|
Here's an article that I think has an interesting view on the lack of a unified, specific goal for Occupy Wallstreet. I thought you might appreciate it:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/edward-murray/occupy-wall-street-protest_b_988341.html
Here's a piece of the beginning:
The thousands of individuals currently inhabiting Liberty Square for the Occupy Wall Street protest have succeeded in garnering enough attention to force the following question upon our nation: "What exactly are they doing?" Those protesting would probably have a tough time agreeing on a well-made, media-friendly, singular objective; and therein, oddly enough, lies the impressive, hidden, and unifying strength of this protest. Occupy Wall Street is asking for sweeping reform of an entrenched system, and this is something that nearly all Americans support, whether they will admit it or not.
An easy way to dismiss the relevance of Occupy Wall Street is to label it as a bunch of unemployed kids with no clear-cut agenda shouting, "Grr, money bad!" This is not the situation. Young New Yorkers don't need to sleep in a park to complain about being broke; they have bars in Astoria for that. Some people say that the protestors are only undermining their cause by not having a clear mission statement. But that may not be true, either. In fact, Occupy Wall Street may expose the Achilles' heel of many other civil protests. Occupy Wall Street has no repeated cheer to stop coal mining, or to grant civil rights, or even to end a war. This protest cannot be boiled down to a simple soundbite because this protest is ambitiously seeking a complex, fundamental, philosophical change in the social, political, and economic infrastructure of our country. (Try feeding that line to Katie Couric before she goes on the air and see what kind of terrified, vacuous stare you get in return.)
A change in the way our country operates cannot fit into our poor excuse of a national media, nor can it be easily pitched by televised pundits. Furthermore, if a seismic economic shift occurred wherein our citizenry found itself to be financially empowered, it wouldn't start with a $100 million presidential campaign; it would start with something that resembles Occupy Wall Street.
|
Alex Jones thinks OWS is a NWO front.
I don't know what to say to that (too crazy), I'm just referring to it.
|
Studying finance myself, I think it's good that they do protest on Wall street.
The financial analysts blaim the current fall on stock markets world wide upon bad politics, the politics being the ones unable to balance their budgets thus resulting in pessimism and -25% yearly return. Obviously the politicians are not any players on the financial market, it's the investors field, thus their actions is whats resulting in the steep fall, despite what the reason might be for their pessimism, it's still their selling of stocks resulting in price falls. Thus, traders can be held way more accountable for stock market fluctuations, because they are the ones fluctuating it.
Politicians have no power, all they are good for is big talk. Finance people know this, therefore they let the politicians stand in the spotlight, just as Barack Obama, 1 person has to answer for everything that's going wrong in a 350+ million people country. Since the people are uneducated thus not understanding how the world works, it's easy to pick 2-3 charismatic politicians to call "the gods of the world" and blaim them for everything wrong, while Morgan Stanley and Goldman Sacks makes big money.
|
It's a unique view, but it really doesn't add up to a sound reason to support them. It's not as simple as picking one broad thing (corporate greed is bad) and getting behind that because while many would agree that something needs to be done, there are so many different ways to go about it, and many of the proposed demands are just ridiculous. Like the Tea Party's claims that it was a non-partisan thing because there was a few liberals in it, it doesn't override the fact that the TP was a decidedly republican/liberterian movement. Likewise, this is a very socialist movement, even if there's a few people from the right there, and while the main concept may reach a lot of people, a lot of the underlying things are a major turnoff to peope on both sides because they;re so extreme
http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/
i mean if those weren't enough, there's still a very large amount of people who think it's foolish to direct the anger at the financial sector instead of the politicians who enable it by taking bribes and writing the rules.
|
That list is kinda ridiculous I don't think most of the party even agrees with that. It really is a liberals wet dream right there.
To go and point a finger at just Wall Street and say "you are responsible for all this", is incredibly naive. This isn’t just an issue about being screwed over by some investment bank, there has been a systemic breakdown at all levels. There is nothing wrong with anger. There is nothing wrong with protesting. In fact I’m all for it. The problem is that we need to direct our anger a little better. We need to start grass roots political parties. We need to take back our government. About two-thirds of United States senators were millionaires in 2008, according to a recent analysis of politicians’ fortunes conducted by the Center for Responsive Politics.
That doesn’t represent me.
Wealthy lawmakers increased their riches as U.S. economy sputtered in '09
The problem is that the average citizen simply doesn't have time or means even if they are informed of the problems that lie within BOTH the government and the economy.
Nothing gets done because congress won't pass anything so banks continue to operate the same ways they have in the past. Bank of America is down 11% in the market the past 2 days, how long before they ask for another bailout? Anything that makes sense or would generally be helpful simply won't pass so its just frustrating really.
We do need to take back our government though but it just seems so out of reach... the people with money are in power and it is not going to change. Its kinda hard to campaign without money.
It does seem like the attacks are mostly on Wall Street but I am gonna stop by some day this week and really see what their perspective is though because I hope and want that it is more than that. I think they are protesting the banks pretty well additionally and you can't talk about the banks without government and the FED.
Regardless I appreciate the attention they are bringing to these subjects, maybe they aren't the most informed but at least they are getting these issues talked about, thats more than a lot of us can say we have done.
Also people keep saying, "Oh they have no clear goals they aren't focused, they don't understand the problems" THAT ISNT OUR JOB. In positions of power, corporate or government, it should be their obligation to maintain a moral standard and regulate their company/government with the peoples interests at heart. While profit is naturally the main motivator business ethics are often just left in the dust and that isn't the way it should be.
Financial Trade Tax
Carried Interest Loophole
Tax breaks on capital gains
Financial Regulations on Banks
Healthcare not Warfare
^ reasonable enough?
http://www.alternet.org/newsandviews/article/675403/how_killer_student_debt_and_unemployment_made_young_people_the_leaders_at_occupy_wall_street/
This is also a pretty interesting piece (found on reddit)
Somethings gotta change...
|
Saw a video today of a 14 year old girl being arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge. Cannot even begin to express how outraged I am at the NYPD. Pepper spraying protestors, still mad. But arresting a child? What have the people who are supposed to protect us have come to?
|
On October 05 2011 02:12 khaosis wrote:
Saw a video today of a 14 year old girl being arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge. Cannot even begin to express how outraged I am at the NYPD. Pepper spraying protestors, still mad. But arresting a child? What have the people who are supposed to protect us have come to?
So when they are arresting people they should just leave a kid there alone, I think she is better off arrested with her parents...
|
On October 05 2011 02:12 khaosis wrote:
Saw a video today of a 14 year old girl being arrested on the Brooklyn Bridge. Cannot even begin to express how outraged I am at the NYPD. Pepper spraying protestors, still mad. But arresting a child? What have the people who are supposed to protect us have come to?
Yeah I don't get why people are making a big deal about this. You're not allowed to rest kids now?? All those people there werei n the traffic lane, which is why they were brought in.
|
I'm quite sure that many protesters do not know exactly where the problem lies or what they want. It is like a person going to the doctor because he's sick - he might now know what he has, but he know that something is not right. The important thing is that they have started expressing their discontent publicly. With time it will become more clear what exactly they think is wrong and how to fix it.
If you fail to see that time isn't ripe for change then consider how protests are spontaneously popping up all over the world in the last year. It is not a coincidence, the sentiment that something is wrong and must change is spreading through the world and countries.
Only time will tell what exactly is going to come out of this.
|
On October 05 2011 03:04 Traeon wrote:
I'm quite sure that many protesters do not know exactly where the problem lies or what they want. It is like a person going to the doctor because he's sick - he might now know what he has, but he know that something is not right. The important thing is that they have started expressing their discontent publicly. With time it will become more clear what exactly they think is wrong and how to fix it.
If you fail to see that time isn't ripe for change then consider how protests are spontaneously popping up all over the world in the last year. It is not a coincidence, the sentiment that something is wrong and must change is spreading through the world and countries.
Only time will tell what exactly is going to come out of this.
Except that most of the protestors have 0 idea of what the problems are. Just look at some of the demands that tells you enough.
Also the protests that have been 'spontaneously' popping up aren't spontaneous at all. And they're incomparable in the US they're protesting against the financial and economic system while in the Arabic world they protest against dictators who have been surpressing them for decades.
|
On October 05 2011 03:27 RvB wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2011 03:04 Traeon wrote:
I'm quite sure that many protesters do not know exactly where the problem lies or what they want. It is like a person going to the doctor because he's sick - he might now know what he has, but he know that something is not right. The important thing is that they have started expressing their discontent publicly. With time it will become more clear what exactly they think is wrong and how to fix it.
If you fail to see that time isn't ripe for change then consider how protests are spontaneously popping up all over the world in the last year. It is not a coincidence, the sentiment that something is wrong and must change is spreading through the world and countries.
Only time will tell what exactly is going to come out of this. Except that most of the protestors have 0 idea of what the problems are. Just look at some of the demands that tells you enough.
But that doesn't actually matter at all. It's normal that they don't understand the intricacies of the problem - they're mostly ordinary citizens, even the more educated ones come from a wide range of professions and interests.
What they do understand is that they aren't happy. Obviously they will point the blame at the most obvious issues - the government, which they believe exists to protect them and work in their favor and in their interests, and the various financial organizations which seem to exert a very high level of control over what their lives depend on - money. Who else would they blame?
You need to understand that the entire society is based on keeping as many people happy as much as possible. This is the only real and objective measure of which system works and which doesn't, and no amount of economic blabber can override that kind of popular verdict.
Systems that haven't been successful in keeping people happy have historically been overthrown all over the world - violently if need be and the leaders are particularly stubborn in upholding their system. One thing is nearly certain at this point, and that is that a lot of things will change, the only question is when and how and at what cost.
Considering the stubbornness of some people, I imagine the cost won't be small at all. -_-
|
The underlying issue behind the protests (including those in Europe) is poor economical conditions, the crisis hit the weakest ones first. It does not matter if the cause of the poor economical conditions is a dictator or another thing. That's why it started in the arabic world, then came to southern Europe (Spain, Portugal, Greece). It has now arrived in the US. Also remember the London riots?
Since the crisis isn't over yet, and could get much worse in the next year, I predict that we will start seeing even more protests.
|
On October 05 2011 03:04 Traeon wrote:
I'm quite sure that many protesters do not know exactly where the problem lies or what they want. It is like a person going to the doctor because he's sick - he might now know what he has, but he know that something is not right. The important thing is that they have started expressing their discontent publicly. With time it will become more clear what exactly they think is wrong and how to fix it.
If you fail to see that time isn't ripe for change then consider how protests are spontaneously popping up all over the world in the last year. It is not a coincidence, the sentiment that something is wrong and must change is spreading through the world and countries.
Only time will tell what exactly is going to come out of this.
If you go to the doctor because you're sick, but don' t know why, you go home after you've seen the doctor. You don't hang out in the doctor's office until the symptoms go away. The doctor usually tells you it's nothing to worry about, runs some tests, gives you a prescription, etc.
These protestors simply don't know when to go home. If you protest a war, you know if they stop the war you can go home. If you protest (union strike) for workplace demands, you go home when they are met or some other agreement is reached. These protestors don't even know what it is they want, so when they go home it will pretty much be seen as having given in, will it not ? Does anyone, including the protestors, think that the police are going to march into the "Wall Street" offices and arrest all the employees ? WTF are they thinking is going to happen from this ?
I suspect they will go home at some point after nothing has been done or changed, and deem it a success as they have raised awareness to their cause. I find that akin to a losing NFL team claiming victory because at least they were able to show they could execute some plays and people saw them play, that they are actually a real NFL team.
|
On October 05 2011 03:49 Kaitlin wrote:
If you go to the doctor because you're sick, but don' t know why, you go home after you've seen the doctor. You don't hang out in the doctor's office until the symptoms go away.
Precisely, but if you can't ignore the problem, then you will keep going to the doctor and asking him to cure you. You don't even have a choice.
|
I think you guys need to stop drawing comparisons and using metaphors, all it does is lead to people saying your metaphors are bad (because hey are). I 100% agree with how the protestors are protesting and what they are protesting but this list of demands is kind of bleh. It would be much more effective without that list.
The protest gets larger by the day, so you would be a fool to believe it is ineffective. If anything it is a measure of dissent. This same thing has happened time and time again since the beginning of time. If the people aren't happy something WILL change, usually with force.
What baffles me is people treat our social structures as absolute when they are still very new. We've barely been like this for 100 years and this is what is here to stay? Definitely not.
|
On October 05 2011 01:57 Hawk wrote:
i mean if those weren't enough, there's still a very large amount of people who think it's foolish to direct the anger at the financial sector instead of the politicians who enable it by taking bribes and writing the rules.
But I thought corruption didn't exist in the US. What is this conspiracy theory you're coming up with, treasonous terrorist?
/sarcasm
|
If there is anything Occupy Wall Street has taught me, it is that mass populist left-wing movements in America are just are silly as the right-wing version (Tea Party).
|
On October 05 2011 04:13 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2011 01:57 Hawk wrote:
i mean if those weren't enough, there's still a very large amount of people who think it's foolish to direct the anger at the financial sector instead of the politicians who enable it by taking bribes and writing the rules. But I thought corruption didn't exist in the US. What is this conspiracy theory you're coming up with, treasonous terrorist? /sarcasm
Lol what is this seriously?
Who honestly ever said there is no corruption in the west? I don't think there is a single person in the entire universe that actually thinks that.
But ofcourse it's such a mainstream thought that it has to be fought!
|
On October 05 2011 04:20 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2011 04:13 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On October 05 2011 01:57 Hawk wrote:
i mean if those weren't enough, there's still a very large amount of people who think it's foolish to direct the anger at the financial sector instead of the politicians who enable it by taking bribes and writing the rules. But I thought corruption didn't exist in the US. What is this conspiracy theory you're coming up with, treasonous terrorist? /sarcasm Lol what is this seriously? Who honestly ever said there is no corruption in the west? I don't think there is a single person in the entire universe that actually thinks that. But ofcourse it's such a mainstream thought that it has to be fought!
Your sarcasm detector needs an update  he even put that /sarcasm 'tag' in the end...
|
On October 05 2011 04:20 zalz wrote:Show nested quote +On October 05 2011 04:13 JudicatorHammurabi wrote:On October 05 2011 01:57 Hawk wrote:
i mean if those weren't enough, there's still a very large amount of people who think it's foolish to direct the anger at the financial sector instead of the politicians who enable it by taking bribes and writing the rules. But I thought corruption didn't exist in the US. What is this conspiracy theory you're coming up with, treasonous terrorist? /sarcasm Lol what is this seriously? Who honestly ever said there is no corruption in the west? I don't think there is a single person in the entire universe that actually thinks that. But ofcourse it's such a mainstream thought that it has to be fought!
No, you'd be surprised the people I've come across irl and on the internet. You say things like "bribes and corruption exist in US politics" or "US government serves corporate and banking interests" and some people will say you're wrong and then proceed to call you anti-American/terrorist/etc. They just have it in their heads to believe that things work the way they're said to work.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
