BigSteelThrill
Footballguy
Not true. And not who it is aimed at. Wall St (the literal place) is just a focal point to gather and be noticed.Anybody with a pension, a pension fund, a 401k, etc., is part of that mythical 1%.
Not true. And not who it is aimed at. Wall St (the literal place) is just a focal point to gather and be noticed.Anybody with a pension, a pension fund, a 401k, etc., is part of that mythical 1%.
Hint: the answer is 42.Has anybody heard a concise media summary of what is being protested.
Voters?The corruption of those who decide elections is a good place to start.Envy and greed are not simply personal matters. Groups, made up of people, reflect the virtue, or lack of virtue, found in their people; governments, businesses and protest movements alike. One form of greed or envy is no less harmful than another. Our national government is corrupted because our people are corrupted. Our business is corupted because our people are corrupted. Even those not running things continue to empower those who are; even if only through apathy.I salute the protesters for refusing apathy as a choice. However, based upon their corruption and limited field of vision, they are simply asking the populace, who's support they need, to support their flavor of corruption over that which they protest against.'mcintyre1 said:Again, you need to stop focusing on personal economic issues. Of course there is corruption and greed in "the 99%." It does represent 99% of the population, afterall. But you're referring to personal issues like envy. That's human nature. When I refer to "corruption and greed" I'm referring to political corruption fed by economic greed. You've got to be trolling if you're implying that the 99% is buying off politicians to benefit themselves. If that were happening, there wouldn't be any protests.'fsword said:Are you suggesting the corruption and greed from those non-top income earners is just? Why are we all protesting against greedy behavior by anyone,(or envy or pride for that matter), regardless of socioeconomic or political status? Any argument for social justice woudl be bolstered if we didn't protest against greed in a discriminatory and hypocritical fashion, right?'mcintyre1 said:Frankly, I don't know how you couldn't see corruption and greed among the top earners in our country. Do you disagree that corporations (and for sake of simplicity, the top earners that own/control them) have the ear of the government rather than the wider populace they claim to represent?
Fine. Find another planet we can pillage.I can't speak with authority about every organization mentioned.But as somebody who wasted his 20's beating his head pointlessly off of rocks in white knight environmental law, I can assure you that the EPA -- and environmental law in total -- exist for the sole purpose of making sure corporations (especially big energy and forestry) ultimately have unfettered access to every environmental resource that they demand, ever.http://www.outsideth...py-wall-street/
On Friday, this group of a few hundred people that purports to be the vanguard of some populist movement issued the ambitiously titled "Declaration of the Occupation of New York City" purporting to set forth the reasons they're protesting:
This "corporations run the government" meme has been around since the 1970s, and it's no more true now than it was then. As Rick Moran points out, if corporations really ran the government would we have an EPA, OSHA, SEC, the EEOC, the FHA, the Department of Labor, or any of the other number of state and federal agencies regulate corporate behavior? If corporations truly "ran" the government, then why would any of these organizations exist?Corporations do influence the government, of course. But then so do labor unions, the legal profession, the medical profession, special interest groups based on one form of racial or ethnic grievance or another, and lobbying interests ranging from Iowa corn to Texas oil. The problem isn't corporations, the problem is that we have a government that has its fingers in nearly every aspect of the economy. That means that policy makers have the ability to pick economic winners and losers every day, and it's only natural that those policies would be of concern to the people that they're going to impact most directly, the businesses affected by them. That's lobbying and petitioning the government for redress of grievances, not "running the government." This kind of reflexive anti-business mentality seems to be quite common in some sectors of society, but it has little basis in reality and seems firmly entrenched in resentment and envy rather than an honest examination of the country's political system.As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.as long as we have a government that picks economic winners and losers then the parties who stand to benefit or lose the most from that are going to be highly motivated to have their interests considered by policy makers. The solution isn't to demonize corporations, the solution is to get the government out of the business of substituting political favoritism or whim for the judgment of the marketplace.
The EPA primarily ballyhoos its window dressing campaigns, but these #### suckers exist only to scalp mountains, kill virgin forests, and pillage oceans for billionaires.
No, you've got this exactly wrong. It's about a bunch of college kids who don't want to pay back their student loans for their worthless 'Russian Literature of the 18th Century' majors, and a bunch of union thugs just looking for something to do.So what's this thing about again? A bunch of guys who don't work and college kids without a cause just looking for something to do?
So then how's this 23 pages?No, you've got this exactly wrong. It's about a bunch of college kids who don't want to pay back their student loans for their worthless 'Russian Literature of the 18th Century' majors, and a bunch of union thugs just looking for something to do.So what's this thing about again? A bunch of guys who don't work and college kids without a cause just looking for something to do?
Well, to paraphrase my good ibuddy Andy D, "Morons. You always forget about the morons." Answers all your questions.So then how's this 23 pages?No, you've got this exactly wrong. It's about a bunch of college kids who don't want to pay back their student loans for their worthless 'Russian Literature of the 18th Century' majors, and a bunch of union thugs just looking for something to do.So what's this thing about again? A bunch of guys who don't work and college kids without a cause just looking for something to do?
how many customers do they have?in any event, same site's Heavy Hitters listSounds about right.Take the American Federation of St/County/Municipal Employess... with over 1.5 million members pushing forth 15 million in political money.Sure, politics is corrupted by money. Who gives the most money? Unions.
Now look at PG&E push forth 15 million in political money while representing... well they have 20,000 employees, but that's not who is giving the money, nor who it represents.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list_stfed.php?order=A
He deserves most of the credit here.It seems like this would be the perfect place for The Rent Is Too Damn High Party.
Another day of unaccountable people marching around lower Manhattan. Just came home from my 14 hour day but hope to have more interviews tomorrow.
Considering this thread is being dominated by posts from our right-wing brethren who are gnashing their teeth over the subject matter, you are probably right.Well, to paraphrase my good ibuddy Andy D, "Morons. You always forget about the morons." Answers all your questions.So then how's this 23 pages?No, you've got this exactly wrong. It's about a bunch of college kids who don't want to pay back their student loans for their worthless 'Russian Literature of the 18th Century' majors, and a bunch of union thugs just looking for something to do.So what's this thing about again? A bunch of guys who don't work and college kids without a cause just looking for something to do?
They arent representing their customers, what kind of tripe is that?They represent a few people with as much influence as a million people.how many customers do they have?in any event, same site's Heavy Hitters listSounds about right.Take the American Federation of St/County/Municipal Employess... with over 1.5 million members pushing forth 15 million in political money.Sure, politics is corrupted by money. Who gives the most money? Unions.
Now look at PG&E push forth 15 million in political money while representing... well they have 20,000 employees, but that's not who is giving the money, nor who it represents.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list_stfed.php?order=A
One of the college kids is here.So then how's this 23 pages?No, you've got this exactly wrong. It's about a bunch of college kids who don't want to pay back their student loans for their worthless 'Russian Literature of the 18th Century' majors, and a bunch of union thugs just looking for something to do.So what's this thing about again? A bunch of guys who don't work and college kids without a cause just looking for something to do?
So should we occupy them?They arent representing their customers, what kind of tripe is that?They represent a few people with as much influence as a million people.how many customers do they have?in any event, same site's Heavy Hitters listSounds about right.Take the American Federation of St/County/Municipal Employess... with over 1.5 million members pushing forth 15 million in political money.Sure, politics is corrupted by money. Who gives the most money? Unions.
Now look at PG&E push forth 15 million in political money while representing... well they have 20,000 employees, but that's not who is giving the money, nor who it represents.
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list_stfed.php?order=A
High level irony for the third participant of this particular information-free circle jerk to be pulling out the moron card.Well, to paraphrase my good ibuddy Andy D, "Morons. You always forget about the morons." Answers all your questions.So then how's this 23 pages?No, you've got this exactly wrong. It's about a bunch of college kids who don't want to pay back their student loans for their worthless 'Russian Literature of the 18th Century' majors, and a bunch of union thugs just looking for something to do.So what's this thing about again? A bunch of guys who don't work and college kids without a cause just looking for something to do?
One of the college kids is here.So then how's this 23 pages?No, you've got this exactly wrong. It's about a bunch of college kids who don't want to pay back their student loans for their worthless 'Russian Literature of the 18th Century' majors, and a bunch of union thugs just looking for something to do.So what's this thing about again? A bunch of guys who don't work and college kids without a cause just looking for something to do?
High level irony for the third participant of this particular information-free circle jerk to be pulling out the moron card.Well, to paraphrase my good ibuddy Andy D, "Morons. You always forget about the morons." Answers all your questions.So then how's this 23 pages?No, you've got this exactly wrong. It's about a bunch of college kids who don't want to pay back their student loans for their worthless 'Russian Literature of the 18th Century' majors, and a bunch of union thugs just looking for something to do.So what's this thing about again? A bunch of guys who don't work and college kids without a cause just looking for something to do?
One of the college kids is here.So then how's this 23 pages?No, you've got this exactly wrong. It's about a bunch of college kids who don't want to pay back their student loans for their worthless 'Russian Literature of the 18th Century' majors, and a bunch of union thugs just looking for something to do.So what's this thing about again? A bunch of guys who don't work and college kids without a cause just looking for something to do?
I did. I noted how one public employee retirement fund totaling over $250 billion is the largest on Wall Street and how half of their top 10 holdings in 2007 were among the corporations that many seem to think are the most inherently evil. Every state has several such retirement funds:NY State Common Retirement fund manages $147 BillionWhy don't you post some evidence yourself instead of smearing the source?No. It's not clear that it includes pensions based on their vague description ("other retirement accounts") and you can't look up the source data because it's an "Unpublished analysis of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board, Survey of Consumer Finances and Federal Reserve Flow of Funds, prepared for the Economic Policy Institute. The Economic Policy Institute is "a 501©(3) non-profit, liberal, nonpartisan think tank that seeks to broaden the public debate about strategies to achieve a prosperous and fair economy. According to EPI's website, the institute was established to "broaden the discussion about economic policy to include the interests of low- and middle-income workers."No, it says that the bottom 95% owns 31% of all common stocks including "direct ownership of stock shares and indirect ownership through mutual funds; trusts; and IRAs, Keogh plans, 401(k) plans, and otherretirement accounts." They own 21% if you exclude pensions. It's right on the graph.That says that the bottom 95% owns 31% of common stocks, but it specifically says that it excludes pensions which is the point I was making about CALPERS and such.
So, the data doesn't match the original data that he cited and it's not clear what is included or not and the source data is from an unpublished analysis prepared for a liberal think tank. None of this entire line of argument disputes any of what I posted about pensions and endowments being, by far, the largest investors on Wall Street.
Is your point that voters decide elections or that those elected abide by the will of the voters?Voters?The corruption of those who decide elections is a good place to start.Envy and greed are not simply personal matters. Groups, made up of people, reflect the virtue, or lack of virtue, found in their people; governments, businesses and protest movements alike. One form of greed or envy is no less harmful than another. Our national government is corrupted because our people are corrupted. Our business is corupted because our people are corrupted. Even those not running things continue to empower those who are; even if only through apathy.I salute the protesters for refusing apathy as a choice. However, based upon their corruption and limited field of vision, they are simply asking the populace, who's support they need, to support their flavor of corruption over that which they protest against.'mcintyre1 said:Again, you need to stop focusing on personal economic issues. Of course there is corruption and greed in "the 99%." It does represent 99% of the population, afterall. But you're referring to personal issues like envy. That's human nature. When I refer to "corruption and greed" I'm referring to political corruption fed by economic greed. You've got to be trolling if you're implying that the 99% is buying off politicians to benefit themselves. If that were happening, there wouldn't be any protests.'fsword said:Are you suggesting the corruption and greed from those non-top income earners is just? Why are we all protesting against greedy behavior by anyone,(or envy or pride for that matter), regardless of socioeconomic or political status? Any argument for social justice woudl be bolstered if we didn't protest against greed in a discriminatory and hypocritical fashion, right?'mcintyre1 said:Frankly, I don't know how you couldn't see corruption and greed among the top earners in our country. Do you disagree that corporations (and for sake of simplicity, the top earners that own/control them) have the ear of the government rather than the wider populace they claim to represent?
Ok. I still don't think it follows that pension funds tip the scales noted in that study significantly without further data. Saying that pension plans have hundreds of billions AUM does not do that either (particularly given their current asset allocations which have diversified across countries and asset classes); so I was asking for anything on the relative holdings of those funds in equities vs. the type of data included in that report would be a good way of deciding what conclusions may be valid. Broken out by class or not, I have not seen either. If there is ample evidence that pension funds do level the holdings across classes, it shouldn't be hard to provide. Ill wait.He's not smearing the source. There is no way to break out CALPers investments down to an individual. The EPI hasn't demonstrated the information because there is no way to break it out as they have done with these other options. They aren't trying to pretend that they have it, or hide it somewhere. I'm sure they would have included it if it was possible.Why don't you post some evidence yourself instead of smearing the source?No. It's not clear that it includes pensions based on their vague description ("other retirement accounts") and you can't look up the source data because it's an "Unpublished analysis of the U.S. Federal Reserve Board, Survey of Consumer Finances and Federal Reserve Flow of Funds, prepared for the Economic Policy Institute. The Economic Policy Institute is "a 501©(3) non-profit, liberal, nonpartisan think tank that seeks to broaden the public debate about strategies to achieve a prosperous and fair economy. According to EPI's website, the institute was established to "broaden the discussion about economic policy to include the interests of low- and middle-income workers."No, it says that the bottom 95% owns 31% of all common stocks including "direct ownership of stock shares and indirect ownership through mutual funds; trusts; and IRAs, Keogh plans, 401(k) plans, and otherretirement accounts." They own 21% if you exclude pensions. It's right on the graph.That says that the bottom 95% owns 31% of common stocks, but it specifically says that it excludes pensions which is the point I was making about CALPERS and such.
So, the data doesn't match the original data that he cited and it's not clear what is included or not and the source data is from an unpublished analysis prepared for a liberal think tank. None of this entire line of argument disputes any of what I posted about pensions and endowments being, by far, the largest investors on Wall Street.
CALPers and CALSters have about $400B in assets, although it's not all in the markets.
This schtick is really old and tired. You're either stupid or lying.Has anybody heard a concise media summary of what is being protested.
These are not mainstream or regular democrats that are protesting. It's pretty short sighted to just call this an R vs. D situation. Lot's of the protesters don't give a flying #### if you are an R or a D. There are also tea partiers who have shown up to protest.Well, things just keep getting easier and easier for the Repulicans. George Soros's insider trading conviction just got upheld. Sure, it's a ridiculous conviction, but it's going to kill Obama and the Dems come election time when the Republicans point out how much money Soros is funneling to Democrats and Democratic causes and that he's not only part of "Wall Street", but as a convicted insider trader, he's the very evil they're protesting!
Which Party has had its members pandering to this group and trying to co-opt it? (Hint, it's not the Republicans)These are not mainstream or regular democrats that are protesting. It's pretty short sighted to just call this an R vs. D situation. Lot's of the protesters don't give a flying #### if you are an R or a D. There are also tea partiers who have shown up to protest.Well, things just keep getting easier and easier for the Repulicans. George Soros's insider trading conviction just got upheld. Sure, it's a ridiculous conviction, but it's going to kill Obama and the Dems come election time when the Republicans point out how much money Soros is funneling to Democrats and Democratic causes and that he's not only part of "Wall Street", but as a convicted insider trader, he's the very evil they're protesting!
Of course there is a left-leaning vibe to this movement.Which Party has had its members pandering to this group and trying to co-opt it? (Hint, it's not the Republicans)These are not mainstream or regular democrats that are protesting. It's pretty short sighted to just call this an R vs. D situation. Lot's of the protesters don't give a flying #### if you are an R or a D. There are also tea partiers who have shown up to protest.Well, things just keep getting easier and easier for the Repulicans. George Soros's insider trading conviction just got upheld. Sure, it's a ridiculous conviction, but it's going to kill Obama and the Dems come election time when the Republicans point out how much money Soros is funneling to Democrats and Democratic causes and that he's not only part of "Wall Street", but as a convicted insider trader, he's the very evil they're protesting!
The Occupy Wall Street movement was announced in July 2011 with the goal of demonstrating in New York City's financial district from September 17 onward.
The original call to action was launched by Adbusters, a counter-culture magazine based in Vancouver, Canada.
As the activist-driven protests gather steam across the US, the publication has taken some of the credit for generating online buzz and social media attention.
Al Jazeera spoke with Kalle Lasn, the editor-in-chief and co-founder of Adbusters:
AJE: The #Occupy theme centres on the notion of "occupation", which is often reviled by the left in the foreign policy context. Explain why the connotation is different domestically.
KL: We're caught in the middle of a maelstrom here. This Occupy Wall Street thing has suddenly exploded on us and we're trying to figure out how to harness that energy and move it in the right direction.
In depth coverage of US financial crisis protests
Here in North America [occupation] is not really reviled among the political left. It's a word reviled by some people in the Middle East, maybe because of Palestine and so on. But here the word came out of the student movements in the 1960s and 1970s when they occupied university buildings. It has quite a positive connotation and a certain history of success in the context of protest movements.
AJE: Adbusters has its roots in anti-consumerist "culture-jamming" activism. Perhaps you could give some background on how this strategy will bring practical change to society.
KL: We started culture-jamming as one of the hubs of global activism in the early 1990s. Back then, consumer culture didn't really have a dark side to it. And when we had campaigns like Buy Nothing Day - celebrated in dozens of countries around the world - people started thinking about consumerism and what it really means to live in a culture where you get thousands of ads thrown at you every day.
But now we are living in a much more serious time. In 1993, there was no climate change crisis. There was no financial crisis either. Now we live in a world where climate change tipping points are hovering on the horizon and there's a very apocalyptic feel about the future. Culture-jamming and anti-consumerism are morphing into an attempt to shift the neo-classical economic paradigm into a new economic paradigm that people call ecological economics or psychonomics. This movement that we started 20 years ago is now becoming a movement for theoretical change in the whole foundation of the global economic system.
AJE: Situationism also seems to be the philosophical point of reference for the current campaign. Was that movement - which mounted urban displays of contempt for the capitalist order - focused more on social revolution than on economic angst?
Yes, but there was a larger perspective there. Some people say 1968 was the first attempt at global revolution, the moment when uprisings in the Latin Quarter of Paris inspired revolts in hundreds of campuses and cities all around the world. Of course we all know that it fizzled and became an inspiration for people like me. But I think what's happening now is uncannily similar to what happened in 1968.
There's this uprising happening in New York. And all of a sudden cities around the world are now rising in solidarity. This time the stakes are much higher. This could be the next phase from 1968 - the global revolution that so many of us have been dreaming about for the past 30-40 years.
Watching Al Jazeera on my TV set during the early stages of the Arab Spring was incredibly inspirational. This time the same thing is unfolding but in the so-called developed countries of the world. What's happening in America is, to some significant degree, inspired by what happened in Tahrir Square, when some websites were suddenly able to mobilise hundreds of thousands of people to go out into the streets and vent to their rage.
That's exactly what we did when we put out that hashtag #OccupyWallStreet and put out a few posters and all of a sudden a small movement grew through social media and now it's exploding all over the world. We have the chance to do more than just have an Arab Spring. We can have a global spring.
AJE: Successful and sustained protest requires a relationship between you and mainstream media. Will you rely on spectacle and symbolic action or concrete achievements?
KL: We are doing our own thing. We're not creating a spectacle for the mainstream media. They, quite frankly, can go to hell. If [they] want to cover us then they're welcome to. But we're not in any kind of symbiotic relationship with them ... creating something interesting to film and put on the evening news.
We're a movement and as long as we can keep our internal integrity and our own passion going, then we will succeed - quite irrespective of the mass mainstream media, which many of us hate.
AJE: Much has been discussed about the lack of both leaders and demands. Would you mind articulating a list of key aspects of a political platform?
KL: The situation is a little bit more complicated than that. These are the early stages of the movement. Things are very messy. There are no leaders and people are arguing about what they really want. But it's growing very, very quickly. They've launched something.
You can criticise them about not being clear. But the fact that they don't have any leaders - and for the moment don't have any real demands - is the mysterious part that has allowed them to grow.
In the next few weeks, some very clear demands will start appearing out of of those assemblies that they have every morning. We the people want: [to levy] a one per cent Robin Hood tax (such as a Tobin tax on all financial transactions and currency trades); to slow down fast money and ban high-frequency trading; and in the US, to re-instate the Glass-Steagall Act.
It could all happen very quickly before the G20 meeting in Cannes, France, on October 29. There are going to be protests in cities worldwide.
AJE: Your effort to initiate financial reform and "fiscal sanity" has elements in common with the Tea Party movement, which loathes the US president. What is your attitude towards Barack Obama?
KL: Obama is somebody who really inspired me and my friends and much of the culture-jamming movement and all young activists that I talk to. We were really enamoured with him, but something happened there. After he got elected, he has bitterly disappointed us.
He doesn't have the guts to follow his instincts and one of the reasons that we have the Occupy Wall Street movement is that we want to jump over him. He's not going to solve our problems. If Obama can't do it, then we're going to do it ourselves or we'll push him into doing it.
AJE: Some liberals believe that middle-class Americans vote based on ideology and fear rather than genuine self-interest. How do you seek to attract this demographic?
KL: Quite frankly, we haven't gotten to that stage where we're thinking along those lines. Maybe that is exactly the thing that will kill the movement. The Tea Party was very inspirational for a lot of us. They may be wrong but at least they had a lot of passion and were able to organise and do, on some level, exactly what we're doing now. Of course, the Tea Party is against government, whereas we are against corporations and the financial elite.
A big mistake the Tea Party made was that they so quickly aligned themselves with the Republicans. Though they still have a lot of energy in them, they're kind of a spent force.
We on the left now have a chance with Occupy Wall Street to build a real movement that doesn't immediately hop into bed with the Democrats. As soon as we start thinking in terms of usual strategies, then I think we're going to lose our momentum.
AJE: What does this movement need to achieve by next year to fulfill your expectations?
KL: I'll be happy if this movement is one of the biggest blasts of revolutionary fervour that we've seen since 1968. If that happens, then we will have ignited a spark that will then spread into all kinds of different factions. Some people will continue to conduct their flash raids and some people will continue to try to talk our political leaders into Robin Hood taxes.
We will have further demands about campaign finance reform in America, and so in a way I'm dreaming of a period of global anarchism and some new ideas bubbling up from the bottom. After that, I want to see some radical transformations of the global economy - changing the way we eat, the way we get around, the way we live and get our information. I'm dreaming of a sort of revolution of everyday life.
Impossible to know, really.I'm late to this party but if we didn't bail out the banks and let them go bankrupt, these people wouldn't have a problem? Is that right?
That actually sounds like the Tea Party.I'm late to this party but if we didn't bail out the banks and let them go bankrupt, these people wouldn't have a problem? Is that right?
If the banks weren't bailed out, a whole lot of these CEO's making millions would be out of a job right?Impossible to know, really.I'm late to this party but if we didn't bail out the banks and let them go bankrupt, these people wouldn't have a problem? Is that right?
That's what I'm not getting.Tea Party=No bail out, let them starve.OWS=We bailed them out and now they are stealing millions, eat the rich.They seem like they are sort of on the same page.That actually sounds like the Tea Party.I'm late to this party but if we didn't bail out the banks and let them go bankrupt, these people wouldn't have a problem? Is that right?
Rally squirrel for the win, 12.
We should have taken our medicine and let them go bankrupt IMO.BTW it's pretty ignorant of the banks to institute these paltry 5/month charges in the midst of this, no? Kind of like pouring gasoline on a small fire?
Love some of their reasons.For students. Less debt.
I agree the timing is terrible, but B of A's management team had their heads on the chopping block already... if they show a loss in the next quarter or two they're gone... so they really didnt have the luxury of waiting.I personally hate the fee (and I'm switching to a credit union because of it), but I understand why they're doing it.BTW it's pretty ignorant of the banks to institute these paltry 5/month charges in the midst of this, no? Kind of like pouring gasoline on a small fire?
What's the issue here? Don't like the $5 fee? Move your account. Problem solved.
'Hipple said:BTW it's pretty ignorant of the banks to institute these paltry 5/month charges in the midst of this, no? Kind of like pouring gasoline on a small fire?
Close enough.First they ignore youThen they laugh at youThen they fight youThen they lose