It's pretty evident who is at fault in this crisis, and it's not us
That's what we all say. Who took out those mortgages? Wanted to live big for little money? We all do, that's who.
Who took out those mortgages? People who went to the banks and were told that, after a financial assessment, it'd be perfectly okay for them to borrow money to pay for a home that's worth 200%+ of the cost of construction. Considering that they did not have a degree in economics, and that "This guy telling me this is just like any other guy, getting paid to do a good job", they took out the loan.
We all want to live big for little money, but don't you think it's a bit wrong to blame mass ignorance when the trust was placed in the people who supposedly knew what they were doing? Wait, they did know what they were doing. They did exactly what they wanted to do. So now you're saying that, in order to not be deceived, everyone must be made acutely aware of how exactly economics works, the fluctuations and factors of the housing market, as well as how the entire banking system operates? Must we all become bankers in addition to whatever actual profession we choose, just to make sure that no banker will actively lie to us since they'd lose every ounce of business?
It's unreasonable for each individual person to try to hold accountable the source of every thing they use and consume on a daily basis in this culture. That's why we have governments and regulatory agencies.
Impractical, yes, but not unreasonable. It's still your fucking responsibility. If we'd all just try a little harder to at least find out where the lettuce is from? I blame nobody taking responsibility for anything anymore. I caused this crisis.
My bad, I didn't include an intense study of agriculture with economics. However, you're going beyond agriculture and into geopolitics with your implications, yes? You're probably not even talking about agriculture either, but with how agricultural products are produced under what worker conditions and with what chemicals.
So what you're saying is that the other guy, who is just like us and is working just as hard to keep up his lifestyle, is doing his job in the FDA and in the DoA and in the State Department? I thought their job was to figure those things out so we didn't all have to constantly keep up with it. They're elected and hired for that, after all. But you've got to be saying he's doing his job somehow, and simultaneously not. You can't say you can't blame them when you're saying that it's our collective responsibility to do their job for them. Especially not if we're paying them to do it.
Many of the little people are struggling to do anything more than survive.
What, can't afford a proper HD and had to go for an HD-ready tv? Poor guys.
If one lived in the street and had to fight for scraps, that's getting close to survival. Survival rates for homeless people in the USA are still pretty high, so even being that low can't be that bad.
It's all so relative, but is nobody willing to see that it's relative for the other guy as well?
Yes, 'survival' in the terms that it was used is definitely relative compared to people who must hunt or farm their own food. I can't speak for the homeless and unfortunates in big cities, but have you been into the true rural backwoods of this country? People try to live an honest life, working off of land that's been owned for generations or bought dirt-cheap when it was possible or don't actually own the deed to the land, but it's so secluded no one cares. They hunt and kill for their food, and yeah, they might make some money here and there, but hardly enough to buy their children new clothes every year for school (of which they only have because it's a federal program) once taxes are collected, miscellaneous supplies are bought, and gas is paid for.
Alternatively, you could take a look at the people who live absolutely miserable lives in state-funded under-income housing in small towns, or even again in the backwoods, where the primary source of income is selling drugs, prostitution, or making moonshine. The town where I'm from had a low-income housing area that was busted a few years back, and one of those arrested was an elderly retired woman that could either afford to eat or hardly afford her medication, so she chose both by selling whatever extra medication she could get or whatever she could lie about. Did she live the big time? Did she have an HDTV? No, she got to eat a decent dinner, maybe buy a bit of useless junk to make her house not seem so empty and cold, and got to live a little longer. Hell, she might even be able to travel somewhere! That's not the only story either; her situation is not a unique one.
Sure, even the homeless in big cities in America have it better than people who live out of crude shelters in areas of Africa, for example, since homeless Americans can go and beg for money and food and might not just be left to die, and maybe to find some shelter that will take them in. At least the people in Africa don't have to worry about finding a meal or a place to sleep in a concrete jungle surrounded by the product of hundreds of billions of dollars. It's like being taunted by a feast you can't have because you can't find a job because you can't buy job-worthy clothes because you don't have money because you don't have a job.
Do we have it harder than people in Africa? No. Is our quality of life better than Africa's? Yes. Has our quality of life, that is, nutritionally decreased over time? Yes. Has the quality of life nutritionally decreased over time in Africa? Doubtful. It's probably increased due to increasing amounts of support, although there are/were some nasty droughts over there (and not taking into account warzones and mass-killings). Still, the change is probably going to be negligible.
So if you agree that it's relative, shouldn't you agree we should be upset that the quality of our lives is decreasing relative to how it was years ago? But you're saying that it's relative for 'the other guy', who has so much money they can buy whatever quality of life they want for themselves and their children and their grandchildren, and have accounts set up such that their progeny will always have enough money to never 'go without'? If our quality of life is relative to theirs, and over time ours has gotten worse and theirs better, then isn't there a fundamental problem with what you're saying?
Author
Topic: Occupying Wallstreet (Read 295107 times)