More Occupation of Wall Street

[felice]

How can people be holding down jobs, or even looking for work, when they're living in a park full-time and protesting?

Actually, surveys taken of protestors show that the majority are employed.

Presumably the ones with jobs are only at the protests outside working hours. And why should the unemployed protesters waste their time looking for work when there aren't enough jobs to go round? Even if they're lucky enough to get a job themselves, they'll be taking it away from someone else.

[Former Lord of Winterfell]

And why should the unemployed protesters waste their time looking for work when there aren't enough jobs to go round? Even if they're lucky enough to get a job themselves, they'll be taking it away from someone else.

Well, I guess I can't argue with that. Of course, that's true no matter how gangbusters the economy is going, but what the heck, you're on a roll.

[Jon Sprunk]

FLoW,

There seem to be a lot of ideas tossed around at these events. One of the few things the protests seem to agree upon is that the current "system" (i.e., the government-capitalist complex) is rigged to enrich those at the very top while pacifying everyone else (the 99%) with scraps. Now, you can argue whether this is the result of bribed (sorry, "lobbied") politicians or just a happy capitalist accident, but you can't argue with the fact that the wealth-gap in this country has exploded. A large swathe of Americans are being pushed around, and they are tired of it.

Also, I'd argue with your definitions. Capitalists in the pure sense want cars and homes and college for themselves; they don't care -- by ideology -- what happens to anyone else.

[Swordfish]

I rather suspect you are right that the protests will fizzle as the harsh New York winter starts to snow on them. However the protests can't go on forever in any case, and they can always start up again in spring.

And much as you wish that the masses will eventually start to be disgusted with the OWS people as "lazy hippies" it doesn't seem to be happening. Conservatives are, but they would be anyway - they have not changed their opinion.

Why? Because it's getting them listened to.

And are they really trying to persuade conservatives, as you seem to think, or energize the left/moderates? I think it's the latter.

Energize them to do what though?

No doubt some were converted by each of the movements but it does not seem to be the primary aim of either, which has to be more about "getting your voice heard."

What is it that they want to be heard about though that wasn't already in the public dialogue?

Politicians are beholden to special interests? Water is wet.

Unemployment is high? Frozen water is cold.

They don't like bonuses for fat evil greedy rich people? Heard it all before.

Specifically, what is it that they eel being 'heard' is going to accomplish?

The tea party was effective at getting movement on their goals because they got people elected, not because they had some rallies.

The OWS doesn't even really have, as far as I can see, any cohesive comprehensible goals (beyond 'getting heard', whatever that means) that people can say 'Yes, I agree with this group of people and will participate in changing something'.

Isk said it better than i can, so i'll just quote him:

- What does success for OWS look like? If they want to repudiate the inequality of capitalism, how will they carry the 99% with them? For all of the complaints about the disappearing middle-class, the middle-class fled to the suburban school districts to give their kids an advantage over the poor urban kids, the middle-class goes into debt to send their kids to college to improve their relative chances of lifetime earnings, the middle-class sends both parents to work to improve their lifestyle purchasing power, the middle-class buys cheap goods from China so that they can have more stuff even though they know it means less jobs for Americans. The 99% are full participants in this scramble for relative wealth, they choose it every day in a million little ways (and in some big ones). Most of the 1% were not born into the 1% (think of Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, most CEOs, most of Wall St.). So we're talking about a culture where everyone is buying lottery tickets, but resenting the ones who won that lottery. Do we expect people to repudiate the lottery, or do they just want to force some change in the pay-out structure?

[Ken Stone]

The tea party was effective at getting movement on their goals because they got people elected, not because they had some rallies.

It looked to me like the Tea Party got some Republicans elected, who then ignored the Tea Party agenda. Not sure that is progress.

The OWS doesn't even really have, as far as I can see, any cohesive comprehensible goals (beyond 'getting heard', whatever that means) that people can say 'Yes, I agree with this group of people and will participate in changing something'.

So a group has to have all the answers figured out before they can express dissatisfaction? It looks to me like they are sick of corruption in gov't. I'm sure you are too. You've decided the best course of action is to do nothing. Others have decided to protest. If that makes you the better person then so be it.

[Ken Stone]

- What does success for OWS look like? If they want to repudiate the inequality of capitalism, how will they carry the 99% with them? For all of the complaints about the disappearing middle-class, the middle-class fled to the suburban school districts to give their kids an advantage over the poor urban kids, the middle-class goes into debt to send their kids to college to improve their relative chances of lifetime earnings, the middle-class sends both parents to work to improve their lifestyle purchasing power, the middle-class buys cheap goods from China so that they can have more stuff even though they know it means less jobs for Americans. The 99% are full participants in this scramble for relative wealth, they choose it every day in a million little ways (and in some big ones). Most of the 1% were not born into the 1% (think of Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, most CEOs, most of Wall St.). So we're talking about a culture where everyone is buying lottery tickets, but resenting the ones who won that lottery. Do we expect people to repudiate the lottery, or do they just want to force some change in the pay-out structure?

To me success for OWS would be limiting the impact of money in politics. Mainly this system we have were a person gives 100k to a politician and gets back 1 million in contracts when that politician is elected.

[Swordfish]

It looked to me like the Tea Party got some Republicans elected, who then ignored the Tea Party agenda. Not sure that is progress.

So a group has to have all the answers figured out before they can express dissatisfaction? It looks to me like they are sick of corruption in gov't. I'm sure you are too. You've decided the best course of action is to do nothing. Others have decided to protest. If that makes you the better person then so be it.

Again, there are many ways to discuss this without opting for emotional tirades and personal attacks, particularly since you know jack all about what i am and am not doing.

i have no particular objection to the protests, I just don't understand what their success criteria is, or what it is they are hoping to accomplish beyond just 'protesting'.

To me success for OWS would be limiting the impact of money in politics.

Right. that is something you would like to see happen. How are the OWS protests getting us in any way closer to that? Simply complaining about it is unlikely to inspire change. it's a general enough statement of discontent, and one I happen to agree with, but it's more or less useless from a practical perspective.

Mainly this system we have were a person gives 100k to a politician and gets back 1 million in contracts when that politician is elected.

No, I don't think that is 'mainly the system we have'. At all. it's much more complex and insidious than anything that straight forward.

[Ken Stone]

Again, there are many ways to discuss this without opting for emotional tirades and personal attacks, particularly since you know jack all about what i am and am not doing.

i have no particular objection to the protests, I just don't understand what their success criteria is, or what it is they are hoping to accomplish beyond just 'protesting'.

Your bar for what constitutes a "personal attack" and "emotional tirade" is pretty low :lol

Really what you are saying is something I've been wondering about. I don't really know what the success criteria are. Is there any specific legislation that could be passed that would end the protests? I doubt it and I don't think that is the point. Maybe expressing dissatisfaction with corruption in gov't is enough because if feels better than doing nothing.

Right. that is something you would like to see happen. How are the OWS protests getting us in any way closer to that?

Are they getting us further away? If not then it's a long shot, but a long shot is better than no shot, isn't it?

[Swordfish]

Your bar for what constitutes a "personal attack" and "emotional tirade" is pretty low :lol

Really what you are saying is something I've been wondering about. I don't really know what the success criteria are. Is there any specific legislation that could be passed that would end the protests? I doubt it and I don't think that is the point. Maybe expressing dissatisfaction with corruption in gov't is enough because if feels better than doing nothing.

i suspect that you are right. that it is protest for the sake of protesting mostly.

If we're all willing to agree on that, then there really isn't much left to discuss.

Are they getting us further away? If not then it's a long shot, but a long shot is better than no shot, isn't it?

Not necessarily, no.

[Verboten]

Spoken by someone who doesn't even live in the country.

Yes you really should stop assuming you know anything about Egypt or Tunisia. You don't even live there, the newspapers and economy are lying to you.

[Verboten]

Also I think that complaining about the fact that OWS has no 'unified' statement is kind of strange since it is a movement that is supposed to include everyone who is not currently a millionare, regardless of religion, race, political leanings or age. The whole 99% thing kind of defines neat little definitions, and is quite frankly one of the reasons that makes this movement so interesting. It's not about Democrat vs. Republican it's about the fact that men are no longer equal and people are pissed off.

[ThinkerX]

Thanx Iskaral - about time sombody posted something relatively sane into this thread.

I'd like to hear what everyone thinks about the potential outcomes from this:

I did do a quick point by point deal earlier, using what is claimed to be a OWS 'manifesto' for a starting point. Still...

- First of all, OWS and the tea-party seem like the stunted grand-children of the socialist and fascist movements of the 1930s. There was also a sit-in protest by some military during the 1930s. Considering that conditions now are bleak but much less severe, can either extremity garner enough support to make fundamental change to our social/economic/political structure?

I think you've fallen into a fallacy here right off the bat. They are more ticked off at blatent corporate/political corruption than they are socialists. The majority probably see themselves as capitalists.

- How can OWS and the tea-party co-exist in our political structure? We have already seen 2 years of obstructionist nihilism at the behest of the tea-party. If a left-wing group goes toe-to-toe with them, will the entire governing process be irretrievably dead-locked?

Deadlock is almost the norm in US politics anymore. My long term contention here is that *BOTH* major political parties in the US have effectively 'sold out' to the corporate world over the past few decades. What differs is the manner of that sellout. You *MIGHT* almost make an argument that the Tea Party represents the 'real republicans' and the OWS crowd the 'real democrats' - though there are major problems with this.

I mention both OWS and the tea-party because I see them as political opposites stimulated by similar grievances. They may have some policy over-lap, e.g. ending corporate influence in govt, but they have very different visions for the future.

I have argued here a number of times that there are quite a few points of agreement between the TP and OWS, and that the more rational members of both groups (large majrities) could probably support the same legislative/legal fixes. However, extremists and corporate puppets cannot abide such cooperation.

- What does success for OWS look like? Do they want equality of opportunity or equality of condition? (a question borrowed from an excellent recent Economist op-ed). Socialists favor the latter, but America culturally has long favored the former.

The majority probably aim for 'equality of opportunity'.

- What does success for OWS look like? Increasing taxes on the rich only goes so far. It might feel like a good start, but all of the analysis I have seen shows that it cannot cover projected deficits. And rich people produce less when they have high actual marginal tax (I saw a very good study to support this). What does OWS really expect to happen? The more socialist countries of western Europe are even deeper in trouble with unsustainable govt promises.

Legit point. The bits I've read seem to be arguing for a radical revamping (simplication) of the tax code - basically ditching all exemptions/deductions, personal and corporate alike, NOT just 'taxing the rich'. This is probably long overdue. It is also probably something the saner (majority) elements of the Tea Party could get behind as well. However, without corresponding spending cuts deep enough to tick off everybody - TP, OWS, and corporate flunkies alike - it still leaves a huge mess to dig out from under.

- What does success for OWS look like? If they want to repudiate the inequality of capitalism, how will they carry the 99% with them? For all of the complaints about the disappearing middle-class, the middle-class fled to the suburban school districts to give their kids an advantage over the poor urban kids, the middle-class goes into debt to send their kids to college to improve their relative chances of lifetime earnings, the middle-class sends both parents to work to improve their lifestyle purchasing power, the middle-class buys cheap goods from China so that they can have more stuff even though they know it means less jobs for Americans. The 99% are full participants in this scramble for relative wealth, they choose it every day in a million little ways (and in some big ones). Most of the 1% were not born into the 1% (think of Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, most CEOs, most of Wall St.). So we're talking about a culture where everyone is buying lottery tickets, but resenting the ones who won that lottery. Do we expect people to repudiate the lottery, or do they just want to force some change in the pay-out structure?

I see a misconception here: the argument is not so much that OWS is irate that people made it into the '1%'; rather they are irked at the massive cheating and utter contempt shown towards others by those who are in the 1%. With the events of 2008, a *LOT* of the 1% should have dropped out of that catagory; instead they cheated to remain in that station.

Furthermore, the 1%, these days is largely dominated by financial guru's who have *directed* the outsourcing of US jobs and at least in the popular perspective, done everything they possibly could to keep middle class incomes flat. Or - adjusted for inflation, income for the middle class has, at best stayed flat for the past forty years, while increasing by a factor of ten or more for the 1%. And much of that increase for the 1% is through legalized cheating.

For Iskaral and maybe Chat: Take a real small biz owner - some guy who owns say...half a dozen garages or a few small resteraunts. His kid comes back from college and a stint with one of the big name financial firms. Small biz owner asks kid to try to set the biz finances up the same way as some of the really big corporations - the ones that rake in record profits and pay next to nothing in taxes. Kid gives it a whirl. How long before both are sitting in a prison cell for the crime of attempting to exploit the exact same loopholes as the mega corps?

[Lord O' Bones]

As sick as I am of this thread in general, there are only two things I have the energy to speak to right now.

1. Claiming someone that doesn't live here in the US can't know what's going on here.

Newsflash: Many of us in the US are fucking idiots like anywhere else. But there is a much better chance that anyone, from anywhere posting on this board isn't an idiot.

2. Clothesgate: It was a joke initially directed at me that I was too busy to respond to at the time and was blown out of proportion since. Enough about that, ok?

[Shryke]

i suspect that you are right. that it is protest for the sake of protesting mostly.

If we're all willing to agree on that, then there really isn't much left to discuss.

It's not protesting for the sake of protesting. It's protesting to bring attention to issues that have been ignored. Which it's done a good job at so far.

And eventually that attention hopefully translates into legislation.

[Shryke]

1. Claiming someone that doesn't live here in the US can't know what's going on here.

Newsflash: Many of us in the US are fucking idiots like anywhere else. But there is a much better chance that anyone, from anywhere posting on this board isn't an idiot.

Eh, FLOW likes to drop this like it's relevant whenever he's got no real response to a point. It's best to just ignore it.

It's kinda funny in this case though considering that OWS has spread it's message well beyond US borders.

[felice]

Well, I guess I can't argue with that. Of course, that's true no matter how gangbusters the economy is going, but what the heck, you're on a roll.

You don't think a system that requires a certain percentage of people to be unemployed even when the economy is going gangbusters might just possibly be somewhat flawed?

[Ken Stone]

i suspect that you are right. that it is protest for the sake of protesting mostly.

I don't think it's protesting for the sake of it. I think people are angry and want to do .....something. Sort of like working a punching bag when you are frustrated doesn't eliminate those things that are frustrating you, but it makes you feel better.

[tzanth]

The 99% are full participants in this scramble for relative wealth, they choose it every day in a million little ways (and in some big ones). Most of the 1% were not born into the 1% (think of Bill Gates, Warren Buffet, most CEOs, most of Wall St.). So we're talking about a culture where everyone is buying lottery tickets, but resenting the ones who won that lottery. Do we expect people to repudiate the lottery, or do they just want to force some change in the pay-out structure?

This is absolutely ridiculous. Not everyone in the top 1% was born into that position, but many of them were and nearly all of them come from elite backgrounds. The suggestion that the average american has a snowball's chance in hell of obtaining that sort of wealth is completely laughable. Please, Iskaral, you can do better than this.

[Swordfish]

I don't think it's protesting for the sake of it. I think people are angry and want to do .....something. Sort of like working a punching bag when you are frustrated doesn't eliminate those things that are frustrating you, but it makes you feel better.

Sure. That's all good.

But tomorrow you're just going to be frustrated again, because you haven't really accomplished anything that will alleviate the things that frustrate you.

[TrackerNeil]

Deadlock is almost the norm in US politics anymore. My long term contention here is that *BOTH* major political parties in the US have effectively 'sold out' to the corporate world over the past few decades. What differs is the manner of that sellout. You *MIGHT* almost make an argument that the Tea Party represents the 'real republicans' and the OWS crowd the 'real democrats' - though there are major problems with this.

I have argued here a number of times that there are quite a few points of agreement between the TP and OWS, and that the more rational members of both groups (large majrities) could probably support the same legislative/legal fixes. However, extremists and corporate puppets cannot abide such cooperation.

These statements demonstrate false equivalency.

1) Although both parties do what they can to serve the wealthy and powerful, it is the Republican Party that has been the cause of the recent deadlock. When the Democrats took over Congress in 2006, they never forced showdowns over the debt ceiling, or played chicken over the continuance of government. The Republican House, however, regularly engages in such antics.

2) The Tea Party has virtually nothing in common with Occupy Wall Street. The TP is angry not at the banks and financial institutions who took bailout funds and then hoarded the profits they were able to make, but at the government who provided the bailouts. And when Democrats tried to establish a fund, paid into by those same institutions, that would prevent the need for future bailouts, the TP fumed over that as well and their Republican sock-puppets wouldn't even allow the measure to come up for a vote. OWS is angry at the people who actually caused the crash, and not at the government that was stuck with the job of fixing it. So, Occupy Wall Street is like the Tea Party if the Tea Party actually made sense.