• Embed Doc
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Review
The Purdue
A JOURNAL OF THOUGHT & OPINION
how to Take downGolman Sacs
Volume 9, Issue 3
| December, 2011
Credit default swaps (CDSs) are an unregu-
lated inancial tool that can be used to wageinancial warfare. Read how CDSscould have devastating consequences.
The “Occupy” movement has reached the entire nation, complainingabout greed. But who is actually greedy? Read more inside.
6
National
Who’s who in the ongoingPenn state case? A detailedview on the key people inthis scandal.
 10
 
G
REED
 
IS
G
OOD
pg. 3
Campus
Several ps for reducingstress during the hecc pro-cess of studying for finals.
 12
Sports
A mid-season report on thePurdue basketball team.
 8
Campus
Ever wonder if Purdue’sgrading is tougher than Har-vard’s? Now there’s proof!
 4
E
XPOSING
 
THE
O
CCUPIERS
’ O
WN
G
REED
 
2
December, 2011
The Purdue Review
Letter FromThe Editor
Join Us:
The Purdue Review is looking for staff writers, columnists, pho-tographers, section editors, copy editors, layout editors, full time media specialists,graphic designers, and web designers.If you’re interested in joining The Purdue Review, please contact the Editor-in-Chief,Morgan Ikerd, at editor@purduereview.com.
All Majors Welcome.
Support Us:
The Purdue Review
is funded completely by dona-tions and advertisements. We receive no funding from Purdue University, the Repub-lican Party, or any political organization for that matter. Without the generous dona-tions from readers like you, The Purdue Review would not exist.If you are interested in supporting The Purdue Review and our cause, please con-
sider making a nancial donation. Donations can be mailed or made online. Checks
should be made out to The Purdue Review, Inc.. Mail subscriptions are free and canbe ordered on our website or by contacting the Publisher.
publisher@purduereview.com
The Purdue ReviewPO Box 931Lafayette, IN 47902
Morgan Ikerd,
 
 Editor-in-Chief 
Kristin Patras,
 
 Publisher 
Tom Chew

Managing Editor 
Aaron Anspaugh

 Features Editor 
Andrew Nguyen

 Layout Editor 
Dirk Schmidt

 Assistant Publisher 
Bobby Egan

Staff Writer 
Michael Keefer

Staff Writer 
Ian Wang

Staff Writer 
Schuyler DeArmond

Staff Writer 
John Noble

Guest Writer 
Michael Gardner

Copy Editor 
Board of Directors:
 
Nathan Arnold,
Chair 
Chase Slaughter, Adam Rusch, Jeff Schultz,David Bridges, Jan Payne, Vicki Burch
editor@purduereview.com
Greetings!
First of all, thank you for picking up the December issue of The Purdue Review. The PurdueReview was founded in January 2006 with the goal of providing a more conservative and lib
-
ertarian voice to both the Purdue campus and the Greater Lafayette community and we arevery proud to be continuing that honor today.Our world is going through tremendous changes every day. With the Occupy Protests, presi
-
dential debates, and political unrest in many parts of the world, there is always news to bereported. It is times like these when it is most important to stay informed on world events.Our articles are composed by students who feel passionate about the issues affecting ourlives and we strive to bring these matters to the forefront and get people thinking about andchallenging what goes on in the political realm. The Purdue Review is more than just a news
-
paper; it is a journal that focuses on the deeper analysis of important issues.Once again, we are glad you picked up this issue of The Purdue Review and we hope you enjoyreading it as much as we enjoyed putting it together! You can also visit our webpage at www.purduereview.com to read our blog or check out our complete collection of issues.Regards,Morgan IkerdEditor in Chief 
Review
The Purdue
www.purduereview.com
Mission Statement:
The editorial staff at
The Purdue Review 
will uti-lize the medium of print to entertain, educate and enlighten the student body at Purdue Universityas well as the entire Greater Lafayette community.
Disclaimer:
 
The views expressed within these pages are the views held express-
ly by each respective writer. The opinions of these writers do not necessarily reect the opinions
of any of the other writers in this publication nor by Purdue University. This paper is not directly
afliated with Purdue University; however, the staff is comprised entirely of Purdue students. This
paper is distributed by the University Conservative Action Network (U-CAN), a registered Student
Organization. The rst copy of this issue is free, at distribution sites. For additional copies, contact
the Publisher, Kristin Patras, at publisher@purduereview.com.
 
3
The Purdue Review
December, 2011
Exposing the Occupiers’ Own Greed
By
AAron AnspAugh
We are the 99%! The 1% is oppressingus! The rich need to pay their fair share!Greed is ruining our country!It should be obvious that these are theslogans of the Occupy Wall Street move
-
ment. These angry words have beenbouncing around the stinking and dis
-
ease-ridden tent towns across the nation.Why are they so angry? Why are all thesepeople, supposedly representing the vast majority of America, so adamantly against such a small minority? Their responsewould be a collection of incoherent bab
-
bling about greed, Wall Street, and banks,perhaps with a sprinkling of anti-Semiticconspiracy theories. My response is that each and every person in the Occupymovement is just as greedy, except with adifferent method of chasing their desiresthan the capitalists they loathe.Let us take a look at the supposedly“greedy” businesses that the Occupymovement hates. What have they donewrong? As a business, they wanted prof 
-
its for the owners (the entire purpose of abusiness). They sold goods or performedservices, paid for expenses, and pocketedthe rest. Nothing was illegal, immoral, orunjust about this. Goods and/or servic
-
es were exchanged in a free market, andmultiple people beneitted throughout the sequence (the employees, the inves
-
tors, the users of the product). This meth
-
od involved no forced coercion of othersin order to get the desired result.Now let us look at the other method:the forced coercion method of govern
-
ment. The Occupiers also want things.They are greedy. They want student loansforgiven, higher pay, free healthcare, anda variety of other handouts. They feelthey are entitled to these because theyhave somehow been “used” by the rich.Here is where the main difference comesin. How do these greedy protestors dif 
-
fer from the greedy bankers? (Other thanin body odor). The difference is in theprescribed method of obtaining theirdesires. The occupiers’ desires ALL in
-
volve massive government involvement,coniscation of wealth, redistribution of resources, nationalization of industries,and regulation of just about everything.So on one side, you have greedy peo
-
ple who want to feed their greed throughhard work and voluntary exchange, andon the other side you have greedy peoplewho want the government to feed theirgreed by taking from others at the point of a gun. Which group is actually worse?The Occupiers have participated in vol
-
untary markets their entire lives, beneit 
-
ting greatly from the exchanges. Yet theyare now angry that the outcomes havesomehow beneitted the “rich” more thanthem. So everyone gained, some morethan others, but the inequality in the out 
-
come is somehow a travesty.Looking out at the sea of signs withinan Occupy movement, you may assumethat these people have some connectionto the hippies of yesteryear. They use theword “free” a lot. They talk about “peaceand “love”. They have a tremendous dis
-
regard for personal hygiene. While all of these things are similar to the hippies of the ‘60s, let there be no mistaking what these Occupiers truly are: statists. Anydemand for “free” stuff is usually accom
-
panied by a demand that this be fundedby taking from the rich. And who woulddo this? Any demand for higher wages,more unemployment, healthcare, student loan reductions, etc… would all necessar
-
ily need to be forced out of others by themassive hand of Big Brother.There will always be a 99%, and therewill always be a 1%. In the days of mon
-
archies, the 1% was royalty. In dictator
-
ships, the 1% is the ruling military. Incommunist countries, the 1% is the rul
-
ing class within government who makessure everyone else is equal. What makescapitalism different? In capitalist nations,your place in either the 99% or the 1%can be impacted by your own decisions.I can choose to work harder than 99% of my countrymen, and through no coercionof others, eventually gain enough wealthto statistically be considered part of the1%.Take a look at the list of America’s rich
-
est people or the most successful busi
-
nesses. How many of them were around10 years ago? 20 years ago? 40 yearsago? The point is that our “classes” arenot rigid, unlike just about every othersystem of government. Being in the 1%now does not mean you are guaranteedto stay there. Being in the 99% now doesnot mean you are destined for a life of mis
-
ery. Even within our 99%, there is a hugerange of wealth levels that people move inand out of constantly. This is the nature of a free society. Work harder; improve yourlife. Satisfy your greed through voluntaryexchange.Our nation is built on greed, or morespeciically, people pursuing their ownself-interest. We created a society inAmerica where people could participatein voluntary interactions with each otherand climb the economic ladder as a re
-
sult. This leads to, not surprisingly, var
-
ied outcomes. The key in a free society,however, is not equality of the outcome; it is equality under the law. There is no fun
-
damental problem with someone simplyhaving more than someone else. Unless,of course, you are a statist.The cause of the statist is equality of outcomes, not equality under the law.Statists force equality by bringing peopledown, not by enabling them to rise. With
-
in a communist country, statists shouldbe content that the income gap is quitesmall! In fact, there is very little differ
-
ence between the miserable low class, themiserable middle class, and the slightlyless miserable ruling class. The guy at thevery top is probably pretty happy, but thiscomes at the expense of a very poor (but very equal) nation.Is this really the way we want to go?Clearly, greed is still the driving factor be
-
hind both our economy and these Occupymovements. Everyone wants stuff; theyjust have different ways of getting that stuff. Capitalists desire equality underthe law, voluntary exchange, and self-suf 
-
iciency. The Occupiers desire equality ooutcome, government-forced redistribu
-
tion, and leeching on the wealth of others.In fact, I think it is safe to say that the Oc
-
cupy movement owes a debt of gratitudeto the 1%.The top 1% of income earners inAmerica pays a whopping 37% of all in
-
come taxes, and the top 10% pays 70%.When thinking about all of the goods andservices from the “rich” that the Occupi
-
ers have consumed over their lifetimes,including all of the government servicesthat are funded through taxes, it is clearthat the top income earners are almost singlehandedly supporting these over
-
grown children. Those in the Occupymovement should look deep inside, ac
-
cept how greedy they really are, andchoose a course for their lives that fulillstheir desires without leeching off the richor demanding government action. After,of course, they take a very long shower.
How do the Occupiers differ fromthe greedy bankers they target?The difference is in the prescribedmethod of obtaining their desires.
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...