Wall Street

[wayfriend]

On Sunday, politicians fought to cast the ongoing protests in a very different light, with two GOP presidential hopefuls calling them "class warfare" and prominent Democrats expressing support for the protesters.

Super lame. If anyone were to point out that they were mugged by a black man, and someone tried to call that racist, the GOP would be the first to screech. But we get mugged by bankers, and the GOP wants to call it class warfare for pointing it out.

[DukkhaWaynhim]

I was downtown in Indy this past weekend, participating in a 5k walk to raise funds for local charities fighting AIDS in the community. Also downtown were several hundred 99%'ers having a local version of the Wall Street Protest. They were very energetic, but since the AIDS-Walk people were the only other large group there, the 99%'ers spouted their slogans at us - which ended up being confusing, since we weren't there to protest their protest, but ended up being the recipients of their energy - most of which was not positive.

dw

[Cybrweez]

Yea, the problem with these protests is that their not organized for some purpose. I read a good commentary, comparing it to Vietnam era, which was focused on particular things to effect change. Here, people want change, they just don't know what or how, and aren't agreed on what needs changing.

I saw video on youtube about a guy on MSNBC that was going off about our bought politicians, and that that needs to change before anything meaningful will occur. The poster then left a comment that they weren't intending to speak for the 99%, it was just their opinion of what the 99% could focus on. I thought, there's the problem.

[Avatar]

Here, people want change, they just don't know what or how, and aren't agreed on what needs changing.

Agreed.

--A

[Cybrweez]

Oh boy

Have you seen the video of John Lewis in Occupy Atlanta? I have no comment on Lewis, whether he had anything valuable to add or was even worth listening too (I only know his involvement in a protest era that affected change, possibly would give some credibility).

But could you imagine sitting through this, on a regular basis? How could these people not become suicidal? If this is an accurate representation of 99%, put me in the 1%. This is pure nonsense, and what I've been complaining about OWS. This will not accomplish anything.

BTW, I saw a video from Occupy Atlanta website talking about how great this example of pure democracy was (yea, real effective), and praising it because there were no leaders. What a joke, the guy w/the microphone is a leader, and everyone is not heard. Because, of course, everyone cannot be heard, its a ridiculous notion, and this is only a group of a hundred.

I hope there is a focus on people wanting to change govt in some way, to reduce the overt nature of politicians answering to their big donors.

[Holsety]

When they ask if anyone has a revised proposal, people raise their hands like they have one and those people go ignored. Maybe they should've tried speaking up. Very funny. It's like, self-parodying mob rule. Hilarious entertainment, great for wasting time...sorry, sorry, I meant using time, of course.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

I support the protesters because they are motivated enough to get up and do something about what they see as an injustice in this country. Not enough people stand up for what they believe any more, which is a real shame.

Unfortunately as the days and weeks drag on, the 1% against whom they are protesting continues to ignore them, their leaderless groups continue to have a lack of focus, and the protesters begin to realize that none of their objectives are going to be met I suspect that some of them are going to want to organize and/or become restless. That will be an even worse shame.

[Holsety]

I support the protesters because they are motivated enough to get up and do something about what they see as an injustice in this country. Not enough people stand up for what they believe any more, which is a real shame.

Unfortunately as the days and weeks drag on, the 1% against whom they are protesting continues to ignore them, their leaderless groups continue to have a lack of focus, and the protesters begin to realize that none of their objectives are going to be met I suspect that some of them are going to want to organize and/or become restless. That will be an even worse shame.

What would be wrong with them becoming organized against what they see as injustice? Would it somehow make them a further inconvenience?

[Hashi Lebwohl]

No, I mean that their frustration might lead to negative consequences--I wouldn't want their now-peaceful protests to turn ugly.

They actually do need a modicum of organization and leadership, otherwise I don't think they are going to get anything they want.

[Cybrweez]

Very funny. It's like, self-parodying mob rule. Hilarious entertainment, great for wasting time...sorry, sorry, I meant using time, of course.

Did you notice the article had a reference to a scene in "Life of Brian"?

[Holsety]

Very funny. It's like, self-parodying mob rule. Hilarious entertainment, great for wasting time...sorry, sorry, I meant using time, of course.

Did you notice the article had a reference to a scene in "Life of Brian"?

Yes I did (though I haven't seen the movie). They seem to think that the protestors are unaware, but perhaps they are aware (Poe's Law except I'm not sure I'd call the protest crackpot).

[Avatar]

I support the protesters because they are motivated enough to get up and do something about what they see as an injustice in this country. Not enough people stand up for what they believe any more, which is a real shame.

I think that's a valid point. At least they're trying to participate, and exercising their democratic rights. I'll never forget when I was once arguing about democracy with the head of the Philosophy department at university, and he said that apathy was the only death of democracy, that as long as people participate in it and make themselves heard it would continue to be a viable government.

--A

[SerScot]

Avatar,

I have to agree with Alexis de Tocqueville , Democracy dies when people start actively using the force of taxation to bribe themselves with other peoples money.

[Hashi Lebwohl]

It dies even more quickly when politicians allow themsleves to be bought.

[I'm Murrin]

Lots and lots of charts.

[wayfriend]

Lots and lots of charts.

That was awesome. A fact banquet. (A factquet?)

[Avatar]

Wow, that's some really interesting stuff.

Amazed at your Gini coefficient...Note SA is at the bottom with IIRC, perhaps the highest in the world.

I find it interesting in a sense that it seems the protesters themselves aren't quite as clear on all this. So they may be right for the wrong reasons.

--A

[Holsety]

I support the protesters because they are motivated enough to get up and do something about what they see as an injustice in this country. Not enough people stand up for what they believe any more, which is a real shame.

I think that's a valid point. At least they're trying to participate, and exercising their democratic rights. I'll never forget when I was once arguing about democracy with the head of the Philosophy department at university, and he said that apathy was the only death of democracy, that as long as people participate in it and make themselves heard it would continue to be a viable government.

--A

It would have to be full-blown apathy. As long as there is a voting pool of one person, it will be viable, it's just that the government won't carry as much force in the eyes of its citizens - but then, does it carry force for us already? Perhaps only for the power it musters through the police, army etc. Or, if you disagree with the idea that one voter makes a viable democracy, you would have to force everyone within some large cohort to vote in order for it to be viable.

I have always felt that, while I am far from apathetic about politics, as someone sincerely unsure about who would be a better leader it would be best for me not to vote and leave a greater impact to those who have fuller confidence that they have some idea of who should be in charge.
(This reminds me of a short story, I think by Phillip K Dick, in which the election outcome is predicted by a computer on the basis of one man's vote. It's not that who he votes for wins, but his decision calibrates the machine so that it can accurately project how everyone else would vote. I like to imagine that I am that man, and that my lack of a vote calibrates the machine as effectively as voting.)

I have to agree with De Tocheville, Democracy dies when people start actively using the force of taxation to bribe themselves with other peoples money.

Does the government require the IRS to supply money to itself in order to pay wages to its workers, or can it simply expand the line on their debit accounts regardless of a surplus or deficit?

As for the charts, if capital is clearly winning, I wonder if dividends are paying well? Maybe it is time to invest...Anyway, I think the charts were somewhat messily assembled, if unemployment is high there is no particular reason to look at the participation ratio, it is only if unemployment is low that you want the participation ratio of unemployed workers to be high.

Perhaps America should have gone the way of the Mondragon Corporation Cooperative, which I hear is doing pretty well, and combine capital and labor. It seems that the division has been pretty disastrous.

[Cybrweez]

I wish that's what OWS was all about. It seems its not all about anything tho.

[Avatar]

Avatar,

I have to agree with Alexis de Tocqueville , Democracy dies when people start actively using the force of taxation to bribe themselves with other peoples money.

So, in other words, the day the first government gets elected?

--A