Topic: Occupy Wall Street Protests

[El Campeador]

Somebody told me recently that Apple is sitting on about $75 billion.

Nah, it's a bit less than that. They have total assets of around $75b, yes, but only about $42b is current.

[hansen6]

Cash is in a bank account.  What do you think the bank does with it? 

Gives it out as bonuses?

[-Q-]

Gives it out as bonuses?

Yeah sure.  And then the bankers spend it, stimulating the economy.

Now, let's go back to determining a concrete definition of society.

[hansen6]

Because they are law makers... who represent one small group within society.  They are not the whole of society. 

To get into office a majority have to vote for them, so it's not a small group...

[-Q-]

To get into office a majority have to vote for them, so it's not a small group...

a) And the Tories have a majority? Did Labour...?

b) What gives the majority the right to dictate to the minority???

c) if the majority votes to hang gays, would that be acceptable? NO.  It would not.

[hansen6]

Yeah sure.  And then the bankers spend it, stimulating the economy.

Yeah, all those jobs for cleaners and servants. lol

Now, let's go back to determining a concrete definition of society.

You've been given plenty of definitions which you haven't come even close to disproving.

[Haemogoblin]

To be fair, I don't see where you are going with this. I haven't twisted the word 'society' in any way to fit a political ideology, nor I think has hansen in the posts you quoted. A legal system, police service, health service, etc. works under a government to benefit its society. We 'serve' our society by contributing to its prosperity, and we each benefit from its prosperity in return. 'Serving society' in this instance simply means the ordered efforts of people toward a generally common goal of living together peacefully and in relative comfort.

An aggregation of individuals may do as they please in purely their own interest, allowing other members of that community to suffer hardship. Though this happens in most societies, the concept of a society tends to be more inclusive (we are in it together, rather than every man for himself). It isn't really a riddle.

[-Q-]

Yeah, all those jobs for cleaners and servants. lol

Yep.  So the $75bn is not just stored away somewhere. That was the point.

You've been given plenty of definitions which you haven't come even close to disproving.

There has been nothing to disprove, you have not given me anything tangible.  You've just shifted to talking about government.

[-Q-]

No. Cash. If it were in pension funds, it would be, um, a pension fund. If it were gone into venture capital, it would be investment. Cash is cash.

Cash? As in dollar bills, stuck in a drawer?

Or in a bank account reserve?

[hansen6]

a) And the Tories have a majority? Did Labour...?

They did win the popular vote so yes, as did Labour in the one before that.

b) What gives the majority the right to dictate to the minority???

It's how decision making works.

c) if the majority votes to hang gays, would that be acceptable? NO.  It would not.

If a majority of people thought like that then people would leave.

[corkboy]

Cash? As in dollar bills, stuck in a drawer?

Or in a bank account reserve?

Spendable cash. Accessible cash. Walking around money. If, as El C says, they have 45b, they could buy something that cost 45b and not have to borrow. Cash.

[hansen6]

There has been nothing to disprove, you have not given me anything tangible.  You've just shifted to talking about government.

I think you're incapable of understanding.

[-Q-]

To be fair, I don't see where you are going with this. I haven't twisted the word 'society' in any way to fit a political ideology,

Didn't say you had.  I said it has yet to be defined.

A legal system, police service, health service, etc. works under a government to benefit its society.

You can't define society by referring to it.

We 'serve' our society by contributing to its prosperity,

Seems like business owners and entrepreneurs do a good job of that.

'Serving society' in this instance simply means the ordered efforts of people toward a generally common goal of living together peacefully and in relative comfort.

"ordered efforts"?

None of this justifies the use of force.

An aggregation of individuals may do as they please in purely their own interest, allowing other members of that community to suffer hardship. Though this happens in most societies, the concept of a society tends to be more inclusive (we are in it together, rather than every man for himself. It isn't really a riddle.

Now we are getting somewhere.

What does "we are in it together"? Actually mean.  In real terms.  It is easy to say, but it is never defined.  Cameron says it all the time and it is nothing but self-serving irrational nonsense. 

The only thing "we are in it together" means is carte blanche for the state.

[-Q-]

Spendable cash. Accessible cash. Walking around money. If, as El C says, they have 45b, they could buy something that cost 45b and not have to borrow. Cash.

So it is in the bank? Yes?

[El Campeador]

Spendable cash. Accessible cash. Walking around money. If, as El C says, they have 45b, they could buy something that cost 45b and not have to borrow. Cash.

That is correct. $45b in current assets - i.e. cash and cash-like instruments.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=AAPL+Balance+Sheet&annual

[-Q-]

I think you're incapable of understanding.

I'm incapable of comprehending intangible trite phrases. Yes.

[hansen6]

That is correct. $45b in current assets - i.e. cash and cash-like instruments.

http://finance.yahoo.com/q/bs?s=AAPL+Balance+Sheet&annual

It's grown since:

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/07/28/apples_76b_in_cash_reserves_surpass_us_government_operating_balance.html

[-Q-]

$45bn / $75bn... what does it matter?  It is still money that Apple has made.  Money that is in a bank, being loaned out to other businesses, used for venture capital or whatever the bank wants to use it for. It is not stuffed in a draw, out of circulation.

[hansen6]

I'm incapable of comprehending intangible trite phrases. Yes.

Your custom user title is very very apt.

[El Campeador]

$45bn / $75bn... what does it matter?  It is still money that Apple has made.  Money that is in a bank, being loaned out to other businesses, used for venture capital or whatever the bank wants to use it for. It is not stuffed in a draw, out of circulation.

Or alternatively, the commercial banking side hands over those deposits to its investing wing so that Kweku Adoboli can put ten times the amount that they have on hand on black.

[-Q-]

The problem is that you are not talking in concretes, you are talking about floating abstractions, words that are ill defined.  When you use the words "society" or "community" you are getting all lovely warm fuzzy feelings in your head, about "working together” and naive ideas of "we are one" etc etc etc.  The problem is compounded when you take those fuzzy feelings and attach them to government, as the only arbiter of “society.”  Government is not society.  Government is a group within society, that wants to tell the rest of society what to do.

edit spelling

[-Q-]

Or alternatively, the commercial banking side hands over those deposits to its investing wing so that Kweku Adoboli can put ten times the amount that they have on hand on black.

There will always been some corrupt, stupid, dodgy dealers - and don't get me started on fractional reserve banking.  But that is not the point.

The point was that Apple's money is not somehow kept selfishly away from everyone, it is active in the economy, they just can draw on it (assuming there isn't a run on the entire corrupt fiat currency system).

[El Campeador]

It's grown since:

http://www.appleinsider.com/articles/11/07/28/apples_76b_in_cash_reserves_surpass_us_government_operating_balance.html

http://yahoo.brand.edgar-online.com/displayfilinginfo.aspx?filingid=8193498&tabindex=2&type=html

Filed today. $45b in cash and cash equivalents.

Which mod gave Q the custom title? I need to send him a bottle of chianti.

[-Q-]

Which mod gave Q the custom title? I need to send him a bottle of chianti.

I think it was VdM after someone was struggling to understand that there are idiots in society (no pun intended) who will drive too fast whether you have a speed limit on the motorway or not.

[RedRabbit]

Someone needs to call Jean-Luc Picard. Fast.

[El Campeador]

There will always been some corrupt, stupid, dodgy dealers - and don't get me started on fractional reserve banking.  But that is not the point.

The point was that Apple's money is not somehow kept selfishly away from everyone, it is active in the economy, they just can draw on it (assuming there isn't a run on the entire corrupt fiat currency system).

You mean the money's deposited at the bank, which then loans the money out?

Tell me - have you tried to get a mortgage lately, or refi an existing one? Have you tried to buy a car in the last 2 years? What is the rate of return on a bank deposit, and what's the rate they charge on a loan, assuming they'll give one to you?

For such low rates, there's a tiny amount of money being loaned out by banks, or invested by businesses. We're at the start of another spectacular earnings season, and yet noone's hiring, BoA is laying off 40,000 people, and GS just post this the other day:

"Investing and Lending, which includes Goldman Sachs’s stakes in Industrial & Commercial Bank of China (1398) Ltd. and other companies, as well as holdings by the Special Situations Group run by Jason M. Brown, reported negative revenue of $2.48 billion for the quarter. That compared with $1.8 billion in revenue in the same period a year earlier."

So tell me again

Money that is in a bank, being loaned out to other businesses, used for venture capital or whatever the bank wants to use it for. It is not stuffed in a draw, out of circulation.

Tell me again.

[El Campeador]

I think it was VdM

HOWSON FOR ENGLAND

[-Q-]

We are the People. Resistance is futile.

[-Q-]

HOWSON FOR ENGLAND

Ah, ok, cool.  How do you find out?  I assumed VdM because he was about that thread.

[El Campeador]

Ah, ok, cool.  How do you find out?  I assumed VdM because he was about that thread.

[hansen6]

I think it was VdM after someone was struggling to understand that there are idiots in society (no pun intended) who will drive too fast whether you have a speed limit on the motorway or not.

Yeah, sure it was. 

[-Q-]

Tell me - have you tried to get a mortgage lately, or refi an existing one? Have you tried to buy a car in the last 2 years?

It is difficult to get a loan? Good, it should be - easy credit was a large factor in the current mess.

What is the rate of return on a bank deposit, and what's the rate they charge on a loan, assuming they'll give one to you?

Why do traders give you two figures? They have to make a profit.  Paying 5% interest on deposits and charging 5% interest on loans, where do you get the money for the branch and the staff...?

Some of the money is being used to repair balance sheets, but the Apple money is not sitting in a drawer, it is being lent out, maybe not at the rate or with the ease that you would like, but it is being lent out - otherwise banks wouldn't be in business.

[Haemogoblin]

Didn't say you had.  I said it has yet to be defined.

The definition of the word itself was provided by the dictionary entry I provided earlier.

You apparently want it to be defined here in another sense that would explain why the members of a society would choose or be otherwise impelled to 'serve' it, and share in it, despite the state of being a member of society meaning for most that you are already benefitting from it in some way.

If you consider for a moment a small family-run business as a society in microcosm, if each family member benefitted from the business doing well but did not give much or anything at all back, and kept all their gains to themselves, you would not be serving the business and the business may well suffer somewhat as a result, making things harder for all else involved. When the business eventually hits the rocks, you will probably suffer somewhat yourself as a direct result, or else your children, grandchildren, etc. That's as simplistic as I can make it.

You can't define society by referring to it.

But it was defined adequately earlier. You are now asking why people would choose or otherwise be impelled to 'serve' it.

Seems like business owners and entrepreneurs do a good job of that.

I never said they didn't.

"ordered efforts"?

None of this justifies the use of force.

The 'law-makers' make their laws to protect the people living in their society (or at least they are supposed to). An individual should be forced, within reason, to be fair and honourable in their dealings, because although I expect you would always behave justly in your dealings with people, Q [no sarcasm], not everyone will. Therefore the use of force in this particular instance, within reason, can help prevent exploitation of the vulnerable by the powerful (or at least it is supposed to, in the concept of a fair 'society').

I'm sure if you asked a top criminal prosecution lawyer or judge if they were contributing to 'society', they would answer in the affirmative straightaway, without questioning what the word society meant in the question. I might be wrong.

Now we are getting somewhere.

What does "we are in it together"? Actually mean.  In real terms.  It is easy to say, but it is never defined.  Cameron says it all the time and it is nothing but self-serving irrational nonsense. 

The only thing "we are in it together" means is carte blanche for the state.

We exist in a society together. As in, I'm not left to fend for myself if my entire family and community of friends were to die suddenly and I lose my livelihood. Should I be?

[-Q-]

Yeah, sure it was. 

I'm still waiting for a single tangible definition of society...

- or for you to respond to the idea that government is not 'society' it is merely a faction within society that seeks to control the rest of the population.

[hansen6]

I'm still waiting for a single tangible definition of society...

We've given you plenty - you haven't understood them.

- or for you to respond to the idea that government is not 'society' it is merely a faction within society that seeks to control the rest of the population.

That idea is false, governments are chosen by the people. Society controls the government.

[RedRabbit]

I'm still waiting for a single tangible definition of society...

- or for you to respond to the idea that government is not 'society' it is merely a faction within society that seeks to control the rest of the population.

Govern. Not control. The clues in the name.

[El Campeador]

It is difficult to get a loan? Good, it should be - easy credit was a large factor in the current mess.

Then make your mind up - is the money that Apple deposits at the bank going back into the economy or not?

Why do traders give you two figures? They have to make a profit.  Paying 5% interest on deposits and charging 5% interest on loans, where do you get the money for the branch and the staff...?

What's the spread these days between deposits and loans? How much are they paying on the money deposited, and how much are they charging for a loan? Noone expects them to give 5 and charge 5, but fakinell, they'll pay *nothing* and charge 27% to some asshole with bad credit only.

Some of the money is being used to repair balance sheets, but the Apple money is not sitting in a drawer, it is being lent out, maybe not at the rate or with the ease that you would like, but it is being lent out - otherwise banks wouldn't be in business.

Banks are used to relying much more on the investment banking/casino gambling arms these days than traditional commercial banking arms. I bank at a credit union. I get more, and pay less. My credit union doesn't fuck around with my money.

In the meantime, guess what the assholes on Wall Street are doing again?

Credit-Card Issuers Vie for Risky Business—Subprime Borrowers

OCTOBER 17, 2011, 6:04 P.M. ET

Credit-card issuers, looking for ways to expand their business amid stiff competition, are knocking on familiar if potentially troublesome doors: those of subprime borrowers.

Banks issued 5.4 million new credit cards to borrowers with less-than-pristine credit through June. That's up 64% from a year earlier, according to recent data from credit bureau Equifax, which defines a subprime borrower as having an origination risk score—a proprietary measure—of less than 660.

While the number of subprime cards issued this year pales next to the 14.7 million that banks issued in the first half of 2007, their growth outpaced the 27% year-over-year increase in total credit cards issued through June of this year.

The move, coming with the subprime-mortgage crisis still reverberating, is part of a broader effort by banks to lure more credit-card customers at a time of slowing economic growth. A surge in losses from soured loans during the recession and a regulatory overhaul prompted many of the largest credit-card issuers to focus exclusively on borrowers with better credit.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204450804576625302586810020.html

[-Q-]

The definition of the word itself was provided by the dictionary entry I provided earlier.

I also gave the definition myself, that is what society is.  Yet that is not how hansen6 used the term.

You apparently want it to be defined here in another sense that would explain why the members of a society would choose or be otherwise impelled to 'serve' it, and share in it, despite the state of being a member of society meaning for most that you are already benefitting from it in some way.

Not exactly.  You have extended the definition that you provided - the aggregate of all people in a community (all the individuals in an area added up, with certain orderered structures) without any explanation.  It is an explanation of this extension that I am after. 

How do you go from the definition of society as the aggregate of the people, to serving and sharing the aggregate.

I don't have an issue with people choosing to be a part of a group of individuals who work together, trade, cooperate, play, engage is social activity etc.
I have a problem with the concept of serving it.  I don't even want to know why must you serve it, but how can you serve it?  What is the it that you are serving?

When you are serving something, you are serving someone.  Whom are you serving?

If you consider for a moment a small family-run business as a society in microcosm, if each family member benefitted from the business doing well but did not give much or anything at all back, and kept all their gains to themselves, you would not be serving the business and the business may well suffer somewhat as a result, making things harder for all else involved. When the business eventually hits the rocks, you will probably suffer somewhat yourself as a direct result, or else your children, grandchildren, etc. That's as simplistic as I can make it.

If I understand it correctly, your example explains only why communism wouldn't work, as people can benefiting directly from common ownership and equitable share of profits without putting in any effort themselves - ultimately, everyone suffers.  This does not explain society.

But it was defined adequately earlier. You are now asking why people would choose or otherwise be impelled to 'serve' it.

It was not defined adequately, because that is not the way in which the term was used.  The term society has been used to mean a variety of things that don't make sense if you input "aggregate of people..." in its place.  Why should you serve the "aggregate of the people"? And how do you serve an aggregate?

I am asking - to uncover the extension that you and hansen have made - what is so different about 'society' that it means it is able to compel people to serve it, when other groups of people are not afforded the same luxury.

How is government different from the mob?

The 'law-makers' make their laws to protect the people living in their society (or at least they are supposed to).

Law-makers make laws to protect their faction within society.

An individual should be forced, within reason, to be fair and honourable in their dealings, because although I expect you would always behave justly in your dealings with people, Q [no sarcasm], not everyone will.

Fair and honourable?  If you are talking about prosecuting fraud that is not an issue.

Therefore the use of force in this particular instance, within reason, can help prevent exploitation of the vulnerable by the powerful (or at least it is supposed to, in the concept of a fair 'society').

That is a fine position to take, but you are not talking about a definition of society as a term, you are talking about what your political notion of a "fair society" is.

This conflation of two things has been the problem, I am talking definitions, others are talking politics.

I'm sure if you asked a top criminal prosecution lawyer or judge if they were contributing to 'society', they would answer in the affirmative straightaway, without questioning what the word society meant in the question. I might be wrong.

My point is that you have not defined "society" as a tangible term.  They are contributing to individuals who make up society, they are contributing to upholding law and order which benefits every person within their jurisdiction.  They are providing a service for the people who make up "society" yes.  But they are not contributing to an aggregate.

Pizza delivery men, posties, brickies, entrepreneurs and businessmen are all contributing to the lives of people who live in our society, they make their living by serving people who are part of our society.

We exist in a society together. As in, I'm not left to fend for myself if my entire family and community of friends were to die suddenly and I lose my livelihood. Should I be?

But that goes beyond the definition of society that you initially posted, this is what I am getting at.  There is a leap from the definition of 'society' to the common usage of the term, which involves the abstract feelings and beliefs that it evokes in people.  To you, society is clearly more than an aggregate of individuals from a specific place.  I want you and hansen6 to explain to me the essence of that.

[-Q-]

That idea is false, governments are chosen by the people. Society controls the government.

So you must be happy with our present government then?

You'd be happy if "the people" chose to disregard individual rights and imprison all Muslims, just in case they were terrorists?  I would be appalled and I would oppose "society"

[-Q-]

Then make your mind up - is the money that Apple deposits at the bank going back into the economy or not?

Some of it is.  Banks don't loan out every single dollar, even under FRB.

What's the spread these days between deposits and loans? How much are they paying on the money deposited, and how much are they charging for a loan? Noone expects them to give 5 and charge 5, but fakinell, they'll pay *nothing* and charge 27% to some asshole with bad credit only.

I'm not going to defend the banks.  They are in collusion with government.  This is the problem.  Take away their state protection and the central bank meddling with the interest rates.

However, no-one has a right to a loan.  If you want a loan, you will either take it at 27% or you don't.  That is your choice.  If they have no takers, the rate falls. 
(It is less much less straightforward with deposits, as investments are harder to make and less liquid.  Competition will drive up the rate when capital is scarce)

Banks are used to relying much more on the investment banking/casino gambling arms these days than traditional commercial banking arms. I bank at a credit union. I get more, and pay less. My credit union doesn't fuck around with my money.

A brilliant solution within the free market.

In the meantime, guess what the assholes on Wall Street are doing again?

I don't recall that I was defending them.  I defend capitalism and the free market.  Not corrupt corporations that are in bed with the state.