

Ask HN: What's your opinion of the "99%" issue? - orijing

Reddit is aflame with shared outrage. HN has a somewhat different population. What do you all think about it?<p>Should people just pull themselves up by their bootstraps and stop leaning on others' generosity, or are there serious structural issues with the "American dream"? What can we do about it, if you think it's wrong?<p>Sure, we can all think of ways where our governments have failed us, but is there something extraordinary to merit such a strong opposition?<p>I'm extremely curious for all your opinions. Let this be an open discussion: PLEASE be civil and don't downvote comments that you don't agree with.<p>Thanks! Looking forward to a lively discussion.
======
luser001
Am I understanding correctly that you consider reading about the occupy wall
st. movement an "ordeal"?

If so, I think you tipped your hand and started on an (IMHO) uncivil note by
calling it "ordeal".

Anyway, FWIW, I think it's about time Americans woke up to Wall St's rigging
of the game in its own favour. When an ordinary homeowner is foreclosed, it's
a teaching moment about "personal responsiblity", but banks should be bailed
out because ...?

About the only good thing I can say about Wall St. is that entry to the top
echelons doesn't seem to be hereditary.

~~~
MrWestley
I can say that I have mixed feelings about it because it is a very grey area.
For a lot of people it is about personal responsibility. There were a LOT of
people that knew better but instead choose to believe what the "big money" was
saying. The catch to that is they owed it to themselves to look closer at
their personal situation and asses if they could afford what they were told
they could. I myself paid $215000 for a house that is now worth about $140000.
If I didn't inform myself before buying the house I could have lost it.
Instead I have put myself in the best situation I can. I position myself to
never be "upsidedown" just by being careful. I didn't do things that other
people can't. I just did my homework. Does it bother me that my house lost a
tremendous amount of its value? Hell yes, but I planned for that possiblity.

My point is that for a lot of people they could have been more careful. The
other side is that a lot people didn't have the means to know better. They
trusted what was happening around them and it cost them. Is that there fault?
Maybe, but I fell like saying they shouldn't have trusted anyone is a worse
solution.

~~~
luser001
Am I to understand that you're ok with you and others in your position not
being bailed out, but do think that the big banks should be bailed out?

Don't you think the same yardstick that you apply to yourself and others like
you should also be used for the big banks.

FWIW, my two cents is that neither individuals nor big banks should be bailed
out.

Sorry about the late response. :) Maybe you'll see this.

~~~
MrWestley
Well I have to say that initially I am not for bailing out banks. To be
honest, I don't know if it is that simple. From what i understand a big reason
for the bailout was to avoid the banks "problems" jumping to companies other
than banks. Thus really damaging the economy. For example, just prior to the
bailout BoA was about a day or two away from ceasing lending to GE. Not
because anything GE did but because the shit hit the fan. In turn GE
shareholder that are already scared would panic and GE stock would plummet.
Needless to say that given all of the things GE has it's fingers in that
trouble would spread elsewhere.

Now, have no idea if that is true, but that is something that makes the
bailout less about bailing-out and more about staying afloat. If it was that
is what the public should have been told.

To me all of that is speculative unless there is more information available.
So unless there is more proof I will take the side that bailing out anyone or
anything is usually a bad idea.

------
cpt1138
I keep thinking about this: <http://www.miniature-earth.com/>

If you have a computer, a roof over your head and enough to eat, you're in the
top 3% of the world.

~~~
bluedanieru
And if you're alive today regardless of where you live, you're probably better
off than most humans since the invention of agriculture. So what?

The idea that it's only absolute wealth that should matter completely misses
the point. That the typical American or European, et al, literally lives like
a king (or better) is beside the point. The economy is not a zero-sum game,
sure, but politics certainly is, and unfortunately nothing predicts your
political power better than the wealth you've accumulated. So the average
person in the first world may live like a king, sure, but he has the influence
of a peasant or worse. There is more virtue to an egalitarian society than
merely a sense of economic or social justice. They are healthier, more stable,
and more democratic.

------
dools
What's a 99% issue?

~~~
MrWestley
It's when 99% of people don't use google to look up something that can be
answered in 10 seconds. :)

~~~
dools
I looked up 99% issue and what is the 99% issue which returned nothing
meaningful at the time (it does now)

