower shipping cost, packaging. Get ride of chemical cost, heavy equipment cost and yes labor cost. Vertical farms can basically operate on their own. If we really wanted to we could run, harvest and plant food from our ipods/cell phones.

Ok so now these Farms or buildings need energy. well take your pick on future idea's of energy. That don't pollute the planet and destroy land, affect people's health. Long list of alternative's that work. I hate to break it to big oil and coal. Your services are no longer needed.

Once you lower the cost of living people will no longer have to spend or earn as much money. Meaning their pay checks can now cover the cost of living and business's won't need to make as much money or profit and spend less to operate and can pay employees less or more because everything is updated and cheap. Like it was back in the mid 1900's and earlier. Go get a hot dog, fries and soda for .25 cents.

I wanna add water shortage into this rant. people add that thought to cost. There is no water shortage. This planet is 71-2% water. All of which can be used. I know, i know... salt..

If we stop polluting the god dam ocean all that water can be treated, filtered and used. desalination process and still being advanced

Technology is wonderful thing. If used properly.

end of rant for now.

Link to important info.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K9FDIne7M9o&feature=youtube_gdata

[-] 0 points by francismjenkins (3713) 7 months ago

Nationalization is a sloppy solution. I do think banks could (perhaps should) be nationalized, but overall, I prefer grassroots solutions. Nationalization (assuming you retain a monetary system, and money as the medium of exchange) makes economic calculation next to impossible; and we go from bad to worse (from crony capitalism to Soviet bread lines). I personally believe it would be far more effective to work on "local" solutions. Don't like Monsanto, have a thousand people who agree with you, build an urban vertical farm (right on top of a grocery store). Hate taking orders from a boss, have a few hundred people who agree with you, start incubating worker cooperatives. Don't like big banks, use credit unions (to the extent you need to use banks), etc. etc. etc. If you're successful, people will listen to you.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 7 months ago

nationalization (assuming you retain a monetary system, and money as the medium of exchange for goods and services) makes economic calculation next to impossible;

how?

[-] 0 points by francismjenkins (3713) 7 months ago

This was seen in the Soviet Union. Basically, "price" is the market signal which informs producers and sellers with respect to demand. Companies generally formulate an internal rate of return (the minimum gross profit required to both cover costs & earn a return which matches the average return available to investors in low risk instruments). Companies also use techniques like just in time inventory, but the price signal is one of the primary inputs in demand forecasts, and this in turn allows for an efficient allocation of resources and goods throughout the economy (when examined in the aggregate). This market mechanism for demand forecasting and resource allocation is often referred to as economic calculation. A breakdown in this mechanism is thought (by many economists) to be responsible for shortages in basic/needed goods (and food) on Soviet store shelves, and overages in unneeded (or less needed) goods. Think store shelves filled with Vodka (and supplies of Vodka much higher than demand) but out of toilet paper. If on the other hand, rather than "centralized command and control" -- production was controlled at the grassroots level, demand calculations need analyze no further than the local community (which would presumably be more manageable in terms of demand forecasting and resource allocation). Then we get into the problem of incentives, and the abysmal productivity of Soviet workers (but I digress). I should clarify my own position, I'm generally supportive of grassroots socialized firms (although there may be utility in traditional market oriented firms in some cases, particularly innovation intensive firms); and of course capitalism should be heavily regulated in any case (in my opinion, via a participatory governance framework). I tend to think a hybrid system may be able to retain incentives and efficiency, while achieving a significant degree of egalitarianism, but just a hypothesis.