Peter Schiff is at Occupy Wall Street!

I have met Jack more than once. He is a nice man. He is very smart and a good blogger. A body guard? I think not.

Come on! Jimmy Hart? How many wrastling managers kicked major bootie when the opposing wrestler was thrown out of the ring and the ref wasn't looking? Guess you need to be "friends" with Hunter on facebook to get my body guard comment. :)
 
Because she practiced self-worship and made an idol of her own 'objective' beliefs.
Greed is just human nature. It's distinguished from ambition only by the subjective opinion of a person. People are ambitious when we approve of it and greedy when we disapprove of it. In reality they're one and the same thing.

As long as you're not harnessing your greed for theft, fraud or assault - your greed will most likely help to serve others as well as yourself.

"It is not from the benevolence of the butcher, the brewer, or the baker, that we expect our dinner, but from their regard to their own interest. We address ourselves, not to their humanity but to their self-love, and never talk to them of our own necessities but of their advantages."
-Adam Smith
 
Last edited:
My opinion of Schiff has just jumped 100%! And to all those "Let's avoid OWS like the plague" folks.... :p

At first, before the crowd swelled I was with the do not go crowd as it was a datamining hotspot. Now..fahgget aboudit! It is now a natural phenomena..which prolly pisses off the agitators for Obama types who like to funnel things to their own abattoir. Hopefully they can go all winter and into the spring. If they do that is one hell of a message.

Rev9
 
That's little to rejoice over. Most of the people still want more government.

The bit to "rejoice" over is that these people aren't completely gone. The want to live the american dream; the vast majority don't want to be socialists, they want to be capitalists and enjoy liberty. They are upset at what they are being handed instead and just need to be shown the way.
 
I would say that the core message of the protesters is that of Howard Beale. They are mad as hell, and they're not going to take this anymore.
 
Acquiring a lot of high value possessions in a free market to create a lot of possessions for your fellow man is not greed. It is charity.

The problem is, for most, such work and devotion to acquiring material possessions often times leads to greed, which is neither moral nor a virtue.

Sounds like Dr. Faust. In the story he supposedly wanted magical power so he could do "good" with it, but was ultimately corrupted and destroyed. Or like the "ring of power" in the Lord of the Rings.
 
He is not the 1% that the movement refers to.

99% is not an exact figure, and it isn't dependent completely on wages. It's more about who controls the economy.

See, that's the problem. "The movement" doesn't exist as a unified whole. So in the movement are indeed talking about the 1% who happen to make over $400,000 per year and some are focused on the 0.01% who are making unjust gains and the two numbers are being fudged together. Saying "Those who profited from the Wall Street bailout" and "those who make over X per year" or have "more than X in personal wealth" are two entirely different things. When people like Michael Moore say "end capitalism" or Rosanne Barr say "send those with over 100 million in assets to re-education camps", the are fudging (purposefully in my opinion) the 1% and the 0.01%. I heard Rosanne "clarify" her remarks on Alex Jones, and frankly the more she talked the worse it sounded. It wasn't just people who made over 100 million she was after, but anyone who had over 100 million. Oh but she would make exceptions for the Steve Jobs and Warren Buffets of the world because "they did good with their money". :rolleyes:
 
Acquiring a lot of high value possessions in a free market to create a lot of possessions for your fellow man is not greed. It is charity.
The problem is, for most, such work and devotion to acquiring material possessions often times leads to greed, which is neither moral nor a virtue.

The problem is, "greed" isn't explictly limited to material possessions -- although that is the most common use. Greed can include a strong desire to get into heaven, please god or strong desire to acquire freedom and liberty. There is nothing immoral about having greed for any of those things.

Greed itself isn't immoral or wrong, it is one's actions taken that can be immoral or wrong. eg: stealing from others in order to get what one desires.
 
Last edited:
The problem is, "greed" isn't explictly limited to material possessions -- although that is the most common use. Greed can include a strong desire to get into heaven, please god or strong desire to acquire freedom and liberty. There is nothing immoral about having greed for any of those things.

Greed itself isn't immoral or wrong, it is one's actions taken that can be immoral or wrong. eg: stealing from others in order to get what one desires.

From Webster:

Definition of GREED

: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something (as money) than is needed


I'm not sure how you give from "selfish and excessive desire" to merely "strong desire". For example I have a strong desire for Ron Paul to be president. But it's not for selfish reasons. Nor would I do anything illegal or immoral to advance that cause. Politicians who say whatever the think the voters want to hear? That's what I would call "greed".
 
I'm not sure how you give from "selfish and excessive desire" to merely "strong desire". For example I have a strong desire for Ron Paul to be president. But it's not for selfish reasons. Nor would I do anything illegal or immoral to advance that cause. Politicians who say whatever the think the voters want to hear? That's what I would call "greed".

I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me. either way, I certainly do have selfish reasons for wanting Ron Paul to be president. There would be benefits for others as well but at its core I want them for myself (selfish).
 
I'm not sure if you are agreeing or disagreeing with me. either way, I certainly do have selfish reasons for wanting Ron Paul to be president. There would be benefits for others as well but at its core I want them for myself (selfish).

Well let me put it this way. Under the Cain 9-9-9 plan I might get a tax break. Under the Paul "Restore America" spending cuts my family could lose money. I support Restore America over 9-9-9. I believe a lot more people lose under 9-9-9 than win (despite Cain's lies to the contrary) and the "Restore America" cuts are essential for the long term future of the country. I guess I'm being "selfish" on behalf of my children and grandchildren.
 
FWIW, I would wittle down that number to 0.1%.

0.1% still amounts to 7 million people.

I think the "1%" means Americans, not globally. But I agree with you that the top 0.1% is more accurate of where the issues should be focused. That would be the top 400,000 richest Americans, still a lot of very wealthy people.
 
Back
Top