But without the US, China cannot grow.   If the economy falters there, there would be civil unrest, which would jeopardize the gov't and the power structure in place.

Personally, I can't see how that can possibly happen.  There is a balance in place that let's things "work".  Any major disruption to that would jeopardize all those in power and, more or  less, the "stability" of the world.

China's internal market is bigger than the entire US market and growing rapidly.

"Unless someone like Perry gets into office (which is only remotely possible)"

I think if China dumped all their bonds on an open market either someone would have to buy them, or they would have to keep them.  It's like if I wanted to sell my old washing machine on Craigslist, if no one wants to buy it I can't sell it.  So it's probably very important for China that the US dollar stays relatively strong.  If our dollar inflates too fast, they lose their investment.

Also, if America wasn't buying cheap Chinese crap and dog food that poisons dogs and such, I don't think any other country would.  China's manufacturing would take a serious hit if we quit buying their crap, unless they were able to build a second economy dependent on their cheap crap (which I expect is going to be India).  On the other hand, I don't think American's would quit buying cheap Chinese crap even if we did go to war with them because we're kind of stupid like that. 

I think most of the US debt is currently held by the Federal Reserve, which is in some way related to the 'quantitative easing' thing. 

http://www.businessinsider.com/who-owns-us-debt-2011-7#hong-kong-1

You guys crack me up.  Donna thanks for posting, what an inspiring action.

Trace I totally understand that point of view, and I think it is a strong argument.

I guess what I am getting at is that when a country like China owns 1.5 trillion dollars worth of America, I think the probability for influencing our policies is substantial.  I have recently read some articles about how the wiki leaks cables have already illustrated this in a number of US policies.

I'll second the thanks to Donna. Great find! It put an instant smile on my face.

The response from the attendees was comical. Ignore, deny, anger, fear. Brilliant!

what were the attendees supposed to do, rusty!?

join in the action to deny scott walker his constitutional right to free speech?

FRaC, what they were supposed to do was think about why people would go to such extremely impolite means to get a message across.  Impolite, but not violent.  Walker's union busting, on the other hand, wreaks economic violence on thousands of working families while politely serving a steaming hot meal of tax breaks to his wealthy campaign contributors.

PS you're stretching the meaning of free speech laughably thin, there.  This was exceptionally impolite, but not even close to unconstitutional, or even illegal.

scott walker didn't bust up any unions.  he rolled back the conflict of interest that public employee union collective bargaining is.  'economic violence'?  talk about laughable ..

PS how's that iPad working out for you?  it's hard to live in this oppressive police state!

What does iPads have to do with it?

FRaC you act* exactly like those Occupiers here on Archinect, one would think you'd have sympathy for their tactics.

* except of course they don't act anonymously, as you do.  not worth the risk, huh?

Barbie Liberation Army - that's friggin awesome!

Hahahaha  take a look at this goofy speech by Rick Perry....This guy is smoking crack or something.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=EcdkVSXGmes

Thanks for the link, Donna.

Scott Walker is a dirty prick.  Anyone who wants to pick a fight with teachers is an asshole.  Anyone who wants to pick a fight with teachers as a pretext to breaking up unions is an even bigger asshole.  I swear it seems like we are re-living the 1930s, which is scary because we know what happened next.  Unions are a necessary balance of power to corporate oligarchs.  The sooner people realize this, the sooner we can go back to establishing an American middle class.  I have no interest in living in a country that is competitive in a global market if it means my life expectancy is pathetic and my living/working conditions are even worse.

I especially love how the protesters message was long and outlasted the "applause" technique those suits tried use to drown out the message.  Well done

I have no interest in living in a country that is competitive in a global market if it means my life expectancy is pathetic and my living/working conditions are even worse.

Excellent point, newguy.  Bears repeating.

the sooner we can go back to establishing an American middle class.

Actually, I think the last thing America needs is a middle class.

The middle class has its roots in European culture as far back as the 1600s but really comes into prominence during the early-to-mid 1700s— the terms "middle class" and "bourgeoisie" are largely interchangeable.

And if you really want to stretch it out, the Renaissance was primarily started by the middle class as the Famiglia de' Medici weren't originally titled people. In fact, the Medici's only came to power after the establishment of their bank and many of their other side ventures.

What we tend to fail to forget was that most of the social revolutions and civil wars during the 18th- and 19th-century weren't simply conflicts of non-aristocrats versus aristocrats, these revolutions and wars were peasants versus the bourgeoisie and the aristocracy. The middle-class has used this to their advantage by taking the sheer number and strength of the peasant class and making revolution and warfare about governance rather than condition— the Founding Fathers did it in America, the House of Orange-Nassau did it in the Netherlands and even James I of England did it too.

So, when you hear of Marx or Engels or even Mao Zedong talking about "the people," it's generally in reference to the working and or peasant class— yesteryear's coal miners and factory workers are today's AT&T sales associates and Starbucks Baristas.

The middle class, until very recently, has all shared various similar characteristics— generally populations of laymen, professionals, merchants and bankers living in medium to large size urban areas that frequently have no real governmental power or title. This essentially means that everyone outside of D.C. and the military is "middle-class" in the U.S. from "main street" vendors to Wall Street bankers.

I was referring to the middle class mostly in an economic sense.  But I certainly think the middle class should feel fairly represented in a democratic sense.  As it currently stands, the middle class is evaporating not only in an economic sense, but politically as well.

The problem, as I see it, is that the middle class has been squeezed completely during the merger of Corporations and the State.  Now, even though we still have a vote, our voices are drowned out by corporate lobbyist that can buy politicians.  They've essentially found a way to get representation without taxation.  It would be an impressive feat if it weren't so damning to the general public.  I actually read a report on politico that cited a study stating that $1 in campaign donations yields a $220 return in favorable legislation.  So obviously, our representatives are catering to financial interests instead of their constituency.

It is sad watching the middle class disappear.  That is what drives this country - the small business owner, the couple that can upgrade their home, the retirees that can buy a decent place to live their last years.  

Neither party is really doing anything for the middle class.  Clearly, as newguy points out, 'we' don't have the votes to really sway a party.  

I am listening, attentively, for someone to promote something, anything, that helps the middle class regain its strength, but I have yet to hear anything, from anyone.

newguy said: I have no interest in living in a country that is competitive in a global market if it means my life expectancy is pathetic and my living/working conditions are even worse.

except that we currently have the longest life expectancy and best living/working conditions history has known ..

18x32 said: @newguy but mostly @FRaC: on top that all that you've said was wrapped in the pretence of a budget item, hoping to slip unpalatable policy through other means to disguise the issue while the Republican state congress worked through illegal procedures to artificially accelerate votes without congressional discussion...

it was the democrats who illegally fled wisconsin because they didn't have the votes to protect their union bosses.

but back to the topic:

the terms "middle class" and "bourgeoisie" are largely interchangeable.

Where does that come from?  The bourgeoisie controls capital, as compared to the proletariat that has no capital and thus has to sell his/her labor.  I consider myself middle class, but I don't have shit for capital with the possible exception of my house (which is mostly owned by a credit union).  That means I have to sell my labor to keep food on my table.  That means I'm pretty much the opposite of bourgeoisie.  I'm different than some definitions of 'working class' in that I'm quite well educated and my labor comes in the form of thinking things through rather than simply providing a warm able body.  However, I'm pretty sure I'm still a proletariat by any definition.

My boss has capital in that he can make money off of my labor.  That's an asset he controls, along with his greater investment in stocks, land, or whatever other sort of capital he controls.  However, he doesn't get nearly enough money from that to live comfortably, so my boss also has to come in to the office and do actual work every day.  Again, since he doesn't have enough control of capital that he has to sell labor, he is not bourgeoisie.

Probably no useful point to this, but that just kind of bugged me.

except that we currently have the longest life expectancy and best living/working conditions history has known ..

Actually, this generation is the first group to likely have more debt than their parents, earn less money, experience downward mobility, be less educated, and working conditions are continuously eroding due to deregulation and union busting.

So no, your statement is not correct.  That's why people are pissed.

FRaC, those Dems that left Wisconsin did so because they were standing by their principles.  What principles were the Republicans standing by when they voted to prevent public employees from receiving a living wage, benefits, and a chance to live a comfortable life?  What principles does the Republican party have beyond making selfishness appear virtuous?

What principles do you stand by when you post here, anonymously?  What have you gone out, physically, personally, and protested for?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0pX9LeE-g8

To protect and serve

FRaC, those Dems that left Wisconsin did so because they were standing by their principles.  What principles were the Republicans standing by when they voted to prevent public employees from receiving a living wage, benefits, and a chance to live a comfortable life?  What principles does the Republican party have beyond making selfishness appear virtuous?

so public employees don't receive a living wage, benefits, or have a chance at a 'comfortable life'?  did scott walker bust up the unions or not?  because i think all those public employees are still unionized.

hey check it out it's working http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/127269673.html

your simplistic summation of republican party principles is completely misguided and not worthy of a response (oops i just did).

What principles do you stand by when you post here, anonymously?  What have you gone out, physically, personally, and protested for?

most people post here anonymously.  i realize i am in the minority with my views 'round here and given the violence and general craziness of these occupiers i choose to remain anonymous.  i don't think i've ever physically picketed before but i protest vote all the time.  i have gone out of my way to sign petitions for certain bills (there's one in cali right now that would, gasp, strip collective bargaining rights for pubic employees omg!) i'm not angry or jealous at the 1%; i'm just doing my thing to try and make the world a better place and if i have an effect on some people's lives then hey good enough for me.

just please stop with the hyperbole.  it's like that newguy up there saying that today's youth going from a life expectancy of 77.9 years to 77.6 years is 'pathetic'.  or that regulation is decreasing come ON!..

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I0pX9LeE-g8

THIS IS OURS

"so public employees don't receive a living wage, benefits, or have a chance at a 'comfortable life'?  did scott walker bust up the unions or not?  because i think all those public employees are still unionized.

hey check it out it's working http://www.jsonline.com/news/statepolitics/127269673.html"

According to the article the city will save $25M - $14M (state cuts) = about $9M. Good on them!

Further research reveals that Milwaukee's operating budget is $446M but jumps to $592M with health care costs added to the mix. The health care costs are ballooning out of control each year, and the response here was to download all the additional expenses on to the workers. Fair or not, (not my call) but this is effectively a pay cut. I can't think of any single person that would be happy to get a pay-cut.

"your simplistic summation of republican party principles is completely misguided and not worthy of a response"

If I was in charge of dealing with unions, I would give them hell on each item they demand. It's called negotiation and it happens in everyday life. Unions will demand what they think they can get (get away with). Other side has the responsibility to counter-attack. 

But here is how "republican party principles" come into play. Demonize the other side, and TAKE AWAY THEIR RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE. Did I get this one right?

Dislike of unions (there's lots to dislike) has turned into an ideological bloodsport fueled by pure hatred. And it totally works. People like you are convinced that the only roadblock to eternal happiness is a janitor who makes $20/h. Sad, and lacking any perspective.

 " i realize i am in the minority with my views 'round here "

I don't get how someone working as an architect could do a good job while exhibiting anti-social tendencies. Architecture is fundamentally a liberal profession. For each project you do you will have tens of thousands of clients. Empathy is kind of an important design skill to have. 

Perhaps your views are a put on? Architects look and sound the same. Yawn. But you're different! You are the 1% (in your head).

And FRaC, your simplistic summation of everyone who is NOT the republican party is completely misguided.  Your party recently introduced legislation to loosen child labor laws, yet you say flat out that regulation of work environments is NOT decreasing? 

You want to justify being selfish, FRaC, and if you think my politics aren't worthy of a response then let's stop talking about them and talk about regular old stuff instead.

Hey did you notice your buddy Ramos (or was it Compean? Doesn't matter) got sent back  to jail for two years for kicking a handcuffed 15 year old boy in the back?  Nice crowd you hang out with (even though I do agree the original charges and imprisonment of the two was completely fucked up).

Why don't you come clean about your identity here, Free Ramos and Compean?  I rarely hear you talk about architecture here, are you actually an architect?  Maybe in a union job?

MIC CHECK, FRaC.  

The difference between republicans and democrats is about the same as the difference between toMAYto and toMAHto.

There are two parties: politicans and corporations on one side, citizens on the other.

Ugh, Miles, I know you're right, but the Rs seem so much more blatantly anti-human compassion than the Ds.  Though some of my local party Ds are slimeballs when it comes to party politics, for sure.

Getting away from politics as usual and back to Occupy: Charles Mudede paraphrasing Slavoj Zizek:

Power really wants clear demands from Occupy, it wants it to fill in the void the protests have opened, it wants to answer the demands on its own terms and continue on essentially as before but with some minor adjustments—offer support of mortgages, decrease payments for student loans, and so on. Power hates a vacuum. This is why we must prolong the void and spend more time thinking about what is wanted. Time must be on our side.

I'm looking forward to this movement stretching out, evolving into actions like the MIC CHECK breakfast and Bank Transfer Day, seeing more Iraq vets come out against corporate profits bought in the blood of the lower classes (with chants like "Halliburton and Bechtel think that these wars are swell!"), and more colorful economic culture jamming actions.  Occupy Christmas!

Idea for Occupy Christmas, make your gifts for everyone! (or buy from small artisans etc..)  Don't buy anything!  I think that would give "Black Friday" a new meaning.

At least republicans are honest about their platform. Democrats talk like humanitarians (relatively, by comparison, at least) but vote like republicans.

"At least republicans are honest about their platform. Democrats talk like humanitarians (relatively, by comparison, at least) but vote like republicans."

This is fucking hilarious... what does it mean?  At least Hitler was honest about hating the jews!  At least Pol Pot didn't pull any punches!  At least Rush is honest when he talks about hating Obama and is honest about how drugs are ruining america, etc.  I'm interested.. what is honest about the republican platform?  What makes it 'honest'?

and apologies if that was overly harsh... i may agree with you if i fully understand what you meant..

and to those that may thought that Hank Williams Jr actually was equating Obama to Hitler... I am not trying to compare the Republicans to any of the above.

Last thing... Donna.

I don't think that there has been a single political discussion where FRAC has not taken out the 'i know my views aren't popular around here' card.

and FRAC... I don't think you have to worry about people coming after you.. I understand why you like your anonymity..you don't have to make martyr-like excuses for it...  i don't think that violence has been a 'GIVEN' as you state with the occupy wall street protest...there has been some violence, but mostly the police on the protesters... if this is a violent protest i'd like to see what you'd call a protest with actual violence...but then again we're avoiding hyperbole aren't we...

Bottom line is that the republicans are far more corrupt than the democrats.  Just because there are 2 parties does not mean that they are equally evil...The excuse that the dems are corrupt sometimes too, is a foolish reason to support the way more obviously corrupt / anti-human party.  Its like saying you are against the civil rights movement because MLK may of had an affair, so you support the kkk instead.  These attempts to delegitamize the dems or the occupy crowd, by finding mistakes here and there by people who happen to be associated, is  STUPID!  Everyone should have an equal right to express their opinion, but not all opinions are equal.

Just to play devil's advocate ('cause this discussion is just so fun!), you really think the D's are less corrupt than the R's?  Personally, they both look as corrupt as the other, just different corruption.

I am still praying for some magical third party to emerge.  Most people are pissed off about the same things, most people want the same things.  Neither party is offering any solutions and continue down the same road as always.

Look, I vote Democratic and am a registered Democrat, but let's be real here:  The Democratic establishment is currently in bed with the banks.  There is no denying that.  Obama received more campaign funding from Wall Street than any president before him.  His Secretary of Treasury, Tim Geithner, is a former Goldman Sachs CEO.  Henry Paulsen was a Goldman Sachs CEO as well, and Robert Rubin under Clinton was a former Goldman Sachs board member.  The repeal of Glass Steagal was signed into law underneath Clinton (by a Republican held Congress, but Clinton still signed it with the support of Robert Rubin).  Obama has fallen drastically short of any real Finance legislation, and that's a real shame, because there is NO WAY a Republican president will regulate anything.  The banks own us all, let's not forget that.

Republicans have the agenda of screwing the working man, and have declared it open season on the middle class and moved further and further to the right over the course of the last 30 years.  The sad truth is, however, that Democrats have moved further and further to the right as well in order to maintain power in a feeble attempt to compromise with the Republican party.

This country needs an actual progressive voice, and one that will say "to hell with the Republican party," and actually bring the Democrats back to the left instead of the center-right, where they currently stand.  And registered Democrats such as myself have to be vocal in our demands that our elected officials ACTUALLY listen to us, and we need to hold them accountable when they fuck up.  The Democratic party has had a 30 year policy of shedding off the progressive voice in order to compete with the Republicans, because they knew we would still vote for them over the alternative.  It's time we start demanding that they listen to us now.

@larslarson, the point was that republicans say exactly what they want, even if they don't say or lie about why. You never have to wonder about how a republican will vote. A democrat, on the other hand, will blather on about people and human values and then go vote for corporate interests.

I'm voting a straight Dem ticket tomorrow.  Thankfully I'm voting FOR two people on that ballot, not just voting against their opponents, which is a welcome change.

But as you say, newguy, we need to hold the people we elect accountable.  This is why I want Occupy to stir things up for everyone - no one should be comfortable with the way the system works right now.

I am still praying for some magical third party to emerge.  Most people are pissed off about the same things, most people want the same things.  Neither party is offering any solutions and continue down the same road as always.

down the rabbit hole.

I'm going to go join the rabbit hole party tomorrow....

At least they're honest.

i can't remember the last time i voted a straight 'party' ticket (in any kind of semi-major election) ..

And FRaC, your simplistic summation of everyone who is NOT the republican party is completely misguided.  Your party recently introduced legislation to loosen child labor laws, yet you say flat out that regulation of work environments is NOT decreasing?

link, please.  i remember oe was very good at hyperboliz-ing legislation.

Why don't you come clean about your identity here, Free Ramos and Compean?  I rarely hear you talk about architecture here, are you actually an architect?  Maybe in a union job?

i'm a licensed california architect.  if you could click on my profile like the olden days you would see my recent posts.  i posted in the 'when did modern architecture start?' thread and the answer was: 1885.  i posted some stuff in the film/architecture thread.  and then there was the 'space in art' thing where i remembered the good ol' richard serra answer. 

before that i was very active in any and all threads regarding FREE california accessibility continuing education.  if you need links, support, advice, or just a shoulder to cry on bump any of those threads and i will help you through it (did i mention i hate increased regulation?!? freakin' continuing ed! ugh!).

rusty! said: If I was in charge of dealing with unions, I would give them hell on each item they demand. It's called negotiation and it happens in everyday life. Unions will demand what they think they can get (get away with). Other side has the responsibility to counter-attack.

But here is how "republican party principles" come into play. Demonize the other side, and TAKE AWAY THEIR RIGHT TO NEGOTIATE. Did I get this one right?

that would be nice if the 'other side' would counter-attack unreasonable and unsustainable union demands.  but they don't because they (wisconsin democrats and, in my experience, california democrats) are funded by the same unions they are supposed to play hardball with.  in public employee unions there is no evil corporation .. we the taxpayers are the 'corporation'.  capisce?

Hey did you notice your buddy Ramos (or was it Compean? Doesn't matter) got sent back  to jail for two years for kicking a handcuffed 15 year old boy in the back?  Nice crowd you hang out with (even though I do agree the original charges and imprisonment of the two was completely fucked up).

D.Sink do you have a link for this?  i've searched iterations of 'Ignacio Ramos' and 'Jose Compean' and bits of what you said happened and can't find any mention of this.  thanks for being one of the few to understand the original story.

Lets put it this way....Do you feel safer with a dems finger on the button of a 10 megaton nuke or some wacko like Bachman, Perry, Cain?  Seriously! Did you see the maple syrup link I posted earlier? Yes both parties are corrupt, but the R's are more corrupt, more nuts, more corporate friendly, and pretty stupid too.  As far as the R's being straight foward, have you seen how many times Romney has changed his position?  They will say anything to get ahead and make money for their criminal buddies.  Anyway, why is it a virtue to be such an arrogant prick that you can just stand in front of the country and say " you are poor and lazy and If you vote for me I'm going to make your shitty life even worse because Jesus told me to?"  This takes a real a-hole!  If someone stole my stuff I would be pissed, but it would be worse if they walked up to me the next day wearing my jacket, saying; hey man I stole your shit and I ain't givin it back Wooohooo Jesus is the man!!!?

Another thing is that they are not straight foward!  They lie all the time and cover their pro greed policy with the excuse that its their belief.  In my opinion if you are going to run a country and you "don't believe" in global warming when the friggin polar bears are floating on little ice rafts like "hey what the fuck is going on," and 99% of all scientists agree, then you are either full of shit and willingly putting the people of the planet in danger to make more money for your billionare friends, or you are dumb!  I don't think they are as dumb as they act or they wouldn't be where they are.  There beliefs all seem to align with the interests of the corporations that pay them.  God controls the air not humans=$$$ 

Yes I agree that we need a third more progressive party but until we get one why would anyone vote for the more of two evils.

Yes I agree that we need a third more progressive party but until we get one why would anyone vote for the more of two evils.

This is exactly the problem, though, in my opinion.  Instead of running full steam into a pile of shit, we're walking cautiously into that same pile.

Let's be honest here.  We Americans have two choices when it comes to our politicians.  We can either vote for a Republican.  Or we can vote for a Republican who wants to make abortions illegal.  That's it, those are our only two options.  When it comes to issues that really affect Americans, we have no choice.

More lovely proof that our democracy is a sham:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xe1d32I_wUY

Revolving doors between Washington and Corporations, lobbying that sees a return of $220 in favorable legislation for every $1 spent...The list goes on.  Huge conflicts of interests that are completely ignored.

There is literally no line between government and corporation in this country.  The two have completely merged.

http://www.ilga.gov/commission/jcar/admincode/068/068011500000850R.html

c)         Use of Title

3)         No person, without possessing a valid license as an architect issued by the Division, shall in any manner hold himself or herself out to the public as an architect, attach the title "architect" or any of its derivations, or offer to render or render to individuals, corporations, or the public any architectural services as defined in the Act if the word "architect" or any of its derivations are used to describe the person offering to render or rendering them or describe the services rendered or offered to be rendered.

Where does that come from?

Because that's where it largely comes from.

As an example, France's per-revolution bourgeoisie, for the most part, was wealthier than it's aristocratic counterparts. While the aristocratic system was largely blamed for the growing debt and food shortages in France amongst the peasant class, it's often overlooked that the two centuries prior to the Revolution was one of the first times in a 1000-year-period that France, along with many other European countries, was actually experiencing net economic growth.

This analysis also largely ignores France's imperial ambitions abroad. It was largely the combination of spending on two wars (Seven Years' War and the American Revolution) and then funding a larger future revenge war to get its colonies back. Oddly enough, France decided the best policy in terms of rectifying its debt and to effectively simplify the tax system was to institute a flat tax. Approximately 5% across all revenue streams, the tax was proposed as a way of pacifying and manipulating the Estates General (the democratic portion of government).

Does this not sound familiar at all?

England had already done a similar thing, too.

[Accidental post.]

The difference between the two was that England's banking system was far different than France's. France's nobility essentially only makes money if it's peasants make money as the right of ownership granted to the nobility means that they also have to pay interest (salaries) to the peasants whose possessions they borrow. That means when the nobility borrowed money, they have to borrow enough to not only pay their expenses but pay the expenses of everyone they also borrowed against.

The key issue here is that France's aristocratic circles made up 2% of the entire population (including the military, the clergy and the nobles). It's bourgeoisie made up between 5-7%. That means their 1% was effectively between 7-9%. And their 1% was policed by each other until it eventually broke out. In a class-based society like this, the classes largely combated one another even though it was largely at the expense of the peasantry. In a classless society like the United States, their are no nobles, no church, no soldiers and no monarch to express your grievances. We have no Louis, no Comte d'Argenson, no Maximilien Robespierre and no Jean-Sifrein Maury.

So, do we really need to keep hammering nails into the coffin of a so-called "middle class?" Technically, there's more starving people in the U.S. than there was working peasants in France in the 1780s.

And the Revolution happened over what relatively is, compared to today, a minor tax increase and a temporary seasonal price increase (double price) in wheat.