Occupy Wallstreet - What do you think?

Hi, I'm quite excited about what is going on on the streets worldwide.
I sort of missed that the last Saturday was full of demostrations in different towns of quite a number of countries.
The Occupy Wallstreet movement was inspired by demonstrations in the North African nations,
and more and more people are going to demonstrate for 'more democracy now' and against the influence of the big money.

Next Saturday other demonstrations are following, as far as I heard, in my town, as well.

These people hardly know what they're protesting, if that.

Civil unrest of this calibre is just an opportunity for government upheaval, and unfortunately, most upheavals do not end well, especially for countries like the USA which (if you take a quick look at history) can only get worse at this point.

Suffice to say that I don't support this in any stretch of the imagination.

EDIT: Considering how long this has been going on I'm surprised it took this long for it to become a topic of discussion on these forums.

I'm also already regretting this post, as I'm sure that in just a few hours I'll have a few negative replies from the other end of the ideological spectrum to deal with. -.-

I know what I protest, because I observed political tendencies since my youth thirty years ago.
It got worse than we were able to expect.
I know I protest against the loss of fundamental political control standards called 'seperation of powers'.
And I know that many people actually know what they are protesting against,
although it is a complex mix of indvidual situations and the political/financial evolutions of the last years/decades!

So I don't care f.i. whether the young people in Spain demonstrate because of fifty percent of unemployment among them,
or whether they demonstrate because they are disgusted by the irresponsible gambling of the banks.
Both is connected. And, maybe, there is the chance to re-establish functioning democracy and constitutionality.

It is the chance to point the way with like-minded people - and such chances are rare in history, so we have to grab them when they come.

You bring up real problems. No one denies that those in power are sometimes reckless and irresponsible. But at the same time, you bring up no potential solutions. This entire campaign is completely uncoordinated, and it can only succeed in creating civil unrest as I mentioned.

The people who engage in this are just asking for some totalitarian regime to come and "liberate them." That's exactly how the Soviets took over Russia, and its exactly how the Nazis took over Germany. Pander to the unhappy masses, come to power, dominate. It's a simple, foolproof way to become the world's next dictator of terror.

Just a link for the Germans:
http://www.wdr.de/tv/monitor/sendungen/2011/0825/bruessel.php5

EDIT:

Additional links (German):
http://www.tagesschau.de/multimedia/sendung/tt3438.html

https://www.attac.de/aktuell/eurokrise/online-appell/

Sorry, Redeemer, I'm quite clumpsy discussing political issues in english.



That's not the case anymore:
By this time those in power follow already the proposals of the financial lobbyists continuesly(!)
(not just from time to time),
and it seems that this can be observed in the USA and in Europe about several years now.

Here a movie about the crash in 2008:
http://www.zerohedge.com/article/watch-inside-job-wall-street-horror-movie-free-0
I can't say how much of that what I've seen in this movie is correct,
so I'm curious about what you - and others - confirm or deny.

im in the middle. i think the people who know what they want and have the brainpower to put together a well purposed well organized demonstration are to busy with real life, which leaves a lot of people who dont know what the hell they are talking about to vouch for the large amount of us who do have real issues with wall street.

Its like the 2 distinct type of legalized marijauna supporters out there:

The well put together one with facts, information, and is successful but just uses it recreationally
VS
The crazy hippy stoners that ramble on about a couple of things they know about cannabis followed with the with the incessant use of the words "yeah,man"

This really creates a problem because the media and more importantly the opposition pays attention to the latter of the two and then we all suffer from it.

It really is a fitting analogy.

lostclimate, is this an argument against following this movement?

No problem! I'm actually pleased that this discussion hasn't already taken a turn for the worse.


I can't say I agree with this. In a recent statement, President Obama (in his attempt to find support for his jobs bill) said that he supported the Occupy Wallstreet movement. Unsurprisingly, the Communist and Nazi parties in America approved of his statement. This can't be a coincidence.

Incidentally, when America was formed there were a number of requirements to becoming a voting citizen. You had to be male, own your own property (that doesn't include rented/leased/mortgaged property) and be of a certain upper class of people. Basically, you had to be someone of influence and power. The reason this was done was to prevent mob rule, whereby the ignorant, uncoordinated masses work together to topple the government, only to be taken advantage of and subsequently subverted by would-be dictators.


You bring up a good point, LC. There is a "great silent majority," as LBJ put, who do not stand very far towards either end of the political spectrum. Many times we are represented in government by the extremists.

However, trouble can arise when the entire majority makes a political shift. Which direction the shift must occur in before trouble sets in is a very debatable topic that I wouldn't want to involve myself in in the slightest.

Kids in 300$ jeans are protesting the rich because they only got an iPhone 3GS for birthday instead of a 4S.
It is not about a change of society, about finding new values, about giving and helping, it is envy. Just like some people hate their neighbours because of their more expensive cars, janitors hate the professors because they get more appreciation and nerds hate the football players because they get more pussy.
"Why do I need to work for what I want and those people dont? Fuck 'em!"
The only difference to the neighbours, janitors and nerds is that you'll find far more people who are hating on "the rich". Living in warm houses, eating three times a day, having access to medical care, being able to waste their time on the internet, but "we are the 99%". This is not about politics, it's about ingratitude and greed.

Sorry, are you trolling? - Do you read? Do you know anything about what you are talking about? Where are those rich in 300$ jeans within your neighbourhood?
I don't even _know_ anyone who even considers to buy such expencive clothes.
BTW, it is not about what they _still_ have, but about that they can't expect to find any job!(That's completely unrelated to any envy...)

Honestly, what are you talking about?

http://9gag.com/gag/381141

Haha haha...ha.ha..ha.....:( you come to bay city, MI where I live and try to find employment with a full resume....of freelance game design.... Then tell me that people complaining here are all only whiney kids.

@pappenhiemer - I'm saying I don't like what I'm seeing on tv.... But I think there is legitimate reason for protest.....they just don't apparently know what it is.

Sid, that is the best comment I could think of on what Sajeth said.


lostclimate, I don't understand, what you mean by that.
I think at a start point it is sufficient
that they know that they are cheated by the bankers,
and that they are against cheating,
and that the bankers have to pay.

yes, but a protest is about a directed issue. The general "you broke the economy" thing simply isnt true. our economy was shredded by all of us. when instead of 15 years ago marching like this and saying to the federal bank "stop handing out loans hand over foot"... we just took the money and spent it. The only way for us to fix it is to stop over spending, but unless they have a list and some formal research done as to specific possible solutions in a somewhat professional manner, nothing is going to even get through.

Although I feel sorry for you, you can't blame others for your mistakes. Freelance game design is a hobby, not a profession.

Ever been to a country where "we have nothing left" really means having nothing left? I'm not saying you need to take all the bullshit the government and financial elite is throwing at you. But you won't change anything this way. All those people got what they asked for.

The change needs to come from the people themselves - but as long as society's values don't change, society can't change the economy. They got you right by your balls; at 11am you're out protesting, at 1pm you're sitting at McDonald's, at 2pm you're playing with your iPhones, at 3pm you're drinking Coca Cola while watching TV...
Occupy, my ass.

+1 to everything Sajeth says.

... and that is exactly what's happening at occupy wall street. A wide-spread opinion is finally getting out into the public. Just by the response you see all over the world, we should see that something's happening.

I agree that formulating their points would indeed give them more of an argument and make it seem more important, but I'm just glad that there's finally large protests in the one country which has been exporting this type of capitalism for decades.

And, redeemer: uh... no. I don't see how protesting for better democracy and against a strong lobby from the financial sector will clear the path for another Nazi or Soviet regime.


One point they make which I find very important is the huge influence the lobbyists have directly on politics. The video posted by Pappenheimer showed in a nice way: They invite the richest bankers to decide how the economy should work, but I never heard anything about them inviting any poor people when they were discussing and changing the social programs Germany has, last year.

That's just not what democracy is about, and I believe that's pretty much essence of OWS' message.

You make their argument seem a lot more poignant than it actually is. I'm willing to bet that 90% of those involved in the Occupy Wallstreet movement don't have a clue what they're complaining about. All they are doing is encouraging civil unrest, violence and a general defacement of private property. Last time I checked, those things don't stimulate economies.

And actually, this is exactly the path Germany had taken when the Nazi regime came to be. The only difference is that their people had a right to be angry. Following World War I Germany was in a state of total economic collapse, largely because of the Versailles treaty. The incredible rate of inflation at the time made the Mark worth almost less than the paper it was printed on. When civil unrest rose to a boiling point, the Nazi party swooped in. They promised food to the masses, guaranteed a renewed economy, and preached a message of Aryan superiority. The rest is of course history.

Now obviously it hasn't gotten nearly that bad in America at all. In fact, life is quite livable here in the States. But as Sajeth put it, first world people are spoiled, and it could take a lot less to set us off than it did the people in Germany during the '30s. That said, if the Occupy Wallstreet movement was just a little bit bigger and a little more influential, all we would need is a would-be dictator in sheep's clothing.

Oh yeah, didn't I already mention that the Nazi and Socialist parties already support the Wallstreet movement as well?

EDIT: One more thing: you mentioned that no one ever asks the poor man how to run an economy. That is simply because the poor man doesn't know and doesn't care. All he cares about is his own wellbeing.

As I said already, America was originally set up so that you had to be a person of influence even just to vote. The reasoning behind those restrictions was that the rich man cares a lot more about the economy than the poor man does, since he has a bigger stake in it. Rich people also tend to be more informed.

Now let me be clear: injustice against the poor does exist. It really does, and I'm not arguing otherwise. But to give the reins of government over to the masses is simply not the answer.

+1 to everything Germanunkol says!

@ Redeemer and Sajeth:
Don't take your personal experiences
in your limited environment as the status quo of the society.
It simply isn't. Its just a small part of it.
Please take a look at statistics, or, if you don't mind,
have at least a look into the links, I've posted.
You don't have to believe it, but at least try to understand what it is about.

Your understandings of what a movement is are a bit off.
A movement isn't about making sacrifices, as Sajeth suggests,
it is about trying to get influence.
And, trying to get influence doesn't mean to take over the government,
it simply means to participate in decisions,
and support politicians who already care for those issues.

Redeemer,
it is cute that you believe in the competence and integrity of rich people,
but it became quite obviously in 2008 that the rich have been competent
in committing frauds and in scrapping regulations of the financial market
that have been implemented because of an economical breakdown.
It is obvious that they took care for the own private wellbeing,
but didn't care at all for the general worldwide concequences of their doings.

There is indeed much more hypocrisy in the Occupy Wallstreet movement than you're willing to admit, but I find it hard to argue with someone who says such condescending things. I do not believe that the rich are immune to folly, and I am well aware of the bank crisis of 2008. But the state of the American economy, while poor, is not at an all time low, and generally speaking the protesters are blowing their own problems completely out of proportion.

Not all of the current economic problems are the fault of the rich.

The 'cute' was indeed meant to needle you!

Some time ago I would have partly agreed to you, but one has to ignore a whole lot of information
about the new habits of the financial sector within the last two decades
when saying that's all about the usual aberrations.

Let's talk about Greek as an example - it is not all about Wallstreet, but about the influence and the responsibilities of the financial sector generally:
Although, I have no doubt about maladministration in Greek, the 'heeling' 'prescription' makes economically no sense, it is a downward spiral, that ruins the economy of their nation, means no income for the government, means no chance of recovery for the national budget.
And this is all, because it is still the financial elite instead of the economical experts of the governmanet who decide about what the governments do in Europe.
(There is one link in one of my posts to a video about the decisions in the Europe parliament - unfortunately in German)

I don't get the necessity to talk about 'hypocrisis' of the protestants.
Did I miss something? Are you hypocritical when you take action
to show that you are against certain evolutions within your society?


Sure, but if those responsible would have done their job and would have regulated the financial sector as it was meant by law
- we wouldn't even talk about the rich, but about other faults - because we had one problem less, right?

Rich!= more financially responsible. A lot of the worlds wealth is tied up in "old money"

Thanks.


I agree with the latter half of your post but if the former is true could you explain the reasoning behind America's original voting restrictions?


Actually, Greece is crying because its government is trying to give its people benefits which it simply can't afford.


Only if that action includes sitting around on the streets all day shouting obscenities, obstructing law enforcement, and defacing property.

You wanna explain why black people and females couldn't vote either? And actually many of the "founding fathers"believed that the rich shouldn't control everything. That's why george washington washington refused both high pay and to stay in the white house when he originally became president.

I read a book about the 2009 financial crisis
In the last 200 years most financial crises were the responsability of the USA
People must put a stop to the wild american capitalism

I was in Australia for the bulk of the crisis, and we came out of it really well. I'm now in Canada, which is doing quite well.

I see the "99%" complaining a lot. And a lot of it is "We're poor! Life is hard! Share your hard-earned wealth with us!" But at least that's getting some numbers behind a good cause, which is (or should be) the crux of Occupy Wall Street: the excessively rich were stupidly greedy, took down the US economy, and put a ridiculous amount of people who were content to work hard for their small portion out of work. Put laws in place to prevent this.

Those affected by the crisis have every right to be angry, because it's not something that just happens. Rich people stuffing up shouldn't ruin things for the other 99%.

So good on 'em. On the other hand, I think things like "Occupy Toronto" and the other copy-protests around the world are varying degrees of ridiculous -- they are indeed just not-so-rich people complaining that they're not-so-rich. Some of them might "get it", but they're way out of the way of those they're protesting against. Even if they focus on other economic issues, a lot of them are in a far better state than the US.

Browsing "we are the 99 percent" photos, it's amazing how almost everyone I saw who had a degree but was unemployed had an Arts degree. It could be a BA, or even a MFA. Perhaps it lends credence to the idea that Arts degrees are the least employable without something else on top of them (or there could be other reasons), but I couldn't help but think "You got an Arts degree. Surely you planned to be unemployed."

Let's try to sort it this way:


Politics are about power,

its about balancing of power, and its about distribution of power.
Democracy and separation of power are the result within modern society, not only because it is the most fair system but because it is the most efficient system - the latter is often ignored, because people are fed up with current disfunctions, not being aware of the extrem disfunctions of other political systems.


That said, a movement

- and that's what those demonstrations worldwide are - is a political action - even, if there are a lot of people participating that argue from their personal situation.
If you want to achieve a certain political goal, you can't be picky on what people are collaborating with you within your group, whether it is a party or a movement. You can try to establish certain agreements f.i. about to act within the laws, or to act even against laws but without violence as the legendary Indian movement with Gandhi did. But you can't tie those agreements too close.


'Hypocritical'

is probably an unavoidable blame of any political action. I don't see anything hypocritical in the Wallstreet movement that hasn't been surpassed by the financial authorities multiple times, that's why I think it is misplaced to blame them for that, although I understand that you are sort of disgusted.
There are many politicions that are elected for doing a job for the community who are hypocritical in the most things they proclaim, but even those politicians who are honestly anxious to serve the community are not immune against the blame of being hypocritical in one or another perspective.
You can accuse all western democracies that they claim rights within their own countries that they are completely ignoring in their habit against african people or other nations that don't have the economical power to force them to respect their rights.
You can accuse anyone to ignore other social wrongs or whatever when fighting only for one, if you ignore the fact that nobody can fight for more than a few closely connected political goals at once.


The original voting restrictions of the USA

are results of the historical situation of power. Such agreement on the regulations of power is based on the current balance of powers of those who decide about that agreement. Means, a historically installed rule doesn't say anything about the value of that rule in other times and in other social circumstances.

I'll just quickly leave this here: What Wall Street Protestors are so angry about, made by the guys who also run Information Is Beautiful.

Despite my hate for those picture gallery-kind of deals, they have numbers to back up their claims, and they source them, too. A refreshing change of all the random "I BET NINETY PERCENT DON'T KNOW WHAT THEY TALK ABOUT" in here.

Sounds like your personal self fulfilling prophecy.
Some people are highly successful with professional freelance game design:

http://www.falkoloeffler.com/computerspiele/

Thank you fogman, didn't really know how to reply to that without sounding like I wanted to start an argument ot:)

Thanks for Error014 for the link to the statistic data.

I have been on a meeting in my town today, in Bielefeld.
There have been about 100-200 people, and those people were quite aware what they are demonstrating for.
This is not much, but I didn't expect more people there for now.

Nonetheless, two way more important protests are next Saturday in Frankfurt and Berlin.

EDIT:
Short commentary on being a freelance artist:
The example that fogman posted is a person who comes from 'within the industry' and IMo that's an important base to start from when you want to make a living as a freelance.
IMO, you have to establish a standing within the industry to call yourself a freelance artist, otherwise you are missing a proof that you are actually can do it... Just my two cents.

...or with playing poker or playing for the national soccer team. Still doesn't qualify as a serious profession - it's not the government that did something wrong when you fail at being a "freelance game designer"/professional poker/soccer player, but YOU.

Who said fail anywhere? I lived off my game design and paid my parents rent as well from 16-21 years old. I only was looking fire something not so time consuming while I went to school. And if that bailout money was given to small businesses they hire more instead of putting all that money into bank exec's bonuses. And the bailouts them selves wouldn't have been needed if the federal reserve hadn't inflated the economy by encouraging sub prime loans for years and years with little reason to believe theyd get returns.

http://derstandard.at/1319181653774/Vide...lismus-Kritiker

Sehr schön!
The link that ventilator posted is German, but there is mentioned that there have been some well known scholars and Nobel Prize Winners like Judith Butler and Slavoy Zizek, Benjamin Barbar, Richard Sennett, Kalle Lasn, Paul Krugman, Joseph Stiglitz who each in a different way supported Occupy Wallstreet.
I only know some articles and youtube videos of Zizek, he is a very interesting man, and it is fun to hear or read his rants or lectures, although it isn't easy theory.

More a link for the Fun Thread, but the theme is Wallstreet!
Here you go:
http://thejobmouse.com/2011/10/28/we-are-wall-street-wall-street-strikes-back/

Regardless of whether or not you "succeed" at being a freelance game designer (which can mean a multitude of things in and of itself), whether or not society values your ability is something else entirely. No one person, whether he's a government official or a business exec, can change the fact that not many people want your abilities.

EDIT: I guess I have a few more things to say.


Didn't end up reading this until now, but nevertheless...

I see that both you and LC totally missed my point, because I do agree with this. When I brought up the US voting restrictions, I wasn't suggesting that we bring them back exactly as they were, but I did suggest that we bring back the principles that drove them, that being that the educated upper class should be separated from the lower class in terms of political power and opportunity.


Sure thing. At the time they were uneducated lower class people. It was, at the time, next to impossible for them to succeed on their own.

The restrictions were never a racism/sexism thing, although some people make them out to be. They existed because of the social circumstances at the time, as Pappenheimer said, and they were quite appropriate for their time. Another fact that many people don't talk about is that after slavery was abolished in the southern states, many former slaves were put into government positions as part of an effort to "mix up the pot" and desegregate the south. The result was unsatisfactory as the uneducated and unsophisticated began "running the government" (read: sitting on their porches with chickens all day). The situation was almost laughable, and rightfully so.

That sounds racist but it's not. I do not speak of them of that way because of their color, but because they were unfit for office. In fact, I applaud modern day African Americans who lead successful lives. I think of them as being no different than anyone else. Long story short: don't pull the race card on me.

Yeah, but its not advertised as game design just mostly what I've done. I do a lot of other stuff, so I usually class it it under programming and software prototyping.is think that it'd show ambition. I mean its not like there is a trade school for third shift stock at kmart, so I'd think running a software prototyping business for 5 years would be sufficient work background for such an insignificant job.

The principle of democracy is that all people can participate in political decisions, because they are affected by them. Democracy is the form of governing at present, because each elite - regardless of how well educated they were - failed to see the needs of the rest of their society, and thus failed to keep their supremacy.

Yeah, but its not advertised as game design just mostly what I've done. I do a lot of other stuff, so I usually class it it under programming and software prototyping.is think that it'd show ambition. I mean its not like there is a trade school for third shift stock at kmart, so I'd think running a software prototyping business for 5 years would be sufficient work background for such an insignificant job.

But that's just it, America isn't a total democracy. There are many key democratic principles embedded in our constitution but the greater part of our government resembles (even more so in the past) a republic, where classes do exist and power is divided unequally.


It certainly is frustrating but unfortunately in this day and age credentials are the deciding factor on your level of employment, not skill. I fully understand your sentiment and I do feel sorry for you; in other words, the system is screwed up. I'm only saying two things: 1) that you should've been aware of this before you got into this kind of work, and 2) that although the system is not fair, I don't believe protesting it will get much (if any) good done... and as I said, I just don't want to affiliate myself with this movement.

well thats pretty much been my sentiment all along. people who are actually looking for work are far too busy with drum circles. I think the wrong people are going about this the wrong way.

I'm not sure whether I understand this sentence.
Do you mean thatpeople who are actually looking for work are far too busy to participate in a movement like Occupy?

If so, you don't realize the degree of unemployment.

I try to illustrate it from a different point:
a friend is independent entrepreneur, his business melt down from about 10 employers to one, and now he is on his own.
He is looking for someone who can do some programming, only a few hours a week.
When I told him, he could ask at the lokal employment agency, he said that he doesn't want to remind them that he exists because when they remember him, they will send him tons of candidacies, even later when he doesn't ask.

Got it?

Why is it impossible to understand that if there are not enough jobs that there are people who won't get a job, whatever they try to do?

@ Redeemer:
Isn't it depressing to believe that the crowd of one of the wealthiest nations of the world is not educated enough to participate in democracy? Is the education system of the USA actually that bad?

And, why are you expecting any good from the decisions of the 'educated and rich', while you can read in 'educated' and investigative newpapers that it was their work of the last twenty years that evoke the crises?

I think you overestimate it. Unemployment is at a high right now that was only last seen in the '80s. Truly, this is the worst we've seen in a while. But that doesn't mean that we're experiencing another huge depression. Unemployment almost never drops below 4%.


If that were the case, they would be truly destitute. They could not buy their own food or their own clothes, and they could not afford shelter. Yet for the majority of those in the Occupy movement, that is not the case. As Sajeth pointed out:



Yes.


Haven't you asked this question once or twice already? My answer is the same. Granted, they were a huge part of this mess. No one denies that. But to say that this situation is entirely the fault of the rich is simply not true. And as I said, in terms of economic understanding, I trust their judgement more than I trust the judgement of Joe Shmuck off the street.

Redeemer,
do you believe in democracy as a system? Do you think it can work? Or do you feel that people in general are not educated enough to participate in this way, that the system is doomed to fail or at least to bring bad results due to people's inability or outright disinterest in politics?
Or do you just not believe in a certain implementation of democracy (such as the way it's handled in the US)? Is there another political system you favor?

(Note please that I've tried to formulate these as neutral as possible. Don't try to read my own opinion on anything out of this. I can share it later, maybe, but I just tried to not influence anyone, because I'm really just interested in honest opinions - I don't want to contaminate these results :))

Sorry I'm not adding much to the discussion. I'm just curious.

well... ive literally heard a college girl say she was going to vote for bush because he was "old-man hot"... whatever that means.

Here we go. just posted this on my fb. this is my thoughts on the topic:

It means that not only she was stupid but also blind.

Btw, I really enjoy the discussion in this thread, although I can't add anything constructive to it.

I believe democracy in it's ultimate form would definitely be a failure, but I think everyone knows that.

Democracy is a good thing, but like any good thing I believe that it should not be applied excessively to any given problem. I do not believe that the US's current level of democracy is appropriate, but I do not believe that it should be anything less than it has ever been.

@LC: Your idea is interesting because it brings up an important fact: the USD used to represent a very minute share in the United States gold supply. In fact, before the gold standard was dropped, you could walk into any bank and demand your money in gold, and they would give it to you.

This is important because gold, unlike a piece of paper, has real value. There are far reaching consequences to that fact, the most important one being that there's no such thing as "funny money" when you're trading in a real substance.

So my solution to the problem you mentioned is similar to your own: to readopt the gold standard on a national level. Unfortunately it's not likely that this will ever happen since the US is in an incredible amount of debt right now and the amount of money in circulation is not nearly proportionate to the amount of gold the US really owns.

Which is why we bail and let bankers go "down with the ship":p they do it with shell companies to their own partners all time anyways:) and since they supposedly only rep 1%,it SHOULD be doable...but as you said it won't happen. People are not brave enough and if it happened, I'm sure the bankers purse strings would open up to the right greedy poor people and would stop its progress anyways:/

Just a an article of a well-known german conservative newspaper:
http://www.faz.net/aktuell/feuilleton/der-griechische-weg-demokratie-ist-ramsch-11514358.html

http://derstandard.at/1319182112646/Vide...-die-Demokratie

I don't mind the movement, but please can the group clean up after themselves, wake up at night and stop the rape going on in next tent over, and let part of the 99% which are small businesses survive during their protest.

Personally, I haven't had a good drug contact in years, I know I could find one quickly if I went down to one of the local Occupy protest. Which isn't a bad idea actually.

EDIT: Grrrr.. I just looked at our our local OWS movement. The newspaper made it out to sound really large, but they had a picture of like 7 or 8 people who didn't look like good drug contacts. Looked more like a few college students who were probably flunking out for the semester and needed an excuse to tell their parents. Sigh.

Wish I could have used that excuse when I was in college, "I wasn't out partying, doing drugs, and skipping classes, was just out supporting the Occuppy movement!" Was born a generation too early for that excuse I guess.

#1 I didn't have the time to give the last informations about the movement, there's a lot of informations around the net anyway, and don't have the time to do it the next days as well, just a note here and there:



http://krugman.blogs.nytimes.com/

#2 If I find time, I start a german thread about all that, what is documented only in German language, because it happens in Germany, and is not of much interest outside of Germany.

I wonder how many of you have any clue about psychology. Not to mock anyone, believe me. I just find it fascinating to see your opinions and backtrack your thoughts of reason.
on the other hand, i did the same thing with a few occupy people i know personally. and what i saw there was not a very good sign at all. maybe those are jsut the few i know, but if only a few of them all over the world think and act the way they do because they do, we are in for no suprise and no change at all.
i leave it up to you to decide whether this is good or not...

Interesting link. I didn't know this was a news program already for years:
http://www.democracynow.org/about

The real problem here is that he's defining OWS as this vague movement that simply stands as opposition to the evils of the upper 1%; nothing more, nothing less. And if that's as far as it goes, I am all in favor of OWS. Nevertheless, I am not, because I define Occupy Wallstreet as the hippies that are doing just that: occupying Wallstreet.

The truth is that you will not send any good messages by defecating on police cars or raping fellow protesters.

@ Redeemer:
Sorry, Redeemer, didn't had the time to answer your concerns against the movement. I thought that it isn't urgent, because a sentence - that you obviously erased from your post now - let me think that you were at least trying to inform yourself of the financial crises and its reasons... (To say it different, I don't care as much what you think about the movement as I care what you think about the social policy matters...)

But, getting aware of your signature doesn't offer much hope that you are getting far in understanding what is important and what are minor matters. At least not now.



@ All:
I'm impressed about how fast wikipedia produces well-informed articles. Let's spend some money to this magnificent encyclopedia!
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Occupy_movement

It's been some time so I can't remember what my original post was, but I don't believe I erased any sentences. Nonetheless, I have to admit that my last post was rather vague...


First, my signature is a joke that I didn't write. It has nothing to do with OWS. I consider it quite poignant, but I'm sorry you didn't understand it.

Secondly, these "minor matters" are perfectly reasonable insights to the greater character of the OWS movement. In fact, they are a reasonable insight to anybody. When some news came out that Sarah Palin had had marital troubles, it had an impact on a lot of people's perception of her, and rightly so. "Minor cases" are important; whether or not you want to appreciate them is another matter.

But anyway, at this time I'd like to point out that from the beginning this thread has just been a gigantic time waster for me, and I really don't want to bother with it any more. Sorry.

Does this mean, that you actually had a close look at the links that I asked feedback for?

Yes, I looked at the article some time ago, but I wasn't able to watch the movie. I don't have the connection for that sort of stuff.

O, right, I remember that you mentioned that in other threads. The content of the site beside the video isn't very enlightening.
Found a link to an interview with the economist Stiglitz:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...rce=relatedlink
Its not as impressing as watching those financial and political persons who were involved, but it offers a report from one who followed the events from a priviledged position.

I'll be sure to read that soon. At the very least, it should be somewhat informative. But I have to be honest, stuff like this:

does not make the interview sound very promising.

Ah, don't worry, that refers to a central notion of the pioneer of political economy, Adam Smith.

It meant that the competition of freely acting participants
that are only following their very own interests in a free market
'somehow magically' leads to the wealth of the nation, the wealth of all.

Look for "invisible hand" f.i. in the wikipedia article about Adam Smith for further information.

I understand exactly what the quote was referring to. I know who Adam Smith is, I know what he wrote, and I know what the invisible hand is. I say that it does not look very promising because I disagree with the interviewee's ideas about its non-existance.

Just as well, I also understand the bigger issues behind OWS. The only reason I will read this interview is because it is good to be well-read and aware of everyone's position on the issues at hand.

There may be certain sides of the issue that I am not aware of, but I am not oblivious to everything about the issue at hand. The greater difference between us is simply the fact that we have different opinions about this issue.

Okay, didn't expect that. Sorry.
I thought that you worried about the sort of 'religious' claim that actually became a dogma in political economics although it is only proven in models with very strict conditions that the markets of the last 30 years didn't even came close to.

When I was at university a friend of mine ,one of the smartest student I have ever met , declared to support monarchy
Of course all of us thought that he was pulling our legs
One day he invited me at his home
He showed me a letter of the King of Italy, in exile at that time, who appointed him as governor of " county " where my friend and me come from

He explained his point of view

A king is a dictator ,ok, but he must not be confused with a brand new bloody bastards
He loves his country being his property
It does not matter if he may be not a smart guy
He must simply appoint as minstries expert people
Ministry of finance must be a an economist
Ministry of R&D a scientist
....

What's the point of having in the govermnet uncompetent people who go around shaking hands, kissing kids , instead of taking care of the real problems of the country ?


I am still believe in democracy but I must confess I have some doubts

I believe that in a perfect world the Monarchy would be the best system of authority, but man's ultimate fallibility at the reins of power is what prompted the founding fathers to create the United States of America.

As you said the bureaucracy can be inefficient but a certain level of inefficiency is actually necessary if you want to restrict the leaders' control of the government.

http://myoccupylaarrest.blogspot.com/
Really, really interesting article!

That's quite an insight, thanks for posting! I'd like to read some other articles about the incident before I judge the situation, but here's just a few comments on the linked article:

- His writing style is colorful. It's obviously a very emotional report, and although this is understandable, it may not be entirely accurate or give all of the details, even as insightful as it may be.

- It is interesting how he mentions that he was still in the park beyond the point when it was legal for him to be there. Sure it's just a misdemeanor, but that doesn't make it any less illegal. Since the beginning of the USA, peaceful protests have only been counted as peaceful as long as they were conducted at the proper location, in the proper way, AND at the proper time. Although I feel that the force applied by the police to subdue the protesters was probably over the top, we can't forget this fact.

- It's also interesting how he mentions that the protesters, at least at first, would not cooperate with the police's orders. And (checking again) it's interesting how he doesn't say how much time passed between the point where the order to disband was given, and the point where they violently subdued the protesters.

As a minor side note, his mentioning of CitiBank's corrupt business tactics reminded me of the movie Wall Street. I'd like to see that movie again...

Thanks for that interesting link. Didn't expect that brutality from the police, although I know the video with the pepperspraying policeman.

http://transitionculture.org/2009/09/07/an-open-letter-to-the-queen/

The other sight on Friedman's life work:
http://www.observer.com/2007/milton-friedman-s-afterlife
EDIT:
She's probably wrong about what she says about Friedman.
He once used the term "shock program" or "shock therapy" in a letter to Pinochet. That's what Naomi Klein took as a general term that is valid in almost all free market initiatives in the world since Pinochet, in her opinion.
Nonetheless, I like the term, because it serves as a good headline of what the international financial system actually put into practice over the last three decades, but to say it describes a general concept of Milton Friedman is unfair against him.

My further research on what Milton Friedman actually thought about money creation as it is practicised nowadays - he can't be accused as the master mind of what is said to be neo-liberal politics:

http://www.themoneymasters.com/the-money-masters/milton-friedman-end-the-fed/

Did anyone of you already know that the worldwide money system began with a fraud of the USA against 43 other nations at the end of the Second World War?

http://www.clashofcurrencies.org/

@Damocles:
You mentioned that you value Milton Friedman's work, so I guess that you know his theories quite well.
I'd like to ask you what you think about this statement:
"At the same time Friedman, a strong supporter of transparency, would undoubtedly support Congressman Ron Paul’s push to audit and to end the Fed. He supported prohibition of fractional reserve banking and withdrawing the US from the BIS/IMF/World Bank global equivalent of the Fed "

And, what do you think about the moneymasters homepage, in general?
http://www.themoneymasters.com/the-money-masters/milton-friedman-end-the-fed/

Wanna know what people who participate in Occupy say?
Here some examples, within video and written on this page:
http://www.truth-out.org/bill-moyers-occupy-cause/1326562917