Re: Occupy America I'll throw my two cents in. As noted earlier, any counter-status-quo movement is going to be disorganized in the beginning. So I'm not sure it's fair to criticize 'Occupy America' for not having a coherent ideology - especially when the two most powerful players in politics - the Democrats and Republicans, don't have a consistent well thought out ideology on dealing with the current state of affairs either. A couple of points I'll touch on: 1) As to the idea of capitalism vs. socialism: The U.S. is not a capitalistic free market society. We haven't been in a very long time. So I would suggest that those that are advocating a 'free market' take a look at what you're really advocating. A 'free market' would mean no taxes, no health regulations for employees, no hourly wage floor, no workplace protections, no environmental regulations, no weights and measures, no FDA, and on and on. I find it difficult to believe that anyone would truly advocate for a completely free market. So the real discussion is socialism, but in a controlled fashion. People like having clean water to drink. 2) The financial mess: this mess has been the result of long term policies dating back to the Reagan administration. For a good overview, I'd suggest "Inside Job." As I noted in my review of that movie, it has an axe to grind, namely 'deregulation' - so be aware of that, however, it does a great job of showing just how 'big business' and 'government' got so incestuous that it is difficult to see the government as the 'good guy' and financial institutions as 'bad guys' 100%. 3) Is it really relevant that some of the protestors may not be homeless or destitute? Is their message - to the degree that there is a coherent one (and this is certainly debatable) - to be evaluated solely based on who is delivering the message? I don't think so. 4) A general note: this country is in a gigantic mess, the likes of which we've never seen. Financially, politically, and otherwise, this is not the America we were told would be there for us. Does this make us 'entitled pricks?' Maybe it does. But certainly for all of my life, the propaganda was that each generation has it a little better than the one before. For the first time in American history, that is not going to be the case. There is a whole lot wrong in this country, and I'm sorely hoping that the future Presidential election will focus on real issues instead of being co-opted into bullshit issues like gay marriage and the death tax which don't affect the vast majority of Americans. However, for the election to focus on the issues, we have to stop (as an electorate) in rewarding politicians for focusing on 'hot button' issues. As long as we do that, we'll get what we get. I've said it before, and I'll say it again. Americans don't get the politicians they need, they get the ones we deserve. And the politicians we've elected say a hell of a lot more about us than them. Just food for thought. Fire away.
Re: Occupy America I agree with about half of what you said. Targeting the millionaires they did made little sense. I mean, of all the Wall Street guys you could have protested, Jamie Dimon is not the best target (although here's a good article on why he is still dangerous http://www.huffingtonpost.com/simon-johnson/jamie-dimon-the-most-dang_b_524170.html) However, voicing their anger at Wall Street in general? Completely justified. What many of these firms did was criminal, and yet no one has gone to jail. For a very good explanation of why they're criminals and why the posters in this thread who suggested there needs to be less regulation are completely off base, read these pieces by Matt Taibbi: How the SEC Is Covering Up Wall St. Crimes http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/is-the-sec-covering-up-wall-street-crimes-20110817 http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...-chief-in-through-the-revolving-door-20110519 Illegal Activities By the Big Banks and Lack of Punishment http://www.rollingstone.com/politic...er-slap-on-the-wrist-for-wall-street-20110708 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/blogs/taibblog/the-big-short-and-goldmans-new-story-20110609 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-people-vs-goldman-sachs-20110511 http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/why-isnt-wall-street-in-jail-20110216
Re: Occupy America Look at the re-election rates in Congress and you may be surprised. <a class="postlink" href="http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.opensecrets.org/bigpicture/reelect.php</a> How about some new politicians in instead of re-electing 80-90% of the incumbents? The root of the issue may not lie there, but I can't help but think it influences the hell out of our current situation.
Re: Occupy America I'd pin it on gerrymandering. Draw the lines right, and you can do a pretty good end-around of the whole concept of democracy. It's kind of meaningless to have a vote if the outcome was decided three years before by redistricting. Non-partisan commissions would be a step in the right direction. <a class="postlink" href="http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymandering#Recent_steps" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gerrymande ... cent_steps</a>
Re: Occupy America +1 There are a lot of people who root for their political party without knowing what their candidate stands for, what his credentials are, what his voting history looks like, or if he has a history of lying and making false promises. All that matters is if he has a D or an R after his name (or in some cases, the presence or absence of a Y chromosome, or a certain level of skin pigmentation). We place being on the winning team above having a good government, with the most obvious and stupid example being ballots that let you, with a single check, vote straight party lines. If more people would pay attention to what's going on regularly, rather than only during campaign season, and started reading sites like FactCheck, and turning off the TV or radio when it's nothing but idiotic knee jerk commentary, we'd be a lot better off. Tune out your friends, family, and coworkers when they say that shit too, the same way you'd tune them out of they were talking about controlled demolitions or "the coloreds."
Re: Occupy America They're ultimately the ones who are going to have the time/energy resources to press for change. I'm all for the protests. I welcome sweeping chaotic change that criminalizes the actions of the emperors who flaunted imaginary equity and robbed (albeit a duplicitous) America blind. We were built on a foundation of revolution but perhaps we've forgotten that.
Re: Occupy America I'm going to back this statement up. It doesn't really matter what the movement is, protesters at the forefront will always be students and intellectuals. Look back at Tiananmen Square, Vietnam, the communist revolutions, the American civil rights movement, and most recently the Arab Spring; all led by students and intellectuals. The fact that people are surprised about educated middle class kids protesting in the streets shows just how bad our education system is.
Re: Occupy America I have no problem with anger at Wall Street. However, "Wall Street" gets painted with far too broad a brush. Plenty of people on Wall Street are guilty of stupidity and herd mentality which was damaging to business, but that in and of itself isn't criminal. These people protesting don't know specific people who did things illegally and could justifiably be prosecuted, so they are just condemning a whole industry which I feel is completely off base. That was the point I was making with the scapegoating, specifically with some of the names. For example, Arthur Anderson and the whole Enron scandal. That was dishonest actions by a few people that took down a whole firm. If AA had been saved, Occupy Wall Street would be condemning the entire firm as corrupt and horrible when its really just a sliver of the pie. I know its semantics but I see too many of these people here in Chicago ready to crucify anyone working at the CBOE or CME just because they are in the financial sector. That to me is ignorance of the highest order.
Re: Occupy America <a class="postlink" href="http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/my-advice-to-the-occupy-wall-street-protesters-20111012" onclick="window.open(this.href);return false;">http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/ne ... s-20111012</a>
Re: Occupy America Except the general culture of the financial industry leading up to 2008 is in large part what sunk the economy. Now that we are mired in a sluggish economy while the financial sector has rebounded nicely and CEO's are still making exorbitant salaries, people are getting really pissed. I'm not suggesting we go after the mid-level Joe Schmo over at Lehman Brothers and equate him individually to those individuals who really did commit crimes, but this wasn't just a few rouge firms in the financial sector. It was endemic. I honestly see a lot of similarities between Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party protests. Both expressed great dissatisfaction with the direction of our country, specifically government and its ties to big business. Both were made up of people struggling to obtain or maintain the American dream (massive student loans for OWS and no jobs, massive mortgage debt and no jobs for Tea Party). Both had general grievances and a very broad solution (Tea Party-cut spending, Occupy Wall Street-make the rich pay more). And both kind of deferred on specifics. It remains to be seen what becomes of the movement. I liked that the Tea Party was successful in getting people elected who pushed for spending cuts, but I hated that those cuts proposed were for needed programs instead of things like defense or winding down the wars. Perhaps a slew of democrats get elected in the next cycle and they hold out for tax increases and major regulatory reforms on Wall Street. Regarding the whole 1% issue, I like to defer to Nobel Laureate Joseph Stiglitz on that one: http://www.vanityfair.com/society/features/2011/05/top-one-percent-201105#
Re: Occupy America I completely agree. I would imagine that many of these 1%ers are hard working, smart people, who've observed how the system works and risen to the top. It's the system itself that I think needs changing. As I understand it*, the goal of the global economic system is growth. We all want to raise our GDPs every year, because that apparently translates to a higher quality of life. But even if we do manage to keep growing the GDP, it's mostly the 1% that gets richer, right? That doesn't mean they're greedy assholes who steal our money, that's just how the system works. Furthermore, it's fucking impossible to ignore how overpopulated the world is and how hard of a butt fucking the environment continues to take. With that in mind, this goal of sustaining growth forever by continuing with our rampant consumerism seems absurd. *Please correct me if I'm wrong. I've been educating myself over the last few months, but I've only started scratching the surface. These are just my opinions as of right now; they're constantly evolving as I become less stupid.
Re: Occupy America I've said it before but it's worth repeating: a lot of the acting out stems from jealousy. Yes there's injustice, but it's not nearly as ramapant as it made out to be. Some people lost their jobs, some didn't, some people are rich CEOs and some are poor secretaries or clerks. Why? Because some people are smarter and work harder than others and some people just get caught in an unfortunate circumstance through not fault of their own. No society or economic system is perfect; there will always be winners and losers. The point is not whether or not the winners owe something to the losers out of "fairness", the point is to bust your ass to make sure you don't become the latter. And if you find yourself there, it's your responsibility to claw your way out again any way you can. I got laid off from my job I had waiting for me two weeks before I graduated college at a small investment bank in Boston. I sucked it up and stocked shelves at Staples for 6 months until I found something else and began working my way up again. Did I enjoy starting from scratch and working with literal retards? Of course not, but there was no other immediate option. I have zero sympathy for anyone who will not swallow their pride.
Re: Occupy America This is a little ridiculous. Not only is it wrong to single people out (as someone said earlier in the thread), it's also wrong not to? What would an acceptable protest look like to you? This "few bad eggs" mentality is nothing new when it comes to defending corrupt institutions - note that last word, institutions, because the system is institutionally corrupt. Right now we're incentivizing firms and the people at the top of them to go all out with short-term, high-risk moves, so then they can jump off the building with their golden parachute when the house of cards comes crashing down. (Holy mixed metaphors, Batman!) Until someone gets maimed walking into a financial building, I'm going to take this "mob mentality" concern with a grain of salt. Basically this. What is important is putting procedures in place so that shit like this doesn't get a chance to take off. Incentivize long-term growth over short-term gains and fudging the numbers to look spectacular. I know, shocking idea and all, but we clearly have been encouraging the wrong things for a while now. And of course, close off the tax loopholes that allow these guys to pay less to no taxes more often than they should. Does that have any bearing on whether the issues need to be addressed?
Re: Occupy America On the topic of the protestors being mostly students, maybe this has something to do with it.
Re: Occupy America Yes, Wall Street is very jealous of its control of the system. ...See what I did there? Really though, I think it's more disappointment than jealousy. When I get PR crap from my school saying "Great new! We not only managed to beat out $400 million fundraising goal, but surpassed by $12 million! Remember, you still need to keep giving!" There's a bit of jealousy. A lot of anger at the smugness of the school, but yeah, some jealousy too. Being able to simply pass around a hat and get millions of dollars to play with, who isn't jealous of that? But, on the day to day level, it's more just constant disappointment and despair. No amount of "suck it up, swallow your pride, and grab a damn shovel" can change the simple math: there are more people than jobs. Yes, some individuals could put forth more effort and find work, but that just means someone else is unemployed instead. That's a zero sum game.
Re: Occupy America Throw in that many of the jobs that ARE available are jobs that won't support one person, let alone multiple members of a family, and you've got some serious issues. There are tons of Sonic/Taco Bell/WalMart/Target/Retail positions available in this area. But they won't support my or my family's needs. Hell, they'll barely pay rent for ONE person.
Re: Occupy America I think I read somewhere that cannibalism might work. Has anybody run the numbers on selling/eating poor children?
Re: Occupy America Jonathan Swift did a pretty good study on it a while back, but those kids were really starchy, and imagine most of the urban poor in America are more gristly from all the fast food.