Occupy Wall Street

[october_midnight]

What does everyone think of Adam Carolla's opinion?

[sublimaze]

That's an argument I hear all the time. The top 1% pays 50% of the taxes. That disregards two truths:

1. That's income tax only. Everyone pays payroll taxes (excepting those currently getting a payroll tax break, the only tax break Repubs want to allow expire).

2. The effective tax rate of the 1% is still much lower than the national average.

Of course they pay a large chunk of income tax money. They have an enormous amount of money. If "we" (the public as a whole) want kids to continue to receive food stamps, do you think people making minimum wage and living in poverty should be the ones getting a tax increase?

He's advocating that those with a lower income pay a higher percentage of overall income tax. Because those poor, poor millionaires are paying "more than their fair share."

Capital gains are taxed at 15%. That's not wage income. That's money earning money. If one has a million dollars, they can park it in some investment, and it makes money just sitting there. And it's taxed at a lower rate than wages that people actually work for. Guess who has the investments? Guess who earns all their income in wages? How many janitors get compensated in stock options? That's considered capital gains income, taxed at 15%. That's what Warren Buffett was talking about.

Envy? Blame corporations. The ones that plaster Lexus commercials on TV, make people covet a Lexus. That's the point. But that's not OWS to any substantial degree. It's being pissed off that, for example, investment bankers wrecked our economy and the investments of the middle class, took government bailout money, then, lacking any kind of conscience, paid themselves huge bonuses.

[Tea]

I work across the street from where my city's Occupy camp was. I regularly donated, and got to see the condition and actions of the group. 1) Sitting in a camp all day (WITH NO SIGNS) is not protesting. I'm pretty sure once it got to the size of a town, the amount of protesting got down to zero until they were told to leave the park. The camping gives a bad image, along with making the protesters less energetic, thinking what they're doing is enough. As said here, it just makes them look like the hippies that are so easy to pick on; and I'm guessing almost half of my donations went to druggies and homeless that already lived in the park and were living off the camp. Those who protested in suits had the right idea.

I agree with their incentives, though. But here is something I've noticed as a youngin': Many, many people I know are not getting jobs because they're not applying to any. They would rather live with their parents jobless than take a non-dream job; and this seems to go on for years. I'm afraid this is a large percentage of the movement; people have this weird idea that they'll get their dream job a couple years after college with no work experience in the field.

[theruiner]

I haven't had the chance to watch that yet, and I will so I can have an informed opinion, but general rule of thumb is that Adam Carolla is a fucking moron. I finally gave up listening to his podcast (which was barely listenable to begin with) partly because I got sick of his uber-right wing rants based on his skewed perception of the world. By the tenth time he was going off on school kids getting free lunches because "why can't their parents just go to the store and buy them beans for lunch since they're so cheap" I finally gave up. It doesn't surprise me that he's apparently come out against the movement.

[sublimaze]

I agree with their incentives, though. But here is something I've noticed as a youngin': Many, many people I know are not getting jobs because they're not applying to any. They would rather live with their parents jobless than take a non-dream job; and this seems to go on for years. I'm afraid this is a large percentage of the movement; people have this weird idea that they'll get their dream job a couple years after college with no work experience in the field.

It's sad that some people are really not putting 100% into supporting themselves, seeing themselves as "above" certain jobs and sucking off their parents.

It gives those who are truly struggling to find any job a bad name. And there are tons of them. Far outnumbering the lazy. Remember the 600,000 who applied for 50,000 jobs at McDonalds?

[konstantin]

It's sad that some people are really not putting 100% into supporting themselves, seeing themselves as "above" certain jobs and sucking off their parents.

It gives those who are truly struggling to find any job a bad name. And there are tons of them. Far outnumbering the lazy. Remember the 600,000 who applied for 50,000 jobs at McDonalds?

what a perfect article for this discussion! #5 is spot on! http://www.cracked.com/blog/5-ways-w...4=trending_now

[Wretchedest]

So, I've done a lot of thinking about this Occupy movement, and whether I support the cause and the message or whatever. I didn't want to jump onto a bandwagon. If there was real revolution,I wanted to know what I was getting into. I sepnt a lot of time talking to members of the movement, reading articles on both sides of the debate, hanging out in Occupy forums. Asking questions, making suggestions...

But I don't think this whole Occupy thing could rightly be called a movement. While some installations claim to have a list of demands or specific goals, others renounce those concepts entirely. Some go as far as to call themselves anarchists. That's what occupy is as a whole. Anarchy. Of course, there is no such thing as true anarchy, at least I don't think so. In the absence of government, something will always rise to take it's place. Warlords, corporations, gangs... something. There will always be a top of the food chain, and someone will always be making the rules. The very idea that some members, not without some level of hipster angst, will embrace this concept of anarchy, makes them very difficult to take seriously.

Of course Occupy has its appeal. Its loudest message, that big business has too much control in the government, really strikes a chord with me. The problem is that the message becomes diluted with other messages. Without a singular manifesto or declaration, any one that "joins" "occupy" adds there voice and desires to the movement. It's not thousands of untied voices crying for the same thing, it's legions begging for too many different things, each voice drowned out by the cries from the next. The credibility of the movement is damaged by radicalism, hypocrisy, ignorance and misunderstanding.

I saw a video of Bill Maher in solidarity with Occupy LA yesterday, but in the background, you could see one of the protestors sipping on starbucks. Indeed, many of those claiming to be fighting corporate wellfare, frequent MacDonalds or Starbucks and the like. They smoke brand cigarettes and drink Global scale Beer. They continue to accept and use disposable plastics. So one can't say that the Occupiers or Occupants or whatever, singualrly believe in fighting big business. Maybe they do, but they really aren't connecting action to consequence. Their message is diluted. Maybe they think they're fighting chem trails. Whatever.

Don't get me wrong, there are the good apples. The people who want to do more than just sit in a park all day. Those with ideas, solutions. But these people are far out numbered by "me too protestors," the kind of kids that are there in Guy Fawkes masks, trying to get their picture on the net at a protest. You're so cool, /b/tard. They show up to a protest, and draw grafiti on the bathroom walls of a local establishment, and never buy anything. They're destroying the very thing there protest claims to advocate.

Again, this is the problem, going to one of these protests essentially signifies solidarity with everyone of the hundreds of stupid things being shouted out, as well as the 10-15 smart things being mentioned, casually. Remember that early list of demands that got posted on the OWS message board? It was just a one off proposal by one fringe protestor, but the media ended up making it seem quite real. This was problematic for several reasons. 1: Most of the demands on that proposal were ridiculous. 2. Some of those demands ended up attracting many of the protestors. And 3: Occupy didn't do much to outst that proposal for what it was. Much of OWS just let the world think that that's what they wanted.

So, that stuff clearly is what a large quanitity of the "protestors" want. That's something Adam Corrola and variety of other Assholes unfortunately have right. Most of Occupy IS entitlement. I've met a lot of these people. Indeed, most are jobless, but aren't REALLY looking. They want to be paid for...some of them are. Many of them completely lack ambition, or the desire to contribute to society. They'll drink that big brand beer, smoke those big brand cigarettes, and try to tell you that the money for those things really couldn't be put to better use. That's all they aspire to, and it's sad.

It really does make me sad, cause this nation, this world needs a true revolution. Big business really is to big. The government never does seem to act in the interest of the people. The gap between the rich and the poor is really immense. And those on wall st are a huge part of the problem, with no real connection to reality at all. But some of the Occupy protestors are ALSO a part of the problem, and so I can't truly say that I want to see Occupy succeed. The dilution of their message means that there success could mean any large number of things. Only a few a few of which I could agree with.

.... :/

[NIN64]

It's up there. /\ Just read it!

Couldn't have said it better myself. I agree with you 100%.

[PeedroPaula]

I urge you both to check out https://sites.google.com/site/the99percentdeclaration/ . We've raised the $8,000 deposit for a venue in Philadelphia for next July and a group of representatives met last week with the Mayor and City Council who are fully behind our effort. We're trying to get as many Occupy groups to adopt this plan to elect delegates to draw up the official list of grievances (which will be signed in front of Independence Hall on July 4, 2012), but most of the Occupy camps are firmly entrenched in the "no leaders, no demands" mindset which, in my opinion, will cause the "movement" to fizzle out and die.

[heroicraptor]

Of course Occupy has its appeal. Its loudest message, that big business has too much control in the government, really strikes a chord with me. The problem is that the message becomes diluted with other messages. Without a singular manifesto or declaration, any one that "joins" "occupy" adds there voice and desires to the movement. It's not thousands of untied voices crying for the same thing, it's legions begging for too many different things, each voice drowned out by the cries from the next. The credibility of the movement is damaged by radicalism, hypocrisy, ignorance and misunderstanding.

I saw a video of Bill Maher in solidarity with Occupy LA yesterday, but in the background, you could see one of the protestors sipping on starbucks. Indeed, many of those claiming to be fighting corporate wellfare, frequent MacDonalds or Starbucks and the like. They smoke brand cigarettes and drink Global scale Beer. They continue to accept and use disposable plastics. So one can't say that the Occupiers or Occupants or whatever, singualrly believe in fighting big business. Maybe they do, but they really aren't connecting action to consequence. Their message is diluted. Maybe they think they're fighting chem trails. Whatever.

:-/ really?

[Wretchedest]

^
Yeah, I know that seems contradictory or capricious, but that's the point, really. Occupy's message has cannibalized itself. What initially apealed to me, doesn't seem to be a priority of some protestors' agenda. I guess hence the word "singularly"

[sublimaze]

I'm not against big business, and selling their products is what they're supposed to be doing. If Starbucks makes an awesome latte, I might be more likely to buy it than drink shitty coffee at work. That doesn't mean that "Big" business has the right to essentially run our government.

Wall Street went so far beyond "capitalism" as many of us understand it to be. They packaged up what they knew were sub-prime mortgages likely to fail, then BET that they would default. They bet that their own investments would fail. Then, the same entities that devised that steaming POS got bailed out by the US govt because they were "too big to fail." THEN, the same assholes who devised these maggot-ridden plans awarded themselves huge bonuses.

Buying a coffee from Starbucks or eating a cheeseburger from McD's or owning an iPhone is not even remotely close to supporting bullshit like that. Hence, not contradictory. If the OWS movement were cohesive. Which they unfortunately aren't.

[mostlymad]

I'm not against big business, and selling their products is what they're supposed to be doing. If Starbucks makes an awesome latte, I might be more likely to buy it than drink shitty coffee at work. That doesn't mean that "Big" business has the right to essentially run our government.

Wall Street went so far beyond "capitalism" as many of us understand it to be. They packaged up what they knew were sub-prime mortgages likely to fail, then BET that they would default. They bet that their own investments would fail. Then, the same entities that devised that steaming POS got bailed out by the US govt because they were "too big to fail." THEN, the same assholes who devised these maggot-ridden plans awarded themselves huge bonuses.

Buying a coffee from Starbucks or eating a cheeseburger from McD's or owning an iPhone is not even remotely close to supporting bullshit like that. Hence, not contradictory. If the OWS movement were cohesive. Which they unfortunately aren't.

This is my sentiment.

What bothers me, living in near poverty, borrowing friends' internet for important things like watching my paychecks and taxes because my company went paperless. Borrowing gas money just to get to work to pay for my itty bitty apartment after having owned a house and watched all of the businesses around me either close or make wages so fucking small that you are lucky to be alive, but being told I should pony up a huge portion of my shitty income to support all the assholes that are running the businesses that are keeping me at just above minimum wage, and not offering liveable wage positions except to a few who can work all hours of the day and night because that whole "family values" rhetoric is complete shit. Just a few years ago, I was at least living off my own wages and in a decent house. Now, I am struggling because an asshole mortgage company sold my loan and I got put on a much higher mortgage than I could afford, and then job losses without being hired into equal wage living made things impossible, while my marriage just went down the drain... But oh, it's my fault the economy is such shit and the deficit so high? I don't think so.

[Wretchedest]

I'm not against big business, and selling their products is what they're supposed to be doing. If Starbucks makes an awesome latte, I might be more likely to buy it than drink shitty coffee at work. That doesn't mean that "Big" business has the right to essentially run our government.

Wall Street went so far beyond "capitalism" as many of us understand it to be. They packaged up what they knew were sub-prime mortgages likely to fail, then BET that they would default. They bet that their own investments would fail. Then, the same entities that devised that steaming POS got bailed out by the US govt because they were "too big to fail." THEN, the same assholes who devised these maggot-ridden plans awarded themselves huge bonuses.

Buying a coffee from Starbucks or eating a cheeseburger from McD's or owning an iPhone is not even remotely close to supporting bullshit like that. Hence, not contradictory. If the OWS movement were cohesive. Which they unfortunately aren't.

While I certainly agree that sometimes purchasing big business products is unavoidable. Soemtimes the only way to get what we need. I would hope though, that there's more outlets for coffee on the way to work than Startbucks. Otherwise, that's why they'd be a part of the problem, in my opinion.

Starbucks and MCDonalds, aren't a part of the Mortgage crisis of any of that... sure, but they are a part of the lobbying that goes on in the government. They are a part of exploitation and the destruction of the environment. They're two very big representatives of what happens when business goes unchecked.

I think things like iPhone's, etc. are a bit different, since small business does not have the capacity to produce something like that, and yet there's obviously a demand. Of course, that's just my opinion
Which brings me back to my main point which is of course that this isn't necessarily what occupy cares about. There is no unified occupy. Some occupiers care about the mortgage crisis, some about McDonalds. Some wouldn't know why to care about either...

[halloween]

I quite enjoyed this article about the coverage of OWS:
http://www.alternet.org/media/153001...g_story_at_ows

[Crystal]

Here, in Philadelphia, the Occupy served over 400 homeless people food which they would have otherwise not had.
The movement here was peaceful; however, the homeless people are now back living in the suburban train station
underground with no place to go..............so, they had a "vacation" from the streets, as one homeless man
put it.................

[Deus Ex Machina]

I hear a lot about a lack of demands, and I had that criticism myself at first, but now that I'm more familiar with the movement, I understand what that's all about.

OWS, isn't about bargaining with the current system to get what it wants or what it thinks it wants; its about creating and practicing a new system that it feels is more just, one that does not run so big a risk of co-option. That's what those general assemblies are all about. You get unanimous support (or support and abstention) or you don't do it. A block is not a no vote but a veto, and anyone can do it. Anyone who feels they would get thrown under the bus can put a stop to whatever measure they feel is not in their best interest. And in doing so, they identify themselves as someone who needs to be compromised with should the rest of the community wish to proceed with their initiative.

So they get together, have their assemblies, and occupy public space; and that's their only real goal: to form what they feel is a just community.

Read Tidal, the Occupy magazine published awhile back, to really get familiar with what they're doing. It gets a bit post-modern in it's language, but gives as clear a picture as is possible.

http://www.occupytheory.org/Home.html


Also, check out the Occupied Wall Street Journal:

http://occupiedmedia.us/


As for Corolla's opinion up there . . . completely invalid. He seems to be unaware that unemployment is at a record high and that we spent billions upon billions of dollars bailing out our financial system while we were told we could not afford universal health care, a stronger safety net, and economic stimulus. Just another asshole spreading the myth that our generation just wants something for nothing.

[halloween]

http://www.occupyyourcongress.info/

Woot, getting right to the source!

[YKWYA]

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisf...on?INTCMP=SRCH

Pretty good comment from yesterday.

[mfte]

This is a very good doc outlining how the monetary system really works in the world.

http://watchdocumentary.com/watch/mo...1bb237461.html

[halloween]

This is a very good doc outlining how the monetary system really works in the world.

http://watchdocumentary.com/watch/mo...1bb237461.html

this makes me want to be around when it all comes crashing down and we see an economic reform.

[Deus Ex Machina]

This is a very good doc outlining how the monetary system really works in the world.

http://watchdocumentary.com/watch/mo...1bb237461.html

Well, I'd call it a terrible doc that just perpetuates myths regarding our monetary system that are going to leave people more confused than anything. The monetary policy thread seems to have disappeared, so I'll just respond here. Fed conspiracy theories are a pet peeve of mine, so get ready for a bit of a novel:

The first and most important thing I have to say is that you must must must expose yourself to resources that are not conspiracy theories. You can't let infowars and crackpots comprise your education on the subject of monetary policy (or any subject) And don't tell me you haven't, because if you'd read wikipedia, or an encyclopedia, or a dictionary, or an information booklet, or any textbook . . . they would have given you a clearer picture. Monetary policy and central banking is confusing enough without misinformation.




#1. The Federal Reserve is not a private bank.


That's right. Modern monetary systems are hard to understand, so difficult that one can even be a congressman or sucessful businessman and not understand this fact. But it's true. They are a public bank, essentially an arm of the Treasury. If they were not, they would not turn over the whole of their profits to the Treasury. You've probably never heard that little tidbit before, because it's inconvenient to your theory. But it happens with regularity, because that's what the Fed does, becuase it is a public institution, not a private one:


http://www.nytimes.com/2012/01/11/bu...-treasury.html


So all those questions about why we don't lend money to ourselves, and why we aren't in control of our own currency . . . well, we totally are. The Fed is built the way it is because it must interact with the private banking system. So yes, it was designed to function as a kind of superbank that worked on the same principles as a regular bank. The Fed chairman and the rest of the board of governors are presidential appointees. All Fed officers are government employees. Why is it set up this way? Because if a Central bank were too closely controlled by the elected government, that elected government could easily misuse the central bank's power to accelerate or decellerate the economy. They could mask the effects of good or bad policies. You want a central bank with no other purpose than to maintain a stable economy and an elected government does not always have an incentive to do that.


#2. Currency based on debt, aka fiat currency, is far superior to any currency locked to a commodity.


Gold, Silver, or any other commodity has a fluctuating value. People buy and sell it, people find more uses for it, people find replacements for that use; all are factors in the fluctuating price of that commodity. The video you showed talked about the hazards of inflating or deflating the value of your currency and what that can do to your economy. By locking your currency to Gold, you would introduce these hazards to your economy, and it would inflate and deflate based on the market for gold, and not the needs of the economy. You would have no ability to inflate or deflate your currency and your currency would be vulnerable to foreign attack, or the whims of whoever happened to have enough gold.


I'm also fascinated by the idea that an organization that would orchestrate their way to this level of control would be so easily defeated by gold. What would keep them from just saying they were backing their currency with gold and proceeding however they wanted? I don't have an army or nuclear weapons stash . . why would they let me buy my way out of this created slavery with any substance?


#3. Inflation is a horrible way to create serfs / Central Banks are doing a terrible job at world domination.


Before you even read the rest of this, you should look at the annual inflation rates of the United States. I don't want to have any stupid arguements about how wer are turning into Zimbabwe or the weimar republic with hyperinflation. The US has not, is not, and as a matter of policy does not hyperinflate it's currency.
http://www.tradingeconomics.com/unit.../inflation-cpi


Pick the longest period of time possible to get some real perspective. Does that graph look like the product of a Fed bent on hyperinflating their way to a nation of serfs? Not in the slightest. There were absolutely periods of mismanagement, but the Fed always pulled the plug before things were unfixable. However you feel about their policies, they are earnestly trying to execute them, as evidenced by history.


Anyway, maintaining steady inflation like that is a horrible way to make serfs. It doesn't work at all. In fact, it's far more beneficial for the poor than it is for the rich. See, if you're anything like me, you spend a great deal of your income right away on rent, or a mortgage payment, or food, or whatnot. It goes right out the door. So how much of a tax is 3% annual inflation on money I spent within hours of getting it? Not much. On the other hand, how much of thier income to the rich spend right away? Not much. It only costs so much eat and have a house and stay healthy, and they get to keep and do whatever with the rest. The rich are the only people who hold enough cash to really feel the sting of inflation. Do they just sit around and take the hit? No, they invest their money back into the economy. They have to if they want to have any chance of fighting inflation. So think about that for a second. The rich can't sit on their cash, ever, or it will erode. They have to participate in the economy create jobs, fund new businesses, etc creating a demand for workers. And should you be not so well off and have to pay for something with a loan, the inflation actually reduces the amount of your loan over time. So, in reality, the inflation the Fed creates does the exact opposite of what you think it does. On average, anyway, there were certainly periods of history where they failed to follow their mandate, or economic conditions required sustained inflation, and that did throw a wrench into the economy, but only temporarially. As a rule, our Federal Reserve fails to fulfil your fears of hyperinflation.


While I'm at it, if I were a central bank trying to run the world and turn everyone into serfs, I would just let the currency deflate. You might think that would be great for you because the value of your cash reserves might increase. I guess, but remember how most of your money is spent right away? Yeah, you'll get a bit of a bump in your buying power, but you'd not get the same advantage as someone with a cool billion in the bank. All those goods you'd buy wouldn't drop to match deflation right away either. That shopkeeper is going to try to sell it at the highset price he can for as long as he can . . . and good luck finding work. What kind of investments do you think the rich will make with their deflating currencty that rises in value. I know what I'd do: make no investments whatsoever and watch my pile of money grow ever larger. I suppose there might be some venture that could provide a higher rate of return, but why would I take the risk? And good luck paying back any loans you've taken out; because deflation is increasing their value over time. No innovation, no expansion, no jobs, no reason to ever make your money work for you again. That's what deflation does, and that's what I'd do if I was a central banker trying to run the show.


#4. Why are libertarians and fiscal conservatives upset about an organization that is so in line with their ideology?


This isn't a rebuttal, but an observation. Fed conspiracy theorists are almost exclusively fiscal conservatives and libertarians. Why is it alright if a large business misleads the public and uses their capital to the public's detriment, but wrong when this hypothetical world bank does it? Isn't your narrative proof positive of the pitfalls of the free market and the need to mitigate those pitfalls with regulation? Why would you trust the government, as opposed to this internatoinal bank, to set our monetary policy but don't trust them to regulate other things? And, in your libertarian wonderland, what would prevent this bank from existing, or from springing to existence should your current suspicions be false? Again, just an observation, not a rebuttal. But, given your feelings about this hypothetical bank, you might want to give your politics some thought.


Phew.


So, I'm only pointing this out because there are so many real financial crimes being committed that I don't think we should waste our time on the imaginary. A real rundown on the bad bad things done by banks:

http://www.rollingstone.com/politics...ating-20111025

[allegro]

That was a thoughtful, intelligent, informative, well-written post, thank you.

[halloween]

i agree! thanks because i, an art student who knows nothing, would have fallen for what that video was talking about. heh.

[halloween]

Also, this is interesting-
[url]http://www.rawstory.com/rs/2012/02/22/occupy-wall-street-announces-convention-in-philadelphia-for-july


"The plan is to select a man and a woman from each of the 435 congressional voting districts to create and ratify a “redress of grievances,” emulating how the Declaration of Independence was formed in 1776 in Philadelphia. "

[PooPooMeowChow]

This is what a police state looks like.

[halloween]

Well that's not disturbing or anything.