ABSTRACT OCCUPY WALLSTREET 2
The Occupy Wall St. movement started off slow around Sepember 2011. Just as shy as a few short weeks, movements started to appear at countless locations. This movement seemed to come hurdling in kantian stlye. This movement has a great deal to offer the careful observer. By looking at the history of the Occupy Movement and its emergence out of a chaotic and complex enviroment, it exposes the unethnical practices for business and decision making.It starts to grab ones attention when they learn so much from a complexity science that can be applied to this movement. With unethnical stock broking and the federal reserve managing to tilt state policy, ...view middle of the document...
Many in the Occupy Wall Street crowd have stated their intention to stay indefinitely. That’s especially troublesome. One- or two-day demonstrations can be policed and controlled, and with forbearance on all sides can end peacefully. But where there’s no time limit impatience and irritability can build up and inevitably lead to confrontation, and usually ends in violence.
America is a nation of laws, and when the laws don’t serve the country well it’s up to the lawmakers to change them. And the lawmakers must be able to operate without being under threat of violence—no matter how much you may want to brain Eric Cantor (just to name one lawmaker).
So a one-day demonstration is OK if its organizers take care to control it. An unlimited demonstration is not. One of the best tests of whether an act is ethical is the categorical imperative of Immanuel Kant: an act is ethical only if it would be acceptable for universal practice. If everybody in the world demonstrated against corporate greed there would be anarchy and chaos
OCCUPY WALLSTREET 4
In my opinion and research, Its seems the problems that we are facing points fingers directly at the Federal reserve and the Corporations that buy our politicians. These forces are the deciding factors on how the 99 percent are directly affected(Congressional Research srvice 2012). Over the past four decades, overall income inequality has increased in the U.S. One particularly striking feature of the data is that the income gap has widened most between the top and the middle of the distribution, while it has remained relatively stable between the middle and the bottom. The causal forces behind the increase in inequality have been a topic of much debate among the public, the media, and policymakers (see, for example, Yellen 2006), as well as a rich field of research for economists.
Underlying these inequality trends are considerable differences across regions. Relating these differences to regional characteristics could help identify the sources of national growth in inequality; yet, surprisingly little research has done so. One exception, though now somewhat dated, is Topel (1994), who looked at the nine major regions of the U.S. and explored how the cross-regional variation in the demand for and supply of skilled labor, immigration, female labor force participation, and technical change can explain the regional variation in the growth of income inequality.
The synopsis: The Fed facilitates deficit spending by government and fractional reserve lending by banks, both of which create money out of nothing and spend it into the economy. This dilutes the value of existing currency, making it all tantamount to an invisible tax. Because of legal tender laws, the Fed has a monopoly on currency issuance, which means that the only way to get money into the economy is through its debt instruments (the co-opted "dollar", which is no longer a "dollar"). Either government has to "deficit spend" it into...