Thread: Occupy Wall Street

Many to the right have branded these protesters as "misguided," and are attempting to deflect their anger away from the coruption of Wall Street and Corporate America, and direct it towards Washington and the current administration. This uprising equals a lot of votes, and both parties realize this.

Are these people misguided, or are they dead on? Has capitalism finally reached a breaking point to where it is in need of a complete overhaul? Has it became a victim of its own voraciousness in an unjust system where the greedy (the 1 %) will never regulate themselves? Is it acceptable that Main Street (the 99 %) is required to pay for the sins of the rich, such as those who brought the sky falling down in "08 -- who remain unscathed and even wealthier at our expense? Is it acceptable that American working men and women now share the smallest portion of the economic pie since the Great Depression, while CEO's and upper management are enjoying larger slices than ever before? Has the wealth gap finally gotten so large that the rungs on the economic ladder are now set too far apart to catch up and overtake those above?

I believe the easy answer is to call these people a "lazy entitlement class," who don't want to work to achieve success and who blame the rich for all of their problems.

So the question up for debate is: Are these people misguided or is their movement just and long overdue? I think you all know my position on this.

Some food for thought... The Top 5 Facts About America

Don't have an answer.

Other than I would say, if you want to get rich you should probably focus your energies in ways and directions that are more likely to make you rich. I read a New York sociology student writing on the internet about how this is a revolution and yada yada yada. He championed the cause of the protestors. My first thought was that a sociology major is unlikely to lead you to the kind of wealth obtainable in the financial markets.

My other immediate thought is that the bulk (not all) of our poor in the U.S. today are not impoverished like the bulk of the poor were in the 1920's.

I don't think the poor are simply stupid. I don't think hard work simply leads to wealth. I do think are choices significantly determine were we will be in our 40's and 50's. I don't think any of it's fair per se. I just think it's the way it is: Darwinian. Meaning the world is competitive and there will be losers. And so far as I can tell life is better for the winners.

But there is something to be said for collective outrage and protestation. It's a chess move in a competition against the winners were the losers never give up. There is something noble in that.

I don't think the protestors are going to have much of an impact. That won't change until you start getting more every day people who right now go to work, raise their kids, and pay their bills. Until then, the protestors will be looked at as a very small minority or fringe (which is what they are at the moment).

It was like when the Iraq War started and you had protests around the country. You could tell just by looking at the turn out and at who was showing up to them that they were going to be a non-factor. I friend of mine who is a university professor went to some of these and was upset when I pointed out what I thought was pretty clear, that they weren't going to amount to anything. I said of those protests that they didn't have enough mainstream support and that they would be a non-issue overall, and that they would slowly fizzle out as people got tired of going to them and/or found better things to do.

Unless something changes dramatically to get more people involved in this new set of protests, they'll go right down the same path. If you look at a nation of 300 million people and say "capitalism has reached a breaking point" because 0.00006% of the population shows up for protests (granting the protestors 20,000 in the movement which may be generous), you're stretching.

Heck, the tea party movement nationwide dwarfed the occupy wall street protestors in number, and they have practically the opposite message in many respects. So where does that leave things?

Start waking up the relatively quiet bulk of the populace and you'll have something.

Well, I think the movement is just, long overdue, and misguided.

They are protesting Wall Street, but as you said they are being pointed at the government. I agree this group will never regulate themselves, so the government has to step in at this point and do it.

The country is "too big to fail", and the government now needs to step in and bail out the people. This bail out takes the form of protection from an ever-increasing self interest and movement to centralize power by an incredibly rich and powerful top percentile of the population.

Other than I would say, if you want to get rich you should probably focus your energies in ways and directions that are more likely to make you rich. I read a New York sociology student writing on the internet about how this is a revolution and yada yada yada. He championed the cause of the protestors. My first thought was that a sociology major is unlikely to lead you to the kind of wealth obtainable in the financial markets.

Is this what they are about though? Are they angry because they are not rich? This seems to be what many are trying to portray them as -- people who are upset because they are not rich like the 1%. There are well-to-do people among them, and from what I gather, they have denied offers for funding thus far, unlike their polar opposites, The Tea Partiers, who have the luxury of corporate funding from the powers that be who think Obama is threatening their profit structure. My own view of these protesters is that they are angry with injustices that are carried out by these elitists who obtain their wealth at the cost and on the backs of the honest working man.

if you want to get rich you should probably focus your energies in ways and directions that are more likely to make you rich.

You may scoff at this statement, but if I was wealthy beyond my wildest dreams, I would still relate to and support these people. I could never join or support an elitist's world where greed is no longer a sin, but a virtue to be admired. There is nothing wrong in my or the protesters' eyes with those who are wealthy... if they did it and continue to do it the right way -- the honest way. I don't see this movement as poor versus wealthy, I see it as right versus wrong.

Nothing will change regardless, these people are trying to draw attention to this subject which is all they can do. The banking system and the people behind it are way to well connected and organised and powerful for a few demanstrators to dislodge or cause any real change. This world is going through change and where these changes will end or take us is a big unkown?

I do not have any faith in our so called leaders in the states or the UK. I do believe they start out wanting to change things and make a difference but very soon they are held to task by the system. The system being big bussiness banking and major corporations. In the Uk they are talking now about a recession of huge proportions and very very deep and maybe even causing wars !!! It's scary to think of things going so badly wrong on both sides of the big pond but thats what happens after years of unchecked credit and greed by the big boys.

Who's to blame ? All of us but the big bussiness guys new what was coming and they say back and let the TAX payers dig them out of the hole. The answer is hard and no one really wants to grasp the nettle but sooner or later we will have to sort it out. I could bang on about this all night but only time will tell what will happen. As for myself i haven't voted for anyone for yeears as i don't have faith in any of the parties, sad but true and i do feel ashamed that i feel this but my heart tells the truth and i go with that.

Originally Posted by Brock

Is this what they are about though? Are they angry because they are not rich? This seems to be what many are trying to portray them as -- people who are upset because they are not rich like the 1%. There are well-to-do people among them, and from what I gather, they have denied offers for funding thus far, unlike their polar opposites, The Tea Partiers, who have the luxury of corporate funding from the powers that be who think Obama is threatening their profit structure. My own view of these protesters is that they are angry with injustices that are carried out by these elitists who obtain their wealth at the cost and on the backs of the honest working man.



You may scoff at this statement, but if I was wealthy beyond my wildest dreams, I would still relate to and support these people. I could never join or support an elitist's world where greed is no longer a sin, but a virtue to be admired. There is nothing wrong in my or the protesters' eyes with those who are wealthy... if they did it and continue to do it the right way -- the honest way. I don't see this movement as poor versus wealthy, I see it as right versus wrong.

I think you might have been misunderstanding me in some ways.

Some of the protestors may be rich, and some may not desire to become rich (though, "rich" may be partly subjective here, given some U.S. poor live like kings compared to the poor in literal abject poverty in some developing nations) but I'm just saying if one desires to be rich they should put energies in that direction, directions that gives them the best odds.

I hold little sympathy to anyone who protests against a system without providing a viable alternative.

Frankly, there isn't a single successful country out there that does not base its economy on capitalism. Socialism works best when mixed with capitalistic policies to attain some balance of power of sorts, but deep inside it's nothing but capitalism with government regulations. Since there are no better alternatives, I don't see how this protest will change anything for the better.

Sure, the curve of wealth and people is quite steep, but we have to face that compared to what has come before, it is rather gentle. What we need is not socialist politicians or Marx wannabes. We need a better system if we are to move on from capitalism, not place our bets on a pseudo-tribal system that has its grounds on an utopian reality and that has never, in its purest sense, succeeded before.

Lets just gather a bunch of famous philosophers and economists and see what comes out

So the question up for debate is: Are these people misguided or is their movement just and long overdue?

Here again we are faced with a question that essentially has to do, not with right/wrong, good/bad, but with belief. Either protesters are misguided or... whatever the other thing is, I forget. (Don't think I'm picking on ya. I just like finding stuff to mess with on the internet and this gives me something to occupy the part of my brain that isn't already occupied with transcribing medical reports. If I thought it was a dumb or pointless question, I would leave it alone.)

There are many things we can learn by reading, of course. We can learn how to cook a roast, fix a motorcycle, or even do something pretty complicated like care for a human infant by reading. That's why we are all--regardless of belief--writers, or aspiring writers. Reading is important; it makes us civilized, it helps us survive. It entertains us.

However, in matters of right/wrong, good/bad, reading serves us little if at all. We can read and read and read about protesting, and goodness or badness of protesting will remain as elusive as ever.

If you want to know what to write about something that is, let's call it SUBJECTIVE--like protesting--then you will have to experience it directly. Once you have, and seen for yourself what it's all about at least from your perspective, then you will have a better impression of whether it's good or bad.

Like your "inherently good/inherently evil" question, this question presumes that all members of a set are alike; that the same characteristics are shared by all or most. Even if all you do is read about the protesters, you'll quickly find that there are people protesting at these events for all kinds of reasons ranging from "give me all your money NOW" to "I'm here because I'm avoiding a warrant" to [incoherent babbling] to "I'm against the war(s)" to "I'm trying to sell my homemade incense" to "I haven't been laid in three years and I figured I had a chance here." (I'm not making these up, by the way. I spend a lot of time reading the news and watching video clips about things that interest me.)

But can you know the collective mind of the protesters from simply reading about them? (especially keeping in mind that whatever source you're reading from is more than likely biased)

Respectfully: I don't think you can. (NOTE: I'm using the editorial "you" here, as the OP has already made up his/her mind about the protesters. The question is a lot like one I'm dealing with here in what-you-call "real life" so I'm just using this as an opportunity to think out loud about it. See below.)

For example, there was a lot of news coverage about the protests in Egypt a few months ago. Many people sympathized with the plight of the Egyptians and wished them well. Flash forward a few months and now we find that the same protesters who "won" their cause by ousting a disfavored leader are going from house to house beating their neighbors to death over religious differences.

Many of the journalists/bloggers who wrote about the protests painted everything in very glowing terms, in spite of the jarring overtones of violence and chaos. If all you had done was read about the protests, you would have gathered that things went ok, hardly any lives were lost, and now Egypt is doing great!!...except it's not. The more recent massacres have not gotten as much coverage as the original protests did.

But if you had actually been in Egypt to see what was going on when the protests started--if you were brave or foolhardy enough--then the overtones of violence and chaos would have been evident everywhere around you.

So that brings us back to this "belief" thing. The internet discussion forum is a reading/writing medium, even if the subject is not writing. If you ask a question about belief, you will find out what others believe soon enough. It may be helpful in terms of figuring out which side to be on if things start to get stressful, but if you are really not just asking this question in idleness, and you really don't know what to think about the protesters and are polling the group for input--remember it's all reading here, with direct experience running a distant second.

And since it's the internet, many people who read these words are going to be kinda short on life experience, whether from youth, isolation, disability, etc. They will have opinions based on what they have READ, as their experiences with day-to-day "real" life are limited.

-----------

A close friend recently tried to antagonize me by stating that he was very sympathetic to the "Occupy Wall Street" protesters. I think he was looking for a fight (he did get one that day, but it was about something else), but I told him that instead of me telling him what I thought about it, he should just, you know, go DO it. Go protest, talk to people, get busted, and have the experience.

His very quick reply was that he had already done that (he threw a few bricks at the World Trade Center back in the early 1980s, I guess) and that he didn't want to do it again.

Since I know my friend, I knew what he was really saying was that he would rather be boiled in oil than have to be around people like that again. (Did I LOL? Yes, I did!)

Again: Don't take this like I'm knocking you or whatever. I talk like this to everybody.

---------

(Later) The same friend I was just talking about is here & gave me a few more details about his protest experiences; one of the things he saw was another of his punk rock buddies get his skull broke by a cop. Bad cop, bad cop! right? But the cops were ordering them to disperse, and this kid started cursing at them, and one thing led, as first causes so often do, to a broken head. (Like anybody needs to tell me how cops are. I still have nerve damage in my left hand because of something a cop did to me when I was 20, lol.)

My friend said "that's just how cops are, ya know?" to which I replied "your friend just needed to have that experience at that particular time; what did you do?"

"I got the hell out of there. My protesting days ended at that moment." (In other words, he's still talking the talk, but never really did walk the walk.)

I hope this was helpful.

Originally Posted by elite

I hold little sympathy to anyone who protests against a system without providing a viable alternative.

Why place constraints on the replacement system not satisfied by the current? The major complaint is the current system isn't viable. Politicians are in place to lead the people and represent them in government. I think it's a viable complaint for the people to go forth and say "the current deal isn't working, provide us an alternative."

Originally Posted by elite

Frankly, there isn't a single successful country out there that does not base its economy on capitalism. Socialism works best when mixed with capitalistic policies to attain some balance of power of sorts, but deep inside it's nothing but capitalism with government regulations. Since there are no better alternatives, I don't see how this protest will change anything for the better.

Well, that's a matter of perception, isn't it? Perhaps all the successful countries are Socialist countries with some capitalistic freedoms?

I would suggest there are at least 12 better alternatives:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quality-of-life_Index

1	Ireland	8.333
2	Switzerland	8.068
3	Norway	8.051
4	Luxembourg	8.015
5	Sweden	7.937
6	Australia	7.925
7	Iceland	7.911
8	Italy	7.810
9	Denmark	7.797
10	Spain	7.727
11	Singapore	7.719
12	Finland	7.618
13	United States	7.615

Being a touch biased towards my own country, I'd rank Canada above them as well (instead of trailing just slightly at 14.)

That six year old list probably looks a bit different now, with what's going on in the Euro zone.

Originally Posted by Steerpike

That six year old list probably looks a bit different now, with what's going on in the Euro zone.

You're right. Canada has moved up to 8th, and the United States has dropped to 33rd.

2010 Quality of Life Index « Nation Ranking

Originally Posted by Capulet

Why place constraints on the replacement system not satisfied by the current? The major complaint is the current system isn't viable. Politicians are in place to lead the people and represent them in government. I think it's a viable complaint for the people to go forth and say "the current deal isn't working, provide us an alternative."

Because no other existing alternatives have worked. It is capitalism, or socio-capitalism. Everything else has failed horribly or yielded a much worse wealth distribution.

Well, that's a matter of perception, isn't it? Perhaps all the successful countries are Socialist countries with some capitalistic freedoms?

As I said, it is not socialism with a few sprinkles of capitalism; it's the other way around. Socialism doesn't even have a concept of currency; having government support, public education, healthcare and market regulations does not equate to socialism. What will protesting against capitalism accomplish when no one has a better system to replace it?

As bad as it is, capitalism provides the most even distribution of wealth amongst all systems. Socialism is theoretically even but has never worked in practice.

What will protesting against capitalism accomplish when no one has a better system to replace it?

Who ever said they were protesting capitalism? From what I gather, they are protesting the corruption and injustice that has poisoned capitalism in this country. Why do I get the feeling from so many that this poison must be accepted in the name of a "free market." If free means that we are now required to pay for the sins of the rich, then consider us crucified.

Originally Posted by elite

As bad as it is, capitalism provides the most even distribution of wealth amongst all systems. Socialism is theoretically even but has never worked in practice.

You are obscuring tangible problems with a specific implementation of a system with a debate about pure theoretical systems. There are several dozen countries that have implemented economic systems with quality of life indexes far exceeding that of the United States. In the health category the US ranks 39^th, and in wealth 17^th, lagging behind their direct neighbours to the north, Canada.

There are clearly many systems out there currently in production getting it done in a significantly better fashion. The idea that there's no better system out there has been pure jingoism for decades.