What is your reaction to the Occupy Wall Street movement? - Inside Job (2010) Discussion

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] inner_recesses 13 years ago

I think it's an effort to break free of the tyranny of the past, in which the ruling ideas of an age have almost always come from the ruling class.

I don't know what it will accomplish, but if it conveys the message that Americans are fed up with a democracy that is looking more and more like plutocracy with every passing decade, then maybe it will help lay the foundation for something big.

For now, I'd be satisfied with some genuine, meaningful campaign finance reform.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] inner_recesses 13 years ago

Historically, capitalism has always been a blend of government & markets; the difference is in the balance of forces. No wonder capitalism is far less problematic in social democracies. Private businesses are not as easily allowed to run roughshod over the public interest.

So the game you so rightly speak of is not played exactly the same way everywhere. In Scandinavia and Germany, for example, those with the money don't have a monopoly on the rules, and lobbyists don't outnumber parliamentarians about 60 to 1 as they do in the US. (6 to 1 on health care issues alone.)

Contrary to what you say, I think some in Occupy Wall Street ARE focusing on the game, not the players. They are taking the initiative to say "We the people, have the right to set the agenda and determine what is worth paying attention to, not Big Media and not the Special Interests." The idea is to shine a spotlight on government, corporate, and media inertia and hypocrisy and to insist that overdue dialogues and ACTION take place.

"So if we all praise a system of greed; why are we so mad at those who are just much better at it than us? Jealousy. All those that call for action against wall street, yet still support the rules of the game and their own behavior that put them there are just mad they aren't in the 1% and still wish for the freedom to pursue it. They just want to even the score a little so they have a better shot. "

Just not so. American citizens - including the very rich - were shocked to find out that there was one set of rules for some people and other set of rules for others. They were shocked to find that bystanders and victims were forced to pay for the malfeasance of others who, by and large, were left unscathed, unaccountable. They had been taught to think of CEOs and other "suits" in the financial industry as models of professional ethics, the kind of professional ethics they had also come to expect from themselves, their doctors, their teachers and everyone else. Then the bubbles burst. People are slowly waking up to the fact that so little has been done to address the underlying flaws in the system, a big, though not exclusive, chunk of which DOES consist of underregulation of powerful industries and underregulation of money in politics.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dwendt_99 13 years ago

Capitalism built the computer you use. What did the Soviet Union contribute to the computer industry from 1977 - 1992? NOTHING!

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] inner_recesses 13 years ago

I am all for capitalism - the kind that works for all the people.

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LLOwens 13 years ago

Capitalism always assumes and expects for there to be unemployment. There will never be 0 unemployment in a capitalistic society.

The full-employment unemployment rate usually hoovers between 4 to 6.4 percent. I truly believe that the Federal Reserve finds it ideal when the unemployment rate nears the higher end of that spectrum which will assure an employers market leading to higher productivity. Just imagine if everyone had a job--many of these would demand higher wages, benefits or safer working conditions. There would be no need for unions and collective bargaining. But as it turns out, zero unemployment is a pipe dream because it's absolutely necessary to fight inflation--which the Fed claims to want to keep at bay. So yes, millions of Americans, on any given day, will be out of work. Zero sum game?

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] dwendt_99 13 years ago

OWS protesters violate workers' rights ... by blocking workers from going to work and earn a living.

reply

[–] LLOwens 13 years ago

OWS protesters violate workers' rights ... by blocking workers from going to work and earn a living.

On the other end of the spectrum, we have law enforcement cracking down on law abiding OWS protestors. In order not to take this out of context, I understand that some involved in these protests may break laws--which the mainstream media brings to our attention on a regular basis. So why not deal with the scofflaws while allowing the rest to protest peacefully?

There were some OWS protestors present during the APEC summit held in Hawai'i over the past few weeks--yet to my understanding their voice was greatly muffled by temporary restraining walls erected to keep protestors out, road closures of major roads surrounding the Hawai'i Convention Center, where leaders from 21 countries met, as well as barricades preventing anyone without official access from entering.

And was the APEC summit primarily about preserving workers rights? According to a local union leader, APEC was about finding creative ways of circumventing labor, consumer protection and environmental laws made possible by the Trans-Pacific Partnership which will serve the interests of global banks and multinational corporations--duh.

To end on a negative note, according to a recent Stanford University study, only 44 percent of American families live in middle-income neighborhoods--as opposed to 65 percent of families in 1970. So the middle class has shrunken dramatically over the past 40 years and now comprise a minority of the total population.

reply

[–] LLOwens 13 years ago

Capitalism built the computer you use.

Practically all of the major computer applications which are implemented today received significant influence from R&D at universities and labs, often with government funding of Human Computer Interaction technologies such as the computer mouse which received funding from NASA. And no--Bill Gates can't receive all the credit for developing Windows--LOL!

reply

[–] zenbudda 13 years ago

you know, i'm tired of "uber-capitalists" throwing capitalism out there as the solution to all problems. IT's not. Either 1 of 2 things you HAVE To agree with here:

1. capitalism needs to be controlled to be successful
2. capitalism is out of control in the USA

I'll let you figure out the rest. Hard working, innovative people made computers happen. Not capitalism. The ONLY thing capitalist about China right now is Hong Kong. that's it. And look how intelligent the average chinese person is compared to Americans. How's capitalism working now?

reply

[–] dwendt_99 13 years ago

First of all, China is no longer the hard-core Communist (Marx's Socialist Stage) since the early 80's... it's a hybrid. The Great Leap Forward of the 50's and The Cultural Revolution of the 60's were disasters especially in agriculture. Secondly, China's growth in the past 30 years would not have happened without capitalist countries that trade and invest in China. What happened to the Soviet Union 20 years ago? Russia and the other 14 Soviet Republics had ample resources and human assets to make Marx's Socialist stage work. Marxism DOES NOT WORK! What contribution did the Soviet Union make in the developing the computer industry and the internet between 1975 and 1992? Ochen' Malo! Очень мало!

reply

[–] pookypeach 13 years ago

I'm not american but I would use the cluster bomb with them. I just don't want these stupid *beep* to destroy a great - great - country

reply

[–] 13 years ago

[deleted]

[–] LLOwens 13 years ago

It is not my intention to come across as preachy--but felt the urge to add an angle to this discussion which hasn't been brought up yet on this board. I was born and raised as a Christian and have always been fascinated with what the Bible says when speaking about the future. In the Bible book of Revelation it speaks of the greedy commercial system as an integral part of Satan's world which some believe he is now in control over.

So in answer to the OP--while the Occupy Wall Street movement will get their message across--as ambiguous as it may be--from my Bible-based perspective--their efforts to bring these greedy merchants to their knees will be futile. Only Armageddon can bring to a halt these men who dominate men to their injury. I'm sure many will scoff at what I mentioned previously--yet what else could explain the fact that even with the best of intentions and no matter what we do to correct our mistakes, too much power entrusted to a man or group of men will always lead to corruption and untold suffering.

America was built on the backs of slaves and continues to thrive on slave labor. In the past, the majority of Americans did not give it much thought because job security and earning a living wage were in the reach of most. However this no longer applies to most and thus many can no longer ignore this fact--some even choosing to speak out about a predicament that has always existed since the founding of this country and will always exist in this present system of things.

reply

[–] LLOwens 13 years ago

What does this say about the function and viability of the main political parties?

With Occupy Wall Street protests being carried out in upwards of 1,000 cities, one would think that this grassroots campaign is become more mainstream as the days progress--although suburbia hasn't fully embraced it as of yet. Despite this, it sure appears that the leading Republican presidential candidates aren't phased at all by the Occupy message concerning income inequality as Rick Perry, Herman Cain and Michelle Bachmann seem intent on increasing taxes for the middle class and poor while continuing to cut taxes for the wealthy. Bachmann however has a point with regards to weeding out politicians who protect campaign donors while enacting laws that put their competitors out of business. But then again, if this is the best that the GOP can offer--I'm betting that another Democratic president will be in the Oval Office for the next term--if you base this assumption on the fact that 7 out of 10 Americans believe that the policies of Republicans favor the rich while two thirds of the general public think that there should be a more fair distribution of wealth. As far as job creation goes, 71 percent of the general public believe the GOP is without a viable plan.

I'm baffled as to why the income inequality of this country hasn't become a bipartisan issue where the vast majority of congressional Republicans look to solutions that will serve the best interest of the majority of American citizens. For example, why should anyone not be opposed to allowing Wall Street firms to use most of its revenue to pay for executive compensation especially when such executives make risky bets and in some cases leveraging 30-to-1--even 40-to-1--or even worse--allow corporate execs to receive golden parachutes with the bailout money after driving their company into the ground? Or how could anyone deny the fact that after tax income for the top 1 percent of Americans grew by almost 300 percent over the past three decades--while middle-class after-tax income increased by only 40 percent during the same period based on data from the IRS and Census Bureau? Why is the GOP sacrificing the heath of Americans and the environment by reducing regulations of the Clean Water Act and Clean Air Act with the misguided excuse that doing so will create more jobs? Why have the leading political parties taken so long to institute a infrastructure bank which could create millions of jobs and rebuild America's deteriorating cities? With talk of 100 percent compliance under the NCLB act by 2014, why aren't the major political parties proposing a substantial investment in early childhood education which will pay for itself with a 7 percent return per year and will do miracles in reducing the learning and income gap between the rich and the poor? And finally, why aren't politicians in general not concerned at all about in-migration which has a negative impact on the quality of life? There are ways to lead this economy in the right direction--but with all the partisan bickering--we could be stuck in the doldrums longer than we have to.

reply

[–] stanleygoodspeed99 13 years ago

it sure appears that the leading Republican presidential candidates aren't phased at all by the Occupy message concerning income inequality

I think what we need, and what people are yet to fully support, mainly because no one has had the gaul to do it yet, is a 3 party system. It seems as though at the moment, you're damned if you do and damned if you don't, so people pick a side as 'Republican' or 'Democrat' and go with that. Given this, as the Republicans are only competing against one group of people, they don't have to offer any real alternative or be afraid such people will enact change.

I'm baffled as to why the income inequality of this country hasn't become a bipartisan issue where the vast majority of congressional Republicans look to solutions that will serve the best interest of the majority of American citizens.

I think you would find it would be a very different matter if voting was compulsory and the lower income earners showed up at the polls. But they don't. You know who does? Old people and rich people. Do you think they like change? They most certainly do not. Until then Republicans will not care about what poor America has to say about anything... they choose not to use their democratic rights to vote enmass and will continually get screwed because of it. Further, the US has backed itself into a corner whereby it is not able to offer welfare and tax cuts to these sections of society, due to its ongoing campaigns in Iraq and Afganistan sucking money out of the tax coffers to the point where national debt is at 94% of annual GDP. Sad truth is, it needs one term of getting much worse before it can get better now.

For example, why should anyone not be opposed to allowing Wall Street firms to use most of its revenue to pay for executive compensation especially when such executives make risky bets and in some cases leveraging 30-to-1--even 40-to-1--or even worse--allow corporate execs to receive golden parachutes with the bailout money after driving their company into the ground?

I think everyone is against executives getting 'most of its revenue'. That is an inaccurate statement. Most profit is returned to shareholders and you will find that very few companies will pay management to the point where nothing remains for the equity holders of a company. I do agree with you though when it comes to risk taking being insured by government and I see that as the inherent problem. Plain and simple, government should have taken ownership in those banks. Bought the shares and kicked management out, plain and simple. Instead, they just gave them money so they wouldn't fail and let them on their merry way to do it again. You would think massive regulation would ensue to ensure that banks could not allow themselves to be leveraged to such a risk point, but it never did. And that is the true problem with the system.

I think if someone started a 'financial regulation party', a lot of people would vote for it.

Or how could anyone deny the fact that after tax income for the top 1 percent of Americans grew by almost 300 percent over the past three decades--while middle-class after-tax income increased by only 40 percent during the same period based on data from the IRS and Census Bureau?

I don't think anyone denies this. The '1%' vs '99%' argument is the wrong way to think about it though. The argument is that the general wealth of everyone has grown over the last 30 years and the middle tier will always get richer at a lower rate than the upper tier. This is because the upper tier fuel the growth and fund it through their own investment, so they get the bigger piece of the pie. The middle class then get a relatively bigger piece than they were receiving before, but because they didn't assume the same capital risk, they don't get the same capital reward. If 1% are getting paid 300x more than everyone else and everyone else is getting paid $100k a year, no one would care.

It is when the 1% are getting rich at the expense of the 99% where it becomes problematic and I think that is an issue, which was brought on by lack of financial regulation as mentioned earlier.

There are ways to lead this economy in the right direction--but with all the partisan bickering--we could be stuck in the doldrums longer than we have to.

Don't disagree. I still think the answer has to be a separate political party though, because as of now, no one has an alternative. There is the wrong way or the less wrong way, there is no right way.

"I am Jack's cold sweat."

reply

[–] LLOwens 13 years ago

Perhaps Obama could take over the reigns of the OWS movement--considering he sympathizes with the plight of the protestors--LOL! All kidding aside, in order to capitalize off of the energy created by this movement in an effective manner--he must find a way to transform this into political action. However, some may doubt his sincerity with regards to introducing tougher regulations on Wall Street since he reappointed some of the very ones that brought about deregulation of the financial sector soon after he took office. So perhaps his reasoning behind professing to share the POV of the 99%-ers may be an ulterior motive to garner more votes instead of being altruistic. But then again--if he can get all the supporters of OWS to vote for him--that would be a miracle--a miracle which would get him reelected to the presidency.

reply

[–] FourFiveEight 13 years ago

Unfortunately I think that they are for the most part overlooked and ignored because the people in power just assume their a bunch of slackers who don't vote, if they can hold out through winter and affect the 2012 election in a big way then they may see their efforts pay off.

reply

[–] zenbudda 13 years ago

Any "movement" from this point forward will be tainted and corrupted by different peoples and different factions. the real power is in the vote. if the citizens of the USA got off their asses, did a double take on what just happened in the past 30 years, and threatened every senator, congressman, judge, law enforecement officials (any public office) with a vote in the other direction, THEN there will be a movement. otherwise, we are just playing with ourselves. sorry for such a depressing response, but out of all the research i've done, this is is the bottom of it.

and guess what. even if all the people pulled together at one time, electoral college can vote the other way.

this is a long shot. but my theory is that the USA is Britian's (and other wealthy people's) playhouse. "they" make financial decisions that impact our economy and our "local countrymen" utilize that to their advantage for financial gain.

reply

[–] LLOwens 13 years ago

the real power is in the vote.

For this reason we could very well witness Occupiers protest GOP presidential caucuses in the near future. Up until recently, anti-labor sentiment dominated the mainstream media and public sector union bashing reached a crescendo point--which I mistakenly believed was the writing on the wall as far as the demise of the political power of union bosses. However, just last week, Ohio voters absolutely hammered Republican Governor John Kasich's bill that would severely limit collective bargaining rights of public worker unions. So working-class voters still have a voice if they so choose to use it.

Speaking of the middle class--perhaps the Occupy Wall Street movement may want to rethink their strategy by focusing more on how the quality of life of the middle class can be improved instead of placing most of the blame on the top 1 percentile. There will always be rich on one end of the spectrum and poor on the other--so the main objective should be to find solutions to benefit everyone in between. By doing this, I believe they will not only will they gain the support of disenfranchised Millennials, but also the sympathy of the baby boomers.

Last month the economy added only 80,000 jobs while unemployment still hoovers around 9 percent. So presidential candidates such as Mitt Romney are trying to woo voters in especially in the manufacturing states--which are often the swing states. Our annual trade deficit is approaching a record $600 billion, so it would be wise to find ways to shrink this deficit. President Obama who was here in Hawai'i for the APEC summit spoke of the need to strengthen overall trade ties throughout the Asia-Pacific region. One primary way of doing this would be to offer China clean energy technology for which it is planning on spending in excess of $1.54 trillion on.

reply

[–] stanleygoodspeed99 13 years ago

Can a movement like this lead to something worthwhile? Why or why not?

Ok... I'll start by saying I do think reforms are required in government to address some of the issues raised by occupy protestors. But in saying that, let me also say that these issues were being discussed long before occupy arrived and they were not the genesis of the conversation.

This movement may lead to something worthwhile, but if it does it is completely by accident.

The problem with the occupy movement is it represents nothing but arm chair idealism and activism. 'Somebody should do something', when you define neither 'somebody' or 'something' screams laziness and only perpetuates inaction. Finding somewhere to idle while you fail to come up with a real agenda doesn't demonstrate strong desire for any specific changes or reforms, it simply reeks of 'I have observed something, now someone else should do something about it.'

But pointing out something is broken is the easy part. It's coming up with the solve that is the hard part. And this is the problem with occupy, it is the very essence of a gen Y protest, with the attendees being either too lazy or simply not having enough of an understanding of basis of the issues which they are protesting against and why they are there enough to come up with an agenda, while expecting someone else to ride in on a white horse and give them all $100k plus jobs per year with a 4 hours working week.

Smart people get an education and change the system from the inside and successful protests are generally a means of a last resort when all other solves have been tried and unfairly shouted down, removed or defunked.

There are 4 main ingredients to a successful protest.

1. Purpose. There must be a clear end goal, a list of a demands and a way to achieve these things. 'Redistribution of wealth' is not an end goal, it is a vague description of something without explaining how it should occur, and even more so how it should occur in a way viewed to be equitable by all. This should be combined with our good friend...

2. Unification. All members of the protest should be united in the one goal or purpose. The fact that Occupy appears to have conflicting goals and conflicting members will only hurt its ability to taste any success. There are shut down the fed people, there are people who think the shut down the fed people have highjacked the protest. There are people who want to get rid of Obama, there are people who like Obama. Occupy definitely do not show unification on a common goal, they in fact show diversity and contradiction in their ranks as to what they aim to achieve.

3. Leadership. Leadership must be inspiring and symbolic. Right now, not only do Occupy have no clear leader, their doctrine is in fact defined as having no clear leader. While some members may be inspired by some things people have said in the process, Occupy provides no demonstratable spokesperson or someone who the greater masses can be inspired by to allow them to also be swayed into supporting Occupy's cause. Leadership must be educated and be able to logically argue the issues for a result. I have not seen anyone who can discuss the Occupy movement on a political or economic level and demonstrate it as a solve. Anyone would do. An internet personality or 'Mr X' if you will would work, so long as he was articulate and demonstrated a clear message that people could relate to and follow. The fact is, for a movement like this to affect change, they need a clear leader who everyone can get behind.

4. Hardship. Ok, of all the things you need, this is probably the obvious one that Occupy can say they have. Obviously people all over the world are doing it tough in a lot of places. There is high unemployment in Europe and the US and increasing rates of poverty which is where almost all this resentment is coming from. There is a definite feeling by a lot of people that things are harder than they used to be and something should change. This is why Occupy has the initial support that it does.

However, regardless of what the majority of people think about 4, the perception of Occupy by the general public, due to its lacking in points 1, 2 and 3, is that it is not the downtroden that are leading the revolt. The general public sees only a bunch of know-nothing, bored, middle class kids that are protesting, along side serial protestors (people who just enjoy protesting and therefore will show up to a march if one is on... and anyone who has been to college or university will be able to tell you, such people exist) and people that are only there to cause trouble or see it as an opportunity to vandalise or commit criminal acts under the cover of the mob.

Unfortunately, no one has been smart enough within the movement yet to identify these points and therefore the movement will not be successful. It may, however, give birth to a splinter group out of its ashes when all the free wi-fi runs out that are able to successfully act on points 1, 2 and 3 and when that happens, people may say change was due to Occupy... but the truth is that change will be because of that splinter group started by people who were sick of Occupy's purposelessness.

"I am Jack's cold sweat."

reply