David Brancaccio: When you think of debt, you probably think of a 30-year mortgage or a five-year car loan. But anthropologist David Graeber looks at debt differently. He examines debt through the Millennia. He's with Goldsmiths -- University of London and his new book, "Debt: The First 5,000 Years," goes into the idea of debt, and if we really, really have to pay back what we owe.
Professor Graeber, thanks for joining us.
David Graeber: Thank you.
Brancaccio: Of course, it's morally wrong not to pay your debts back. I mean, your folks didn't teach you that?
Graeber: Well, one of the things that I discovered, when looking at history, is that people always say that. But in practice, it's not really the case -- especially people on the top of the food chain. They know that everything's negotiable. The strict morality of debt tends to be for the little people.
Brancaccio: But it's so deeply ingrained. Here, you may have heard the following lines. The actor is Al Pacino, the screen writer is William Shakespeare.
Al Pacino: The pound of flesh that I demand of him is dearly bought. T'is mine. T'is mine!
Brancaccio: And I will have it. I mean, the person who wants his money back is traditionally seen as a person who needs to get his money back.
Graeber: And he's also the villain, isn't he. That's the fascinating thing. Throughout human history, people have tried to reconcile too completely unreconcilable ideas: Morality is paying your debts, money lenders are evil.
Brancaccio: So we love credit, we just don't often love the image of the person we owe the money to.
Graeber: Precisely.
Brancaccio: But this notion of that you're a bad person if you don't pay your debts back, you're saying is actually up for discussion?
Graeber: Absolutely. I mean, a debt is a promise. It's a certain type of promise, it's a promise that can be quantified. And therefore it's a promise that can be transferred to other people.
Brancaccio: But, a debt is a contract and it's argued quite persuasively that rule of law and enforceable contracts are what allowed us to achieve the standards of living that we have. Yes, contract law is not a law of physics, it is a human construct. But by accepting contract law, a lot of good flowed from it.
Graeber: Certainly, but there's contract law and there's contract law. Throughout human history, debts have been renegotiated. In fact, most of the most successful civilizations in human history always had some way of readjusting debt so you don't end up in a situation where the big people end up effectively enslaving the little people.
In Mesopotamia, for example, they had debt cancellation. It was almost a systematic thing. Every new king who'd come in would say, "All right, clean slate. Start over a gain." The biblical Jubilee was the same thing; every seven years, debts would be canceled.
Brancaccio: Are there good uses of debt?
Graeber: Absolutely. I mean, there's a lot of small-scale communities in Africa for example, where it's just considered right that everybody should owe each other a little. So, there are some places where debt and sociality are really the same thing.
Brancaccio: The term you're using is "sociality."
Graeber: Yeah, the idea that everybody should have links to each other. And debt was a way of making that real.
Brancaccio: You point out that a lot of very familiar English words actually descend from this idea of debt.
Graeber: Yes, "reckoning," "redemption." Even phrases like "a person of no account or worthy." They all go back to credit. Because when you don't have a state enforcing a debt, well then debts take on a whole different color. One's honor, one's decency and one's credit are basically the same thing. So whereas, for us, if you spend money helping the poor, that's probably going to lower your credit rating, because you're more likely to miss a mortgage payment. For most of human history, if you're a decent person or generous, that would actually improve your credit.
Brancaccio: So there's debt as social capital and is also, if you borrow some money to do something worth, like investing in plant and equipment to make medicines to cure tropical diseases. But there's also this other kind of debt -- quite familiar to many Americans and it sounds a lot like this from the 2009 movie "Confessions of a Shopaholic":
Rebecca Bloomwood: Rebecca Bloomwood. Occupation: Journalist. Jacket: Visa. Dress: AMEX. Belt: MasterCard. It's vintage! And I got 1 percent cashback.
Brancaccio: Gee, without debt she doesn't have any self-image at all.
Graeber: Well, in a way, credit has come to substitute for what used to be community.
Brancaccio: So it's no longer a social glue, a kind of social capital. It's something else.
Graeber: The fact that we want to buy a beer for our friends, the fact that we want to have a party for our children, that we want to take care of each other suddenly brings people in a situation where they're in constant fear and looking over their shoulders, because they're in [HOT] for their lives.
Brancaccio: So what's this you have an idea, maybe, another one of these biblical jubilees might be in order of mass debt forgiveness? What do you think?
Graeber: I think it wouldn't be a bad idea, and I've got a lot of criticism for this and it's a provocative idea. But I think we should at least think about it. Because we're using an antiquated idea of what money is. If money is just a credit system, it's a series of promises. Well, promises by definition can be renegotiated.
Brancaccio: Well, why? To get people out of this cycle of having to serve the debt that they owe and to do something, perhaps, more productive?
Graeber: Yes, I think that would free up a lot of energies of people doing things that they don't really want to be doing and work that doesn't even really need to be done.
Brancaccio: Look, if you could engineer a jubilee, and I wouldn't have to pay off the rest of my mortgage and the credit card debt that I still owe, I'll be first in line for that. Fabulous at first, but the thing is -- right? -- no one would lend again. People lend for a lot of reasons, but they especially lend to make an informed bet on the borrower's future. It's a way of turning my honor as a kind of guy who would pay back into ready cash. And that's just going to dry up credit into the future.
Graeber: Well, that's what people always say. But in fact, in the past, that's not been the case. Because what are people going to do with their money? The money really doesn't exist unless you lend it. Banks make up money by making loans. If they don't make loans, there's no bank.
Brancaccio: The front doors of the United States Federal Reserve are down at 20th and Constitution Avenue in D.C. I'll meet you down there. We can see how far we get. We'll have a chat.
Graeber: Yeah.
Brancaccio: Alright, thank you very much.
Graeber: My pleasure.
Brancaccio: David Graeber is an anthropologist at Goldsmiths - University of London. The book, "Debt: The First 5,000 Years."
I don't know if that was supposed to be a continuation of our debt discussion, but Graeber comes up with the craziest ideas. I like it. How much panic would there be on Wall Street if all OWS protesters simultaneously stopped repaying their loans? Crazy! It still might need more people to join in to make a real dent on the balance sheets.
What would happen? They would take the loss, then they probably wouldn't loan money to any other students who want to go to college unless it was self financed. Think of every high school student and college student who wants to finish college but can't. Considering the great depression was caused by the inability to pay back loans (aka easy credit) do you think that would be a good idea?
On November 03 2011 06:07 semantics wrote: slavery is the wrong word it's closer to serfdom, indentured servitude or debt bondage, basically being owed to someone, but people wont don't read early colonialism or feudalism wont know the word. It's all just basically modified formed of slavery so people use slavery. The right words tend to move discussion to one point, how people feel about words is just as important as the meaning trying to be conveyed, the words "climate change" was used by republicans to make people think of less panicky about global warming so there is more disbelief in it. Using loaded language is just a part of politics.
Debt is a bond. That's the point. Only with the bond, does a lender trust the borrower enough to hand over money. Bad debt is akin to bondage. Smart debt is opportunity. Bitch and moan about the bad debt, but there is a lot of very positive projects and activities made possible by debt. It's all a matter of learning to engage debt responsibly, and if people can't do that they have to learn or suffer the consequences. Blame the public school system perhaps.
Serfdom is a hell of a lot better than slavery and it's reason Europe came out of the middle ages with Renaissance and Trade instead of Roman proclivities to conquer all nearby civilizations for slaves. Climate Change is an own creation of the Global Warming boosters because of its vagueness and difficulty to disprove.
"Use of right words" is to frame the discussion. It's a rhetorical tactic. Doing it much is use of the language in bad faith, and the discussion becomes an argument over semantics instead of substance.
Debt is an interesting construct, as we hold virtue to pay our debts yet we dam the debt collector, the lords prayer in a non kings james version is something along the lines of "forgive us our debt as we forgive our debtors." original Hebrew and sanskrit sin and debt were the same word. Our ideas of freedom comes from debt, to be free was meant to be free from debt it's why American dream was to disappear from your previous obligation and start anew, not necessarily that any one can make it but that your history will not hinder you, the idea that the American dream is to get rich was only after the guiled age. Historically people default on their debts esp in society in which the wealth is lopsided to a small percent.
Why we have government now could be said was to deal with debts, before democracy/republics often the church was the arbiter to settle and absolve debt. Which was often after a revolt against those who are the debtors which often would not change government but rather burn the proof of collection or kill the one who holds the papers.
A debt is a bond and bonds are contracts. One function of government is the enforcement of contracts. This is a regulatory function, and it increases trust between contracting parties. The implicit and explicit guarantee made by government is to enforce the contract should should any party fail to abide by the terms. In the case of debts, it is lopsided in favor of creditors because of the timing of the loan and repayment. Debtors benefit by increased willingness to lend. On contract enforcement, it is one matter to defy one out of bad faith. It is another to fail because of extenuating circumstances.
Considering that many early people arrived as indentured servants, the American dream was not entirely to be free from debts but new opportunity away from the Old World. Their history in their old life did not hinder them. They are not bound by debts of prior generations. Bible does not condemn debt collectors categorically. The sins of debt collection is directed at usury, tax farming, fees and interest above and beyond actual debt. Full repayment of debt is to act in good faith and is a virtue. Collection of debts up to the amount owed is a creditor's right. There are no proscriptions against borrowing and lending to people of need or opportunity is a virtue. Motives for borrowing and lending are paramount.
The bible verse of prayer is more about sins and less about literal debts.
Well there are proscriptions against lending to a person in need instead of giving to them (ie lend and don't bother trying to collect). And all debts were (supposed to be) forgiven periodically.
On November 03 2011 22:06 FryktSkyene wrote: I praise the people that started this and not hate everyone involved. Stoping [the 99%] from working for whatever reason it may be is stupid as hell in the first place.
"Hey sorry son couldn't buy dinner tonight protesters stoped us from working but hey maybe in the long run you might be ok!"
Clearly exaggerated.
If they want to do something (which they still don't even know what they want [Stop corp. greed] shit will never get anything done. They need a clear plan or something. They need to stop acting like fools and causeing riots (There are people who want to purley cause mayhem and some people who just want a peaceful protest, sadly they get bunched together so it makes it look like there are like that.
They need to act like the tea party with their goals. -Don't leave the place trashed and smelly -Have goals -Don't cause riots (Seriously they don't have hundreds of riot police for the Tea party protests) -Please be peaceful -Don't stand in the middle of the fucking road (How the hell does that stop corp. greed. it just makes me late to work.)
I'm sure theres more but I don't care at this point as I just got home from work and i'm tired x.x
Also please note: Just because a single or a couple or police officers do something wrong like fire a flash at the person instead of near them (The marine guy) doesn't mean all police are like that, to many posts are like "occupy x police are beating people for no reason!!@!$!@#!%$!#%"
No they are not. Stop saying that shit. Thanks yo.
- They have a clear short list of some basic demands. They know what they're protesting for. - Usually they clean everything up, at least they're a lot cleaner than the average crowd who just throw all their crap on the streets - They are not causing riots... tea party has no riot police because the people who control the police don't see them as dangerous, it's exactly the same thing where the media reports 5 tea party protesters like it's a revolution but at first with OWS their tried to keep it quiet even when there were thousands of people. - Again they are peaceful. But what about where the cops ambushed them and arrested them on the bridge, or yes that flashbang incident (latest news: same cops are again shooting rubber bullets and flashbangs at those people for again no reaon other than to harass them), or many similar examples of the police being violent and not the protesters - Standing on the middle of the road, what's so bad about that? They're just trying to get attention. It's legal and they let people through, it slows you down a bit, so what? The corporate masters and corrupt politicians have a huge negative effect on the world and all the people living on it, I guess that's a more serious problem than being slowed down for a few minutes?
On November 04 2011 00:01 Kiarip wrote: ^ um... no
They don't have any demands, they're just chilling there.
way to be wrong, and then try to throw the tea party under the bus too as if they start riots. They also just come to chill with their signs.
Oh my god...
I am involved in this. I know what the demands are. The mainstream media fails at reporting them, but it is so clearly obvious.
And I NEVER said the tea party starts riots. I only said the "masters" of the police send riot police to OWS but not to the tea party, and lets police attack OWS on several occasions, while both OWS and tea party are non violent.
Stop reading what you want to read, and start reading what I'm writing.
On November 03 2011 22:06 FryktSkyene wrote: I praise the people that started this and not hate everyone involved. Stoping [the 99%] from working for whatever reason it may be is stupid as hell in the first place.
"Hey sorry son couldn't buy dinner tonight protesters stoped us from working but hey maybe in the long run you might be ok!"
Clearly exaggerated.
If they want to do something (which they still don't even know what they want [Stop corp. greed] shit will never get anything done. They need a clear plan or something. They need to stop acting like fools and causeing riots (There are people who want to purley cause mayhem and some people who just want a peaceful protest, sadly they get bunched together so it makes it look like there are like that.
They need to act like the tea party with their goals. -Don't leave the place trashed and smelly -Have goals -Don't cause riots (Seriously they don't have hundreds of riot police for the Tea party protests) -Please be peaceful -Don't stand in the middle of the fucking road (How the hell does that stop corp. greed. it just makes me late to work.)
I'm sure theres more but I don't care at this point as I just got home from work and i'm tired x.x
Also please note: Just because a single or a couple or police officers do something wrong like fire a flash at the person instead of near them (The marine guy) doesn't mean all police are like that, to many posts are like "occupy x police are beating people for no reason!!@!$!@#!%$!#%"
No they are not. Stop saying that shit. Thanks yo.
- Again they are peaceful. But what about where the cops ambushed them and arrested them on the bridge, or yes that flashbang incident (latest news: same cops are again shooting rubber bullets and flashbangs at those people for again no reaon other than to harass them), or many similar examples of the police being violent and not the protesters - Standing on the middle of the road, what's so bad about that? They're just trying to get attention. It's legal and they let people through, it slows you down a bit, so what? The corporate masters and corrupt politicians have a huge negative effect on the world and all the people living on it, I guess that's a more serious problem than being slowed down for a few minutes?
First item - those people were "ambushed" because they were walking on the roadway of the bridge, blocking traffic. The people on the walkway were not arrested. Lesson learned - don't block traffic.
Second item - Blocking traffic is disruptive to people trying to use the road for its intended purpose. Just because you don't or can't work doesn't mean it's right to block other people from getting to work, getting to school, going home, or trying to take people to the hospital.
Easy. Slavery you are forced into. No one forces you to take on debt.
Tell that to all the people who are going bankrupt and losing their homes due to health care bills.
This is one place you have a point, and a reason I support socialized medicine. Medical bills are the only thing that 99% of the time you must take on debt to pay off.
Higher education has scholarships, cheaper alternatives, and it's not required in life despite what some people might say. Food/water is cheap enough that taking a loan for it LOLworthy to me. Apartments don't require debt, neither do used cars.
Had I not decided to buy a new car about 5 years ago(which will be payed off soon despite it being 'mathematically impossible' to pay off debt) I would have 0 debt right now. I also have an engineering degree, decent apartment, and live quite comfortably.
It is mathematically impossible to pay off debt in total. It is not impossible for a person to pay off his debt, but it is impossible for the amount of debt to be reduced with even like 10%, because the money supply is hundreds of times smaller than the debt and the "modern" way of making money makes it impossible to create money without creating the same amount, or actually MORE debt.
The mathematical impossibility means that there are always people and business going bankrupt, this is unavoidable, and it will also mean this minimum amount of bankruptcies every x period of time will grow bigger and bigger until the system is stopped and debt expelled or until everyone but a tiny amount of people (banks/owners) own everything even more than they do right now.
This essentially means the people don't own anything anymore and have to work a lot more for things that can be produced for nearly no cost. Imagine a few people owning all the houses and all the water supply companies. They didn't make them or contributed significantly but they own them because of how they influenced banking. Instead of paying the operating cost, you pay dozens or hundreds of times more, making having a house and drinking water being something you need to work for a lot. This is a form of slavery, is it not?
Nope, not even close. Using your un-sourced opinion you could call it indentured servitude, but that would still probably be misuse. Also, it's not a mathematical impossibility to pay off debt in total. It's undesirable for most people, but it's certainly possible. I mean, I'm only $20k in debt with student loans right now. If I had $20k, there would be no remaining debt as I do not owe on my car and I don't have a mortgage. The whole idea of debt is that you could possibly pay it off - even if you never do.
I don't think you are really reading thoroughly. It is not impossible for a person to pay off his debt, but it is mathematically impossible to reduce the total debt of everyone and everything with a significant amount.
I'm reading fine. Because it's not slavery on a smaller scale (i.e. I am not enslaved for my own debts) it therefore remains reasonable that it cannot be slavery on a larger scale (i.e. I am not enslaved for the debts of my neighbor). Under what premises can you conclude that mass slavery exists but individual slavery does not?
ed: To add indentured servitude, etc. are forms of debt or sale for which some material component is a human being. All of them are absolutely different from, say, bank loans or whatever because at no point are you the collateral for any of the debt. Similar to how the american people are not collateral for the US Government's debt, I am not collateral for my student loans. If I fail to pay them then my life will suck, but I won't ever be forced in to labor for the explicit purpose of satisfying the loan in some regard.
While it might be possible for you to pay off your debt, it is mathematically impossible for everyone to do so by far, resulting in a huge amount of people not being able to ever pay off the debt, no matter how much they try. There also is the part where many people don't understand what debt is and become a slave to it without even realizing it. For you it was a choice but others are trapped in debt and cannot get out. Even if the debt would be spread equally across all people, lowering the pressure on them thus making it easier to get rid of it it still is mathematically impossible for a big percentage of all the people to get rid of it.
Ok, but look at the reverse side, if someone borrows money from you without truly understanding the consequences of it, is it ok for him/her to not pay it back? How are you gonna get your money then?
And because the bank creates money out of nothing which lowers the value of your money, and because it asks interest, it is also a system that causes slavery because it will quickly make inequality bigger and bigger faster and faster. A tiny amount of people own nearly everything because of this, people die because they have no water or food or health care while others sit on trillions of dollars and think about what private jet to buy next and about how to satisfy their eternal greed for power (power, money is just a way to get the power).
Only the FED can print money, although it does loan it out to other banks, and the printing of money has to stop, I agree.
I conclude mass and individual slavery exists. Some are just less affected by it than others at an individual level, but still they are enormously affected on a global group level. You might not be totally forced to work to pay your debt, but then how will you get food and water? What will you do when they take everything you have? You're just going to stop doing anything at all and wait until you die? That's the options slaves have, right?
Slaves can't file for bankruptcy... Everyone no matter what situation they're in are CAPABLE of borrowing enough money to never be able to pay the bank back... ever. The real question is if they do, should they take the responsibility for their actions? Because if they don't then banks will cease to exist.
I know I am defining slavery and being exploited as something close to each other, but it is basically the same thing, except the classic definition is a more extreme version of being exploited. Modern debt slavery gives the illusion of a good life, and while we have some freedom this is only because we will work harder and because it gives us the illusion of not being slaves which stops the people from easily seeing and stopping this slavery. If "the 1%" (actually the 0.000001% or less?) have it their way things will go worse and worse, but that's what OWS is about. Stopping this madness. The people are seeing the problem and acting.
On November 04 2011 00:01 Kiarip wrote: ^ um... no
They don't have any demands, they're just chilling there.
way to be wrong, and then try to throw the tea party under the bus too as if they start riots. They also just come to chill with their signs.
Oh my god...
I am involved in this. I know what the demands are. The mainstream media fails at reporting them, but it is so clearly obvious.
And I NEVER said the tea party starts riots. I only said the "masters" of the police send riot police to OWS but not to the tea party, and lets police attack OWS on several occasions, while both OWS and tea party are non violent.
Stop reading what you want to read, and start reading what I'm writing.
They don't have a public list of demands.
Yeah, they're upset with the banks, but what do they want the banks to do? They don't say, they're just calling them greedy, and showing their disapproval, they didn't make any demands.
It's not like they came out and asked the banks to write everyone a check... they didn't, they aren't asking for anything, because they at heart know that there's really nothing you can ask a bank, they need to talk to the government.
On November 03 2011 22:06 FryktSkyene wrote: I praise the people that started this and not hate everyone involved. Stoping [the 99%] from working for whatever reason it may be is stupid as hell in the first place.
"Hey sorry son couldn't buy dinner tonight protesters stoped us from working but hey maybe in the long run you might be ok!"
Clearly exaggerated.
If they want to do something (which they still don't even know what they want [Stop corp. greed] shit will never get anything done. They need a clear plan or something. They need to stop acting like fools and causeing riots (There are people who want to purley cause mayhem and some people who just want a peaceful protest, sadly they get bunched together so it makes it look like there are like that.
They need to act like the tea party with their goals. -Don't leave the place trashed and smelly -Have goals -Don't cause riots (Seriously they don't have hundreds of riot police for the Tea party protests) -Please be peaceful -Don't stand in the middle of the fucking road (How the hell does that stop corp. greed. it just makes me late to work.)
I'm sure theres more but I don't care at this point as I just got home from work and i'm tired x.x
Also please note: Just because a single or a couple or police officers do something wrong like fire a flash at the person instead of near them (The marine guy) doesn't mean all police are like that, to many posts are like "occupy x police are beating people for no reason!!@!$!@#!%$!#%"
No they are not. Stop saying that shit. Thanks yo.
- Again they are peaceful. But what about where the cops ambushed them and arrested them on the bridge, or yes that flashbang incident (latest news: same cops are again shooting rubber bullets and flashbangs at those people for again no reaon other than to harass them), or many similar examples of the police being violent and not the protesters - Standing on the middle of the road, what's so bad about that? They're just trying to get attention. It's legal and they let people through, it slows you down a bit, so what? The corporate masters and corrupt politicians have a huge negative effect on the world and all the people living on it, I guess that's a more serious problem than being slowed down for a few minutes?
First item - those people were "ambushed" because they were walking on the roadway of the bridge, blocking traffic. The people on the walkway were not arrested. Lesson learned - don't block traffic.
Second item - Blocking traffic is disruptive to people trying to use the road for its intended purpose. Just because you don't or can't work doesn't mean it's right to block other people from getting to work, getting to school, going home, or trying to take people to the hospital.
First of all it's legal to walk on the road. Secondly, that's not what happened:
Do you see this? Police actually walked in front of them and leaded them to the walkway. They also boxed them in and refused to let them go, there was panic and the situation almost got out of hand, because of the police. They arrested all of them, this clearly was an attempt to scare them off but obviously it didn't work. Property like cameras taken away and in some cases still not returned.
Also stop being biased. While some people don't have a job, many in fact do have one or are looking for one. It's not just about that, so stop with your "just because you don't work" crap. And maybe it might be annoying to be blocked ... for a few minutes ... it's not illegal. And again, the extreme amount of negative influence those corporations and corrupted politicians have is a much bigger problem than arriving at school or work a few minutes later.
On November 03 2011 22:06 FryktSkyene wrote: I praise the people that started this and not hate everyone involved. Stoping [the 99%] from working for whatever reason it may be is stupid as hell in the first place.
"Hey sorry son couldn't buy dinner tonight protesters stoped us from working but hey maybe in the long run you might be ok!"
Clearly exaggerated.
If they want to do something (which they still don't even know what they want [Stop corp. greed] shit will never get anything done. They need a clear plan or something. They need to stop acting like fools and causeing riots (There are people who want to purley cause mayhem and some people who just want a peaceful protest, sadly they get bunched together so it makes it look like there are like that.
They need to act like the tea party with their goals. -Don't leave the place trashed and smelly -Have goals -Don't cause riots (Seriously they don't have hundreds of riot police for the Tea party protests) -Please be peaceful -Don't stand in the middle of the fucking road (How the hell does that stop corp. greed. it just makes me late to work.)
I'm sure theres more but I don't care at this point as I just got home from work and i'm tired x.x
Also please note: Just because a single or a couple or police officers do something wrong like fire a flash at the person instead of near them (The marine guy) doesn't mean all police are like that, to many posts are like "occupy x police are beating people for no reason!!@!$!@#!%$!#%"
No they are not. Stop saying that shit. Thanks yo.
- Again they are peaceful. But what about where the cops ambushed them and arrested them on the bridge, or yes that flashbang incident (latest news: same cops are again shooting rubber bullets and flashbangs at those people for again no reaon other than to harass them), or many similar examples of the police being violent and not the protesters - Standing on the middle of the road, what's so bad about that? They're just trying to get attention. It's legal and they let people through, it slows you down a bit, so what? The corporate masters and corrupt politicians have a huge negative effect on the world and all the people living on it, I guess that's a more serious problem than being slowed down for a few minutes?
First item - those people were "ambushed" because they were walking on the roadway of the bridge, blocking traffic. The people on the walkway were not arrested. Lesson learned - don't block traffic.
Second item - Blocking traffic is disruptive to people trying to use the road for its intended purpose. Just because you don't or can't work doesn't mean it's right to block other people from getting to work, getting to school, going home, or trying to take people to the hospital.
First of all it's legal to walk on the road. Secondly, that's not what happened:
Do you see this? Police actually walked in front of them and leaded them to the walkway. They also boxed them in and refused to let them go, there was panic and the situation almost got out of hand, because of the police. They arrested all of them, this clearly was an attempt to scare them off but obviously it didn't work. Property like cameras taken away and in some cases still not returned.
Also stop being biased. While some people don't have a job, many in fact do have one or are looking for one. It's not just about that, so stop with your "just because you don't work" crap. And maybe it might be annoying to be blocked ... for a few minutes ... it's not illegal. And again, the extreme amount of negative influence those corporations and corrupted politicians have is a much bigger problem than arriving at school or work a few minutes later.
Where there isn't a crosswalk or sign allowing pedestrian crossing of a road, the pedestrian must yield to traffic. Massing up on the road to a bridge is not yielding to traffic. Yes, that is a law.
And again, the extreme amount of negative influence those corporations and corrupted politicians have is a much bigger problem than arriving at school or work a few minutes later.
Your opinion is not shared by every driver on that road. Do you think it is right for you to impose an illegal blocking of traffic in front of people who do not share your opinion, who more than likely are not your enemies at all, and who could have been sympathetic if you obliged with the law? The police walked in front of them because the people refused to get on the walkway. They chose to walk up that road at first.
On November 03 2011 22:06 FryktSkyene wrote: I praise the people that started this and not hate everyone involved. Stoping [the 99%] from working for whatever reason it may be is stupid as hell in the first place.
"Hey sorry son couldn't buy dinner tonight protesters stoped us from working but hey maybe in the long run you might be ok!"
Clearly exaggerated.
If they want to do something (which they still don't even know what they want [Stop corp. greed] shit will never get anything done. They need a clear plan or something. They need to stop acting like fools and causeing riots (There are people who want to purley cause mayhem and some people who just want a peaceful protest, sadly they get bunched together so it makes it look like there are like that.
They need to act like the tea party with their goals. -Don't leave the place trashed and smelly -Have goals -Don't cause riots (Seriously they don't have hundreds of riot police for the Tea party protests) -Please be peaceful -Don't stand in the middle of the fucking road (How the hell does that stop corp. greed. it just makes me late to work.)
I'm sure theres more but I don't care at this point as I just got home from work and i'm tired x.x
Also please note: Just because a single or a couple or police officers do something wrong like fire a flash at the person instead of near them (The marine guy) doesn't mean all police are like that, to many posts are like "occupy x police are beating people for no reason!!@!$!@#!%$!#%"
No they are not. Stop saying that shit. Thanks yo.
- Again they are peaceful. But what about where the cops ambushed them and arrested them on the bridge, or yes that flashbang incident (latest news: same cops are again shooting rubber bullets and flashbangs at those people for again no reaon other than to harass them), or many similar examples of the police being violent and not the protesters - Standing on the middle of the road, what's so bad about that? They're just trying to get attention. It's legal and they let people through, it slows you down a bit, so what? The corporate masters and corrupt politicians have a huge negative effect on the world and all the people living on it, I guess that's a more serious problem than being slowed down for a few minutes?
First item - those people were "ambushed" because they were walking on the roadway of the bridge, blocking traffic. The people on the walkway were not arrested. Lesson learned - don't block traffic.
Second item - Blocking traffic is disruptive to people trying to use the road for its intended purpose. Just because you don't or can't work doesn't mean it's right to block other people from getting to work, getting to school, going home, or trying to take people to the hospital.
First of all it's legal to walk on the road. Secondly, that's not what happened:
Do you see this? Police actually walked in front of them and leaded them to the walkway. They also boxed them in and refused to let them go, there was panic and the situation almost got out of hand, because of the police. They arrested all of them, this clearly was an attempt to scare them off but obviously it didn't work. Property like cameras taken away and in some cases still not returned.
Also stop being biased. While some people don't have a job, many in fact do have one or are looking for one. It's not just about that, so stop with your "just because you don't work" crap. And maybe it might be annoying to be blocked ... for a few minutes ... it's not illegal. And again, the extreme amount of negative influence those corporations and corrupted politicians have is a much bigger problem than arriving at school or work a few minutes later.
Where there isn't a crosswalk or sign allowing pedestrian crossing of a road, the pedestrian must yield to traffic. Massing up on the road to a bridge is not yielding to traffic. Yes, that is a law.
And again, the extreme amount of negative influence those corporations and corrupted politicians have is a much bigger problem than arriving at school or work a few minutes later.
Your opinion is not shared by every driver on that road. Do you think it is right for you to impose an illegal blocking of traffic in front of people who do not share your opinion, who more than likely are not your enemies at all, and who could have been sympathetic if you obliged with the law? The police walked in front of them because the people refused to get on the walkway. They chose to walk up that road at first.
And there are many laws so we could probably discuss this for ages, the point is road blocks happen more often and never are the people involved arrested.
While my opinion might not be shared, it is not an opinion. There are facts involved, so let's turn it around. They might not acknowledge the facts, and they have all the right to be ignorant and willingly blind, but that has nothing to do with marching across a bridge. It is only a minor inconvenience compared to losing your house or job, is it not?
Their goal wasn't to block traffic. Their goal was to march across the bridge. The police changed 5 minutes of traffic inconvenience to many hours of traffic inconvenience. And no, the police didn't walk in front of them because they refused to get on the walkway.
I present to you, the longer version of the previous video:
It clearly shows the police not even attempting to tell them the bridge is off limits, in fact they didn't just lead them to the bridge by having police walk in front of them, no, they also positioned officers on other spots to block other roads and many people who were at the march claim the police told them to follow (and then they walked to the bridge).
On November 03 2011 22:06 FryktSkyene wrote: I praise the people that started this and not hate everyone involved. Stoping [the 99%] from working for whatever reason it may be is stupid as hell in the first place.
"Hey sorry son couldn't buy dinner tonight protesters stoped us from working but hey maybe in the long run you might be ok!"
Clearly exaggerated.
If they want to do something (which they still don't even know what they want [Stop corp. greed] shit will never get anything done. They need a clear plan or something. They need to stop acting like fools and causeing riots (There are people who want to purley cause mayhem and some people who just want a peaceful protest, sadly they get bunched together so it makes it look like there are like that.
They need to act like the tea party with their goals. -Don't leave the place trashed and smelly -Have goals -Don't cause riots (Seriously they don't have hundreds of riot police for the Tea party protests) -Please be peaceful -Don't stand in the middle of the fucking road (How the hell does that stop corp. greed. it just makes me late to work.)
I'm sure theres more but I don't care at this point as I just got home from work and i'm tired x.x
Also please note: Just because a single or a couple or police officers do something wrong like fire a flash at the person instead of near them (The marine guy) doesn't mean all police are like that, to many posts are like "occupy x police are beating people for no reason!!@!$!@#!%$!#%"
No they are not. Stop saying that shit. Thanks yo.
- Again they are peaceful. But what about where the cops ambushed them and arrested them on the bridge, or yes that flashbang incident (latest news: same cops are again shooting rubber bullets and flashbangs at those people for again no reaon other than to harass them), or many similar examples of the police being violent and not the protesters - Standing on the middle of the road, what's so bad about that? They're just trying to get attention. It's legal and they let people through, it slows you down a bit, so what? The corporate masters and corrupt politicians have a huge negative effect on the world and all the people living on it, I guess that's a more serious problem than being slowed down for a few minutes?
First item - those people were "ambushed" because they were walking on the roadway of the bridge, blocking traffic. The people on the walkway were not arrested. Lesson learned - don't block traffic.
Second item - Blocking traffic is disruptive to people trying to use the road for its intended purpose. Just because you don't or can't work doesn't mean it's right to block other people from getting to work, getting to school, going home, or trying to take people to the hospital.
First of all it's legal to walk on the road. Secondly, that's not what happened:
Do you see this? Police actually walked in front of them and leaded them to the walkway. They also boxed them in and refused to let them go, there was panic and the situation almost got out of hand, because of the police. They arrested all of them, this clearly was an attempt to scare them off but obviously it didn't work. Property like cameras taken away and in some cases still not returned.
Also stop being biased. While some people don't have a job, many in fact do have one or are looking for one. It's not just about that, so stop with your "just because you don't work" crap. And maybe it might be annoying to be blocked ... for a few minutes ... it's not illegal. And again, the extreme amount of negative influence those corporations and corrupted politicians have is a much bigger problem than arriving at school or work a few minutes later.
Where there isn't a crosswalk or sign allowing pedestrian crossing of a road, the pedestrian must yield to traffic. Massing up on the road to a bridge is not yielding to traffic. Yes, that is a law.
And again, the extreme amount of negative influence those corporations and corrupted politicians have is a much bigger problem than arriving at school or work a few minutes later.
Your opinion is not shared by every driver on that road. Do you think it is right for you to impose an illegal blocking of traffic in front of people who do not share your opinion, who more than likely are not your enemies at all, and who could have been sympathetic if you obliged with the law? The police walked in front of them because the people refused to get on the walkway. They chose to walk up that road at first.
In Norway, for years our biggest highway From Oslo to Bergen once went inside a pretty lowly city city. For years they complained.
In the end those who could began crossing the roads without pause for hours on time causing huge halts in traffic trough Oslo and the other major cities down south. In the end the politicians of Norway had to yield and push that road forward sooner than if the citizen of that city had done nothing.
You may not care much about politics of corruption or the banks or wallstreet, but these people are many and they are determined to make you care because so long as they are there and doing this. You will eventually cry to the outlets you have. Your congressman or whatever. "FIX this Occupy wallstreet. I can`t get to work. bla bla bla."
My point and the point of what they are doing is they will get their point forward in the end and even if you do not agree with it. This is the only outlet they have left.
On November 03 2011 22:06 FryktSkyene wrote: I praise the people that started this and not hate everyone involved. Stoping [the 99%] from working for whatever reason it may be is stupid as hell in the first place.
"Hey sorry son couldn't buy dinner tonight protesters stoped us from working but hey maybe in the long run you might be ok!"
Clearly exaggerated.
If they want to do something (which they still don't even know what they want [Stop corp. greed] shit will never get anything done. They need a clear plan or something. They need to stop acting like fools and causeing riots (There are people who want to purley cause mayhem and some people who just want a peaceful protest, sadly they get bunched together so it makes it look like there are like that.
They need to act like the tea party with their goals. -Don't leave the place trashed and smelly -Have goals -Don't cause riots (Seriously they don't have hundreds of riot police for the Tea party protests) -Please be peaceful -Don't stand in the middle of the fucking road (How the hell does that stop corp. greed. it just makes me late to work.)
I'm sure theres more but I don't care at this point as I just got home from work and i'm tired x.x
Also please note: Just because a single or a couple or police officers do something wrong like fire a flash at the person instead of near them (The marine guy) doesn't mean all police are like that, to many posts are like "occupy x police are beating people for no reason!!@!$!@#!%$!#%"
No they are not. Stop saying that shit. Thanks yo.
- Again they are peaceful. But what about where the cops ambushed them and arrested them on the bridge, or yes that flashbang incident (latest news: same cops are again shooting rubber bullets and flashbangs at those people for again no reaon other than to harass them), or many similar examples of the police being violent and not the protesters - Standing on the middle of the road, what's so bad about that? They're just trying to get attention. It's legal and they let people through, it slows you down a bit, so what? The corporate masters and corrupt politicians have a huge negative effect on the world and all the people living on it, I guess that's a more serious problem than being slowed down for a few minutes?
First item - those people were "ambushed" because they were walking on the roadway of the bridge, blocking traffic. The people on the walkway were not arrested. Lesson learned - don't block traffic.
Second item - Blocking traffic is disruptive to people trying to use the road for its intended purpose. Just because you don't or can't work doesn't mean it's right to block other people from getting to work, getting to school, going home, or trying to take people to the hospital.
First of all it's legal to walk on the road. Secondly, that's not what happened:
Do you see this? Police actually walked in front of them and leaded them to the walkway. They also boxed them in and refused to let them go, there was panic and the situation almost got out of hand, because of the police. They arrested all of them, this clearly was an attempt to scare them off but obviously it didn't work. Property like cameras taken away and in some cases still not returned.
Also stop being biased. While some people don't have a job, many in fact do have one or are looking for one. It's not just about that, so stop with your "just because you don't work" crap. And maybe it might be annoying to be blocked ... for a few minutes ... it's not illegal. And again, the extreme amount of negative influence those corporations and corrupted politicians have is a much bigger problem than arriving at school or work a few minutes later.
Where there isn't a crosswalk or sign allowing pedestrian crossing of a road, the pedestrian must yield to traffic. Massing up on the road to a bridge is not yielding to traffic. Yes, that is a law.
And again, the extreme amount of negative influence those corporations and corrupted politicians have is a much bigger problem than arriving at school or work a few minutes later.
Your opinion is not shared by every driver on that road. Do you think it is right for you to impose an illegal blocking of traffic in front of people who do not share your opinion, who more than likely are not your enemies at all, and who could have been sympathetic if you obliged with the law? The police walked in front of them because the people refused to get on the walkway. They chose to walk up that road at first.
And there are many laws so we could probably discuss this for ages, the point is road blocks happen more often and never are the people involved arrested.
While my opinion might not be shared, it is not an opinion. There are facts involved, so let's turn it around. They might not acknowledge the facts, and they have all the right to be ignorant and willingly blind, but that has nothing to do with marching across a bridge. It is only a minor inconvenience compared to losing your house or job, is it not?
Their goal wasn't to block traffic. Their goal was to march across the bridge. The police changed 5 minutes of traffic inconvenience to many hours of traffic inconvenience. And no, the police didn't walk in front of them because they refused to get on the walkway.
I present to you, the longer version of the previous video:
It clearly shows the police not even attempting to tell them the bridge is off limits, in fact they didn't just lead them to the bridge by having police walk in front of them, no, they also positioned officers on other spots to block other roads and many people who were at the march claim the police told them to follow (and then they walked to the bridge). + Show Spoiler +
The protesters were warned not to go on the bridge. They went anyways. Accounts and testimonies from people that were part of the group walking on the roadway confirm this. Other protesters say they couldn't hear the cop, they thought the cops were allowing them across, etc. However the cops were not capable of holding back the protesters who did choose to use the road, so their next best plan was to let the people on and arrest them.
It doesn't change the fact that it was still against the law. The law not having been applied in other situations in your eyes does not make it a non-law. The cops taking more time to arrest than if they let the people across may be a stupid thing, but it wouldn't have happened at all if any of the people didn't try to get on the bridge roadway.
On November 03 2011 22:06 FryktSkyene wrote: I praise the people that started this and not hate everyone involved. Stoping [the 99%] from working for whatever reason it may be is stupid as hell in the first place.
"Hey sorry son couldn't buy dinner tonight protesters stoped us from working but hey maybe in the long run you might be ok!"
Clearly exaggerated.
If they want to do something (which they still don't even know what they want [Stop corp. greed] shit will never get anything done. They need a clear plan or something. They need to stop acting like fools and causeing riots (There are people who want to purley cause mayhem and some people who just want a peaceful protest, sadly they get bunched together so it makes it look like there are like that.
They need to act like the tea party with their goals. -Don't leave the place trashed and smelly -Have goals -Don't cause riots (Seriously they don't have hundreds of riot police for the Tea party protests) -Please be peaceful -Don't stand in the middle of the fucking road (How the hell does that stop corp. greed. it just makes me late to work.)
I'm sure theres more but I don't care at this point as I just got home from work and i'm tired x.x
Also please note: Just because a single or a couple or police officers do something wrong like fire a flash at the person instead of near them (The marine guy) doesn't mean all police are like that, to many posts are like "occupy x police are beating people for no reason!!@!$!@#!%$!#%"
No they are not. Stop saying that shit. Thanks yo.
- Again they are peaceful. But what about where the cops ambushed them and arrested them on the bridge, or yes that flashbang incident (latest news: same cops are again shooting rubber bullets and flashbangs at those people for again no reaon other than to harass them), or many similar examples of the police being violent and not the protesters - Standing on the middle of the road, what's so bad about that? They're just trying to get attention. It's legal and they let people through, it slows you down a bit, so what? The corporate masters and corrupt politicians have a huge negative effect on the world and all the people living on it, I guess that's a more serious problem than being slowed down for a few minutes?
First item - those people were "ambushed" because they were walking on the roadway of the bridge, blocking traffic. The people on the walkway were not arrested. Lesson learned - don't block traffic.
Second item - Blocking traffic is disruptive to people trying to use the road for its intended purpose. Just because you don't or can't work doesn't mean it's right to block other people from getting to work, getting to school, going home, or trying to take people to the hospital.
First of all it's legal to walk on the road. Secondly, that's not what happened:
Do you see this? Police actually walked in front of them and leaded them to the walkway. They also boxed them in and refused to let them go, there was panic and the situation almost got out of hand, because of the police. They arrested all of them, this clearly was an attempt to scare them off but obviously it didn't work. Property like cameras taken away and in some cases still not returned.
Also stop being biased. While some people don't have a job, many in fact do have one or are looking for one. It's not just about that, so stop with your "just because you don't work" crap. And maybe it might be annoying to be blocked ... for a few minutes ... it's not illegal. And again, the extreme amount of negative influence those corporations and corrupted politicians have is a much bigger problem than arriving at school or work a few minutes later.
Where there isn't a crosswalk or sign allowing pedestrian crossing of a road, the pedestrian must yield to traffic. Massing up on the road to a bridge is not yielding to traffic. Yes, that is a law.
And again, the extreme amount of negative influence those corporations and corrupted politicians have is a much bigger problem than arriving at school or work a few minutes later.
Your opinion is not shared by every driver on that road. Do you think it is right for you to impose an illegal blocking of traffic in front of people who do not share your opinion, who more than likely are not your enemies at all, and who could have been sympathetic if you obliged with the law? The police walked in front of them because the people refused to get on the walkway. They chose to walk up that road at first.
In Norway, for years our biggest highway From Oslo to Bergen once went inside a pretty lowly city city. For years they complained.
In the end those who could began crossing the roads without pause for hours on time causing huge halts in traffic trough Oslo and the other major cities down south. In the end the politicians of Norway had to yield and push that road forward sooner than if the citizen of that city had done nothing.
You may not care much about politics of corruption or the banks or wallstreet, but these people are many and they are determined to make you care because so long as they are there and doing this. You will eventually cry to the outlets you have. Your congressman or whatever. "FIX this Occupy wallstreet. I can`t get to work. bla bla bla."
My point and the point of what they are doing is they will get their point forward in the end and even if you do not agree with it. This is the only outlet they have left.
I am not for corruption and I am not against OWS. I just find it disingenuous if people say that the bridge arrests and blocking the roadway is not illegal and is only a minor inconvenience. Look at the riots that happened in England and the car burnings in France - those people used the same phrase "it is the last outlet we have".
I thought the march up Central park along the apartments of the rich was a good idea. I do not think blocking a bridge is.
On November 04 2011 00:40 JinDesu wrote: I am not for corruption and I am not against OWS. I just find it disingenuous if people say that the bridge arrests and blocking the roadway is not illegal and is only a minor inconvenience. Look at the riots that happened in England and the car burnings in France - those people used the same phrase "it is the last outlet we have".
I thought the march up Central park along the apartments of the rich was a good idea. I do not think blocking a bridge is.
You're comparing marching on a bridge for 5 minutes with riots in England and France? Nice...
On November 04 2011 00:40 JinDesu wrote: I am not for corruption and I am not against OWS. I just find it disingenuous if people say that the bridge arrests and blocking the roadway is not illegal and is only a minor inconvenience. Look at the riots that happened in England and the car burnings in France - those people used the same phrase "it is the last outlet we have".
I thought the march up Central park along the apartments of the rich was a good idea. I do not think blocking a bridge is.
You're comparing marching on a bridge for 5 minutes with riots in England and France? Nice...
I am not comparing. I am saying that they used the same phrase. It is an empty phrase.
The occupy movement is foolish. The larger government gets, the more collusion there will be with the private sector....so you want more government and 'occupation'? Sad...
If you don't inconvenience people no one pays attention to a peaceful protest=p
On November 04 2011 00:57 0neder wrote: The occupy movement is foolish. The larger government gets, the more collusion there will be with the private sector....so you want more government and 'occupation'? Sad...
Yet easily a top 3 demand would be to remove money from politics The assumption that more government means more cronyism is misconceived it assumes we will always have cronyism no matter what and there is nothing we can do to minimize it. And with that kind of attitude why bother with government participation at all why not just have dictators probably just as likely to serve the public interest as business.
On November 03 2011 10:51 TanGeng wrote: I don't know if that was supposed to be a continuation of our debt discussion, but Graeber comes up with the craziest ideas. I like it. How much panic would there be on Wall Street if all OWS protesters simultaneously stopped repaying their loans? Crazy! It still might need more people to join in to make a real dent on the balance sheets.
What would happen? They would take the loss, then they probably wouldn't loan money to any other students who want to go to college unless it was self financed. Think of every high school student and college student who wants to finish college but can't. Considering the great depression was caused by the inability to pay back loans (aka easy credit) do you think that would be a good idea?
Is the easy credit the problem or the default of the resulting irresponsible borrow & lending?
Less lending not a terrible result. Higher education is falsely advertised as a gateway to financial security. Both lenders and borrowers would have to more judicious about college attendance and educational benefits given the cost. There will be less irresponsible behavior.
The idea of an organized and purposeful default is merely an idea.
On November 03 2011 23:09 Krikkitone wrote: Well there are proscriptions against lending to a person in need instead of giving to them (ie lend and don't bother trying to collect). And all debts were (supposed to be) forgiven periodically.
My interpretation is that acting in good faith is the virtue. Giving is not lending and is generosity and charity. Certain people with pride in their own self-reliance and virtues will take that offer as an insult. Taking advantage of another's distress (via usury and other terms) is the sin. Offering fair terms is not. Loan forgiveness for the unfortunate is expected.
EPT![[image loading]](http://i.imgur.com/ICTAa.jpg)
