"OCCUPY WALL STREET"

Status
Not open for further replies.
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
Doesn't seem to have anything to do with the squatters.

These people are also organized, well dressed, with clear signs not made from the back of a cardboard box.
Click to expand...


35d47pl.gif
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
Oh look it's Riddick with another post, I'm sure it's substantive and not just part of his obsession with me.
Click to expand...
Yeah it's not like you've gone to excessive lengths to attract attention or anything. This thread is all about substance.
 
DOO13ER said:
Yeah it's not like you've gone to excessive lengths to attract attention or anything. This thread is all about substance.
Click to expand...

Imo the village idiot does good for the cause by attracting attention to this thread which despite the trolling has been very informative. That's probably why the mods haven't banned his sorry ass yet.
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
Nope, I'd blame gas increases more
Click to expand...
Ironic considering Wall St speculation artificially inflates those prices by a great deal and that's one issue the protesters have brought up
 
dave is ok said:
Ironic considering Wall St speculation artificially inflates those prices by a great deal and that's one issue the protesters have brought up
Click to expand...
I think that greatly ignores OPECs role. Wall St in large part is a reaction to production increases and decreases and other world events.
 
Onion_Relish said:
I'm sure this has been brought up, but CNN did a little piece on the occupy wall street clowns. The best part was when they spoke to one of the organizers and pointed uot that it was particularly ironic that she was there protesting big corporations when she herself brought her macbook with her.

Definitely a c-word if i ever saw one. God bless America.
Click to expand...

How is that ironic?
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
I think that greatly ignores OPECs role. Wall St in large part is a reaction to production increases and decreases and other world events.
Click to expand...
Well here's what Wikileaks dug up:

When oil prices hit a record $147 a barrel in July 2008, the Bush administration leaned on Saudi Arabia to pump more crude in hopes that a flood of new crude would drive the price down. The Saudis complied, but not before warning that oil already was plentiful and that Wall Street speculation, not a shortage of oil, was driving up prices.

Saudi Oil Minister Ali al Naimi even told U.S. Ambassador Ford Fraker that the kingdom would have difficulty finding customers for the additional crude, according to an account laid out in a confidential State Department cable dated Sept. 28, 2008,

"Saudi Arabia can't just put crude out on the market," the cable quotes Naimi as saying. Instead, Naimi suggested, "speculators bore significant responsibility for the sharp increase in oil prices in the last few years," according to the cable.
Click to expand...
 
Didn't the CEO of Exxon testify before Congress and basically said blamed speculators for the price of a barrel of oil? He said something to the tune of "oil should be somehwere in the range of 60 or 70 a barrel."
 
Always-honest said:
? what's this thread about?
Click to expand...

Ponies on Wallstreet. Like a typical PonyGAF poster thread.

DIE PONYSCUM(TM Jenga).

Always Honest said:
Maybe if i go back far enough i'll get to the capitalism part too....
Click to expand...

You can't do that! You'll cause a thread paradox!

Game Over
Continue >Retry
---

For one, I agree with Manos on the part of: #OWS doesn't have a true message for protest. Do they need to have clean signs and be in suits? Not really. But should they be slightly more organized and have clear goals? Yes.

From what I've seen of #OWS, they haven't really had a clean-cut reason to be there other than "oh, well, we're sick of the economy and want to take it back!"

I disagree with Manos because I find that reason to be good, but it isn't enough. You need to have suggestions or something else to at least put out there to have a reasonable debate in protesting.
 
TheSeks said:
For one, I agree with Manos on the part of: #OWS doesn't have a true message for protest. Do they need to have clean signs and be in suits? Not really. But should they be slightly more organized and have clear goals? Yes.

From what I've seen of #OWS, they haven't really had a clean-cut reason to be there other than "oh, well, we're sick of the economy and want to take it back!"

I disagree with Manos because I find that reason to be good, but it isn't enough. You need to have suggestions or something else to at least put out there to have a reasonable debate in protesting.
Click to expand...

The reason why this isn't comparable to the Arab spring, aside from the obvious attempt at astroturfing a protest, is that a clear goal isn't defined by 'we hate the way things are now wah wah wah' ; The Arab spring often coalesed around removing individual leaders. At this point the anti-Bush protests had a clearer goal than this vague venting.

One other comparison made was to the race protests during the civil rights; But again, not comparable. Those protests had discrete goals, equality for blacks, and were responding to racist jim crow institutions and policies. There is nothing like that and you even have left leaning posters distancing themselves from the crazy anarcho-capitalist positions espoused by some in the protest as 'not representing the protest'.

It's really just young people who maybe have legitimate grievances, mixed in with some white whine complaining about the economy and big institutions being evil and needing to be destroyed. and while I agree our generation is being short-changed by the profligacy of our parent's generation and the demands they now expect from government now that they are retiring, I don't see this as being a well organized protest.
 
The problem with modern protest movements in America is that you have to make them so broad and vague (to attract the most amount of people) that it's hard to develop some kind of pointed message.

It's a lot easier when you already have a focal point in place. Like a war or some sort of industrial structure that wants to be built. But when you feel this kind of dispair or general anger of the direction of society, it gets real tricky on how you address it.

You saw it with the Tea Party, which (to the glee of their detractors) attracted this weird melange of semi-racists, anti-government types and disallusioned unemployed. So, you had this variety of people angry and nothing really came out of it. Because they had nothing to rally around.

This 'occupywallst' group suffers from the same kind of problems. If they were smart, they would hyper-focus on ONE issue (like the reinstatement of Glass-Stegall) and make a positive change for everyone. But then you run into the catch 22, whereby focusing on that one issue may dramatically cut down on the amount of people you attract or the passion for prolonging it. There's a large contingent of people there that don't want to change the system, they want to replace the system (but never really saying with what).
 
ToxicAdam said:
The problem with modern protest movements in America is that you have to make them so broad and vague (to attract the most amount of people) that it's hard to develop some kind of pointed message.

It's a lot easier when you already have a focal point in place. Like a war or some sort of industrial structure that wants to be built. But when you feel this kind of dispair or general anger of the direction of society, it gets real tricky on how you address it.

You saw it with the Tea Party, which (to the glee of their detractors) attracted this weird melange of semi-racists, anti-government types and disallusioned unemployed. So, you had this variety of people angry and nothing really came out of it. Because they had nothing to rally around.

This 'occupywallst' group suffers from the same kind of problems. If they were smart, they would hyper-focus on ONE issue (like the reinstatement of Glass-Stegall) and make a positive change for everyone. But then you run into the catch 22, whereby focusing on that one issue may dramatically cut down on the amount of people you attract or the passion for prolonging it. There's a large contingent of people there that don't want to change the system, they want to replace the system (but never really saying with what).
Click to expand...

*avatarquote*

Good post. You do have a point. But that's the issue I have. The group has a bunch of people, and while I agree with their sentiment, their "doing" of that sentiment has been poor. But having a more clear point would remove some people. Hmm...

Deku said:
It's really just young people who maybe have legitimate grievances, mixed in with some white whine complaining about the economy and big institutions being evil and needing to be destroyed. and while I agree our generation is being short-changed by the profligacy of our parent's generation and the demands they now expect from government now that they are retiring, I don't see this as being a well organized protest.
Click to expand...

Agreed. I dunno what I'd do different other than having a clearer message and a better "point for improvement." But they've been there... 9 days now? And their message is just scattershot.
 
ToxicAdam said:
The problem with modern protest movements in America is that you have to make them so broad and vague (to attract the most amount of people) that it's hard to develop some kind of pointed message.

It's a lot easier when you already have a focal point in place. Like a war or some sort of industrial structure that wants to be built. But when you feel this kind of dispair or general anger of the direction of society, it gets real tricky on how you address it.

You saw it with the Tea Party, which (to the glee of their detractors) attracted this weird melange of semi-racists, anti-government types and disallusioned unemployed. So, you had this variety of people angry and nothing really came out of it. Because they had nothing to rally around.

This 'occupywallst' group suffers from the same kind of problems. If they were smart, they would hyper-focus on ONE issue (like the reinstatement of Glass-Stegall) and make a positive change for everyone. But then you run into the catch 22, whereby focusing on that one issue may dramatically cut down on the amount of people you attract or the passion for prolonging it. There's a large contingent of people there that don't want to change the system, they want to replace the system (but never really saying with what).
Click to expand...
True, but the tea party had fox to help guide them and give them a ton of media coverage, as well as backers with big pockets and eventually the tea party began to really organize. Yeah they're still crazy racists but they largely got what they wanted, the Tea Party downgrade, close to government shut down, twice. Might not be as much as they wanted but they're getting something. Further the tea party's beef was with a system they COULD change, and change relatively simply (just vote one of your people in and let them do their damage).

Occupy wall street has a much harder fight than that. They're not going to have a large media company following them everywhere they go, they're not going to get a huge corp with loads of money to guide and fund them. They don't really have leaders per se, and are unlikely to get one. Conservatives love to have someone to lead them and tell them what's what, hell people make whole daily radio shows out of it. Many liberals respond to that as "Don't tell me what to do!" (unless it's Steve Jobs). And the system they're trying to change can't just be changed by voting people in. Not to diminish what the Tea Party has accomplished but voting in Senators that will just stone wall everything is relatively easy when compared to try to change the very way corporate america runs. You have to get political power, then you have to insulate it from corporate influence (yeah right), you have to then pass laws that they corporate lawyers can't fight, and even if they can they have more media space than you ever will.
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
I think this is the link you also want
http://finance.yahoo.com/q/mh?s=AAPL+Major+Holders

Lot seem to be Mutual funds.

EDIT: mutual funds and places that hold as institutions, but also do mutual funds (just not in this case) is distinguished.
Click to expand...

And that's part of the problem, and thus the need for these protests. Bankers don't design Apple products, they don't program them, they don't manufacture them. They contribute nothing. But they take in huge profits through ownership. It's very possible that Apple's high prices and low-paid factory workers are dictated to it by Wall Street. I know from experience in my company that every cost-cutting move that screws employees is justified by the executives as "enhancing shareholder value"...and who are the shareholders? Banks. 87% per Yahoo Finance. This is not a conspiracy theory.
 
chaostrophy said:
And that's part of the problem, and thus the need for these protests. Bankers don't design Apple products, they don't program them, they don't manufacture them. They contribute nothing. But they take in huge profits through ownership. It's very possible that Apple's high prices and low-paid factory workers are dictated to it by Wall Street. I know from experience in my company that every cost-cutting move that screws employees is justified by the executives as "enhancing shareholder value"...and who are the shareholders? Banks. 87% per Yahoo Finance. This is not a conspiracy theory.
Click to expand...

The shares were often sold long ago for Apple to raise capital on the market - a key feature of a capitalist economy to transfer surplus capital to people with a good idea. The stock market is just a secondary market for people to value and trade the stock in circulation.

Mutual Funds hold Apple stock to give a good return for their clients, which can often be regular people with an investment portfolio.
 
Occupy Wallstreet should have this as their tagline focus:

"We want to stop Wallstreet from having so much power and influence over us. Because of them nothing that should get done, does get done. We want the nation to have people as once again its primary focus."

Demands:

- Redistribution of Wealth (tax these wealthy people)

- More regulation on these businesses (reinstate Glass-Stegal?)

- Stop cutting social programs (we, the people, are suffering here, some of us are on our last legs. Cutting the few things that help us, is unacceptable)


What's wrong with this?
 
Flying_Phoenix said:
Occupy Wallstreet should have this as their tagline focus:

"We want to stop Wallstreet from having so much power and influence over us. Because of them nothing that should get done, does get done. We want the nation to have people as once again its primary focus."

Demands:

- Redistribution of Wealth (tax these wealthy people
)
- More regulation on these businesses (reinstate Glass-Stegal?)

- Stop cutting social programs (we, the people, are suffering here, some of us are on our last legs. Cutting the few things that help us, is unacceptable)
Click to expand...

Those are a good start, but someone will butt in and say 'how about the 'down with capitalism' bullet point my group wanted.
 
Deku said:
Those are a good start, but someone will butt in and say 'how about the 'down with capitalism' bullet point my group wanted.
Click to expand...

That doesn't seem to be their primary focus.

And if you're worried about the movement falling apart, its not like that person and their group will leave it because of that.
 
Flying_Phoenix said:
That doesn't seem to be their primary focus.

And if you're worried about the movement falling apart, its not like that person and their group will leave it because of that.
Click to expand...

Splintering off is fairly common in protest movements, the resulting factions tend to hate each other as much as the group/idea/country they dislike themselves (and would not want to help the other). It's not just something exclusive to groups engaged in combat (ie the Monty Python Life of Brian gag refers to terror groups, but it's true of non-violent political movements too).
 
Deku said:
Those are a good start, but someone will butt in and say 'how about the 'down with capitalism' bullet point my group wanted.
Click to expand...

Maybe find out why that person wants capitalism to come down? It's very easy to be misinformed about what capitalism is on a core level in the US because the dialogue is biased so far to the right compared to other developed capitalist countries. Maybe that person only thinks they're a communist because they've heard things like mass transit and universal health care called communist all their lives.
 
chaostrophy said:
Maybe find out why that person wants capitalism to come down? It's very easy to be misinformed about what capitalism is on a core level in the US because the dialogue is biased so far to the right compared to other developed capitalist countries. Maybe that person only thinks they're a communist because they've heard things like mass transit and universal health care called communist all their lives.
Click to expand...

I take mass transit to work and enjoy want my UHC and will pay taxes for it, yet I continue to butt heads with liberal-GAFFers. I don't think it's as simple as you put it.

I've indicated many times what I think of the protest, I've also alluded to the fact that they're barking up the wrong tree.

The real issue is generational. The boomers wields enomous power and the youth should organize politically to counterbalance their unrealistic fiscal demands on the system or we risk being a lost generation of highly taxed individuals with reduced services.

I'm not suggesting generational warfare, but simple math. when old people vote in the people they want, they get what they want. Their ideological/crazy tactics aside, Tea Party did do good by shifting the debate away from how much can we lavish on you old retiring people to how much can we afford to keep you all around for another 20 years.
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
Splintering off is fairly common in protest movements, the resulting factions tend to hate each other as much as the group/idea/country they dislike themselves (and would not want to help the other). It's not just something exclusive to groups engaged in combat (ie the Monty Python Life of Brian gag refers to terror groups, but it's true of non-violent political movements too).
Click to expand...

But over "taking down capitalism"? That's such a huge niche.
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
I know, I know, but it still bothers me that a person can't choose themselves.
Click to expand...

jaxword said:
Just for clarity, you're in support of the idea that people should be allowed to make their own choices about their futures?
Click to expand...

Hey, Manos, since the thread's moving fast, you may have missed this question. Just reposting it so we can get some clarification on your stance.
 
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/29/nyc-transit-union-joins-o_n_987156.html

This is a big win for the movement.

The Transit Workers Union Local 100's executive committee, which oversees the organization of subway and bus workers, voted unanimously Wednesday night to support the protesters. The union claims 38,000 members. A union-backed organizing coalition, which orchestrated a large May 12 march on Wall Street before the protests, is planning a rally on Oct. 5 in explicit support. And SEIU 32BJ, which represents doormen, security guards and maintenance workers, is using its Oct. 12 rally to express solidarity with the Zuccotti Park protesters.

"The call went out over a month ago, before actually the occupancy of Wall Street took place," said 32BJ spokesman Kwame Patterson. Now, he added, "we're all coming under one cause, even though we have our different initiatives."
Click to expand...
 
Marleyman said:
Didn't the CEO of Exxon testify before Congress and basically said blamed speculators for the price of a barrel of oil? He said something to the tune of "oil should be somehwere in the range of 60 or 70 a barrel."
Click to expand...

Speculators trade on the presumed future price of oil. Speculators are operating under the assumption that oil will start running out in the near future and therefore will be more expensive. Speculators allow the future scarcity of a good to be factored into its price. This is a wholly good thing, as it helps us economize the use of our oil supplies. If we allow the speculators to continue doing what they're doing, we'll have a gradual increase in prices that incentivize people to gradually economize and find alternatives, instead of a sudden spike in prices when we finally run out. This is a good thing.
 
Amibguous Cad said:
Speculators trade on the presumed future price of oil. Speculators are operating under the assumption that oil will start running out in the near future and therefore will be more expensive. Speculators allow the future scarcity of a good to be factored into its price. This is a wholly good thing, as it helps us economize the use of our oil supplies. If we allow the speculators to continue doing what they're doing, we'll have a gradual increase in prices that incentivize people to gradually economize and find alternatives, instead of a sudden spike in prices when we finally run out. This is a good thing.
Click to expand...

Somebody's been reading Adam Smith.
 
Manos: The Hans of Fate said:
Click the total number of posts on the main forum page.
Click to expand...

interesting. just wanted to check who had the most posts in the drunk thread. unsurprisingly, it is the king himself..
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom