Occupy Wall Street

[effeob]

If all of you want an actual answer, based on facts, by an informed political scientist/sociologist. Listen up. For those that dont care, dont read. Ironically, that indeed is the real problem here to begin with - a lack of education on topics political, economic, and such.

 

Oh, and by "informed" I mean: masters in sociology, something like half a bachelors in political science, worked in the EU, and in local EU governments. Also have lived in about 15+ countries and studied political systems in all of them.

 

I am going to take directly from wikipedia most of my definitions here. Wikipedia is not 100% accurate. It is however close enough for the purposes of this text.

 

Ill try to make this as short as possible; but its not going to be short.

 

The definition of the problem that has arisen can be read about on wikipedia:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_Wall_Street

or on a plethora of other sites. People are in general protesting against the influence of monetary organizations on politics - which results in politicians making laws and policy directly for those monetary organizations which propped them up.

However, the root of this problem is in fact that the entire economic and political system in the U.S. was designed to work this way.

This is where a lack of education comes in. People are protesting the EFFECTS of the system and yet still supporting the system. Its imbecellic. Its the same as protesting that my car produces carbon-monoxides yet I fully support oil-fueled vehicles. So lets speak a bit more intelligent and mature here, and learn something factual:

 

First off - OWS claims that the problem is:

The participants of the event are mainly protesting against social and economic inequality, corporate greed, and the influence of corporate money and lobbyists on government, among other concerns.[9][10] Adbusters states that, "Beginning from one simple demand – a presidential commission to separate money from politics – we start setting the agenda for a new America."[11] The protest's organizers hope that the protesters themselves will formulate their own specific demands, expecting them to be focused on "taking to task the people who perpetrated the economic meltdown."

(wikipedia)

 

However, the real problem is rooted in the structure of the system.

Lets take each of OWS arguments ("demands") and analyze them.

1) "protesting against social and economic inequality"

Social and economic inequality is the basis on which the US capitalist system is defined. It is impossible to change this inequality without changing the structure of the socio-economic system. Therefore this argument is uneducated and too vague to achieve anything.

2) "corporate greed"

Once again, corporate greed is just a bit of slander on corporations. Corporations/Companies work for profit, because that is the system and such is its design. Those that do not make profit, collapse. That is also the system, and its design.

Wait a second though...What does profit mean in this type of system? Profit is when one entity gains monetary (resource) value from the cost - so profit can only be generated when, effectively, someone else loses. Stock trading is the ultimate example of this.

Corporations do not have to be greedy. They simply have to obey the systems rules and do "good business" ie: make profit. In making profit in the current system, a corporation will automatically push the status-quo which results in this economic inequality. Greed or no greed. Do you think the bankers who devised the sub-prime-loan system were actually sitting malevolently behind closed doors scheming how they would ruin american families? No...they were just being good bankers in the capitalist system and coming up with perfectly LEGAL ways to raise profit in their banks: by making more loans available for private purchases.

3) "the influence of corporate money and lobbyists on government" ... "Beginning from one simple demand – a presidential commission to separate money from politics"

This is also by design the exact method by which USA has structured its political machine. Therefore this demand by OWS is also impossible without a complete reworking of the system.

As follows:

* In order to become an elected official in the USA, one must campaign heavily - otherwise nobody knows about you and you arent going to get any votes. This requires mass amounts of private funding, because it is each on his own, and there are no public funds for office seekers.

* Since it requires so much money to get a campaign going, the majority of people wanting to run for political office require backing and financial support of big money giants. These are typically corporate owners, wealthy businessmen, etc.

* Since it is more or less a requirement of political office seekers to recieve backing from wealthy entities, it is therefore a system of "making deals" with those who fund them. Obviously I am not going to donate money to your campaign if you arent going to make policies and laws that benefit me.

* This system in the USA has always been very unregulated, with few to no rules regarding what can be done in these monetary-for-political "deals". Thus, the USA is a not a political system by definition, it is a "politics for sale" system with a very weak and nearly insignificant checks-and-balance system called "the general population" (because, apparently, the population still has to vote someone into office).

* Media plays a huge role, of course, in elections. Media is newspapers, TV shows, magazines, billboards, radio, etc. These are, also, owned by someone - the bigger the media, the bigger the company, the bigger the corporation. Once again, privately owned media can say and do what it likes to support its own agenda. Thats why true journalism is dead and media is nowadays just Propaganda for whoever is holding the media corporation's hand (hint: it isnt always a politician).

* In the back-end, Washington is not a forum for politicians to go make laws and policies for the good of the people - rather it is a forum for big businessmen, corporate owners, media, and the elected politicians to make deals. Thats what theyre doing all day. Making business deals. On the offhand that some politician who actually cares about the public (whom arent present at these deals) actually slips into an elected office, then you sometimes see a politician like Kennedy who spends his entire career trying to make a difference for the normal citizen. Few are like this however, and those that are will not get funding from the people that they need funding from in order to truly make changes.

 

So, the entire goal of OWS is rather folly. I understand why they are protesting, and what they are protesting for - unfortunately they do not. This is, again, ironically, the crux of the problem: education. Education is not very good in the U.S. and it is purposefully not very good, especially when it comes to things like politics or philosophy. That is why nobody has so far been able to even understand the root of these problems, why they exist, how they work, and how to change them. For most people in the modern world, problems like this are quite easy to fix. Indeed in Spain and Greece, what they are protesting is much less of a corrupt and broken system than what the U.S. has. They are protesting against having privately owned debt being paid off by tax money AT ALL (they refuse to pay a cent, and rightfully so) - while in the U.S. this has been the norm since the early 1910s (its just seen a surge with the recent "crisis").

 

The simple fact is that the U.S. economy and political system was designed to do, exactly what it is doing right now. It is a capitalist system.

Capitalism is:

Capitalism is an economic system in which the means of production are privately owned and operated for profit, usually in competitive markets. There is no consensus on the precise definition of capitalism, nor on how the term should be used as a historical category.[2] There is, however, little controversy that private ownership of the means of production, creation of goods or services for profit in a market, and prices and wages are elements of capitalism.[3] The designation is applied to a variety of historical cases, varying in time, geography, politics and culture.[4]

(from wikipedia: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capitalism)

 

For those that dont fully understand what this means, "means of production" implies a wide umbrella of things.

1) It implies that raw resources (metal ore, oil, water, energy, communications, transportation, fish, trees, food crops, animals...) are all up for sale - to be privately owned, and profitted on.

2) Labor itself is up for sale. When you do work, you are selling your labor to your employer. Since most industries have an excess of labor than need, employers are then able to set the terms of employment; ie: the price you get for your labor is decided by the employer.

3) Federal regulation of this system is usually frowned upon. If you have heard the term "free market" then you have heard politicians bashing someone who supports regulations. "Free market" in fact means that those who have power over a market, are "free" to do as they want. There are many typical economic tools that businesses use to raise profit. For example: hoarding (keeping demand high by not releasing all of a product for sale), and flooding (making prices drop by flooding the market with a product) are the 2 most simple. There is no regulation on this, ie: "free market". In fact the only federal regulation regarding market control in the U.S. system is the anti-monopoly laws that came into effect only more or less recently (after many markets had already been monopolized in the early 20th century). This policy however just minimally forces a company that has cornered a market - and can do whatever it likes with it (making huge profits on little work) - to allow competition to exist.

Ironically, capitalism is hailed (by capitalists) as the best system for stimulating competition - yet it is the single most destructive system ever devised towards actually doing that. U.S. capitalism has created markets with single leaders or at most a half dozen leaders, whereas a healthy product market should have hundreds of competitors.

4) Finally we get to the issue of wages versus cost of living - undoubtedly the real problem which has caused people to come out onto the streets: they can no longer afford to live. Afford to live? Sounds pretty scary, but thats exactly whats going on.

In unregulated markets, like what exists today, the owners of all of these "means of production" are able to chose all the settings: selling prices, buying prices, and labor prices for producing the product. Therefor, the price for everything from your cottage cheese to your salary is decided by the people that own that sector of the market. This is why jobs go overseas - because when an american engineer wants to make $150,000 a year but I can hire 10 engineers in India for half that price, why shouldnt I? If I dont, my competitor does, and is able to beat me out of my own business. Since the market is unregulated and cut-throat, I either sink or swim. This is also why prices rise on commodities yet wages stay the same or even shrink.

 

What it comes down to is that the system is designed to do exactly what its doing.

So any complaining about the effects, by people who support the system, are just being uneducated fools.

Capitalism can work, if the people who gain all the power over markets are humanitarian and spread the wealth back into their employees. However this is not what happens. Back in the fuedal ages that is basically how things worked. Monarchies work this way still today. Fuedal lords naturally owned and controlled everything - but to attain sworn leiges to their soverignity they had to appease them; and so on so forth down the line (leiges had to appease their lesser nobles, nobles had to appease their peasantry = everybody lived adequately even though there was absolutely no equality). Today however the "lords" have no incentives to appeasing the peasantry, because the peasantry has no power to root them from their thrones.

A little example: Microsoft owns the majority of the OS market among other things. All it has to do is prop up the status quo, defeat any possible competition that might arise, and it will forever be the "ruler" of its market. It charges exorbiant fees for simple services, and outrageous pricetags on simple digital copies of its OS. Microsoft does very little work, and makes huge profit. In nearly every single market there is the same issue: one company, or a small handful of companies, have dominated the market and do whatever they need to kill competition and maintain control - so it is only natural that their successors will also have this control. They are in effect the new age lords - but they have no responsibilities to the people that make them rich.

 

 

A good example of what a modern country can do when told that it needs to publicly pay for the financial mistakes of private companies, is exactly what Iceland is doing right now:

http://newsnetscotland.com/index.php/scottish-news/3057-a-story-missing-from-our-media-icelands-on-going-revolution.html

Iceland allowed its economic laws to sway towards the U.S. capitalist "free market" rules much more over the last 20 years, and thus its bankers were allowed to legally come up with their ponzi scheme or whatever you want to call it - making the country's debt exceed many hundred times its GNP. When the banks finally went belly-up (which was inevitable), the foreign investors wanted Iceland - the tax payers - to pay the bill. Screw that, they said, and arrested the bankers, redesigned their entire democracy (to actually be democratic and participatory), and are currently drafting a new constitution that everyone in the country can login online and see each and every sentence being formulated, and vote and discuss what it should say. They also just completely said "no, not a penny" to everyone who wanted them to publicy pay the private debt from the private banks - and wiped their "country's" debt off completely.

 

Of course, none of those things would be possible in the US today...

Which is why I left the US when I was 19 and am glad I can sit here in more civilized countries thankful that I am assured a quality life, and so are my children - because I chose not to put up with that kind of system which is nothing but destructive and doomed to failure.

 

------------------------

 

Now, if you want to know my personal information with regards to what I myself chose...it is as follows.

 

I am a US citizen, by birth. I am however a citizen of 3 other countries as well, since birth. I chose to leave the US when I was only 19 because of this exact same issue of capital-driven economy and politics in which people do not matter, only money matters. I did not leave because I was poor - vice versa my father is a doctor, I grew up in a wealthy family, I had a bachelor's degree as a software engineer by the time I was 19, making $100,000 a year at that age (in 2000/2001). Many people have asked me why I didnt stay and make tons of money and live in the top 1%. Quite simply for me, what matters more in life is living in a just society where people are all regarded as equal citizens. What that means is that opportunity to do what one wishes to do with ones life is equal for all. Notice the word "opportunity". It does not mean everyone lives as equals - because not everyone wants the same thing out of life.

However, this kind of equality (or any kind of equality for that matter) has never been the philosophy of life in the USA. What an american person is capable of doing with his or her life depends completely on the parents he or she is born to, and the economic bracket the parents belong to. This is a lottery on life system which I have no desire to be a part of. Luckily my father comes from Scandinavia so I am able to enjoy being a citizen of a country that is socialist and therefore I will be able to do anything I want with my life without worry of, basically, anything...(not having a job, being sick, disabled, homeless, having money, etc). What this means is indeed what I just said. I never have to worry - for the rest of my life - about:

1) Getting sick, injured, or disabled. Healthcare is free. Medication is pennies. If I have no income, it is free. Highest quality healthcare in the world. Also, this healthcare protection covers me everywhere in the world. If I'm in the middle of Africa and get malaria, my country will fly me home and hospitalize me.

2) If I desire to work in any field or industry - Education is free. I can get any degree, from bachelor to PhD, in any subject, at the top schools in the world. Furthermore, my country supports me financially (pays my rent, gives me money to buy food, and have fun) whenever I want to study. There are limits to this (6 years government support to study), but it is very generous - I can even study anywhere else in the world, in any country, and recieve this support to study. Regardless if I take government support while studying or not - I can educate myself in any subject for free, for life. This is important in my oppinion for a progressive society, because sometimes a person wants to change careers to something else. I have myself already done so. I have a masters in computer science with 10 years engineering/IT work experience - but in the last 5 years Ive wanted to do more political/sociology work and now I have a masters in sociology and do either IT or political work as I desire to. I am truly free to pursure and in fact reach my goals thanks to my country/countrymen.

3) If I am to pay taxes, I want my taxes to actually give me something - and I dont want my taxes to go into rich men's corrupt pockets. There is always some corruption in every system. However it is fairly minimal in scandinavia and we get, aside from healthcare and education, excellent road systems, one of the cleanest countries in the world, and government supported organizations for practically everything you can shake a stick at which are open to everyone equally by law. ...and I mean everything: sports clubs, language learning classes, youth clubs...basically if 20 people want to create a group for a hobby/activity, they create one and apply for government subsidies so that they can get help in doing what they want - yes there are "knitting clubs" for old women and the government buys them the yarn and needles. These are called "förening" in Sweden. There's hundreds of thousands of them nationwide.

4) I demand that the raw resources of my country, are owned and controlled by the people of my country. This is a hallmark of socialism. Water cannot be owned by a private corporation and profitted on. Everybody requires clean water to live, therefore it is a right by law that every citizen of Sweden owns the water supply. This holds true as well for Energy; Sanitation; Telecommunications; and Public transportation. Food must also be subsidised so that there are strict regulations on profiteering from bare food stuffs - while still giving a good profit to those who grow food (there is a balance, and it is beneficial to both growers and consumers - my fathers family come from rural farm families and I can speak for how well off Swedish farmers are - definitely above the 50% line - while cost of living in Sweden is still quite low and everybody eats well and what they want to eat).

5) Finally, I demand that my country takes care of people who cannot take care of themselves; and if possible does everything in its power to get them back on their feet to supporting themselves. This includes but is not limited to: disabled people, people without work, people addicted to substances, terminally ill people - or just sick people in general. What I demand in this "taking care of" clause is that EVERYBODY has a home to live in, food on the table, and continues to have equal access and opportunity to transportation, communication, raw resources (water, sanitation, etc.), education, and opportunity.

 

So, in short, those are the 5 topics which to me are most important about a country. I'm not here to persuade or talk anyone into one or another political pocket - I am here to explain this whole situation. The cause of it; why people are protesting; what they want, and the only actual solutions to make that happen. I know right off the start that my 5 demands of the country I chose to live in, are not at all equal to that which the OWS is protesting for. Indeed, the demands that I put on my country are far beyond what OWS and the USA would even be capable of implementing in the forseeable future.

 

Yet Sweden, a country with no natural resources and under cover of frost and snow half of the year, can achieve this. Iceland a little remote island of 300,000 that effectively live on the rim of a volcano can do even better. I think the americans reading this would also be surprised (and probably no doubt deny it completely) that Cuba, an island which our country (USA) embargoes still for 60+ years, an island with no natural resources, also does better. (Yes Ive lived in Cuba, and if you want a model of a real, participatory democracy...Cuba is in fact the western hemisphere's #1 democratic country - thats a scientific fact.)

 

And heres the kick in the teeth...

After hearing about all these good things that I get from my country over here...what I always hear from americans (especially americans), is "oh but you have to pay insane taxes...I dont want to pay that much tax". But the kick in the teeth is actually this: Tax rate for average Swedish employee (who works 6 hours a day, btw, as standard) is less than 30%. Ya, thats right. You see, when taxes are actually spent on the people, and not towards corruption, its a hell of a lot of money that can be used to do something good. For example I had an IT job in the government once where I made ~3500 USD per month and paid 28% tax on that. However, after paying taxes and cost of living for my 2 room apartment and eating out at a nice restaraunt nearly everyday for lunch still let me pocket about ~1000 USD per month. This was a public sector job paid on a very average wage however. In private sector I could pocket easily ~4000+ per month as both cost of living is low and people generally dont need to spend a lot to live quite nicely.

So the end result of saying that is this question: I had a salary of $120,000 in the US working in silicon valley some years back - that was in the top 2% of the US salary range. I rented a 3 bedroom house, and shared it with 2 other people, in a small working class neighborhood - we lived cheaply, we cut costs as much as we could. Indeed, the place we lived and quality of our food and lifestyle wasnt nearly as good as I enjoyed having in Sweden on my ~3500 a month. But the end all question is: after paying for health insurance, paying taxes, having to pay for costs of vehicle and everything else...how much did I pocket each month? About ~3000 out of my ~7,000 salary per month (after 36% tax). Which is less than what I would pocket in the same private sector job in northern europe - yet I would also get so much more for the taxes I paid in Europe: higher quality living standards, well kept roads, public transport, clean cities, free education, hobby/activity/sports clubs, and on and on and on...

But "haves" and "have nots" is an issue of resources - and so it is actually not at all a valid grounds for comparison between political philosophies.

Unfortunately americans only tend to understand either having, or not having - and for a long time especially in the 80's when americans consumed goods from all over the world without paying for them - simply the fact that america "had" everything was the only important issue; and so everybody praised capitalism...even if "having" meant that it was stolen, or bought with fake money, or taken from poorer people.

Now those same people are watching their children, and their grandchildren, pay the price of their stupidity and greed. Because thats what capitalism actually is. Its a system based on greed.

Funny thing is - the more americans that come here, the more that end up staying. Believe it or not but the US has quite a huge emigration issue with the highly qualified/educated fleeing the country to live in countries that take care of their citizens and have a mutual respect for everyone to live quality lives together. The funny part of that?? Is that the US is one of the most resource rich countries on earth. The U.S. HAS the resources that EVERYBODY could live wealthy, and "have" a lot - a lot more than Swedish people (Sweden has...trees?). Yet I promise you: go to any average Swedish family home, and they will "have" a lot more, and I mean a lot more, than the average american family home.

 

In fact, Cubas political system is the exact solution that OWS is protesting for, ironically enough.

In Cuba, political campaigns are not allowed any financial backing. Everyone who wants to be a candidate for office fills out a standard form sheet and it gets posted up in their centro comunidad (community center). People go there and read each candidates form, which outlines their agendas, goals, political ideology, and even gives you contact info if you want to go talk to them about something. In Cuba practically everybody is involved in the government. Elections are the most free and fair in the world (also another scientific fact - you can find these details in the UN's factbook) with a general turnout of more than 97%. It is truly a government by the people for the people. I remember living on a typical street, renting out a room, in Santiago de Cuba (ie: poor end of Cuba is the east end) where out of 25 houses on that street, in more than half of them lived people that had been in office somewhere - in the community, municipality, state, or federal level. I used to enjoy having coffee and learn about politics with a neighbor, a 60+ year old retired shoemaker, who was for 8 years a federal official in Havana when he was younger. All because he was elected first in his community - by his community, then in his municipality - by his municipality - and then in his state - by his state. A pure democracy without any monetary political backing, where candidates are given equal representation by the state-sponsored media. Where the "state" = the people.

Another amazing fact in Cuban politics: when you take office in Cuba - any office; your salary is paid by taxes and is equal to your salary from whatever job you had before going into office. If you were a mechanic, you make the same salary, if you were a doctor, you make the same doctor salary while in office. Your job is also "frozen" and you can get it back when you leave office. Those are the laws, and they leave next to zero room for corruption. (Of course, leave it to latinos to find ways to cheat it no matter what...thats just their culture.)

This is what democracy and true representation is. Of course...the americans reading this, brainwashed since birth, to hate these buzzwords "socialism" and "communism" etc....to support-unto-death the buzzwords "capitalism" and "free market"...even though those are the exact things they are protesting against now - and dont even know it. Yes, you know who you are. I know what your response will be. But guess what. I already left the US...and you are the reasons why. So I bid you to just give up, and enjoy living in squalor, in dirt, and in continually worsening conditions; to enjoy licking the boots of your capitalist masters. Because that is exactly what your country is about. Unless you really want to change it and live a dignified life? You reap what you sow.

Edited October 8, 2011 by effeob

[draconix]

Wow, I actually read your whole wall of text there... You raise some very compelling arguments. Towards the end, your "clincher" sounded maybe a tad nutty, but that doesn't really affect the validity of the flaws in the system that you've observed. I'll need to ponder that post more before posting agreement or dissension, but you've definitely posted something to give me pause for consideration. Thank you.

[Balagor]

I read it all too, I will read it again when I´ve got a larger screen (only got 24 " now) :whistling:

I´m not sure I can agree that one can not support a system and yet protesting it´s effects. I think the tax system is a good example here. (allmost) anybody support that we have to pay tax, but not everybody are happy with the effects of it. That does not mean that we have to get rid of the tax system, a change will suffice.

Also, yet I strongly agree that companies (I have a small one myself) need to make profit, there are different morality connected to the way they actually obtain that profit. Once again, nothing wrong with the system, the capitalistic system is ok, but perhaps some adjustments would be in order.

Perhaps I´ll be back when I reread :thumbsup:

[ginnyfizz]

Yes, I read it too. It is such a shame that a well argued, researched and thought out post is sullied by questioning the level of knowledge/education of your fellow posters, or to suggest that they are brainwashed as you later do.

 

I don't think I have heard anyone in this thread defend the excesses of Wall Street/City of London etc, the thread is about the futility or otherwise of the OWS campaign, and numerous posters have agreed that the campaign lacks cohesion and is something of a collection of rebels with or without a cause and are grandstanding. And that there are more effective ways, in a free society, to further your cause. In fact, posters have gone out of their way to state that they feel the right wing grandstanding of, for example, the Tea Party, is equally ludicrous.

 

I followed the link to the Newsnet.Scotland article about the Icelandic revolution and in the replies to that article, I found this link which I include for the sake of balance;-

 

A deconstruction of Iceland's Ongoing Revolution

The Icelandic "rebellion" is very far from being what it seems.

 

And, here I found an interesting analysis suggesting that Sweden is more politically corrupt than often supposed;-

 

Sweden is more politically corrupt than you think

 

This very much bears out what some of us have been saying, that we need to look at the corruption of the trade unions as well as the actions of the financiers.

[Kendo 2]

I like the condescending nature of effeob's post and our "lack of education on topics political, economic, and such". Really sets the tone well. I also like the fact that Americans are 'brainwashed since birth' and are too stupid to see the truth in a system they grew up in.

 

The 'I think what I think, and if you don't think the way I do then you are wrong' mentality is what spawned the Tea Party rallys and what is happening on Wall Street now. Right wing or left wing, these groups don't want what is best for our country. They want what is best for THEM, in their narrow-minded view of how the world should be. They are more than willing to cram their ideology down the throats of people who don't agree with them. It is what it is, but I don't have to play their game if I don't want to. I still have free will and they'll have to kill me to take it. And I don't have to agree or disagree with the status quo. I am capable of making my own conclusions and the pretentious tone in effeob's post is a huge freak'n turn off.

 

BACK ON TOPIC

 

I've done some more research and comparing Tea Party rally antics to the Wall Street stupidity:

 

Out of the three years of on going Tea Party rallies, there have been 16 arrests (that I am aware of) directly attributed to the protesters.

*10 took place in D.C. when Tea Party protesters attempted the enter the Cannon House building where Nancy Pelosi's offices are. They were told to leave by the police, they refused and were arrested.

*3 happened in Phoenix and the people arrested deserved it. They were attempting to intimidate elected State officials.

*3 more happened in Baltimore when three elderly ladies jay walked against a red light because their WALKERS slowed them down. They chanted anti-Obama slogans as the cops crammed them and their walkers in to the backs of the Prius police cars. I'll bet that was tight fit.

These are a common news item anyone can find.

 

We all know what is going on with the Wall street protests:

*The repeated clashes with a heavily unionized and mostly Democratic Metropolitan police force (can't blame right wing zealots, it's liberals fighting with liberals).

*700 arrests after some protesters were 'tricked' by the police and lured on to a bridge. I have to make the casual observation that if 700 people can be had by ONE TRICK played by the cops, the Wall Street protesters are DOOMED.

 

 

All kidding aside, the Wall Street protesters' message is going to be buried in the negative publicity. The vaild points they want to make will be overshadowed by the talking heads on CNN and FOX. Look what happened to the Tea Party. The ' NEWS' will spin it how they want it and that's a shame. The protesters need to get their sh*t togther. The crisis America finds itself in isn't Wall Street’s fault. It’s Washington’s fault and that’s where they should focus their attention. Buck Obama's prohibition on demonstrations on The Mall. Take all of the signs, all of the yelling and all of the drama to his front door step. Do the same thing to Congress and the Senate.

[HeyYou]

Good Post Kendo 2. I agree with most of what you have to say there.

 

For my part, this may indeed be 'how the system works'. That doesn't mean we have to like it, nor do we have to accept it. Campaign finance reform, and lobbyist regulation, would go a long way toward removing moneys' influence from washington. (which is indeed where the REAL problem is.) Campaigns are hideously expensive, yes, but, do they HAVE to be? Do we NEED to be bombarded by political ads, debates, and other assorted claptrap for TWO YEARS before the elections?

 

How about this for a simple solution?

 

1. Campaign contributions can come only from private citizens ONLY, (you know, Real Humans.) with a cap of 1000.00 dollars per individual. (and contributions can be only in for form of MONEY, no paid advertising by anyone, aside from the candidates campaign organization.)

 

2. Political campaigns may not start more than three months before the scheduled election.

 

3. Congressional lobbyists may not receive ANY monetary compensation for their services. None. Zero. Nada. Zilch. (nor may the receive 'favors', or goods/services.)

 

Just these three small changes would radically alter the political landscape. And it is because of that, none of them will ever happen. To hammer on a point, again..... The folks that have the power to change these things, are the same people that profit the most from NOT changing them. There is zero motivation to make changes, and there is a boatload of motivation NOT to.

[Ghogiel]

I'm not too keen on people spouting I have a first class degree at every opportunity either. I have to agree with a lot of what effeob has said. Not entirely though,

 

I do agree that generally speaking American society is brainwashed on the subject he defined though. There is a unique and interesting history on the US and communism. A simple experiment anyone can do is ask a random anyone if communism is wrong, then ask them why it was first proposed or what it is. They know it is wrong but not much else. Anything they do know is nearly always anecdotal regurgitation of McCarthyism proganda. If that doesn't send alarm bells ringing, fair enough.

 

HeyYou: That would be a start in unifying the/a protest.

 

However I have to disagree that sitting back and not protesting would be the better option. Even though I might agree it in itself won't accomplish much, there is still always an X factor. The protest could solidify. And could gain momentum. However low the chances of it are. It is classic David and Goliath. Furthermore it could be a single link in the chain that does lead to change.

[Quetzlsacatanango]

I guess there is not further point in asking you to be civil. Next time I will just click the report button.

 

You didn't compare me to the boy. You compared protesters to the boy, as if to say that if you protest about little things no one will care when you protest big things.

This is a false analogy because the government is not our father whose purpose is to rescue us from danger, nor are the people as replaceable as a shepherd boy. The government can not afford to ever fail to respond to the cry. If they ever do, they will be replaced by someone who will. The Boy obviously does not have such a luxury.

Wrong. I was stating that when you dilute important things with trivial matters, nobody will listen to the important things. That is the lesson of the Boy who Cried Wolf. The fact that you don't understand this is not my problem.

LOL, that's exactly what I said.

 

I don't know what doesn't make sense to you. If you are unhappy and you do nothing, nothing will change. If you are unhappy and make your feelings heard, nothing *may* change, but then again, something may. Maybe everyone just thinks you're an idiot and ignores you, but maybe your grievance resonates and people get behind you.

Your inconsistency makes no sense. First off you state protesting for the sake of protesting, even if you have no reason to protest, is a good thing that needs to be done. Now you are saying it is necessary to bring attention to things that need to be changed.

 

You're all over the place, pick a stance and stick with it, don't change your former position and pretend you didn't just because your former position is completely untenable.

I have never contradicted myself once. I said protest is good, no matter the reason. That does not mean that protesting for a good reason, with purpose, and achieving change, is not a good thing.

 

One way has a chance, one way doesn't. It's a necessary supplement to elections because elected officials can't change their ways if they don't know what you are unhappy with. It is pretty straightforward.

Utterly wrong. There's nothing stopping you from writing letters to your elected officials, and joining with like-minded individuals and issuing statements to them, taking up advertisements in newspapers, TV, radio, etc. Protesting for no reason is not a necessary supplement to anything.

The framers of the Constitution must have thought there was some merit to this because US Citizens are guaranteed the freedom of assembly and freedom of expression for that very purpose.

You should re-read the Constitution, then. Be aware that the Bill of Rights were not written by the framers of the Constitution.

Yes, they were.

Also, re-read the bill of rights in the language of the late 1700's, because freedom of assembly does not mean 'freedom to protest'. It meant 'freedom of association' in today's words.

It is a distinction without a difference. Ask Egyptians how important freedom of assembly is for a protest movement.

 

Dunno what you mean here. I am clearly not talking about low level government clerks or supreme court justices, though the latter clearly have an incentive to preserve government stability.

I couldn't tell, they are part of the 'Man' and act as his express agents by implementing his laws. So why don't you stick it to them as well?

There's some merit to that, I would listen to the arguments. Not really relevant to this topic though.

[ginnyfizz]

However I have to disagree that sitting back and not protesting would be the better option. Even though I might agree it in itself won't accomplish much, there is still always an X factor. The protest could solidify. And could gain momentum. However low the chances of it are. It is classic David and Goliath. Furthermore it could be a single link in the chain that does lead to change.

 

I think people are actually trying to said that "rent a mob" type demos where you have a range of different groups, among them the usual anarchist suspects who turn up to every rumble with authority, are not the answer. They are not saying that protest is either wrong or ineffective, but that there are ways of doing it, and the way that OWS are going is managing to pee off everyone including those who actually might otherwise share some common cause.

 

I've been on the odd peaceful demo myself - quite funny how the Metropolitan Police thought that they were going to intimidate peaceful pro-hunting demonstrators with...horses, LOL (we bribed them with mints, the horses that is.) At least the demo was peaceful until they started swinging their batons for no good cause. Yes, Blair's Hunting Act got passed but even people who did not support our cause felt that we weren't doing any harm to the general public because we tended to hold our biggest demos either on a Sunday or in the evening, thereby stopping the fewest possible from going about their business. Consequently they found it well out of order when protestors who had done no more than shout and blow hunting horns, some of them quite elderly, were beaten senseless by the storm troopers. And yes, this is a relevant example because it shows that you can be loud and influential without being disruptive to all and sundry, and in the meantime work behind the scenes, through legitimate channels, for change.

[Marxist ßastard]

Oh, and by "informed" I mean: masters in sociology, something like half a bachelors in political science

 

plethora imbecellic this argument is uneducated rather folly

Well, I have a GED. And a master's in keepin' it real. From the School of Hard Knocks. I got, um... I got street smarts, yo.

 

People are protesting the EFFECTS of the system and yet still supporting the system... Its the same as protesting that my car produces carbon-monoxides yet I fully support oil-fueled vehicles.

Okay, I lied; I'm an industrial chemist. Carbon monoxide emissions can be reduced by adding an oxygenate into the fuel to enhance combustion. The EPA actually mandates their use. And manufacturers have been consistently improving cars' fuel economy, which cuts all emissions proportionally.

 

It may seem like I'm nitpicking, but your little digression shows a misconception you have that crops up a lot later: Systems don't have nearly so many inherent effects as you think. Especially political and economic systems, which are simply artificial abstractions that we can change at will.

 

[*]Social and economic inequality is the basis on which the US capitalist system is defined. It is impossible to change this inequality without changing the structure of the socio-economic system.

The inequality we have right now is by no means inherent to the system. Right now, the richest 1% control 24% of the nation's wealth, and we have a higher Gini coefficient than many third-world dictatorships. In 1972, it was 8%, and our income distribution was similar to that in the UK, Sweden, France, and Germany. What happened? The top marginal tax rate in 1972 was 70%, down from 91% (!) in 1963. It has since fallen to 35%, even as the salaries of corporate executives have skyrocketed. “The US capitalist system” isn't invariant; it has parameters, which can be adjusted to get whatever level of income inequality you want.

 

Do you think the bankers who devised the sub-prime-loan system were actually sitting malevolently behind closed doors scheming how they would ruin american families?

SEC Accuses Goldman Sachs of Selling Mortgage Investment Designed to Fail

“I waited for the lenders to offer the most risky mortgages conceivable to the least qualified buyers... [then] I liquidated most of our credit default swaps at a substantial profit.”

 

In order to become an elected official in the USA, one must campaign heavily - otherwise nobody knows about you and you arent going to get any votes. This requires mass amounts of private funding, because it is each on his own, and there are no public funds for office seekers... This system in the USA has always been very unregulated... Media plays a huge role, of course, in elections.

Yes, there are. There's also an equal-time rule. And there are definite rules regarding campaign finance – the problem is that right now, as in taxes, we're taking giant leaps backward with stuff like SuperPACs and the general weakening of McCain-Feingold. Infrastructure and rules are already in place for fairer elections that aren't decided by private funding. It isn't unreasonable to ask that we use them.

 

I understand why they are protesting, and what they are protesting for - unfortunately they do not.

It just occurred to me that you would be a very poor dinner guest. Oh, and you are also a very poor human being.

 

if the people who gain all the power over markets are humanitarian and spread the wealth back into their employees... Back in the fuedal ages that is basically how things worked.

Yes, medieval serfdom is a system we can all get behind.

 

my children

please for the love of god don't reproduce

 

Cuba is in fact the western hemisphere's #1 democratic country - thats a scientific fact

You keep using the word “fact”. I do not think it means what you think it means. Cuba is ranked as “not free” or “authoritarian” on all recognized scales of political freedom. It's imprisoned more journalists than any nation besides China.

 

I was going to question how you could live in Cuba and not notice the human rights abuses, but then it hit me that the only thing you really seem concerned about is getting your own needs met. So of course you wouldn't notice other people's lack of freedom. (I mean, you've got yours, right? So screw 'em!) You know what? You would actually fit in perfectly with the richest 1% over here!

 

Of course...the americans reading this, brainwashed since birth, to hate these buzzwords "socialism" and "communism" etc

Look at my post. Now look at my username. Now look back at my post. I am batting for the other team in this thread because you are just that insufferable.