The Occupy Wall Street movement is spreading quickly to many cities and states, and could possibly become a nascent third party within the Democrats. Predictably, it is being attacked from the right as “socialist.” Actually, it is capitalist, but believes in the regulation of capitalist institutions. What we live under now is a system of Corporate Socialism, a welfare state for the rich. It seems to me that your politics can be defined by whose side you are on. Tea Party members are mostly on their own side. They believe they should pay lower taxes, or none. If we can’t pay for health care, tough luck. The Occupation forces, who seem more affluent and might benefit more from lower taxes, are on the side of those being exploited by an unregulated Wall Street.Roger Ebert (via azspot)
Brookfield believes they can work out an arrangement with the protesters that will ensure the park remains clean, safe, available for public use, and that the situation is respectful of residents and businesses downtown.NYC Deputy Mayor Caswell F. Holloway • Discussing the near-disaster Occupy Wall Street had last night, after Zucotti Park owners Brookfield tried to force people away from the park for cleaning — which many park-dwellers assumed was an attempt to kick them out. The city, which claims it’s acting in the interests of the company that owns the park, has put the ball in Brookfield’s court. Despite the company and city backing down, there have been violent clashes between the police and protesters today. source (via • follow)
bronze-by-gold said: Brilliant? In what universe? Student loans are often used to cover living expenses while in school, and using poorly paid TAs to reduce the cost of education is exploitative.
» SFB says: The argument Cuban is making is one of efficiency. I think the idea that he’s getting at is that the price of college has gotten more expensive because student loans are easy to get. It artificially raises prices for such things like living expenses, forcing the need for more expensive loans. By limiting their spiraling cost, it forces the market value of an education down. Obviously, there is more that goes into it than that, but when schools don’t become so reliant on money that no longer exists, artificially-inflated products — say, $200 textbooks for subjects thousands of students take — will become less justifiable. Would it be perfect? No. But it’s an interesting idea that could easily be built upon. (Also worth reading is this argument against Cuban’s idea, which makes a valid argument that he’s not taking every element into account.) — Ernie @ SFB