Occupy Wall Street

[runawayjimbo]

My confusion around the Occupy protests centers on just what "fair" means.  I agree with the general sentiment of the movement, that wealth disparity is growing in the country and that disparirty has been enabled by Washington, greed, and a complacent society. I agree  that certainly feels unfair.  As a serious student of history, I am cautious of arguments based on historical data given that most people who present those arguments are unaware of the how to frame those statistics in a historically responsable way. 

I am afraid that ultimately, any number concocted to remedy that situation, weither by regulation or taxation, is really just a shot in the dark, one based on sentiment and feeling rather than rationality.  If the movement is going to gain my support I'm gonna need a little more than slogans and general anti-capitialist rhetoric.  I need a sound plan that makes a rational argument for change and I need to know that the Occupy groups espouse those arguements, at least generally.  Without central, rationally constructed arguements, its hard for me not to view the Occupy movement as little more than a left leaning party enamored with 60's style demonstration. 

It's still pretty early in the movement, I'm holding out final judgement until things mature a little bit.

Well said, nab.

I think my frustration with the protesters comes from the lack of clarity in the movement. The financial crisis and resulting recession provided an amazing opportunity to affect real change and to address many of the underlying issues the protesters are talking about. But they have consciously chosen to make this a movement about ideas (oftentimes the wrong ideas, IMO) and not solutions.

Of course the gov't should not be bailing banks out, but that doesn't mean they should be bailing you out. Obviously money has too much influence over gov't, but you can't solve that by giving more power to the gov't. Yes, college is too expensive and anyone who wants to go should have that option, but forgiving student loan debt will make that more difficult, not less.

Like you said, greater regulation/taxation is not a systemic change. It is a reactionary response that would ultimately lead to greater inequity. Perhaps I should be as tempered in my response to the movement as you, but I just feel like I can see where this is going and it is not where it should be. I honestly do hope I am wrong.

I also feel like getting "evicted" from the park and other occupations is the best possible thing for the movement. That was a tactic to get noticed and prove that they are sick of the current state of things. It worked. Now it is time to decide what they are protesting for and how they envision implementing the change they seek. If they can't do that and continue to fixate on occupying everything and the evils of an economic system from which they continue to benefit, OWS will be this decade's WTO protest and remembered only as a fleeting pastime.

[VDB]

Ultimately, for better or worse, change comes from within the system itself. We aren't in the habit of holding periodic coups.

The movement will remain nebulous and somewhat ineffective until it inspires (as happened with the tea party movement) candidates who are able to coalesce the OWS sentiments into coherent, actionable ideas and strategies -- and then, of course, get elected on those ideas and put them into place.

[runawayjimbo]

Sounds like chaos in Zuccotti Park

1:52 PM Anjali Mullany John Doyle reports that a cop has been hit in the head by a bottle in Zuccotti Park.

1:53 PM Meena Hartenstein DEVELOPING: Our photographer is hearing over the police radio that an officer has been stabbed in the hand in the park.

[rowjimmy]

Funny how you don't mention the protester who was stomped into a curb by the police while they prevented citizens from entering or exiting the park.

[VDB]

You can tell Fox News is taking these folks seriously...  :roll:

[Hicks]

Yeah pretty convinced that jimbo is a mole for Fox News at this point.

[runawayjimbo]

Yeah pretty convinced that jimbo is a mole for Fox News at this point.

If I remember correctly, you were the neocon defending the invasion of Libya and the assassination of al-Awlaki. Just because we don't see eye to eye on economic issues doesn't mean you have to get all hurtful.

[shoreline99]

From the NY POST

...At about the same time, a contingent of protesters decided to storm City Hall, but unknowingly ran to the Department of Education building on Chambers Street. Once there, they comically chanted, “Bloomberg must go! Bloomberg must go!”

Finally, one of the clueless demonstrators realized the mistake and told the others: “This isn’t City Hall?”

They then ran to 1 Centre Street, where one exclaimed: “There it is! That’s City Hall!” and the chanting resumed.

[nab]

Regardless of the origin or the perpetrators, violence based on percieved differences is not part of a democratic or rational process.


That goes for the protesters and the cops imo.

[sls.stormyrider]

From the NY POST

...At about the same time, a contingent of protesters decided to storm City Hall, but unknowingly ran to the Department of Education building on Chambers Street. Once there, they comically chanted, "Bloomberg must go! Bloomberg must go!"

Finally, one of the clueless demonstrators realized the mistake and told the others: "This isn't City Hall?"

They then ran to 1 Centre Street, where one exclaimed: "There it is! That's City Hall!" and the chanting resumed.

LOL

as far as what it wall means, fairness to me means that laws and regulations aren't bought and paid for, and writtent by, for the exlusive benefit of the "haves", or the 1% at the expense of everyone else.
Inequality will exist, but give everyone the same chance to get ahead. That same chance is diminishing.
tell me I'm a naive, unrealistic,  idealist.
I know.

[UncleEbinezer]

From the NY POST

...At about the same time, a contingent of protesters decided to storm City Hall, but unknowingly ran to the Department of Education building on Chambers Street. Once there, they comically chanted, "Bloomberg must go! Bloomberg must go!"

Finally, one of the clueless demonstrators realized the mistake and told the others: "This isn't City Hall?"

They then ran to 1 Centre Street, where one exclaimed: "There it is! That's City Hall!" and the chanting resumed.

LOL

as far as what it wall means, fairness to me means that laws and regulations aren't bought and paid for, and writtent by, for the exlusive benefit of the "haves", or the 1% at the expense of everyone else.
Inequality will exist, but give everyone the same chance to get ahead. That same chance is diminishing.
tell me I'm a naive, unrealistic,  idealist.
I know.

Your point is right on, but yes, it is idealistic.  I don't want to call it naive or unrealistic because I hope as well, I just don't see it changing anytime soon.  The reality is the $ has and probably always will make the US keep ticking. 

Hopefully there is a way to make it better, but when you go into the wrong building, its hard to make your point.   :-P

[nab]

From the NY POST

...At about the same time, a contingent of protesters decided to storm City Hall, but unknowingly ran to the Department of Education building on Chambers Street. Once there, they comically chanted, "Bloomberg must go! Bloomberg must go!"

Finally, one of the clueless demonstrators realized the mistake and told the others: "This isn't City Hall?"

They then ran to 1 Centre Street, where one exclaimed: "There it is! That's City Hall!" and the chanting resumed.

LOL

as far as what it wall means, fairness to me means that laws and regulations aren't bought and paid for, and writtent by, for the exlusive benefit of the "haves", or the 1% at the expense of everyone else.
Inequality will exist, but give everyone the same chance to get ahead. That same chance is diminishing.
tell me I'm a naive, unrealistic,  idealist.
I know.

I suppose what I was getting at in the whole fairness descussion is that I am looking for an arguement somewhere along the lines of:


Fairness=X, where X is a real number that can be defined  by Y, where Y=emperical data used to support X.  Ideally, X would also be supported philosophically through a strong ethical arguement that can opperate outside of partisan rhetoric. 




Edit:  Now who's the idealist, lol

[Hicks]

Yeah pretty convinced that jimbo is a mole for Fox News at this point.

If I remember correctly, you were the neocon defending the invasion of Libya and the assassination of al-Awlaki. Just because we don't see eye to eye on economic issues doesn't mean you have to get all hurtful.

We invaded Libya?

Necons supported our actions there?

Both news to me.

[gah]

From the NY POST

...At about the same time, a contingent of protesters decided to storm City Hall, but unknowingly ran to the Department of Education building on Chambers Street. Once there, they comically chanted, "Bloomberg must go! Bloomberg must go!"

Finally, one of the clueless demonstrators realized the mistake and told the others: "This isn't City Hall?"

They then ran to 1 Centre Street, where one exclaimed: "There it is! That's City Hall!" and the chanting resumed.

LOL

as far as what it wall means, fairness to me means that laws and regulations aren't bought and paid for, and writtent by, for the exlusive benefit of the "haves", or the 1% at the expense of everyone else.
Inequality will exist, but give everyone the same chance to get ahead. That same chance is diminishing.
tell me I'm a naive, unrealistic,  idealist.
I know.

I suppose what I was getting at in the whole fairness descussion is that I am looking for an arguement somewhere along the lines of:


Fairness=X, where X is a real number that can be defined  by Y, where Y=emperical data used to support X.  Ideally, X would also be supported philosophically through a strong ethical arguement that can opperate outside of partisan rhetoric. 




Edit:  Now who's the idealist, lol

I don't know how asking Wall St. and Corporations that buy off our politicians to take their money and shove it fits into that equation. But that would seem fair to me. Having elected officials that work for the people? Is that asking for too much? Probably.

[runawayjimbo]

Inequality will exist, but give everyone the same chance to get ahead. That same chance is diminishing.

Is this really true, though? What is preventing industrious and talented people from going out and getting ahead, whether that is starting a small business or developing the next Twitter?
 
Of course there will be income inequality and clearly they haves should not be able to use the gov't as their personal safety net (although I think you know what I'd say about granting the gov't the ability to do that). But wealth and income are not a fixed pies. Just because the wealthy prosper doesn't mean the poor suffer.

There was a Daily Show bit posted here somewhere where he was mocking Fox for pointing out that 99.6% of houses under the poverty line have refrigerators. But 40 years ago, that stat was only like 70%. Yes the wealthiest's incomes have gone up exceptionally but incomes for all quintiles have increased. Isn't an unequal distribution of wealth better than an equal distribution of poverty? People tend to neglect that despite income inequality (which, BTW, has been relatively flat since the mid-90s) we are remarkably more well off than most people: the poorest 5% in this country have more wealth than 70% of the rest of the world.

I don't know how asking Wall St. and Corporations that buy off our politicians to take their money and shove it fits into that equation. But that would seem fair to me. Having elected officials that work for the people? Is that asking for too much? Probably.

I don't understand why you ascribe 100% of the blame to "Wall St. and Corporations" and none of it to the elected officials who put themselves up for sale.