What's the point of "Occupy Wall Street"?

[xmcp123]

Is there one? What's the demand? "End corporate greed"? How does protesting in the street solve that? I've only started paying attention to this in the past day or so, and I don't get it.

Does anybody here on WF actually support the "movement"?

I tried asking a few of my friends and either they agreed with me (it's pointless), or they were hippies that argued "It's about gaining attention for a movement"...whatever that means.

Will anything tangible come of this?

"End corporate greed" is a protest sign, not a policy position.
There's a lot of points presented, but most of them hedge around one issue: corporate money and influence in politics.

Most proposed grievance/demand documents that are intended as specific demands instead of just problems focus strongly on the election process/political contributions and generally include regulation or investigation of wall street banks, restructuring/full re-staffing of the SEC, and a few other things along those lines. Some want a higher tax on higher level earners.

It's an inclusive movement(they don't exclude anyone) so there's going to be a certain amount of confusion regarding the message. But it's moving in a pretty clear direction.

 

[Kstanki2]

lol, nice

Is your avatar from a MTG card? It always reminds me of one for some reason.

Anyways...

They need to sort it out and protest the stuff worth protesting and let some shit go, the government owes them transparency, honesty, and ethical practices- not bailouts of their own. They should be focusing on the root of the problem, not the trivial shit that these problems cause.

They need some sort of leader who isn't retarded.

 

[JakeStratham]

Do not discount this "movement." It will lead to policy change. Bookmark this thread, and revisit in a year.

Here's my reasoning:

1. Obama has already expressed support for the movement. The reasons should be obvious. From Gergen:

President Obama and fellow Democrats have already leapt to the support of protesters. The cries of frustration and anger from the streets dovetail perfectly with the president's own shift leftward, populist stance, efforts to blame the rich for America's economic woes, and demands that they pay higher taxes. So perfect is the fit that some conservatives suspect that Democratic partisans are quietly fueling the protests.

2. The movement has grown to the point that it will not be sated unless "something is done." (I'll deal with that "something" in a moment.)


3. A large percentage of the participants are the type of people who contributed to Obama, or voted for him, in '08. They are young, passionate, and ignorant - both politically and economically. That is powerful for the person who rides them.

Were I Obama, I would wield OWS like a sword. The question is, how?

And here it is...

Regulations and taxes. Taxes will hit the rich on paper, causing OWS to rejoice, but will harm everyone down the road (let's not debate this here). Regulations will hit everyone almost immediately, even those who comprise OWS, though most will never realize it (I'm not going to expound on this, either. Not here.)


To Yucky's statement that the state is owned by Wall Street, no. It is not. The relationship is far more complex, and builds over decades. Here is a good treatment of this topic by Gary North. (I won't debate this, either.)


Summary: Make fun of OWS all you want. But they have turned the corner, and will prompt policy change, even if they fail to realize the consequences of those policies.

In prompting regulation, they will hurt us all. Even some of you communists.

 

[xmcp123]

Do not discount this "movement." It will lead to policy change. Bookmark this thread, and revisit in a year.

Here's my reasoning:

1. Obama has already expressed support for the movement. The reasons should be obvious. From Gergen:

[..]

3. A large percentage of the participants are the type of people who contributed to Obama, or voted for him, in '08. They are young, passionate, and ignorant - both politically and economically. That is powerful for the person who rides them.

Were I Obama, I would wield OWS like a sword. The question is, how?

And here it is...

Regulations and taxes. Taxes will hit the rich on paper, causing OWS to rejoice, but will harm everyone down the road (let's not debate this here). Regulations will hit everyone almost immediately, even those who comprise OWS, though most will never realize it (I'm not going to expound on this, either. Not here.)

You are really, really overestimating how happy protesters are with Obama. They have been suspicious of every major group or politician that has become involved or expressed support. Obama would fall flat if he tried to wield them 'like a sword'. They know how tightly intertwined his advisors are with the banking industry. There is not a lot of trust for him. He is a part of the political establishment, which makes him a part of the political bribery they are primarily against.

If anything happens, it will be with the movement raging at everyone...not supporting.

To Yucky's statement that the state is owned by Wall Street, no. It is not. The relationship is far more complex, and builds over decades. Here is a good treatment of this topic by Gary North. (I won't debate this, either.)

Regardless of the cause, cutting the financial umbilical cord that links corporations with our government would improve it.
I think it's a mistake to portray wall street as passive in this - a lot of the measures that brought them so closely into the government teat were bought with lobbying cash. They didn't want a market; they wanted security.

In my opinion, sympathy for the bankers is sympathy for co-conspirators in the mutual effort between the banks and the government to rob you and everyone else blind. If they wanted a real, competitive market, that's what they should have pursued with their lobbying money. They chose not to, so I will not support them or advocate for them. Fuck them.

 

[JakeStratham]

You are really, really overestimating how happy protesters are with Obama. They have been suspicious of every major group or politician that has become involved or expressed support. Obama would fall flat if he tried to wield them 'like a sword'. They know how tightly intertwined his advisors are with the banking industry. There is not a lot of trust for him. He is a part of the political establishment, which makes him a part of the political bribery they are primarily against.

If anything happens, it will be with the movement raging at everyone...not supporting.

You may be right. We'll see. I have certainly miscalled these things in the past. For example, I never realized Obama would actually make it through the primaries. That is about as wrong as I can be with regard to predicting crowds. I'm sure I will outdo myself in the future.

That said, the game has never been about making voters happy with you. It is about making them angrier with the opposition. Again, we will see.

Regardless of the cause, cutting the financial umbilical cord that links corporations with our government would improve it.
I think it's a mistake to portray wall street as passive in this - a lot of the measures that brought them so closely into the government teat were bought with lobbying cash. They didn't want a market; they wanted security.

In my opinion, sympathy for the bankers is sympathy for co-conspirators in the mutual effort between the banks and the government to rob you and everyone else blind. If they wanted a real, competitive market, that's what they should have pursued with their lobbying money. They chose not to, so I will not support them or advocate for them. Fuck them.

Yes. North's essay goes into much of this at length, though he does not focus on Wall Street.

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

Summary: Make fun of OWS all you want. But they have turned the corner, and will prompt policy change, even if they fail to realize the consequences of those policies.

Interesting perspective, and it does make a heap of good sense. Obama can effectively use OWS to gain more 2012 support and it goes like : OWS Begins >> Obama voices support for movement and their goals >> Obama raises taxes on the rich >> OWS and millions of people rejoice Obama for "hearing their voice" and prompting change. shady disagrees...but I'm not too sure about that. I'm sure there are intelligent people who support the idea of the movement and don't support Obama (myself), but this movement is about the "masses", and the masses generally aren't that politically fine-tuned. If the left wing media wants to make Obama look like a knight in shining armor with OWS, they will, and people will buy it.

This makes sense (and is a smart move for him), but for me begs the question: is it OWS itself that would cause Obama to raise taxes, or would he have done that anyway (to garner the same type of support)? It seems it'd be sort of false effectiveness for the "hippies" to all say "Yes! We protested and got what we wanted because of it!" It's not like Obama wasn't aware of their concerns before OWS.

I don't disagree with the idea of the movement, I disagree with they way they're protesting it. There are people online who have pointed out clear objectives (as posted above), standing in the street looking like a hippie isn't helping.

I've been arguing with friends all day about it, and my argument is that anybody on the street protesting can do a lot more damage for their cause if they:

a) looked for a job
b) created a job
c) got involved with local politics
d) supported Ron Paul and his policies

Of course I was pinned as a condescending elitist for saying the protesters were lazy in trying to accomplish their goals by standing in the street when they could be doing any of the above instead.

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

"End corporate greed" is a protest sign, not a policy position.
There's a lot of points presented, but most of them hedge around one issue: corporate money and influence in politics.

Most proposed grievance/demand documents that are intended as specific demands instead of just problems focus strongly on the election process/political contributions and generally include regulation or investigation of wall street banks, restructuring/full re-staffing of the SEC, and a few other things along those lines. Some want a higher tax on higher level earners.

It's an inclusive movement(they don't exclude anyone) so there's going to be a certain amount of confusion regarding the message. But it's moving in a pretty clear direction.

I agree with the policy changes and would myself like to see them happen. I just don't think standing in a park is being proactive, I think it's being lazy.

 

[JakeStratham]

Gary North is a fucking crackpot - I expected better of you Jake. This is the same guy that thought Y2K was going to bring about an end to the industrialized world, and pimped out all his books at half price to the "believers" in an effort to help them survive in his post-apocalyptic version of America.

I was not referring to Y2K, nor North's approach to it.

If you're saying, "I disagree with North's assessment in the linked essay and every other piece he has written because of his approach to Y2K," that is fine.

 

[MSTeacher]

Occupy Wall Street is about a handful of Spanish foundation funded operatives arriving in Manhattan several weeks ago to work alongside other Wall Street controlled foundation funded operatives and corporate media with the goal of preemptively channeling the populist dissent of a bunch of justifiably angry but programatically bankrupt hipsters into failed protest strategies modeled after the inept and feckless indignados of madrid who got exactly nothing done with their bastard son anarchist consensus assemblies. The blow by blow is more or less to waste as much time and burn as many bridges as possible for as long as possible to run interference so the momentum peters out before grassroots leaders pull the movement's attention away from counterintelligence efforts and converge on meaningful program that resonates with a sufficient number of Americans and receives a sufficient amount of media coverage to compel populist Federal reform.

 

[JakeStratham]

Fair enough, but Gary North is one of the few people I dismiss out of hand based on his prior stances on a variety of issues, like Ann Coulter or Janeane Garofalo. I would literally ignore them if they told me my house was on fire because they're so 100% completely full of shit so often that I would feel dumber just by paying them any attention at all.

If Ann Coulter told me my house was on fire, I would take a look.

If a child molester had written the piece written by North (linked earlier), I would still agree with the assessment.

Different strokes, I guess.

 

[MSTeacher]

If Ann Coulter told me my house was on fire, I would take a look.

If Ann Coulter told me my house was on fire I would push her down a flight of stairs. Then have a look.

 

[Moxie]

They need some sort of leader who isn't retarded.

One of their Jedi Knights arrived the other day.

 

[xmcp123]

I agree with the policy changes and would myself like to see them happen. I just don't think standing in a park is being proactive, I think it's being lazy.

The only people standing around in a park are the people who can. The employed dedicated ones leave during the day, come back at night/evening. There's a lot more that come on the weekends(often 5-10x+ the number of people sleeping there).
Beyond that, I think "standing around" is pretty much how protest is done unless you enjoy molotovs. I haven't seen a protest group start mowing my lawn yet no matter what they were protesting for.

 

[jenzkc]

all the philosophy graduates want student loan bailouts now:

Calls For Wiping Out Student Loan Debt Leave Americans Split On New 'Bailout' | Fox News

 

[infoslob]

There is not a lot of trust for him. He is a part of the political establishment, which makes him a part of the political bribery they are primarily against.

He is the President of the United States. They are a huge (or at least "hugely covered") protest group, fed up and pissed off, ostensibly aimed at changing government.

And yet they're not protesting Obama, beneficiary Numero Uno of Wall Street political largesse - more than any President of the last 20 YEARS, any more than they're protesting the Carson Palmer trade to Oakland.

This bunch doesn't pass the sniff test. You and many others watching ABC World News Tonight, etc. are vastly overestimating the impact of these events. Which is kind of what broadcast news is directly hoping for.

The stupidity of mobs has been thoroughly noted throughout the ages.

 

[MSTeacher]

The stupidity of mobs has been thoroughly noted throughout the ages.

Those stupid mobs have also been the catalysts for innumerable positive changes in policy throughout the ages.

 

[infoslob]

Those stupid mobs have also been the catalysts for innumerable positive changes in policy throughout the ages.

I'm thinking about the French Revolution. An obscene amount of blood was also eventually spilled, which directly led to Napoleon and levels of "total war" the West had never seen before.

Then again, those mobs were starving masses demonstrating forcibly against tyranny, rigid caste systems, and an absolute monarchy.

This is a mob, a large unruly mob, taking great care not to make re-election waves for Obama, sooo ... hello corporate greed!

-----

Look, I know there's a lot of fixing that needs to be done. But this OWS is phony to the high heavens. Any doubt that it wasn't was removed the other day when they got bored and hit Times Square.

OWS will probably track like the Charlie Sheen craze. (And I'm in NYC. Nobody not protesting seems to give a fuck when not on Facebook. It's indifference, derision, then support in that order.)

 

[MSTeacher]

taking great care not to make re-election waves for Obama, sooo ... hello corporate greed!

OWS is phony to the high heavens. Any doubt that it wasn't was removed the other day when they got bored and hit Times Square.

I'm not sure what you mean about Obama but I hope you don't think these people should be supporting Obama?

I don't think phony is the right word for it. Misguided, vapid, directionless, coopted, yes. Phony implies no authenticity whatsoever and that is simply not the case.

Regarding Times Square that and other little outings are coming from something called the Direct Action Committee, which is a subgroup directed by the leaders/inner circle of OWS. As to why they would waste this amount of manpower, media exposure, and precious time doing something so completely impotent and pointless, the people leading and directing a lot of the movement itself are foundation agents and operatives channeling the movement away from real coherent program.

There's a lot more going on than a bunch of spoiled millenials whining about corporate welfare and shitty job markets. There's a lot of popular opinion on the line and Wall Street is the power center of the United States (LOL DC LOL). Whatever you think of economics and politics there's no denying that this is the first mass movement in a long time representing in the aggregate a broad spectryum of issues that every American with two brain cells to rub together should at least consider if not support outright. Inside OWS are glimmers of nationalizing the Fed, restoring Glass Stegall, ending the wars, rethinking campaign contributions, instituting a Wall Street sales tax, issuing zero percent credit for job creation, and a number of other things that together would utterly decimate the evil empire agenda and put the US firmly back on its own two feet and the people in a more direct control of their government and their lives.*

If the movement had its shit together it would come up with some real material demands and the strategic means to accomplish them and tell their consensus detractors tough shit, we're moving forward to make shit happen. That more than anything else is what differentiates a simple mob from a historically significant mass dissent movement. Right now they're easy targets for the Limbaugh crowd and anyone else who wants to criticize them because they don't have a real program. They should be criticized for that. They sound like a bunch of douchbags out there. They need to get their shit together.

PS If you're not fighting Wall Street you are simply spinning your wheels and have not sufficiently grasped how the powers the be exert their control over humanity.



*SMH at anyone discarding the positive messages flying through OWS simply because a bunch of whiny bongo drum hipsters happen to be saying them. Turn that derp up to 11. Just wait until a politician you support gets behind one of the OWS talking points. That makes it much more comfortable. Or just wait for your party to get into power and a similar protest to start up with different colors and slogans. That's always rich. Or better yet just wait for a politician you support to get elected and effect massive sweeping unhindered change that coheres exactly with your personal philosophy. Don't compromise and don't do anything to push a cause one step in the right direction because it's not quite what you had in mind, it doesn't go far enough for you, or there's someone else who agrees with it that you suspect you'd not get along with. Just wait for someone to come along and take care of everything. Cause that's how history works amirite?

 

[SUP3RNOVA]

Beyond that, I think "standing around" is pretty much how protest is done unless you enjoy molotovs.

Or you look at the East/Africa and how they've been protesting. They had the balls to risk their life, to make it destructive, to make it have an IMPACT on those responsible. They cared.

OWS seems like a pussy hippy movement that will do nothing unless it gains some serious ground. I suppose we are in the midst of that if it were to happen, so all we can do is speculate and wait.

 

[Pseudo Nym]

Besides the "corporate money out of politics" message, I think there's a general desire for something like a "second bill of rights" that FDR articulated in this speech, from way back in '44:
[ame="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UwUL9tJmypI"]Franklin Roosevelt -Second Bill of Rights - YouTube[/ame]