-
Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.
Occupy Wall St - Occupy Everywhere, Occupy Together!
- Thread starter magicstop
- Start date
- Status
Baraka in the White House
2-Terms of Kombat
remnant said:
I still don't get you, other than what seems to be a burning desire to browbeat the movement into insignificance and to assert that movements are only worth having with (somehow) the advance knowledge that they will succeed.
Wow. I am speechless.ErasureAcer said:
Someone who bailed out gigantic corporations, and banks. And also gave them money to try to hire people? So the guys you don't want, Obama's best friends with. I don't understand the logic of liberalists ike this. He is a corporatist. Borderline socialist. A capitalist would let the banks fail.
These guys don't even know what they're protesting.
cooljeanius
Member
How are these two compatible?JaskoX1 said:
ErasureAcer
Banned
JaskoX1 said:
huh? Are you brain damaged? You didn't even answer my question. Instead you're shouting on about how the occupiers support Obama when there is no evidence of that. To follow your lead with bad english, you dumb.
Successful troll is successful . . .
The violent or non-violent history of protest is a moot point to this discussion about the Occupy movement, as it is currently a non-violent movement. Let's guide this back on track if we could, and if there really needs to be a historical debate about protests, it could be in a different thread created for that purpose.
The violent or non-violent history of protest is a moot point to this discussion about the Occupy movement, as it is currently a non-violent movement. Let's guide this back on track if we could, and if there really needs to be a historical debate about protests, it could be in a different thread created for that purpose.
I think I've changed my mind. These protesters have ridiculous demands, but despite that I think they might accomplish good. Not because they're going to succeed in getting any of their stated goals done. The message that they're going to be sending to politicians has absolutely nothing to do with their manifesto.
Loud and clear they are sending the message that high long-term unemployment is going to result in a lot of people with nothing to do. And those people are going to cause trouble. So, the message coming through to politicians will be, "MAKE MORE JOBS!"
That's what politicians are trying to do anyway. I'm sure Obama knows that his re-election would be much, much easier if more people had jobs. But, extra pressure might still help job-making measures slip through a deadlocked congress.
Loud and clear they are sending the message that high long-term unemployment is going to result in a lot of people with nothing to do. And those people are going to cause trouble. So, the message coming through to politicians will be, "MAKE MORE JOBS!"
That's what politicians are trying to do anyway. I'm sure Obama knows that his re-election would be much, much easier if more people had jobs. But, extra pressure might still help job-making measures slip through a deadlocked congress.
dinazimmerman
Incurious Bastard
Slavik81 said:
What "job-making measures?"
Slavik81 said:
Huh, that's certainly one way to look at it, lol.
So out of curiousity, because you seem like you might be willing to discuss rather than troll, do you truly think that all of the (as of yet unofficial) goals/demands - including the reintroduction (or rather, the repealing of the repealing of) Glass-Steagall, the reversing of the recent supreme court decision to allow corporations to spend unlimited money on election candidates, the criminal prosecution of Wall St criminals, and the passing of Revolving Door legislation - are all ridiculous? If so, I'm a bit blown away, but at least I can know that you are fundamentally of a different opinion about how the world should work and we can move on.
Honestly, I don't know. The best I can come up with is a tax credit for hiring, possibly funded by a temporary introduction of new taxes on firms that lay-off workers (to offset high EI costs).Goya said:
As a side-note, I rather liked your posts a couple pages back.
Glass-Steagallmagicstop said:
I don't have enough knowledge about the details of the banking industry to comment on whether Glass-Steagall should be re-established for American banks or not. I suspect that most people commenting on the issue do not, either.
However, I see no reason to re-establish the Canadian equivalent. Our banks did fine despite operating under a universal banking model. (Though we should still review our banking laws and participate in the international banking reform process.)
Corporate Speech
I think the court decision on the first amendment rights of corporations makes perfect sense given how the law is currently laid out. If individuals can donate unlimited political funds, I see no reason why corporations should be unable to do so on behalf of their shareholders.
However, I would support amending the law such that individuals are limited in the funding they can provide to election campaigns. Corporations would then no longer be allowed to donate, otherwise they could be used to circumvent individual limits.
Criminal Prosecution
I have no opinion on this in general. Whether I support it or oppose it depends on very specific details of who is charged and what they are charged with.
Revolving Door legislation
This addresses a legitimate issue, though I'd be wary of naive solutions. I've commented earlier in this thread on the topic.
kame-sennin
Member
Video of Matt Taibbi (the best muckraker covering Wall Street crime) talking to Keith Olberman about the protests:
http://current.com/groups/current-v...olution-of-the-occupy-wall-street-protest.htm
Addresses (and sympathizes with) a lot of the criticisms against the protests presented in this thread.
http://current.com/groups/current-v...olution-of-the-occupy-wall-street-protest.htm
Addresses (and sympathizes with) a lot of the criticisms against the protests presented in this thread.
Slavik81 said:
Nice to have some conversation. I'd also like to see your response to the other few unofficial demands, if you don't mind.
My initial response to your critique is a bit off-the-cuff, but they'll have to do for now. I'm looking for legitimate criticism of the ideas and demands of this movement so as to introduce them to my local movements as well as air them nationally within the Occupy movement. I think it's important to strengthen your stances with critical analysis and critique.
Glass-Steagall: I'm very uncomfortable with the idea of a legal and regulatory failure to distinguish between investment banking and commercial banking. To be both a lender and an investor seems to host some serious conflicts of interest, and there have been strong arguments made that suggest a lot of our recent economic crisis was the result of the environment created by the repeal of Glass-Steagall. The fact that politicians as diverse as McCain and Obama have tried to bring back Glass-Steagall (at least in part) I think speaks volumes of the current problematic deregulation. Similar to the revolving door legislation, I also think that we see some serious conflict of interests when we have individuals that can serve as investment bankers (spenders) as well as commercial bankers (lenders). It's something akin to a drug dealer smoking up all of his own goods.
Also, I'd rather not have the risky business of securities fouling up the security of my deposits, and therefore the stability of the government who insures those deposits.
It's just a stupid setup that smacks of needing regulation.
Citizens United: We're closer to seeing eye-to-eye on this if you feel that the granted ability to spend as an individual needs to be axed through regulation. However, you're making it seem as if there was any reasoning behind the SC's decision to rule as they did in Citizens United other than striking down the provisions of the McCainFeingold Act, which in turn are the very provisions disallowing corporations to broadcast election media. If we're going to regulate corporations so they can't spend money on election media as we had it previously to Citizens United, we may as well repeal the ruling for Citizens United and return to the provisions of McCainFeingold.
Which we should, because I'm extremely, extremely uncomfortable with any electoral process that can effectively be bought, which is what allowing corporations unlimited spending on electioneering would do.
Criminal prosecution: I agree with you in that we would prosecute individually based on individual crimes. However, there is currently NO move to investigate or prosecute, and that's what the Occupy movement is pushing for. We need a dedicated, qualified, nonpartisan, fully vetted committee to start tackling these investigations so we can start to assign some of the necessary blame of the economic crisis to those on Wall St. who are responsible. Ordinary citizens have certainly suffered, and more cruelly than I believe their "mistakes" deserve.
We need to start this process of investigations, and we should have been doing this since 2008.
Revolving door legislation: Glad we agree. Mostly. I think it's a weak argument to suggest that it has to be the same people regulating and acting as watch dogs to then go on and become paid employees of the same corporations they were "watching over" and "regulating" for. That argument relies on the idea that there is a truly limited number of people with such skills, intellect, and talent. I say that's hogwash. I would bet thousands of students get pumped out every year who would be capable of both tasks, and I think it's absurd that such a HUGE conflict of interest exists in such a sensitive spot.
I do agree that a more transparent system would be helpful, and that it would be great if there was a protest every time a corrupt corporatist made a corrupt decision, or a corrupt regulator made a corrupt decision. But this simply won't happen. Protests don't happen based on single decisions, unless they are HUGE decisions ("We're going to bomb 'X' off the face of the Earth" might do it, or "The electoral college has decided on . . . SARAH PALIN!!!"). It's not realistic, and therefore it's not a functional way of thinking.
So it sounds to me like you don't ACTUALLY think all of their demands are "ridiculous" and that maybe you were getting a bit carried away with hyperbole. It happens to the best of us. I just think it's worthwhile if people stop being reactionary (on both sides) and start empathizing and thinking things through. I have MUCH more sympathy, however, with people who respond in a reactionary way to the deregulation, loop holes, potential (I think likely) criminal activity, and sheer greed that allowed for this nation to hit such a nasty economic crisis. I have much LESS sympathy for people who respond in a reactionary way towards protesters and people who are willing to demonstrate that they are upset with the corporate and economic state of US politics. It's an easy to understand emotion, and the large majority of the population would benefit from a good ass kicking on Wall St.
Let it be known that I want the focus of this movement to be more than just on recent Wall St and the recent crisis as well. There have been people suffering because of our economic system for a LOT longer than our recent little crisis, and that needs to be addressed as well. But for the time being, in speaking as an individual involved and in solidarity with the Occupy movement, I'll keep my focus and goals narrow and united with those folks in NY.
kame-sennin
Member
Slavik81 said:
Here's one reason; democracy is a system based on 'one person, one vote'. That's how we choose politicians and set policy. But if money can be used to put politicians in office and set policy, than those with the most money have the most influence on the government. The Supreme Court considers donations free speech, but they don't seem to understand or care that the wealthy can 'speak' more loudly than the poor. It's a system that guarantees inequality. For that reason, we should have publicly financed elections.
empty vessel
Member
Slavik81 said:
Citizens United makes absolutely no sense in a democracy founded upon the idea of popular sovereignty. It is a fundamentally anti-democratic decision that effectively places entities endowed with government power (corporations) outside the purview of citizen control. In other words, it creates a sphere of government power that is immune from the consent of the governed (specifically, the government power that is endowed in corporations). Citizens no longer have the prerogative to control an aspect of their government. In so doing it subverts the foundational principle of popular sovereignty on which the country is founded.
A lot of people do not understand democratic theory and popular sovereignty, and so they understandably do not see how anathema Citizens United is to democracy. But it is a radical decision that literally transforms the United States from a democracy to something else entirely. It is--and I am not exaggerating or engaging in rhetoric when I say this--counterrevolutionary. As a strictly factual matter, it reverses the most fundamental principle animating the American revolution.
kame-sennin and empty vessel, you should read the second paragraph of that section. My point is that corporations are, albeit indirectly, composed of their shareholders. Even if large corporations are barred from spending in elections, unless you also place limits on the campaigning done by their shareholders, you will still have the same problem. Does it really matter whether it's Bill Gates the individual or Microsoft the corporation that is pumping millions of dollars into politics to further their self-interest?
As stated in the paragraph you omitted, I would support a law that would prevent both wealthy corporations and wealthy individuals from unduly influencing the democratic system with large amounts of money. The entire point of my first paragraph was that I feel that limits on one without the other would be insufficient.
As stated in the paragraph you omitted, I would support a law that would prevent both wealthy corporations and wealthy individuals from unduly influencing the democratic system with large amounts of money. The entire point of my first paragraph was that I feel that limits on one without the other would be insufficient.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
Going to an Occupy New Hampshire meeting tomorrow.
I think I'm in it for the long haul.
Was down their on business and the realized, the protesters are occupying a park between 2 buildings which are filled with government/regulatory offices. 1 has FINRA and the other has the construction offices for WTC.
And the starbucks at 115 W Broadway is making a killing. Saw the zombie parade march by and half the store panicked, left the line, and ran outside to join the zombie parade.
And the starbucks at 115 W Broadway is making a killing. Saw the zombie parade march by and half the store panicked, left the line, and ran outside to join the zombie parade.
A Human Becoming said:Going to an Occupy New Hampshire meeting tomorrow.I think I'm in it for the long haul.
Awwwwww yeah
Be sure to keep us informed, even if you're not. Get us good pics, updates, and let us know how the organization is going as well. Especially for those of us helping organize local movements, I think sharing advice and models is useful.You might want to check out this article that I linked a few pages back, as it may be helpful once you get there and start getting involved: The Portland Model. Also, check out some of the links for avoiding arrest, knowing how to handle getting arrested, what your rights are, etc.
In fact, I think the next section of the OP is going to be a section for those who are involved. Resources, information, advice, etc.
Best of luck!
travisbickle
Member
SolKane said:
Everyone is worth listening to, everyone has a voice.
So, seriously, what is this garbage really all about? All I see is a bunch of unorganized hippies spouting shit like "abolish the IRS", etc. I mean come on. It seems as though they have no idea what they want, why they want it or any consequences that would come if they actually got it.
Only reason I'm interested is that I hear they want to "occupy" Bay St. in Toronto...beginning on a Saturday when none of the financial sector is even open and no one is around to actually be bothered or inconvenienced.
Really does seem like a giant waste of time.
Ah, ok I see. Nevermind I'll just go to bed shaking my head.
Only reason I'm interested is that I hear they want to "occupy" Bay St. in Toronto...beginning on a Saturday when none of the financial sector is even open and no one is around to actually be bothered or inconvenienced.
Really does seem like a giant waste of time.
travisbickle said:
Ah, ok I see. Nevermind I'll just go to bed shaking my head.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
SolKane said:
Cut him some slack, he makes some valid points. For example:
1. I think stronger state government is better. That's the direction Canada went with its provinces. That's what the founding fathers wanted.
2. Income growth hasn't increased at the same rate as standard of living costs.
3. Government does start too many wars and it does have a lot to do with the military-industrial complex.
magicstop said:Awwwwww yeah
You might want to check out this article that I linked a few pages back, as it may be helpful once you get there and start getting involved: The Portland Model. Also, check out some of the links for avoiding arrest, knowing how to handle getting arrested, what your rights are, etc.
In fact, I think the next section of the OP is going to be a section for those who are involved. Resources, information, advice, etc.
Best of luck!
Thanks.
hyp
Member
anyone here follow professor richard wolff? he has great insight on the financial crisis:
http://rdwolff.com/content/richard-wolff-anthony-arnove
definitely worth a watch. dude speaks the truth.
http://rdwolff.com/content/richard-wolff-anthony-arnove
definitely worth a watch. dude speaks the truth.
http://www.businessinsider.com/occupy-wall-street-analyzing-their-list-of-demands-2011-10
The business community is getting nervous.
The business community is getting nervous.
cooljeanius
Member
Where is there in New Hampshire to occupy?A Human Becoming said:Going to an Occupy New Hampshire meeting tomorrow.I think I'm in it for the long haul.
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
cooljeanius said:
Concord. Interested in going?
NullPointer
Member
Love the signMeasley said:
OP just updated with quite a bit of info.
- "How can I be involved?" section added to
- "Noteworthy News" section added to
- Addition of "Resources for Those Involved" section
Keep checking the OP every day for updates on news, etc. I'm out of character spaces, and I don't have a second post reserved, so I'll have to continually edit stuff out in order to fit new stuff in (unless I can convince Stumpo or EviLore to let me have a second post under the first to add new information).
I'd like to add a couple of sections handling various forms of media (pics, videos, podcasts, etc.) as well as a few other things, but for now, the OP will have to stand.
- "How can I be involved?" section added to
- "Noteworthy News" section added to
- Addition of "Resources for Those Involved" section
Keep checking the OP every day for updates on news, etc. I'm out of character spaces, and I don't have a second post reserved, so I'll have to continually edit stuff out in order to fit new stuff in (unless I can convince Stumpo or EviLore to let me have a second post under the first to add new information).
I'd like to add a couple of sections handling various forms of media (pics, videos, podcasts, etc.) as well as a few other things, but for now, the OP will have to stand.
A Human Becoming said:Cut him some slack, he makes some valid points. For example:
1. I think stronger state government is better. That's the direction Canada went with its provinces. That's what the founding fathers wanted.
2. Income growth has increased at the same rate as standard of living costs.
3. Government does start too many wars and it does have a lot to do with the military-industrial complex.
Thanks.This is what someone in our group recommended reading before the meeting.
Schweet! I'll add that to the OP ASAP. Thanks!
travisbickle said:
Simply because everyone has the right to speak does not mean they are worth listening to, particularly if what you're saying is incorrect or completely specious.
A Human Becoming said:
I agree he makes one or two valid points (given the amount of things he says, he's statistically bound to), but I think for number 2 you meant to write hasn't. Actually, I see you edited that, so never mind.
Had to go back and watch the Cramer meltdown of 07 and the Bear Sterns denial after denial. Man oh man deja vu leading up to this implosion and last time. I could feel it coming last time a mile away and now Greece is on the razor's edge while the Euro folk said today no new money until November. They(Greece) said out of cash in weeks in mid Sept. It's coming like a train off rails.
Mineshaft_Gap
4077th
I like how this is being virtually ignored by the media.
akachan ningen
Member
what do you expect? they're going to cover a movement that will potentially make their owners lose money?Ducky_McGee said:
What do you guys think of this:
Open letter and warning from a former tea partier to the OWS movement
I'm normally against conspiracy theories, and I'm a bit dismissive of this, yet I'm not sure. Some of the reasoning is sound, and I really wonder about the potential truth behind this.
Thoughts?
Open letter and warning from a former tea partier to the OWS movement
I'm normally against conspiracy theories, and I'm a bit dismissive of this, yet I'm not sure. Some of the reasoning is sound, and I really wonder about the potential truth behind this.
Thoughts?
A Human Becoming
More than a Member
- Status