Jump to content
jeskill

Wall Street Protestors: Do they lack a clear message?

Recommended Posts

Man, you could really benefit from a quick scan of Plato.

 

One of the most advanced well educated scientifically productive societies got going politically. Unlike its more backward neighbors it felt strong. It still puzzles how Nazi germany had such a great run.

 

I didn't even know you were also an elitist. I just had a discussion with someone that the person in front in the checkout line had food stamps and bought- low and behold potato chips. Must have been too stupid to spend two bucks on two measly apples.

 

Perhaps it was viewing Social Network again. Constant, constant reactions on "this tree", "this tree" is not helpful for conversation. This is one reason that wives go nuts from their engineering husbands. I was lamenting this aspect of how poor communicators scientists are. But if they are trying to shout that the citizens are stupid perhaps it is a good thing that they find two way talking challenging.

 

Are you really taking the position that "stop doing the above" is an example of good communication? Because there are a number of changes to the system that would "stop doing the above" but that people would find unpalatable. But by not articulating any details, you haven't signaled what changes are acceptable and what are unacceptable.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is no chance at arriving upon a reasonable solution if you cannot even clearly define the problem. I have to repeat this point nearly every day in my job. "Make it more awesome" is not a measurable objective.

But to even mobilise society to seek a solution in the first place it needs to be recognised and accepted that a problem exists. To extend TomS's metaphor - I do not need to know what is wrong with my car, all I need to say is that it has petrol, the battery is charged yet it won't start - I call the RAC mechanic who understands the sub-systems. And no matter how many times a mechanic tells me the theory is good and all the individual systems are working fine if the car won't move when it should then there is a problem.

 

And STFU has no part of any discussion

 

Father Ted's protest - worth a watch

 

Down with this sort of thing

 

 

father_ted_down_with_this_sort_of_t.jpg

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

She didn't clarify that one. I couldn't figure out any way to blame science for the fact that the system isn't working. Or that you're personally to blame for not understanding the specific deeper message behind the 1%-------99% blurb that seems to have so many interpretations.

I don't think the message was blaming science for the system not working. My take was that scientists don't understand the message of OWS/amanda more, and it's our fault.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I didn't even know you were also an elitist.

Hey, please keep the personal insults out of this discussion. It's against the rules and you're degrading your own arguments by stooping that low. Attack the idea, not the person.

 

Moderator Surely this is close enough to obscenity.

Push the Report button on the post. Since swansont and I are both involved in this discussion, another moderator will check it out.

 

I'm sorry you are caught in a high stress job that even at $150,000 has not kept pace with the $85,000 that managers got thirty years ago. At least you are in Austin where mansions are cheap. Really. Those private schools were 5000 and are now 30000.

 

Work hard and welcome back to the middle class.

More personal attacks. You are demeaning yourself, amanda more. This makes YOU look bad, not your opponent.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

But to even mobilise society to seek a solution in the first place it needs to be recognised and accepted that a problem exists. To extend TomS's metaphor - I do not need to know what is wrong with my car, all I need to say is that it has petrol, the battery is charged yet it won't start - I call the RAC mechanic who understands the sub-systems. And no matter how many times a mechanic tells me the theory is good and all the individual systems are working fine if the car won't move when it should then there is a problem.

 

My point was that, in this situation, it was the mechanic that both diagnosed and fixed the problem. In OWS, are they actually diagnosing the problem? IMO, no. They recognize a problem exists. They have offered no details and no solutions that anybody on this thread has been able to cite. All I've seen so far is an accusation of being an elitist and a fallacious claim that I called people stupid, but when one has no facts to present, one is tempted to attack the person.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was that, in this situation, it was the mechanic that both diagnosed and fixed the problem. In OWS, are they actually diagnosing the problem? IMO, no. They recognize a problem exists. They have offered no details and no solutions that anybody on this thread has been able to cite. All I've seen so far is an accusation of being an elitist and a fallacious claim that I called people stupid, but when one has no facts to present, one is tempted to attack the person.

There may be method to the madness, even if the method was unplanned and unorganized. By not singling out certain fixes early on, OWS has managed to garner support from major areas that do have certain fixes in mind, like the labor and teacher's unions. As pointed out in this ABC interview, they have now declared what some of their objectives and complaints are, but reserve the right to append more as the movement grows.

 

And as this piece from John Wellington Ennis at the Huffington Post points out, much of their early work has been aimed at declaring what they are NOT about: they are NOT anti-capitalism, they are NOT another PAC-based special interest extremist white group like the Tea Party, and they are NOT a Democrat response to recent Republican obstructionism.

 

Perhaps, in the end, the best thing OWS can do for us is provide low-cost coverage for independent campaigns that might otherwise get buried by the billion dollar budgets the major parties are putting together for next year's election. But if they can grab the attention of those who normally wouldn't glance at a story about some "radical protest", they might do what is increasingly harder to do, get people to act on what they care about.

 

Right now though, I don't see as much of this 1% -- 99% stuff that was mentioned earlier. I'm not sure what could ever be done about the distribution of wealth unless it's over a period of time. What I see taking the spotlight now are objections to excessive corporate influence on US politics and lack of response to the financial sector's contribution to the current global economic crisis. These are objectives the vast majority of Americans understand and agree are major problems. This could very well be personal bias, though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The issue that imatfaal links to in post #27 is one of censorship . Ted , ( Dermot Morgan , RIP , 1952 - 1998 ) , had to toe the line as a member of the clergy of the Catholic church . He had to be seen to be against the freedom of broadcasting as the film in question was surely too shocking for people to handle . Ted was a part time protester , when he went home he didn't actually care . Twas the divorce of the censor from Rome !

 

Is OWS a part time protest ? Will people go home and not actually care about protesting when they are having their ordinary monotonous lives ? Is it just something to do on a trip to town in very late summer ?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

 

Declaration of the Occupation of New York City

Well here is the declaration that I think is most official in the strictly non-hierarchical horizontally arranged structure that is the revolutionary tooting popular front NYC General Assembly. As all have commented (apart from am) it is very wishy washy - and more a list of nebulous grievances and politics 101 ideas of participatory democracy - but none of this makes it a bad idea or a worthless pursuit. Yes it is naive and overly idealistic, and yes it provides zero economic insight but the very factor that mass demonstrations are occuring is a timely reminder for those who can and do undertake political/economic analyses that there is a ground swell of opinion. Upon reading it I was reminded of the phrase "no democracy without congresses of the people" - but as that was gaddaffi's early mantra perhaps they should give that one a miss.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Declaration of the Occupation of New York City list of grievances:

  1. They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
  2. They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.
  3. They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
  4. They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
  5. They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.
  6. They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.
  7. They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
  8. They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.
  9. They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
  10. They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
  11. They have sold our privacy as a commodity.
  12. They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press. They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
  13. They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
  14. They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.
  15. They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
  16. They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.
  17. They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
  18. They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
  19. They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.
  20. They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
  21. They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts. *

 

Wow, the list of grievances is a doozy, eh? So, anybody know how many organizations are organizing the wall street protesters? Imaatfal, why do you think this is the most official of all declarations?

 

The scientist in me says that it would be great if they linked each of these grievances directly to a page of evidence for each.

 

It seems to me that both the Tea Party (the grassroots supporters) and the Wall Street Protesters are upset over very similar things, but blame different culprits for our economic woes. The Tea Party blames the government, and the Wall Street Protesters blame the corporations.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm 3500 miles away in my country and I need no proof that these grievances happened . It reads like a summary CBS evening news for the past few years . That's too radical , forgive me . If you are in the US and you still want proof you know which side you are on . Wake up !

 

 

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm 3500 miles away in my country and I need no proof that these grievances happened . It reads like a summary CBS evening news for the past few years . That's too radical , forgive me . If you are in the US and you still want proof you know which side you are on . Wake up !

 

 

 

Hal,

 

Proof is not a scientific concept -- it's a mathematical concept. And they're not trying to prove any mathematical theories here. They're making an argument.

 

I agree that there's a lot of evidence to support most, if not all, of these grievances. I just think that linking to the evidence reminds people of that. It makes the connection between these statements and reality all that more clear.

Edited by jeskill

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

That is an impressive list.

 

But how did "They" get away with it for so long? Because the various State and Federal govs let them, and listened to the lobbyists and passed laws to let it happen.

 

And how did the governments come to be so pliable? Because the people couldn't get off their arse long enough to take an interest in what was happening and hold their representatives to account at election time. It would be interesting to know how many of the OWS protesters actually voted in the last few elections.

 

Voting isn't a "right" in a representative democracy, it's a "responsibility". Many have avoided that responsibility and are now complaining that things didn't turn out the way they wanted. No sh*t Sherlock. If you won't have your say in the direction your nation is going, then why be surprised that other people do it by default? I cite Alvin Greene winning the Democrat Primaries last year as proof of this incredible disinterest.

 

Frankly I find it amusing that so many people who couldn't drag themselves away from their TV sets fro 2 hours every 4 years can now find days of time to protest. They don't understand that they have no right to protest, they lost that right when they abrogated the responsibility of voting.

 

Don't worry though, you aren't alone. Many down here didn't take the time to consider properly either, that's why we have a Parliment controlled my Stalinist Green extremists.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one of their premises is that it is impossible to be elected without becoming one of "them," as a result of the state of campaign finance, so holding representatives accountable at elections is impossible. If any candidate with sufficient support to win is already beholden to "them" via campaign donations, endorsements, and so on, what's the point?

 

Not that I know they haven't voted; it's quite possible that many of the protesters voted in the past. But if they choose to express their newfound interest in politics as protests, why is that bad? It is a strategy to raise awareness of an issue to (a) spark public debate, hopefully influencing policy and (b) gather supporters, ideally influencing elections.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My point was that, in this situation, it was the mechanic that both diagnosed and fixed the problem. In OWS, are they actually diagnosing the problem? IMO, no. They recognize a problem exists. They have offered no details and no solutions that anybody on this thread has been able to cite. All I've seen so far is an accusation of being an elitist and a fallacious claim that I called people stupid, but when one has no facts to present, one is tempted to attack the person.

 

"I've seen what happens when the "common man" gets "his" way in politics." <---From you

For a retort to work I need to get into the habit of carrying the quote with you.

I suppose the elitist one percent must really be the common man because you imply only the common man holds paradoxical views. Ever heard of let's go to war and cut everyone's taxes? The rich can find a few of the sainted PHD's to follow the money and say all kinds of crap. So being a scientist doesn't equal sainthood and to disparage the electorate is yes, elitist.

As I suggested if you hold those views you may want to peruse Plato. I wonder though if he might have considered physicists as one would mechanics who can't really reason fully while we should make the philosopher, king. And if you still have a superiority complex then own it and be happy with your choice to be an elitist.

I had such a great time with hundreds of people yes college but old, mothers with kids etc. The message is we want our country back. How to do it. Well add the gin, add the vermouth and shaken not stirred. My grandfather kept getting elected as a judge. I ,personally, and I am not currently a leader of my satellite Occupy Wall Street group, still have this distorted faith that an elite's vote is counted the same as the plebian's which gives hope. Let the people know. so, Occupy Wall Street

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
I wonder though if he might have considered physicists as one would mechanics who can't really reason fully while we should make the philosopher, king. And if you still have a superiority complex then own it and be happy with your choice to be an elitist.

 

I had such a great time with hundreds of people yes college but old, mothers with kids etc. The message is we want our country back. How to do it. Well add the gin, add the vermouth and shaken not stirred.

Part of me wonders if you're just being intentionally silly, but the realistic part is saddened by the realization that you're probably serious, and hence a very clear example of the problem noted in the OP.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of me wonders if you're just being intentionally silly, but the realistic part is saddened by the realization that you're probably serious, and hence a very clear example of the problem noted in the OP.

 

 

"Part of me wonders if you're just being intentionally silly, but the realistic part is saddened by the realization that you're probably serious, and hence a very clear example of the problem noted in the OP."

 

As I've mentioned elsewhere IQ has no correlation to vice.

 

So high IQ can fall for just as much stupid behavior as the low IQ.

 

Where is your book? You could write a textbook you are so good at chapter and verse. You can check your bookmarks for the links to above. I think you are (as would be normal for either cogs in the wheel in middle management or struggling small business owners) overwhelmed. Take a deep breath.

 

Keep Austin crazy. No need to seek it everywhere else.

 

It is so simple. Everyone I know yells at their TV sets. Finally we are talking to each other and the powers that be.

 

Nine tenths of life is just showing up. So, Occupy wall Street.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

We've been hearing this a lot: the wall street protesters lack a clear message. To me, the message is crystal clear: there's too much power at the top and the middle class is getting screwed. What do you think?

I think the occupy crowd has tunnel vision and cannot see the big picture. I also think it is pointless to discuss it with them. It wouldn't surprise me if they felt straight A students should give up some points so the failures in their class could get a diploma too.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think the occupy crowd has tunnel vision and cannot see the big picture. I also think it is pointless to discuss it with them. It wouldn't surprise me if they felt straight A students should give up some points so the failures in their class could get a diploma too.

Do you really think they're advocating simple wealth redistribution?

 

It seems to me the analogous situation would be "they feel straight A students whose parents donated money to endow the professor's chair and fund his research don't deserve their straight As, and are conspiring to ruin the curve for the rest of the students."

 

Whether or not that's a true allegation is another matter -- but let's get their allegations straight before we judge them.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Do you really think they're advocating simple wealth redistribution?

The ones I've tried discussing with it have that view in general. The mentality I've encountered in general is reflected in this unofficial proposed list of demands.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I really don't believe peace is the answer anymore when it comes to issues like this. But it's also the fact that the rich have a way of keeping knowledge of their assets secret. I take my views from Alexander the Great who did use violence to change the world and revolutionize it.

 

Blowing up Wall St. would make more sense, as it would cause the rich to spend their money rather than save it out of worry of a 0% national interest rate. All people have to do is start destroying the property of the rich. It'll force them to spend their money. Do a lot of damage, I mean a lot, and if the rich spend their money, it'll start fixing the economy and bringing back jobs. Blow up their cars, too. And their million dollar mansions.. Lots of destruction would just fix all of this stuff. At least, it would bring back construction jobs... And the money would just trickle down.

 

In relation to the idea of making us all equal:

 

There is also the consequence that if we're all equal, no one is rich; and it really seems like we're all poor because of the level of wealth generated by equality. But I'd surely have to say the rich have amassed too much wealth, and there needs to be a greater distribution of wealth than there already is. I believe in working for what you earn; unfortunately, some business owners have been getting away with under-compensating their employees. That's unfair.

 

Personally, I'm really sick of elitist America.

Anytime someone really tries to organize, the government or organizations setup to kill the organizers.

Bunch of mobocracy.

 

People really need to stop watching TV, learn some economics, take note of world economics, and notice how much they've been getting screwed.

 

I find a lot of current economics due to people trying to equal out the level of poverty around the world and bring up the standard of living and educational level of foreign countries: something people have been attempting to do for a long time. Unfortunately, the consequence of that is giving foreign countries the jobs. But the underlying problem is the ridiculous population density found in foreign countries. That's why I consider it unethical to bring the jobs over there. The people were stupid enough to keep their population that big, they should have been allowed to fail rather than give the people education and jobs to maintain their massive populations.

 

The new world will have to deal with these facts peacefully or simply learn to keep wars going. Maybe the trick is just to send tons of academics to these foreign lands with free housing... Perhaps give them free education while going for their bachelors in order to spend two years in a foreign country. Then maybe the stupid people would stop having so many children.

 

Americans have been forced to compensate for the ridiculous world peace and world economy various business owners are attempting to generate. This involves America (not as large a population) to have a decreased birth rate, too. Americans have been compensating in order to make other countries rich, and I don't really agree with it.

 

It could all be a scheme by the super-rich to setup countries that are more liveable than America in order to have a plutocracy, due to American's dislike of the stratified rich class in America. AKA: Exit plan.

 

Kick out the foreigners. Re-setup neo-isolationism. Heavily tax imports. Watch America win again while the rest of the world fails. If you can do that without having a guilty conscious, welcome back to America that was.

 

Otherwise, I am really starting to believe that the real trick is to not spend money on foreign goods. Then each individual becomes a neo-isolationist in his/her own right and allows the economics of situations to go in his/her favor.

Edited by Genecks

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Frankly I find it amusing that so many people who couldn't drag themselves away from their TV sets fro 2 hours every 4 years can now find days of time to protest. They don't understand that they have no right to protest, they lost that right when they abrogated the responsibility of voting.

 

Some (many?) of them are unemployed, so they have the time, and many are also young, so the systemic problems predate their ability to participate in the voting process. And while I agree that morally/ethically you vacate your right to complain when you don't vote (since you haven't done your part in trying to fix the problems) I will pedantically point out that the right to protest is embedded in the first amendment of the US constitution.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Part of me wonders if you're just being intentionally silly, but the realistic part is saddened by the realization that you're probably serious, and hence a very clear example of the problem noted in the OP.

 

As I've mentioned elsewhere IQ has no correlation to vice.

 

So high IQ can fall for just as much stupid behavior as the low IQ.

 

Where is your book? You could write a textbook you are so good at chapter and verse. You can check your bookmarks for the links to above. I think you are (as would be normal for either cogs in the wheel in middle management or struggling small business owners) overwhelmed. Take a deep breath.

 

Keep Austin crazy. No need to seek it everywhere else.

Sorry, but this reply doesn't exactly help your case. You assume I don't support improvement, but there's nothing here yet to support, frankly. The closest thing to a reasonable demand I've seen is to implement policies to assist with debt relief, but clarity is only right now being offered by the higher IQ "textbook writers" you seem to despise so dearly.

 

You're focused purely on emotional response, and that's not reaching me and others like me. Your strategy will only bring in others who are equally confused, and that isn't going to help the cause. You need to help me and people like me actually understand and want to help the cause, and you need to slow down, "take a deep breath," and find a way to clearly articulate what specifically you're seeking to change and how.

 

Seriously... Help the rational voices be heard more clearly. What is the cause other than yelling about "they" and using broad brush strokes to paint all corporations as evil? I asked in my first reply to this thread. It's rather telling that an answer has not yet been forthcoming.

 

 

 

 

use violence to change the world and revolutionize it.

 

Blowing up Wall St. would make more sense <...> Do a lot of damage, I mean a lot <...> Blow up their cars, too. And their million dollar mansions.. Lots of destruction would just fix all of this stuff. <...> Then maybe the stupid people would stop having so many children. <...> Kick out the foreigners. Re-setup neo-isolationism. Heavily tax imports. Watch America win again while the rest of the world fails.

Sorry, but no. No such fix would be forthcoming with the actions you're advocating. It would do nothing other than to satisfy your rage and anger. Stop rationalizing it by suggesting it makes sense in terms of economics, because it does no such thing.

 

You first assume that wall street is the only financial center and that exploding it would magically fix everything. Instead, you'd magically make all the money leave US markets, go to foreign markets, and this would only serve to make the suffering here in the US even worse. You need to be demanding investment in our country, not destruction of it. Also, you'd simultaneously manage to share your suffering with the rest of the world who would be impacted by your childish suggestion, and they too would struggle more to feed their families because of some narrow minded expression of frustration like blowing shit up.

 

To borrow a bit from swansont's analogy, you don't fix a car by lacing it with TNT. I'll just add that you don't fix it with jingoistic, isolationist, or class violence inciting rhetoric, either.

 

It's okay to be angry and seek change. It's not okay to translate that anger into violence and hate. I do worry about the current situation causing another rise in hate group participation like we saw in 1930s Europe. The indicators are becoming more common, and we need to avoid that. It's unfortunate, but you've just unwittingly magnified this likelihood by adding another example to the dataset.

Edited by iNow

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The one thing I'm gleaning out of this is that pseudo-socialistic policies are a good way to directly control unemployment levels. I don't really see how that does much good for people out of work because of dotcom or tech bubbles or whatever. Maybe they have a problem with taking a paycut changing industries or whatever. While I agree that there exists some income disparity in the world, I don't believe that it adds up to anything substantial, that it isn't the norm and doesn't merit a war being made over it. If one person can do the job for the price of ten others, just what would the other nine do, dust the shelves? The fact is that over thirty or forty years, incomes appreciate, due to new technologies, increased tuition, inflation, whatever, the world is always in flux, and generally everything grows, even minimum wage, by the same factor? I daresay yes. The problem is that the Koch's of the world don't want to create jobs under this president. They probably never wanted to have any benefits except for their executives and could care less if all of the underlings just die gradually into obscurity. Apathy is the biggest problem that exists in America. These people are out to make their own New Deal, the New Dilemma. Why? It makes no sense the depths that people will sink to in order to preserve their bottom line, even if it is just a factor of .25% of income. It's the principle with these people, save, save, save, like tunnel vision, all in order to preserve a guaranteed 30% net income, and nothing less, so they they can create more jobs when they deem fit, such as when the right president is in office. And yes, they really DON'T care if you can't afford to go the hospital or whatever. These people are out in the jungle laughing inwardly at the the poor souls who did all of the work handling the dangerous chemicals or lived downstream from a coal mine or whatever, turning the other cheek, at best.

Edited by Realitycheck

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I think one of their premises is that it is impossible to be elected without becoming one of "them," as a result of the state of campaign finance, so holding representatives accountable at elections is impossible. If any candidate with sufficient support to win is already beholden to "them" via campaign donations, endorsements, and so on, what's the point?

This brings up the problem of "the wasted vote". You'd like to vote for the person who represents you best but the thought of allowing the person you hate to win forces you to compromise. Solution? Abolish the "winner-takes-all" plurality voting system in favor of an alternative.

 

I had such a great time with hundreds of people yes college but old, mothers with kids etc. The message is we want our country back. How to do it. Well add the gin, add the vermouth and shaken not stirred.

That is an incoherent and completely inappropriate solution in context. If you are stating a message you are NOT being clear.

 

My grandfather kept getting elected as a judge.

Why is this relevant? Was he corrupt? Was he an elitist? Was he a martini drinker?

 

I ,personally, and I am not currently a leader of my satellite Occupy Wall Street group, still have this distorted faith that an elite's vote is counted the same as the plebian's which gives hope.

I've tried looking at your post all together and I've tried breaking it down and I still don't get your point. I know you like the OWS movement but that's all I really get. Perhaps it's just me. I like it smooth and straight while driving on the road with others, and prefer a similar experience when reading and discussing online. I find these fuzzy lines and sudden turns off-putting.

 

Let the people know. so, Occupy Wall Street

I begin to see why some people think it's better to stifle the message of those who might do the OWS movement more harm than good. When the topic you're responding to is "Do the OWS protesters lack a clear message", why do you respond this way? I still think protest in general should not be discouraged, but when the message is an incomprehensible retch of stream-of-consciousness blather, support may wander off in search of clarity.

 

Part of me wonders if you're just being intentionally silly, but the realistic part is saddened by the realization that you're probably serious, and hence a very clear example of the problem noted in the OP.

QFT.

 

Blowing up Wall St. would make more sense, as it would cause the rich to spend their money rather than save it out of worry of a 0% national interest rate. All people have to do is start destroying the property of the rich. It'll force them to spend their money. Do a lot of damage, I mean a lot, and if the rich spend their money, it'll start fixing the economy and bringing back jobs. Blow up their cars, too. And their million dollar mansions.. Lots of destruction would just fix all of this stuff. At least, it would bring back construction jobs... And the money would just trickle down.

You would trigger a "might makes right" response and I don't think that would be good for anyone except those with a large current amount of might.

 

In relation to the idea of making us all equal:

 

There is also the consequence that if we're all equal, no one is rich; and it really seems like we're all poor because of the level of wealth generated by equality. But I'd surely have to say the rich have amassed too much wealth, and there needs to be a greater distribution of wealth than there already is. I believe in working for what you earn; unfortunately, some business owners have been getting away with under-compensating their employees. That's unfair.

Rather than dragging the rich down, what about bringing the poorest up considerably? I've often thought there should be some kind of minimum subsistence level enacted to eliminate homelessness and starvation at the very least. Food, clothing and shelter that anyone could take advantage of no matter what. Because I think you run into some major snags with the concept of wealth redistribution and what is "fair" compensation without considering a market economy. There are easier political fixes that have been suggested that might make things fairer.

 

Personally, I'm really sick of elitist America.

Anytime someone really tries to organize, the government or organizations setup to kill the organizers.

Bunch of mobocracy.

It's a known equation that needs to be balanced to be effective. For that you need even better organization.

 

People really need to stop watching TV, learn some economics, take note of world economics, and notice how much they've been getting screwed.

Amen, brother.

 

I find a lot of current economics due to people trying to equal out the level of poverty around the world and bring up the standard of living and educational level of foreign countries: something people have been attempting to do for a long time. Unfortunately, the consequence of that is giving foreign countries the jobs. But the underlying problem is the ridiculous population density found in foreign countries. That's why I consider it unethical to bring the jobs over there. The people were stupid enough to keep their population that big, they should have been allowed to fail rather than give the people education and jobs to maintain their massive populations.

Perhaps it's not the concept that's bad, just the methodology. And maybe we're not asking for proper recompense. I don't have a solution but I'm reminded of the fact that the US has built hydroelectric dams in foreign countries where it would have been more advantageous and economically sound for us to simply give every household more efficient appliances. This would simultaneously obviate the need for more power, provide a better distributed boost to our own economy, save the ecology of the foreign country and endear us to the native people in a way that a fat contract to a single company never could.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
What specifically do you want changed? Do you want specific transactions regulated? Do you want some sort of increased oversight, or transparency? Do you want front end capital investments to be lower so more people can participate and get started? Do you want campaign finance reform so seats in congress cannot be bought as simply? Do you want more people to vote so representation is not only on the extremes? Do you want Citizens United to be overturned? What the hell do these people want? I'm pretty sure not even they know.

 

Be specific.

 

 

The group needs more like this:

 

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/ezra-klein/post/the-four-habits-of-highly-successful-social-movements/2011/08/25/gIQAeifVNL_blog.html

 

As Harold Meyerson [wrote Tuesday] in The Washington Post, other groups around the country with a different leadership structure are making more concrete demands, including the modification of student and household debts and the imposition of a financial transaction tax.

 

 

 

Again from another source:

 

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2011/10/03/1022533/-How-Occupy-Wall-Street-Can-Accomplish-Something-Real:-Specific-Ideas-for-Mission-and-Action?detail=hide

 

It will only be successful if it focuses on a small number of realistic and achievable political policy proposals. I would suggest these three as a logical platform:

 

1. A bailout for homeowners who are facing foreclosure and unemployed people with student loan debt -- of equal or greater value as the bank bailouts. Give these people a fresh start by forgiving their debts and keeping them in their homes, and thus improving the economy for all.

 

2. The "Buffett Tax" (i.e. taxing capital gains at the same rate as income earned from a job, so that working people won't pay higher taxes than the idle rich). It's only fair! And this will help to fund #1.

 

3. A short-term trading transaction tax for people and financial institutions who use Wall Street as a casino. Such a tax could raise huge amounts of money to fund #1, and would likely reduce the volatility in the markets by making computerized "high frequency auto-trading" by large investment companies less profitable. Such a tax would also make it harder for already-wealthy institutions to "vacuum up" more and more money from the productive sectors of the economy into the black hole of their own coffers.

 

That's enough. The platform doesn't need to be any bigger, more complicated, or more extreme than that -- at least for now. Keep it simple and keep it reasonable and realistic, and it WILL resonate with the majority of Americans and have a serious chance of inspiring progressive political campaigns and eventually becoming government policy. And if something like this is achieved, this would lay the foundation for more progressive policy changes to follow later.

 

<...>

 

Let's say that Occupy Wall Street wants to become something less about politics and more about American socioeconomic culture. More of a direct action and changing the culture approach. This could have just as big of an effect -- perhaps even more so -- than the explicitly political approach. But the goals and actions would likewise have to be very clearly defined and articulated.

 

I would suggest this single most important idea for a national movement of direct action to change the economic system:

 

A national call for all Americans to close all their bank accounts in a few specific banks that are the worst offenders, i.e. that have a well-documented history of engaging in highly unethical business practices in recent years. This would have to be combined with providing people with a practical list of alternatives for where they could put their money -- i.e. banking institutions that are based on an ethically superior business model, such as a carefully vetted list of small banks and member-owned credit unions.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.