Occupy Wall Street Protests

This section is specifically for serious non-footbag debate and discussion.
janis
Post Master General
Posts: 2707
Joined: 29 Dec 2005 18:46
Location: Australia

Post by janis » 04 Dec 2011 10:45

pips wrote:WHY DOES IT MATTER THAT THE VALUE OF HOMES DROPPED??!!
The main issue is that the whole economy is structured around consistent never ending growth. It's like this because of an expectation that people have of earning interest on their money invested and this money has to come from somewhere.

User avatar
C-Fan
Rekordy Polski
Posts: 11366
Joined: 23 Jan 2003 23:51
Location: Denver
Contact:

Post by C-Fan » 05 Dec 2011 15:14

pips wrote:You can't just swoop in and change something to someone's advantage and expect nothing else to get knocked out of balance.
What if the current balance is unjust? MLK and civil rights advocates marched on Washington, were beaten in Selma, and used peaceful protest to achieve their goals. They were advocating changes which were to the advantage of minorities (such as voting rights and equal education) which came at a cost to white elites (loss of political control, more competition as the playing field became more level). They protested an unjust system and, as you point out, things did "get knocked out of balance." I believe this was a good thing.

For all the critiques of the Occupy movement, at the very least they should be commended for acting on something they care about, and doing so in a non-violent way.

pips
Multidex Master
Posts: 262
Joined: 10 Mar 2008 00:21
Location: Pittsburgh

Post by pips » 05 Dec 2011 21:49

Well, I agree that the system is off right now, but I don't know what the answer is. I just want to know what the Occupiers are really proposing be done rather than just protesting. Nothing I've tried to read up on has answered that question.
Chrissy Fryer

fatbagger
Multidex Master
Posts: 308
Joined: 11 Jul 2003 16:07
Location: Seattle, WA

Post by fatbagger » 06 Dec 2011 04:53

It's not about any single issue. There may be some who have put together proposals for something or other but there are too many issues. If they turn from general protests to more specific protests it will divide the movement and give the government an easy out. They could just start addressing thoes issues and try to squash the movement right there, leaving all the other stuff unchanged and forgotten.
Here's an interesting speaker at occupy Seattle who kind of touches on that issue. He's kind of eccentric but worth listening to, he has some good points.
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JKqNnxkp ... ture=share[/youtube]
I like to play.
I want to play good.
Dan Reed

Frank_Sinatra
Avenging Disco Godfather
Posts: 1660
Joined: 09 Jan 2007 12:43
Location: Chicago, IL

Post by Frank_Sinatra » 06 Dec 2011 16:09

pips wrote:Well, I agree that the system is off right now, but I don't know what the answer is. I just want to know what the Occupiers are really proposing be done rather than just protesting. Nothing I've tried to read up on has answered that question.
Yeah, part of the organizing principles behind the movement seem to prevent it from having leaders, or policy proposals, or a defined and focused agenda. I don't think it can be an effective organizational model, but that might be a separate discussion.

One obvious focus for the movement could have been the "super committee" deliberations on reducing the deficit - where basically the choice appears to be between cuts to benefits like social security and medicare on the one hand and returning to a tax structure similar to what we had prior to G. W. Bush. Our tax code is seriously fucked up, a lot of the progressivity has been removed at the top. There's a number of tax code changes that are directly responsible for how regressive our tax code has become, and all of these are obvious targets of the Occupy movement.

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 07 Dec 2011 13:28

I would have said that the protests are an expression of anger at the situation we're in, rather than an attempt to make specific changes. In fact the reason why there aren't leaders and specific goals is because the protests grew out of many different people all feeling very angry at the same time, and having social media to connect.

I also wanted to make it clear that I don't think just the people who took out the loans are to blame. I merely said that in response to the idea that "greed" is to blame. I don't accept that the GFC was caused by "greed," but rather, that it was caused by the bad idea that lending money to people who might not be able to afford the loans wasn't risky, and would help many of those people. At the time of the policy, this seemed like a good idea, but it wasn't.

In response to the question about why it matters if house prices fall, it matters because if the bank lends somebody $300,000 and then they can't pay it back, but they can't sell the house for more than $100,000 (roughly the size of the drop in prices too), then they lose $200,000. Multiply that by thousands of loans, and suddenly you have a bank without any money, which then collapses.

The problem, of course, was not "fluctuating house prices" but a massive housing market crash, causing a financial markets crash that wiped out hundreds of billions of dollars in a single day.

The part the protesters are most angry about though isn't the GFC, but the fact that it was caused, at least in part, by the richest people in society, who are also the least harmed by it, and the fact that the government gave $700,000,000 of tax payer money to these corporations, who then spent used some of that money to pay themselves multimillion dollar bonuses.

fatbagger
Multidex Master
Posts: 308
Joined: 11 Jul 2003 16:07
Location: Seattle, WA

Post by fatbagger » 07 Dec 2011 17:14

That number 700 billion. Yeah that was what it was supposed to be but in fact mayor bloomberg just released the actual amount given to the banks. "A Bloomberg report reveals that the U.S. government loaned banks $7.7 trillion in secret bailout funds at no interest and then borrowed the money back at interest." 7.7 trillion. No one is held accountable.
I like to play.
I want to play good.
Dan Reed

fatbagger
Multidex Master
Posts: 308
Joined: 11 Jul 2003 16:07
Location: Seattle, WA

Post by fatbagger » 07 Dec 2011 17:22

http://www.thedailyshow.com/watch/thu-d ... share_copy
Kind of funny and on topic. America is a nothing but a joke so Jon Stewart has the easiest job in the world.
I like to play.
I want to play good.
Dan Reed

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 07 Dec 2011 18:11

Having just read that story, it's a little misleading.

The $7.7 trillion is mainly guarantees and loans. It's not unusual for banks to loan money to each other, and guarantees are only agreements to pay money in the event of particular circumstances. This isn't an example of tax payer money being given away. It is noteworthy, if that article is correct that the lower than market rate interest rates on those loans saved banks ~$13 billion, which is indeed the headline of the article, since that is actual losses for tax payer money (or at least, unrealised gains). Losing $13 billion of tax payer money is worth getting angry about, but thinking that $7.7 trillion was somehow lost is pretty ridiculous.

User avatar
Jeremy
"Really unneccesary"
Posts: 10178
Joined: 08 Jan 2003 00:20
Location: Tasmania

Post by Jeremy » 07 Dec 2011 18:11

Here's the story, in case people are interested;

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-2 ... ncome.html

pips
Multidex Master
Posts: 262
Joined: 10 Mar 2008 00:21
Location: Pittsburgh

Post by pips » 07 Dec 2011 22:51

Jeremy wrote: In response to the question about why it matters if house prices fall, it matters because if the bank lends somebody $300,000 and then they can't pay it back, but they can't sell the house for more than $100,000 (roughly the size of the drop in prices too), then they lose $200,000. Multiply that by thousands of loans, and suddenly you have a bank without any money, which then collapses.
I shouldn't have highlighted that question in all caps. It has nothing much to do with the Occupy Movement. It is something I see at work on a regular basis, and it doesn't seem to matter unless the borrower is refinancing.

I typed up this big thing about what causes values to fluctuate and why I don't agree, but I sort of answered my own question and understand a little bit more, so I will leave it at that since it is sort of off topic here.
Chrissy Fryer

Pasquar
Fearless
Posts: 517
Joined: 17 Jul 2010 08:02
Location: Columbus, OH/ Philadelphia, PA

Post by Pasquar » 13 Dec 2011 19:45

Sorry I've been gone for so long but so stoked to see this thread active with some new voices!

I don't have too much to say specifically as I've just caught up on the last dozen or so posts, but I would like to reiterate the "tactic" is it has been thought that this movement has which is to outright NOT have a leader, agenda, or specific demands. I've said this before on the thread and a lot of what has been said recently seems to support the fact this movement is a response to systemic issues faced by our country and society as a whole. The economic and political systems under capitalism have been completely and totally FUCKED on a national and global scale in which society, meaning the majority of the population at large, is losing and the elite continue to prosper.

Pips, I totally understand your frustration at the lack of knowledge of basic economics evidenced by people in the movement but I believe this is simplistic and a bit misleading. For instance, I do not study economics and have not taken a formal class since high school, but I study sociology and have a tenuous grasp on the impact that our economic system has on the plight of the poor and working class. What I mean to say is that one does not necessarily need to understand the concepts/terms/jargon of economics to realize that they're being fucked. That's what you're seeing now; people who have had enough of the status quo because it simply isn't working.

As you all know by now, I am not a fan of capitalism as a system of economy (which necessarily seeps into our system of policy). It sets a precedent which, mentioned earlier, depends and EXPECTS constant growth to be able to sustain itself, effectively contaminates government making it essentially ineffective, and creates a never ending race to the top for the elite who can never seem to profit enough which creating a never ending race to the bottom for the rest of society which is made to suffer.

That being said, I feel it necessary to link you guys to something quite the opposite regarding OWS and it's (seemingly) nonexistent tangible demands sent to be on behalf of the AFL-CIO:
http://ninedemands.com/petitions/working-america
Nick Pasquarello


Shred on

Frank_Sinatra
Avenging Disco Godfather
Posts: 1660
Joined: 09 Jan 2007 12:43
Location: Chicago, IL

Post by Frank_Sinatra » 14 Dec 2011 15:13

Pasquar wrote:I don't have too much to say specifically as I've just caught up on the last dozen or so posts, but I would like to reiterate the "tactic" is it has been thought that this movement has which is to outright NOT have a leader, agenda, or specific demands.


I appreciate that this is a deliberate choice, but I think it is a bad choice, and a choice that dooms this movement to be nothing but an expression of outrage. It is entirely reasonable for lots of people to look at this movement and say "ok, you're outraged... what do you want to do about it?"

Pasquar
Fearless
Posts: 517
Joined: 17 Jul 2010 08:02
Location: Columbus, OH/ Philadelphia, PA

Post by Pasquar » 14 Dec 2011 16:08

People ARE doing things though. Every day. Justs because the mainstream media under reports or ignores the continuous activity does not mean there is nothing being done. These actions are, however, just that; actions. There is a continuing surge of occupations, protests, demonstrations, blockades, etc but that seems to be all there is which (again) the media can either chose to completely ignore (given there were little to no arrests made) or cover lightly. I agree that there seems to be a lack of tangible long-term goals and an over-emphasis on continual direct action.

If you read my entire last post, however, you will see that there ARE unifying principles which represent at least a majority of the movement and there seems to be energy aimed in the right direction in this respect. For example, expect to see "corporate personhood" as an important campaign issue for the 2012 elections. This did not come from nowhere, one of the core stances of the movement is the disparaging influence corporations have on our economy and policy while retaining the individual liberties guaranteed to all Americans (and while avoiding basic requirements of all Americans such as paying taxes).
Nick Pasquarello


Shred on

Frank_Sinatra
Avenging Disco Godfather
Posts: 1660
Joined: 09 Jan 2007 12:43
Location: Chicago, IL

Post by Frank_Sinatra » 14 Dec 2011 16:17

I have to get going soon, so please don't take my brevity for rudeness:

:arrow: I did read your entire last post.

:arrow: Opposition to corporate personhood does seem reasonably tangible. So... should members of the occupy movement (or those who are sympathetic to it) be calling their congress people and asking for a vote on a particular bill?

:arrow: I get a tiny fraction of my information about the Occupy movement from the mainstream media, almost all of it is directly from participants, and all of that is the same unfocused, litany of complaints kind of stuff. When I ask them what they want to see changed, I don't get a lot of coherent answers.

:arrow: The media is virtually irrelevant to opinion change (I can possibly elaborate on this more later when I have more time).

:arrow: Direct actions are not policy objectives. I am not questioning the amount of activity. I'm suggesting that the movement has been designed in such a way so that it ultimately can not create any change.

Post Reply