Occupy Wall Street

[danje]

Yeah I don't understand hating on the protesters. Something obviously isn't right and that's why they're there.

[sls.stormyrider]

unfortuantely solutions are hard to come by.
the current inequality isn't just in the tax code, it is present in many facets of commerce and regulation.
I believe in capitolism, but unfettered capitalism is just as repressive as any dictatorship. The current income inequality of the US is a demonstration of this.

if nothing else, this is sending a message that we are fed up, much in the way the Tea Party did 2 years ago, much in the way the Viet Nam protests did 35 years ago.

Will anything come of it? don't know - maybe different people will get elected. Maybe some of our elected officials will say no to Wall Street and their free ride.
We need to let the politicians know that we know what they are doing and don't like it.


Meanwhile...
The GOP goes along and filibusters the job bill. It would have lost in the House anyway, and it's not a perfect bill by any stretch but even Eric Cantor said there are some things there they could work with.
Compromise is gone.
If Obama said we should proclaim Apple Pie and ice cream as the typical American desert, every member of the GOP would stop eating apple pie and ice cream no matter how much they liked it, fillibuster the bill, and fox news would come up with stories about how bad apple pie is.

[runawayjimbo]

Pie Guy: I agree with you 100% the financial industry needs to be (and probably definitely won't) be held accountable for their actions (as I've said elsewhere, I do support this aspect of the protest but that seems to get lost in the circus). But that's not even mentioned in Taibbi's list. And I can't get why you'd want to increase the SEC's oversight when they've already shown they can't (or won't) do their job now? I also fail to see how any of Taibbi's suggestions would have prevented the crisis or would bring about enough change to the system to prevent one in the future. If you're interested, my thoughts on Taibbi's 5 demands is below.

Matt: Yes, I am mad how the gov't is beholden to corporate interests and if OWS ends up changing that I will gladly say "Wow, I was completely wrong." But when I hear they have demands like "Free college education" and "A minimum $20/hr living wage" and "Stop lab testing on animals" I don't see how they are trying to bring about the change you mention. It seems to me like they are just using this protest to push any and every progressive agenda they can think of and/or are pissy that they're not the ones sucking on the gov't teat like the financial industry is. If you don't support bailouts for Wall St, you can't turn around and say "Where's my free shit?"

Sunrise: I'm not saying they need to abstain from anything. I'm just pointing out the hypocrisy of saying "Capitalism/corporations are evil" as they demonstrate just how much they benefit from the only economic system that could afford them all the modern comforts they so revile.

nab: All great points, but I had a tough time focusing because Young Bobby is so dreamy.


As for Taibbi's suggested OWS demands:

1. Break up the monopolies - Here's a novel idea: if a bank (or any private company) makes bad decisions, you could actually let it fail. I fail to see how separating investment and commercial banks would have prevented this (or a future) crisis. I agree when Taibbi says they are above the law, but that's only because their regulators work for them so why would we want to give the regulators even more power? Saying breaking them up would solve the problem is as delusional to me as GOPers who say they will balance the budget without touching defense, Social Security, or Medicare. Also, as a free marketer, I have a tough time when the gov't gets to decide what constitutes "too big". However, I would understand there needs to ba a transition to get to a true free market. I would suggest something more along the lines of removing executives' limited liability, effectively rendering them general partnerships of years past. That would in turn make them far more risk averse and itself would likely start a de-consolidation that would get to the same end without the using arbitrary "you're too big" mandates.

2. Pay for your own bailouts - I fundamentally disagree with this on 3 fronts:

(1) Gathering data on the bailout scorecard is notoriously difficult (a good, albeit slightly out of date, article on why here). However, ProPublica maintains a listing of bailout recipients and how much they've taken and returned. Look at the list of banks and financial companies and you'll see nearly all of the money has been paid back. The outstanding bailout money is overwhelmingly due to Fannie/Freddie (55%), AIG (17%), and GM/GMAC (13%) and of that AIG is probably the only one with any chance of returning the funds (and Fannie/Freddie will be a total loss). So I'm not sure what he's suggesting needs to be paid back with the tax.

(2) As stated in #1, I don't believe the gov't should be bailing private companies out of their bad decisions in the first place. I guess Taibbi is already assuming bailouts will continue into the future (which in itself proves this is not real reform) and that this would help deter companies from making risky decisions. So this tax on all trades would ostensibly build up a rainy day fund for future bailouts. But as with the Social Security Trust Fund, that money would likely be raided at some point to pay for whatever else the gov't needs money for and we're left no better off than before.

(3) Adding a levy on every trade adds distortions in the marketplace and that only provides an opportunity for someone to arbitrage these effects. But who would be most likely to concoct such a strategy? The very institutions (banks, hedge funds, etc.) he is railing against. Who would likely suffer? The average individual who is unable to take advantage of the assymetric information this tax would add.

3. No public money for private lobbying - Until when, when they pay the money back? Or does taking a bailout (again, see #1) get you a lifetime ban on lobbying? How do you enforce this? And what about other industries that receive public money in the form of subsidies? Should they be banned as well, or is this just a punishment on the financial industry? I see the populism in this, but it's not a very well-thought out demand IMO. I also put some of the onus on the American people. Tired of corporate money buying elections? Maybe if people took more of a role in the political process that wouldn't be such a issue. Turnout in 2008 was the highest it's been since 1968 and it was still only 57%.

4. Tax hedge-fund gamblers - Duh, but again, how would this change their behaviors? Also, once you start putting loopholes on the table (which I fully support), don't be surprised if some of the more lucrative loopholes from which many people benefit are also called into question (e.g., mortgage deduction).

5. Change the way bankers get paid - The role of compensation should be left to company Board's and their owners. They are tasked with designing a structure that encourages executives to generate profits while taking into consideration a longer term view than just this year's earnings. If they fuck up and hire an arrogant dick like Cassano or Dick Fuld or if they develop a package that gives exceutives improper incentives like maximizing short term gains, it's on them (see #1).

[nab]

Yeah I don't understand hating on the protesters. Something obviously isn't right and that's why they're there.

Kinda like the Tea Party?   :roll:


In all seroiusness, while the two movements are not on paralell trajectories, there are some similarirites:


1.  Accusations by rival political groups of covert elite backing of the movement (Koch Bros. vs. Soros)
2.  Both are grassroots, populist, and decentralized.
3.  They both oppose the bailout of Wall St.
4.  While the TP is out and out against Obama, the OWS is simply disillusioned
5.  Both have the potential to further divide the populous by radicalizing leftist and rightist agendas.
6.  The media hasn't a clue how to accurately portray either group.
7.  Both, at this point, opperate through sweeping generalization and speculation in order to drum up populist support (taxed enough already vs. corporate greed).

[mattstick]

Matt: Yes, I am mad how the gov't is beholden to corporate interests and if OWS ends up changing that I will gladly say "Wow, I was completely wrong." But when I hear they have demands like "Free college education" and "A minimum $20/hr living wage" and "Stop lab testing on animals" I don't see how they are trying to bring about the change you mention. It seems to me like they are just using this protest to push any and every progressive agenda they can think of and/or are pissy that they're not the ones sucking on the gov't teat like the financial industry is. If you don't support bailouts for Wall St, you can't turn around and say "Where's my free shit?"

I doubt everyone who marched on Washington, or took part in any multitude of 60s protests had the exact same ideals.  I bet some of those people were there just to smoke weed... does that discredit the entire movement?

You may be correct in that some people are there for the wrong reasons, but this is a grassroots populous movement.  Bringing attention to income inequality is their greatest achievement.  Politicians will notice, if they're around long enough they can and will bring about change.

As for your breakdown of Taibbi's suggestions, I think you're way off.  Wall Street received too much bail out money not to be reformed.  Returning to closer regulations won't harm the industry at all.  Yes, once you pay back your bail out, you can lobby again.  Once you've paid back your bail out, per transaction taxes can be reformed/remodelled.

Sorry, but your idea of sound business/government relationships is just too laissez-faire for my tastes.

[runawayjimbo]

Personally I think it's great that at least people are trying to do something rather than sitting on their asses watching Two and a Half Men.

I absolutely agree with this (although I'd have said the Kardashians). I think my frustration is more from the fact that they are (IMO) missing a rare and valuable opportunity to bring about change with their lack of a focused message. But you are right, a more aware and involved populous should be applauded.

I doubt everyone who marched on Washington, or took part in any multitude of 60s protests had the exact same ideals.  I bet some of those people were there just to smoke weed... does that discredit the entire movement?

Not at all. But they did at least have a single, common theme and a measurable, definitive outcome they were trying to bring about. You might be able to make the case that OWS satisfies the first point, but I think you'd be hard pressed to argue the latter.

You may be correct in that some people are there for the wrong reasons, but this is a grassroots populous movement.  Bringing attention to income inequality is their greatest achievement.  Politicians will notice, if they're around long enough they can and will bring about change.

That's where we differ: I don't believe gov't has the power to reduce income inequality. Taxes and wealth redistribution can only go so far and are certainly not a sustainable long term strategy. I'm of the belief that high employment and sustained growth is the best way to reduce the disparity and that a free market for goods and labor is the best way to achieve that.

As for your breakdown of Taibbi's suggestions, I think you're way off.  Wall Street received too much bail out money not to be reformed.  Returning to closer regulations won't harm the industry at all.  Yes, once you pay back your bail out, you can lobby again.  Once you've paid back your bail out, per transaction taxes can be reformed/remodelled.

As I said, I want reform, I just don't think Taibbi's demands amount to more than minor tweaks to the status quo, not the kind of systemic reform needed to ensure future crises are averted.

Sorry, but your idea of sound business/government relationships is just too laissez-faire for my tastes.

Understood, but I'd expect nothing less from a Canuck, eh? :wink:

[mattstick]

Remember when all the de-regulated banks from the USA went broke and got bought up by the stable, well-regulated Canadian banks?  That was awesome.

[runawayjimbo]

Remember when all the de-regulated banks from the USA went broke and got bought up by the stable, well-regulated Canadian banks?  That was awesome.

I remember when the US banks were crippled by an easy money, credit fueled consumption crisis intentionally created by a bumbling Fed chairman and encouraged by a federal gov't who actively pushed home ownership to people who couldn't afford it. To me that highlights the failure of gov't intervention in a free market, not a victory for tight regulation. But I guess we'll see as Canada's housing bubble starts to crack and the Bank of Canada follows the Fed in keeping interest rates artificially low.

[mattstick]

Believe me, as someone on the verge of getting into home ownership I would love for the housing market to be a little bit softer - but there is no bubble to burst.

[McGrupp]

Sorry if this was posted already...

Occupy Wall Street Manifesto

Declaration of the Occupation of New York City

As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.

As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.
They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one's skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.
They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.
They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers' healthcare and pay.
They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
They have sold our privacy as a commodity.
They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press. They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.
They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people's lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.
They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.
They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts. *

To the people of the world,

We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.

Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.

To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.

Join us and make your voices heard!

*These grievances are not all-inclusive.

http://kiradavis.wordpress.com/2011/10/04/read-the-occupy-wall-street-manifesto-oh-yes-it-exists/

[McGrupp]

My problem with that (above) is the use of the word "They". Who is "they"?

The manifesto is like a sawed-off shotgun - a huge blanket of grievances aimed at everyone who is doing wrong in corporations and the government. It addresses food safety, college loans, oil spills, government corruption, corporate corruption. All of those things are completely worth addressing, but for this to be their message...? It's just too broad. Who can answer to that? If this is the 99%'s call to action, who within the 1% is going to respond? Everyone? No one?

It just seems to me that this whole thing will not bring about any substantial amount of change, unless everyone in the "1%" admits fault/guilt/whatever you want to call it and tries to rectify the situation - I just don't see that happening.

I am completely for the protests, and the grassroots movement, if done for the right reasons. Like matt said, of course there are people there just to be there. That doesn't make the protest any less powerful. It just seems relatively aimless right now.

And I think they should have put a little more thought into that manifesto before releasing it.

But what do I know - I'm just a cynical college kid who probably underestimates his own power within "the system".

[mattstick]

[mattstick]

http://occupylosangeles.org/?q=node/417

But when a group of protestors started holding up signs in Zucotti Park three weeks ago, I didn't pay much attention. When they grew in numbers, I scoffed at them. When Michael Moore showed up, and the Unions pitched in, I did a bit of mild mocking, but my curiosity was piqued. When NYPD responded with brutality, I was shocked, but thought, 'Well, maybe it'll all calm down now. They can't really expect anything to change'. And then I looked around, and I realized I sounded like everyone else. The people who represented everything I no longer believed in. I sounded like Erin Burnett on CNN. My writing about Occupy Wall Street resembled that now-maligned New York Times piece. I could have been an anchor on Fox News, for godsakes.

[phil]

Perhaps Occupy Wall Street isn't a protest but is a process to figure out exactly what is wrong and what the solutions may be.

Personally I think it's great that at least people are trying to do something rather than sitting on their asses watching Two and a Half Men.

While I agree with you that people need to be doing something, I'd like to see their efforts channeled more constructively. Like, for example, working your ass off to get to where you want to be in life.  I'm sure people will flame away and say "easier said than done", etc. but it's better to try and be productive than to just mill around in the street with a sign.

[mattstick]

I honestly can't believe how badly you're missing the point phil.

People who work hard every day are having their homes foreclosed or have lost half their pensions while people who push paper give themselves $100million bonuses for bankrupting the Global Economy.

I dare you to read this...
http://www.rollingstone.com/politics/news/the-great-american-bubble-machine-20100405