Occupy Wall Street!

[rookiewaygook]

Hi.

I like discussing about Occupy Wall Street, and I love seeing different perspectives - as long as they are legitimate. And especially from NET's from here BUT It's impossible to have an intelligent conversation with people who are misinformed.

I know this isn't university anymore, so yes, just some suggestions.

The Baruch College School of Public Affairs released a study about the demographics of Occupy Wall Street (the one in New York.) Check out who is involved before you start making assumptions, and then throwing the discussion off in a tangent.

Also, take a look at OWS' official sites to see what they really want.  Just because a couple of left fringe people are making outrageous demands, it doesn't give us the right to assume that all protesters are with them.  If you think that the site is a load of crap, give evidence.

K, Thanks

[jaysoon17]

Don't take the chart seriously, but I found this amusing

http://www.ritholtz.com/blog/2011/11/occupy-wall-street-vs-tea-party/

[DWAEDGIMORIGUKBAP]

spoiled rotten brats. mommy and daddy pay for everything. this year its "lets play protester!"  dirty druggies. amusingly, i wonder how many of these kinds of people end up in korea......a lot i assume. thats why im having this one sided conversation.

So you're deliberately trying to insult people right?

[DWAEDGIMORIGUKBAP]

2 points...1. are you the new moderator? and 2. its easy to get attacked when theres only 1 target and countless people coming after me

Two ppoints.

1. What do believe has caused them to come after you?  For example, nobody has come after me ro anyone esle that I've seen recently and I post here a lot due to lots of desk time.

2.  Do you believe that hurling insults around like the ones I quoted is the mature reply from someone who claims to be more intelligent and mature than everyone else?

Oh and

3.  I'm not trying to moderate I'm having a discussion which you yourself initiated also in your grandstanding thread about your thread getting locked!

[Jrong]

I've seen the data a few weeks ago that there is a broad group of political and religious views within Occupy Wallstreet and no one single ideology dominates. However, assuming that occupywallst.org is the unofficial "official" news site for the movement, it seems obvious that the CORE group of OWS peeps (those most heavily invested) are at the very least anti-capitalist and, very likely, libertarian socialists (i.e. graphics and terminology borrowed heavily from classic socialism and libertarian socialism). I can't access the site anymore but if I'm wrong about the assumption that occupywallst.com represents the core of the movement, feel free to point me in the right direction.

To address some other folks. I would agree that most Americans don't want "socialism". Even the word "socialism" sounds so ancient -- probably b/c most of  those have never seen it in action today only associate that word with tried and failed experiments of Russia, Cuba, etc. Those of us who grew up with the American curriculum were heavily indoctrinated to believe:

Socialism = Russia, Eastern Europe
Russia + E.Europe = failed experiments and horrific human rights violations
Socialism = failed

That first premise is wrong, though.
Once you see socialist principles (to a greater extent that those socialist principles implemented in US) in action today in different areas of the world, I believe you can move past that elementary understanding of "socialism" as "tired and outdated". We would all agree, however, that any form of strong socialism won't work in such an individualistic country like the US. Socialism works in places like Bolivia, I believe, b/c you have a large majority of one ethnic group that's been oppressed. They have a common ethnicity and strong cultural ties that makes it easy to unite under any system, enter: socialist system. In the U.S. people identify more with race, culture, and religion (i.e. I'm black, I'm southern, I'm white, I'm Latino) than with socio-economic status so there's no glue to hold a socialist movement together. Poor whites will identify more with "white" and "America" than "poor" and will end up filling the ranks of the army, ready to die to do the bidding of the wealthy white.

Pragmatically speaking, I have to agree that the grand majority of people within the US would not be for the dismantling of corporations and setting up a more just system. That idea is pretty radical when you frame it within the context of the beliefs of Americans (err...on that topic, 40% of Americans don't even believe in evolution). However, if we frame that idea (non-violently abolishing this system and setting up a new one) within the context of all past political systems AND all future possible political systems...then it's really not that radical at all. Statements like this: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Oil5grbUNSQ seem pretty middle of the road to me within the greater context.

While I very much support the OWS, I believe that it won't get at the core of the problem: a lack of relationship with those who suffer under the capitalist system, a lack of ability to see the direct connection between their suffering and the system, and a lack of compassion for them. I believe that the more relationships people develop with those who are directly oppressed by the capitalist systems (and the more they are able to see the connections between system & oppression), the more motivation they will have to see the current systems changed. As much as I love a good ole protest, I realize that my beliefs never changed by people shouting at me, they changed through relationship. If, however, the OWS were eventually to gather in the millions in places like NYC and shut down 'wall street', then we would see some changes to American law that I'm sure most of us would be happy to see. If the OWS is going to make an impact (i.e. get enough people to protest and actually make a difference), I feel that they do need to change their graphic style, wording on their website, and clothing b/c as I do support many aspects of socialist ideology (and I think the graphics rock), I believe that they will alienate too many people this way. They need to be way more crafty. 

[ACofOntario]

I have been reading this thread from the very beginning. I gave my 2 cents early on, but have long since given up on keeping up with you economic/political eggheads.  I've learned more about economics reading this thread than I ever did reading the newspaper!  The fact that people disagree so much makes it all the more informative/entertaining to read.

Just thought I'd throw it out there.... I'll go back to lurking the thread quietly.

[hilarity ensues]

This is pretty good. Listening now.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cJD8pZiRIzs

Whoops a little blue language in there.

^Totally hateful, delusional and ignorant. I mean, I get that you kind of need to do that stuff in order to get people to pay attention, but wow... you actually enjoy this sort of thing?

[hilarity ensues]

^There's absolutely no reason for anyone to ever talk like that to anyone... it's a lot of name-calling, profanity, mixed with some meaningless, biased, and wholly casual observations with absolutely no facts being brought up at any time. 

OWS was mostly about raising concerns about how the economy does seem like it's heading in a very slave labor-esque direction for a lot of people... and then there's the fact that CEOs all over the world continue to see even bigger profits from the recession and the low taxes while social programs are being cut, tuition is going up, and jobs are not being created. The government is enabling a lot of greed and gouging the middle class in order to do it. The wealth is not trickling down-- it's just stagnating at the top.

The cries for socialism and all of that are absolutely ridiculous, but to jump to the conclusion that this is about a bunch of spoiled kids is ridiculous. I thought it was already posted here that many of the protesters were older people with decent jobs.

And all that BS about them not working hard is complete garbage... and I find it especially ironic coming from a loser who gets paid to be an oblivious a-hole with a big ignorant mouth. 

[hilarity ensues]

I think he ranted to much. There is never a reason to swear, either. It doesn't help your cause in any way. He could pare his thesis down to about three minutes and use better examples.

Having said that, I agree with him as I see myself as one of the people he is talking about. Pampered as a youth and told that I was special and could do anything. My young self took that to mean I could be anything I wanted without having to work for it. I eventually figured it out, but my high school grades and college transcripts speak to Carrolla's point.

I think this is a little bit true-- expectations were definitely raised to unreasonable levels, but that's not really the kids' fault. It also doesn't mean that anyone is 'lazy'... if the opportunities and training were there, then it would probably take about a month for those myths to be shattered.

OWS isn't about asking for handouts for doing nothing-- it's about raising the value of the hard work that people are ALREADY doing, and about getting more opportunities to DO the work in the first place. It seems like there's a surplus of demeaning, minimum-wage jobs and very few that actually pay a salary that can support a family or buy a house or do any of those very basic things that our parents were able to do... sometimes with the same jobs.

Just because someone chooses to be a worker as opposed to a CEO, it doesn't make them any less valuable as a person and it definitely doesn't mean that they don't work as hard... in fact, they could be much better people who just subscribed to the whole 'can't buy happiness' thing and choose to live their lives according to their own humble demands and a somewhat developed set of moral principles. Maybe they want to spend more time with their kids to make sure that they also grow up to be good-natured people. Nobody has a right to punish them for that.

[hilarity ensues]

eerrrrmmmm... "Write off student loans", "broadband internet is a universal human righgt"...

Can't say I agree with those... which is also part of the problem with OWS-- without leaders or focus, silliness can creep up. Writing off student loans is a little extreme, not that it wouldn't be a good idea to re-evaluate how higher education works...

How does one person getting rich by working hard and making or doing something that people value enough to give them money for it, equate with people who don't have money being "punished"?

Employees are absolutely essential to their employers' business.
They work hard and also provide something of value. 

The problem is that it's extremely difficult to organize huge masses of people (basically the entire world) to set a definite value for the work of an employee, but a relative breeze to organize a group of employers together and do the same thing. The same thing goes for their products.

[Jrong]

http://www.aljazeera.com/indepth/opinion/2011/11/2011112872835904508.html
Graeber presents a good case linking the core of OWS to anarchism. I disagree with his notion, however, that Americans aren't terrified of Anarchism. The US is one of the most conservative, religious developed countries in the world (I think SA is #1). If 40% of the population don't even believe in evolution, imagine how many people still believe in the "authority" of certain scriptures that are very anti-Anarchist? I like OWS, but I feel that OWS needs to 'hide' their anarchist/socialist roots and present a different image to the world if they are to do anything meaningful.

[Jrong]

Arundhati Roy recently spoke out on OWS and capitalism. Great article:
http://www.truth-out.org/arundhati-roy-people-who-created-crisis-will-not-be-ones-come-solution/1322765555

An excerpt:

" I hope that that the people in the Occupy movement are politically aware enough to know that their being excluded from the obscene amassing of wealth of US corporations is part of the same system of the exclusion and war that is being waged by these corporations in places like India, Africa and the Middle East. Ever since the Great Depression, we know that one of the key ways in which the US economy has stimulated growth is by manufacturing weapons and exporting war to other countries."

[Davox]

Employees are absolutely essential to their employers' business.
They work hard and also provide something of value. 

The problem is that it's extremely difficult to organize huge masses of people (basically the entire world) to set a definite value for the work of an employee, but a relative breeze to organize a group of employers together and do the same thing. The same thing goes for their products.

I don't see that as a problem. Market forces are the best way of setting prices. We have seen the consequences of messing with market forces in the last decade or so.

This is more a statement of faith than a statement of fact.  Which doesn't make you wrong, and I'm not attacking you, but people can and do honestly and in good faith disagree that market forces are the best way of setting prices.  Some people may even believe that markets are the best way of setting prices of most, but not all things, or that they are the best way most, but not all, of the time.

As for your second statement, for the last decade or so markets in the western world have actually been less regulated by governments than any other time in the last 80 to 90 years.   Whatever you've seen, bad or good, has been the result of consistent and intentional DE-regulation of markets in the western world.  The movement started about 30 years ago and  has been accelerating greatly in the last 15 years (note that this spans both democratic and republican presidents in the US, and generally both left and right leaders in most other 'western' countries too). 

If you believe that this last decade has been bad, it's not market regulation that is to blame.  Market regulation has been dead for a long time now.

[Davox]

As for your second statement, for the last decade or so markets in the western world have actually been less regulated by governments than any other time in the last 80 to 90 years.   Whatever you've seen, bad or good, has been the result of consistent and intentional DE-regulation of markets in the western world.  The movement started about 30 years ago and  has been accelerating greatly in the last 15 years (note that this spans both democratic and republican presidents in the US, and generally both left and right leaders in most other 'western' countries too). 

By how many pages was the Legislative Source Book reduced?

How many federal regulatory bodies were abolished?

And how many have retained the ability to regulate?  Every organization that had the ability and will to regulate has had either the ability taken away (via funding, employees, mandate, you name it), or had someone appointed to lead with specific instructions to not regulate. 

While the laws remain on the books in some cases (although not say, Glass–Steagall, which would have prevented this recession at the cost of less explosive growth beforehand)  no one is enforcing them anymore, by intent.  I stand by my comment that in the west we are seeing the least regulated markets since before the new deal.  And like I said, many people including politicians on the right and the left, and presumably yourself, consider this either good thing or a necessary evil to promote eventual freedom, or what have you.  Nothing wrong with that opinion, but if you're honestly arguing that markets are more regulated and more planned now than 30 or so years ago, you are not correct.

[jaysoon17]

You should look up Presidential Candidate Buddy Roemer. He is a former congressman, former governor, owns a small bank worth 3 quarters of a billion dollars, thinks there is too much regulation and is the only presidential candidate that actually went down to OWS to talk with the people and supports them somewhat. He is a fair market guy, not a free market guy.

My assumption is that anybody who thinks that there is not enough regulation has never started up their own business before. The cost to start up your own business has increased a great deal over the years. It is not an easy task to start up a business. A great example of how regulation hurts business and makes it difficult for them to operate is an article that somebody posted before on waygook about a Korean family opening up a grocery store in 1980 for $5,000. Today, it would cost them $500,000 to start that very same business. This is just a grocery store! What about the regulations for a medium enterprise that can create thousands of jobs? Also, look at restaurants in Korea. Why is it so much cheaper to eat at a restaurant in Korea than in the States when food prices at the crockery aren't incredibly different? There can be a lot of other examples cited. The problem isn't enough regulation. The problem is that laws are written in ways that favor lobbyists and not in a way that allows true competition amongst companies.

Going back to the OWS protests, I support their protests against lobbyists who control politicians, and I think that is the only theme that can get the true 99% support.

[jaysoon17]

The grocery store was in New York by the way, not Korea.

[Davox]

As for your second statement, for the last decade or so markets in the western world have actually been less regulated by governments than any other time in the last 80 to 90 years.   Whatever you've seen, bad or good, has been the result of consistent and intentional DE-regulation of markets in the western world.  The movement started about 30 years ago and  has been accelerating greatly in the last 15 years (note that this spans both democratic and republican presidents in the US, and generally both left and right leaders in most other 'western' countries too). 

By how many pages was the Legislative Source Book reduced?

How many federal regulatory bodies were abolished?

1. And how many have retained the ability to regulate?  2. Every organization that had the ability and will to regulate has had either the ability taken away (via funding, employees, mandate, you name it), or had someone appointed to lead with specific instructions to not regulate. 

1. All of them.
2. Can you give an example?

You've never worked for government (other than in Korea, I presume) have you?  I have, albeit not in the US treasury or financial regulation.  Anyway, it works like many other jobs: when the boss tells you not to do something, you don't do that thing.  Or you get fired.  The main difference is that in the private sector, bosses will tell you to do stupid things and stop doing profitable things because they are completely divorced from the actual production of the company and have few financial consequences for failure.  In the government sector, the bosses will tell you to do stupid things and stop doing useful things for political reasons (because your department failing will support their ideology, because they care more about the image of success than actual success or because your failure will help one of their campaign donating friends). Now government people, like for instance the Secretary of the US treasury, can't actually pass laws or repeal laws.  Nonetheless, they are the technical boss of hordes of government workers, including the ones that enforce many laws, in particular the ones that regulate the financial markets.  When the Secretary of the treasury, for instance, says you should no longer investigate or prosecute fraud (because he believes the markets will take care of that on their own), or feels that markets should be completely unregulated and gives specific instructions to stop investigating and regulating*, then you as a worker under him stop investigating and regulating.   

The rest is all standard lobbying on behalf of investment banks who wanted to make riskier and riskier (and thus more and more profitable, if you beat the odds) bets on the market.

*Alan Greenspan, by the way.  In case you didn't know the guy who for better or worse de-regulated the US markets and led the charge for other western countries to do the same.  He was a close personal friend to Ayn Rand, actually.  Interesting guy.

While the laws remain on the books in some cases (although not say, Glass–Steagall, which would have prevented this recession at the cost of less explosive growth beforehand)  no one is enforcing them anymore, by intent.  I stand by my comment that in the west we are seeing the least regulated markets since before the new deal.  And like I said, many people including politicians on the right and the left, and presumably yourself, consider this either good thing or a necessary evil to promote eventual freedom, or what have you.  Nothing wrong with that opinion, but if you're honestly arguing that markets are more regulated and more planned now than 30 or so years ago, you are not correct.

How?
[/quote]

I'm not an expert, and it is of course much more complicated than can be presented on a message board, but in my understanding it worked like this:
Glass–Steagall was a law that prohibited investment banks from acting like regular public banks and vice versa.  Regular banks are an integral part of capitalism.  In fact, it's very hard to have a modern functional capitalistic system without banks that are trustworthy and functional.  So any government that doesn't want some kind of post-financial-apocalyptic socialistic/communistic uprising has a vested interest in keeping the banks, whether they be public or private, running well.  Likewise, anyone that likes the prosperity that capitalism brings has a vested interest in solid trustworthy banks too.  However, for a bank to be solid and trustworthy, they have to be fairly risk-averse.  They can't just go lending money to anyone, they can't just take all their cash and gamble with it, etc.  But regular banks, like any publicly traded company, have every incentive to do riskier and riskier stuff, because the riskier stuff is much much more profitable, which appeases their shareholders desire for ever increasing levels of profit.  Of course it's also riskier, so there's a much greater risk that the bank will lose depositor's money.  Hence Glass-Steagall, which prevented banks from doing certain types of risky investments, because then they'd be acting as investment banks (it also prevented the often-richer investment banks from owning or merging with regular banks for the same reasons).  Investment banks CAN do all of that stuff, and as such they tend to end up either enormously profitable or enormously bankrupt, or big enough that the few bad calls they make don't sink the company.  Either way though, the only people harmed are their investors, who (in a market with no fraud) will have known the risks.  No problem there.

However, with no Glass-Steagall, banks of any sort can make any crazy bet they like with their depositors money, and now the depositors who stand to lose include everyone in the country who banks with one of those now risky banks, which is most people.  And the banks have exactly 0 incentive to not take those risks, because if they fail we have to bail them out.  To not bail them out could see the end of capitalism for at least a while, because we need them to work for modern capitalism to work.

Essentially: Repealing Glass-Steagall made it possible for banks to be 'too big to fail' AND also more likely for them to fail.  In return for them making more profits faster for their shareholders in between the recessions they cause.

[Davox]

So, it was a failure to prosecute fraud that caused the problem, not lack of regulation. Why didn't you just say so?

Glass-Steagal; Why then did banks with no financial arm and financial firms with no banking arm also go tits up? And why did countries like Canada and Aus, who weathered the financial storm relatively well without Glass-Steagal like regulation not have endemic bank failures?

Sorry about the regulation mis-communication.  I guess I just don't consider it a real law/regulation if everyone knows it's intended to never be enforced. 

In terms of your second question, my understanding is that a) there really weren't that many banks of note with no financial arms or firms with no banking arms, at least in the US.  It was so profitable for everyone that almost everyone did it.  b) Even if a firm is financially prudent, banks lend money to each other all the time, and instability in the banking system is enough that if just a few bad banks default, that's enough to swamp a number of smaller firms that are owed money by said bad banks, which in turn will kill more and more...that was the (IMO very real) fear anyway.

I don't know about Aus, but in Canada the banks were and are heavily restricted in a number of ways, ie they actually did have some heavy Glass-Steagal like regulation.  The banks in question (Canada has only like 5 main banks) were heavily lobbying the government to remove the laws all through the 2000's, and probably would have succeeded had the recession not happened first.

[Jrong]

http://westcoastportshutdown.org/
big day for 'Occupy'

[Jrong]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=8BWhEHrrvTo
Funny stuff...