Occupy Wall St.

[bigbadwolf]

Why do "wealthy corporate executives" even have the opportunity to influence decision-making on a large scale? It's because they have the resources to influence (through lobbying) a bloated government whose power has increased dramatically (and unconstitutionally) over the years in every sector of the economy. As long as the government's role in the economy is not decreased (not eliminated, obviously, as I do not support anarchy) neither will the ability of corporate executives to influence decisions that affect the lives of all those people protesting, and of everyone for that matter, disappear.

This is one place where perhaps the Left agrees with the Tea Party: that without the modern state, modern corporate capitalism could not exist. They have actually co-evolved, each depending on the other. The most egregious example of this was the bailout of the "too-big-to-fail" financial institutions, which swept aside the neoliberal charade of risk-bearing firms operating within free markets. In the old days this merger of state on the one hand and finance and corporate capital on the other constituted the formal definition of "fascism."

 

[Anthony DeAngelis]

This Occupy Wall Street movement's demands are the laundry list of the far left. Obama realized that the country is moderate and being too far left is a liability. If these protesters focused on one or two demands they would be fine. By aligning them with the far left they have essentially isolated themselves.

 

[DominiConnor]

The thing about states of any kind is that their job is "fixer of last resort". There's dozens of activities in the commercial sector that cannot be allowed to break down, pumping sewage, generating power, phones, food production and many more.

That's not as BBW implies fascism but what I believe most people of any political persuasion would see as a necessary function. Also to be historically pedantic, Spanish, Italian, Finnish and German fascism kept themselves more separate from commercial activities like banking than did the USA, UK et al. Boeing was for a while essentially a creature of the British government in a way Messerschmidt never was.

I have spoken with people whose job has been to deal with the crisis at a strategic level and a remarkably common thread is that their nightmare is the ATMs stopping. They reckon civil disorder would follow quickly. The UK has a variety of plans for large scale disorder including distribution of physical cash and I assume most countries do. Unless you believe your government has literally tens of thousands of trucks ready to ship cash around your country, it could not cope with an ATM stoppage.

 

[Sanket Patel]

Occupy Occupy Wall Street. The 1% fights back.

http://www.occupyoccupywallstreet.org/

 

[Abdel]

 

[euroazn]

Occupy Occupy Wall Street. The 1% fights back.

http://www.occupyoccupywallstreet.org/

They're just comedians, unfortunately.

 

[Kristi]

This is what they are against. People like Kevin O'Leary that destroy corporate culture.
Have your say, who do you think is more intellectual, the businessman (O'Leary) or Mr. Hedges.
Know you understand why they are in Zuccotti Park.

 

[bigbadwolf]

This is what they are against. People like Kevin O'Leary that destroy corporate culture.
Have your say, who do you think is more intellectual, the businessman (O'Leary) or Mr. Hedges.
Know you understand why they are in Zuccotti Park.

Hedges has an interesting book out -- Death of the Liberal Class -- which I'm reading off and on. I didn't like his other one -- Empire of Illusion -- so much.

 

[Shantanu Kumar]

Here Are The Four Charts That Explain What The Protesters Are Angry About

http://www.businessinsider.com/here-are-the-four-charts-that-explain-what-the-protesters-are-angry-about-2011-10#ixzz1asTuXUVD

 

[Anthony DeAngelis]

1) The Tea Party is for a limited Federal government (as it was intended), a strengthening of our Constitutional rights and less government interference/taxation. Comparing them to the list of demands these guys want is insulting.

2) Someone made a great point that if these protesters had decided to build houses for the poor, mentor lower income kids, volunteer at any number of charities, they would have achieved a lot more than by sleeping the the park. They also fail to realize that increasing taxes on the "rich" alone will not solve our budgetary issues. We need broad taxation reform and more streamlined and effective regulation.

3) I think those charts ignore the fact that a) the world has become more competitive (good thing), b) automation has increased and c) the USA is now a service/information economy. Those charts also don't reflect that America is a nation of continual immigration and that effects the wealth gap.

The government only wants to grow bigger and have more power. Increasing taxes on anyone will just result in more government hiring, which will increase pension burdens, and more government influence in the lives of everyday citizens. Anyone who wants more taxation and more government regulation needs to spend some time in the post office, DMV, IRS, Dept of Homeland security, etc.

How people can cheer for increased taxation and more regulation, while at the same time condemning with virulent hatred the TSA, IRS, etc is beyond me. Government has no incentive to be competitive, offer good service, listen to its customers.

 

[DominiConnor]

Kristi, obviously the protesting guy is more "intellectual" in the same way that a graduate of a Bible College would come across more knowledgeable when confronted by my 7 year old son. He spouted cliched bullshit, but the corporate guy was too ignorant to point out that he both misquoted and misunderstood Karl Marx. Marx understood quite well the social and political issues of his time, in the same way that Julius Caesar understood his, but things have changed.

Actually the best dialogue I've seen has been a few slots on Bloomberg where people who can actually think have debated the issue, including the British historian Niall Ferguson who pointed out that only a moron starts a protest like this in the Autumn, since NY and DC get bloody cold real soon now.

 

[DanM]

This is what they are against. People like Kevin O'Leary that destroy corporate culture.
Have your say, who do you think is more intellectual, the businessman (O'Leary) or Mr. Hedges.
Know you understand why they are in Zuccotti Park.

LOL Did that guy seriously claim that there are "no restrictions or regulations" on Wall Street? Seriously?

 

[TBeas]

Those charts do certainly help give an idea about why people are protesting.

My biggest fear is that there really isn't a clear solution to the problems. Many are calling for the shutting down of these institutions (lol no chance) or of the Federal Reserve (lol not happening). So if we acknowledge the problems as those listed in the charts that Shantanu Kumar posted (just assume that those are the problems whether you agree or not), how do we fix it? I don't know of any way that wouldn't absolutely destroy the country in the process.

 

[bigbadwolf]

Those charts do certainly help give an idea about why people are protesting.

The charts aren't some sort of final word. People are reading into the protests whatever they want to. In reality it seems to be an inchoate, amorphous and inarticulate "movement." Correction: if you ask the protesters, you get in response a babel, a cacophony of voices, with perhaps a few common underlying themes that haven't been made explicit. They -- whoever "they" are -- haven't thought through what is making them unhappy. They haven't connected the dots to make a coherent pattern. Hence no policy statements and no concrete set of demands. They also don't seem to know how the political and financial systems work in detail -- except that "they are all crooks and very greedy." I too expect the Occupy "movement" to fade away as the weather becomes chillier. I also expect it will be resurrected next year -- because the economic and political malaise that has fueled these protests will remain. Next time around it might be more determined and organised. We'll see -- but don't hold your breath.

 

[Simpleton]

I question the true intention of the Tea Partiers. Anybody who's been to the protests, read the signs, and listened to any of their members might understand many have no clue about the Constitution, who wrote it, what it entailed, and under what conditions. True Tea Partiers were outraged at the Bush administration, his handling of the wars, the budget, and bailouts.

The only major issue I raise with OWL is the direction of their anger. Seems to me you garner the attention of the US Gov't, and not the ones under its jurisdiction. Despite reports to the contrary, some of them are struggling college graduates who may have struggled with the current economy and have issues with wealth distribution. I wonder how healthy the US will be in the future if wealth distribution gets out of hand. While not a fan of socialism or communism, I'm not sure extreme disproportions are good for the country, either. I know that will enfuriate extreme capitalists, but the truth is the truth.

As far as labeling them as bum idiots, remember, they're exercising their rights to speech, demonstration, and protest. It's American. Just like the rich lobbyists who are in bed with politicians.

 

[Anthony DeAngelis]

I agree that they have the right, but I am confused when they say that this is giving voice to Americans. People always talk about big business having lobbyists, but never mention the lobbyists for the Unions, Teachers, every minority group, women, people who like pennies, etc.

The post office is insolvent because the people don't want post office locations closed (even though they are redundant and costing money).

The people have plenty voice. They spoke and elected an unproven Senator who promised change and hope. They then elected a Republican majority in the House and almost the Senate because they were pissed after a year or so.

I am sensing a population that doesn't know what they want and doesn't have the patience to get it even if they did.

 

[Abdel]

Why are they protesting against Capitalism when Capitalism would force these bad managed firms to go bankrupt?

The only thing that 'saved' them was a Governement Intervention conducted by politicians who are voted in office by these same protestors.

 

[Simpleton]

I agree about the other lobbyists as well; however, I'm sure everyone on this boards knows that money talks. To think that a feminist rights lobbyist has as much political leverage as a Goldman rep in DC is pure illusory.

I personally like the post office. Biases aside, I agree with Obama's stance on closing many of their locations.

True Obama's three years in office have seemed like a lesson in futility; however, I'd like to see how his policies would work with a House and Senate that's more concerned with the welfare of the American public than politics. I don't have the sources, but apparently some GOP members who normally would vote for some policies have diametrically opposed them simply because the President is for them. That isn't how the forefathers designed it. When you have Senators with goals of "stopping the re-election" as opposed to getting rid of this financial crisis, it makes me wonder. But I digress, this is about OWL.

 

[Abdel]

Aah, but it wont! You see, in capitalism, all is for sale, even salvation. Especially salvation.

As I said in my previous posts, if you don't have a strong legal system, then capitalism won't work (as in Russia).

Most of US presidents broke the Constitution. Matter fact, most of what the federal governement do is not in the consitution, with the horrendous result that we have:
More poor people than ever and society is too broke to bail them out.

If the US supreme court did it's job correctly , none of these unconstitutional programs (including TARP) would be here.

EDIT: Now, it's up to the people to recognize that and to vote these politicians OUT of office. If not, they should only blame themselfs.

 

[euroazn]

At any rate, history and data mining lessons aside, there is something really wrong in this video...
http://youtu.be/TH3kiaJ1-c8

That's messed up. In a free market consumers have a right to not purchase a product. wtf.
Although I may suspect some shenanigans; maybe she was causing a ruckus prior.