Occupy Wallstreet vs Middle East protests

Canon EF-S 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6

11/02/2011 11:44:35 AM · #76

Originally posted by Spork99:

The Tea Party was pretty much absorbed by the GOP. Their real effect was to drive the GOP further toward the extreme right, increasing the divide between the parties. They have become part of the system.

The OWS seems more about changing the system and not becoming just another spoke in the wheel. If they follow the Tea Party and become just another party faction, they've failed IMO.

I guess I'm trying to decide how one changes the system outside the system short of civil war? I think you have to change from within. The Tea Party manged to move a large portion of people to the right (not a good thing, but I'm noting that they actually became relevant). How does camping in a park manage to do this? Yes, it's generated publicity, but now that publicity needs to be turned into something good and that's where protests like this typically fail. The Tea Party managed to be about one issue, big government. OWS seems to be about either a dozen issues or no issues at all.

Again, it's not that I don't generally support what is being said, but it's disappointing when all the energy is wasted as heat instead of light.

o2bskating

Canon EOS-350D Rebel XT

11/02/2011 11:44:59 AM · #77

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Ah insults, the last bastion of debate for the intellectually weak.

I'll just summarize my position here:

1) Care about those less fortunate, not those more fortunate.
2) Vote. Always vote.
3) Be aware where you spend your money.
4) Volunteer.

If the OWS movement can bring about change along these guidelines, I support them. If they are just in it for themselves, well, that's boring.

you really are narcissistic you know you should go see a shrink.

11/02/2011 11:45:28 AM · #78

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

1) I don't care about the more fortunate unless their fortune comes at the expense of the less fortunate
2) I always vote, even when I have to write in the name of a competent candidate, which is often.
3) OK
4) Aren't the OWS protesters volunteering? I doubt they're getting paid and for the most part, they seem to be in it for everyone.

The 1% must be very boring to you, they've been in it for themselves for a long time and it seems to have worked quite well for them so far.

11/02/2011 11:59:29 AM · #79

Originally posted by o2bskating:

you really are narcissistic you know you should go see a shrink.

It's hard not to be when I'm so damn good looking!!!

11/02/2011 12:02:09 PM · #80

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Spork99:
The Tea Party was pretty much absorbed by the GOP. Their real effect was to drive the GOP further toward the extreme right, increasing the divide between the parties. They have become part of the system.

The OWS seems more about changing the system and not becoming just another spoke in the wheel. If they follow the Tea Party and become just another party faction, they've failed IMO.

I guess I'm trying to decide how one changes the system outside the system short of civil war? I think you have to change from within. The Tea Party manged to move a large portion of people to the right (not a good thing, but I'm noting that they actually became relevant). How does camping in a park manage to do this? Yes, it's generated publicity, but now that publicity needs to be turned into something good and that's where protests like this typically fail. The Tea Party managed to be about one issue, big government. OWS seems to be about either a dozen issues or no issues at all.

Again, it's not that I don't generally support what is being said, but it's disappointing when all the energy is wasted as heat instead of light.

OWS isn't a one issue pony, so?

The "system" changes all the time to meet the demands of those outside it. When the 1% want to pay less tax, they demand it. When corporations want the tax code shaped in ways that favor them, they demand it. When the banks screw up and need a $400B loan, they claim they're "too big to fail" and demand it. The common denominator is that their position to make their demands are based on wealth and the influence it gives them over government. What they lack is numbers. The question is how do you make demands when you have numbers, but not wealth? You and thousands of like minded folks sit out in shitty weather and refuse to go away until your issues are addressed.

11/02/2011 12:02:54 PM · #81

Originally posted by Spork99:

Then good on you Spaz. I'm not sure I'd call the OWS productive "volunteering" (hasn't that been my position all along?). I'm talking about helping at a soup kitchen, homeless shelter, food pantry. Whoever you are, there are assuredly people doing worse. You said you do 1-3, but then deflected #4 to the OWS protesters. Let me encourage you to volunteer somewhere. If you already are, great! Do more!

11/02/2011 12:06:42 PM · #82

Originally posted by Spork99:

The "system" changes all the time to meet the demands of those outside it. When the 1% want to pay less tax, they demand it. When corporations want the tax code shaped in ways that favor them, they demand it. When the banks screw up and need a $400B loan, they claim they're "too big to fail" and demand it. The common denominator is that their position to make their demands are based on wealth and the influence it gives them over government. What they lack is numbers. The question is how do you make demands when you have numbers, but not wealth? You and thousands of like minded folks sit out in shitty weather and refuse to go away until your issues are addressed.

Partially true. What you really need is leverage. You can translate numbers into leverage, but sitting in a park, to me, doesn't have a lot of leverage. How is that crimping the 1%'s style? The BoA $5 debit charge wasn't changed by the park people, it was changed by people calling into the bank and complaining or voting with their feet. I guess I don't know what the end game is in the OWS movement? How do they gain leverage?

11/02/2011 12:07:34 PM · #83

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Spork99:

1) I don't care about the more fortunate unless their fortune comes at the expense of the less fortunate
2) I always vote, even when I have to write in the name of a competent candidate, which is often.
3) OK
4) Aren't the OWS protesters volunteering? I doubt they're getting paid and for the most part, they seem to be in it for everyone.

The 1% must be very boring to you, they've been in it for themselves for a long time and it seems to have worked quite well for them so far.

Then good on you Spaz. I'm not sure I'd call the OWS productive "volunteering" (hasn't that been my position all along?). I'm talking about helping at a soup kitchen, homeless shelter, food pantry. Whoever you are, there are assuredly people doing worse. You said you do 1-3, but then deflected #4 to the OWS protesters. Let me encourage you to volunteer somewhere. If you already are, great! Do more!

I do.

As has been mentioned elsewhere, many of the OWS protesters have been feeding and caring for the homeless in their camps while protesting.

11/02/2011 12:16:14 PM · #84

Originally posted by Spork99:

As has been mentioned elsewhere, many of the OWS protesters have been feeding and caring for the homeless in their camps while protesting.

THAT I can get behind. :)

11/02/2011 12:26:10 PM · #85

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Originally posted by Spork99:
The "system" changes all the time to meet the demands of those outside it. When the 1% want to pay less tax, they demand it. When corporations want the tax code shaped in ways that favor them, they demand it. When the banks screw up and need a $400B loan, they claim they're "too big to fail" and demand it. The common denominator is that their position to make their demands are based on wealth and the influence it gives them over government. What they lack is numbers. The question is how do you make demands when you have numbers, but not wealth? You and thousands of like minded folks sit out in shitty weather and refuse to go away until your issues are addressed.

Partially true. What you really need is leverage. You can translate numbers into leverage, but sitting in a park, to me, doesn't have a lot of leverage. How is that crimping the 1%'s style? The BoA $5 debit charge wasn't changed by the park people, it was changed by people calling into the bank and complaining or voting with their feet. I guess I don't know what the end game is in the OWS movement? How do they gain leverage?

Before BofA announced their $5 fee, part of the OWS protest was to encourage people to move their money away from the big banks and to credit unions or local banks and/or call their bank to protest fees and account costs. The fact that BofA announced their $5 fee afterward just underscored their point. The banks claimed that changing was was difficult. The protesters said otherwise and encouraged people to act.

The protesters:

1) pointed out how simple it could be.
2) encouraged people to call their bank in protest and move their money elsewhere

It has leverage by its visibility. They're not simply sitting in parks feeding the birds and reading the paper. They're telling the people going to work for the organizations they wnat to chnage that people are upset with their company and their bosses. When someone comes to work and has to wade through a crowd of protestors, it has an effect and not just on that person, but on the company's workforce as a whole, which affects the bottom line (i.e. profits). As an investor, if I see two companies or industries and one has angry protesters upset with their practices and the other doesn't, I'm going to tend to put my money in the company without protesters.

Maybe even more significant is the audience the protesters have with the rest of the people. They can point out how the companies and the government have rigged the system against them and get people angry enough to act in some way...say by leaving their bank for a credit union.

Message edited by author 2011-11-02 12:30:27.

Canon EF 28-135mm F/3.5-5.6 IS USM

11/02/2011 12:57:19 PM · #86

It's a nice narrative, but I lean toward this article:

"The best way to affect(sic) change against corporations, whose sole purpose on the planet is to make money is quickly and efficiently as possible, is to simply take your business elsewhere. Of course, one person going across the street to do their banking isn�t going to be cause for a CEO to make a public apology video, but we have seen recently that the sound of enough people voting with their wallets can resonate up to even the highest corner office.

Instead of risking hypothermia this winter in a never-ending sit-in without a stated goal or finish line, maybe the considerable financial backing, media attention, and (dare I say) brand recognition of the Occupy movement could be used to call out to consumers, (especially the vast majority of us 99% who might sympathize on some level, but can�t camp out in the park every night) via the vast social and traditional media resources at the group�s disposal, to take their hard earned dollars away from those companies/institutions that the movement finds to be the most objectionable, perhaps sending a wake up call all the way up the corporate flow chart.

The Occupy movement was born because some of the 99% didn�t think they were being heard by the 1%. It appears now that the 1% is listening, you just have to know which ear is the �good� ear, and which ear is the deaf ear."

Earlier in the article he noted the "good" ear is the one next to the wallet.

Message edited by author 2011-11-02 13:02:52.

Kelli

Canon EOS-D60

11/02/2011 01:08:15 PM · #87

//iamlaurenleonardi.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/eleve-simple-ways-to-support-the-occupy-movement-without-sleeping-in-a-park/

Apple iPhone 5

Nikon AF-S DX Zoom-Nikkor 18-55mm f/3.5-5.6 ED

11/02/2011 01:17:05 PM · #88

Originally posted by Kelli:

//iamlaurenleonardi.wordpress.com/2011/10/26/eleve-simple-ways-to-support-the-occupy-movement-without-sleeping-in-a-park/

There's a paragraph encouraging people to send food to the protestors. I love this line: "One pizza can go a long way in a democratic resistance movement that opposes greed."

Better hope it has plenty toppings... :)

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/02/2011 01:17:44 PM · #89

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

Earlier in the article he noted the "good" ear is the one next to the wallet.

So you are saying that to protest their lack of economic power, they ought to flex their economic power?

To protest the consolidation of all one's banking choices into the hands of a few huge corporations, by finding a new bank?

If you acknowledge that the having and using of money is the only way to effectuate change in our society, then aren't you making the protesters point? Aren't you saying that money has taken over our democracy?

Message edited by author 2011-11-02 13:18:09.

tnun

Ricoh GR III

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR DC

11/02/2011 01:40:13 PM · #90

Excellent point, Brennan, and thanks to drach for occasioning so many such.

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR DC

11/02/2011 02:02:19 PM · #91

Originally posted by BrennanOB:

Originally posted by DrAchoo:
Earlier in the article he noted the "good" ear is the one next to the wallet.

So you are saying that to protest their lack of economic power, they ought to flex their economic power?

To protest the consolidation of all one's banking choices into the hands of a few huge corporations, by finding a new bank?

If you acknowledge that the having and using of money is the only way to effectuate change in our society, then aren't you making the protesters point? Aren't you saying that money has taken over our democracy?

Good questions. Surely you aren't advocating a society without money? I don't really think you are, but again (as is apt in these online discussions), you are pushing me into some extreme position because it's easier to defeat (known as a straw man). I won't push you into a similarly extreme, but diametrically opposed position.

The masses may not individually possess "economic power", but together they possess massive economic power. That's the power of being en masse. It is a power the 1%, by definition, will never possess. 70% of the GDP is...consumer spending.

Your bank question is a false dichotomy. There are always smaller banks and if we don't like the "too large to fail" banks we should go to the smaller ones. A quick google of "banks eugene" shows that in my smallish city of 150,000 people I have literally dozens and dozens of options. So what's your point?

tnun

Ricoh GR III

11/02/2011 02:08:03 PM · #92

it is, I think, deceptively simple: 1% has more money than 99%, therefore more power. of the kind we are talking about. of the kind YOU were talking about.

Pentax DA 18-135mm F3.5-5.6ED AL [IF] WR DC

11/02/2011 02:16:53 PM · #93

Originally posted by tnun:

it is, I think, deceptively simple: 1% has more money than 99%, therefore more power. of the kind we are talking about. of the kind YOU were talking about.

Yes, but that's always going to be the truth isn't it, by definition? The 1% richest will always be the 1% richest. We can agree together that the gap is too large and we need to make changes. Progressive taxation is the best manner, IMO, to do this. Are you surprised I'm saying any of this?

tnun

Ricoh GR III

11/02/2011 02:22:27 PM · #94

not at all surprised but your logic continues to astound.

GeneralE

Canon PowerShot S3 IS

Canon 12x IS USM (S3 IS built-in Lens) -- 36-432mm (35mm EQ)

11/02/2011 02:23:37 PM · #95

It's not like these issues haven't arisen before ...

Originally posted by Edward Bellamy:

Nothing had, however, occurred to modify the
immemorial division of society into the four classes, or nations, as
they may be more fitly called, since the differences between them were
far greater than those between any nations nowadays, of the rich and
the poor, the educated and the ignorant. I myself was rich and also
educated, and possessed, therefore, all the elements of happiness
enjoyed by the most fortunate in that age. Living in luxury, and
occupied only with the pursuit of the pleasures and refinements of
life, I derived the means of my support from the labor of others,
rendering no sort of service in return. My parents and grand-parents
had lived in the same way, and I expected that my descendants, if I had
any, would enjoy a like easy existence.

But how could I live without service to the world? you ask. Why should
the world have supported in utter idleness one who was able to render
service? The answer is that my great-grandfather had accumulated a sum
of money on which his descendants had ever since lived. The sum, you
will naturally infer, must have been very large not to have been
exhausted in supporting three generations in idleness. This, however,
was not the fact. The sum had been originally by no means large. It
was, in fact, much larger now that three generations had been supported
upon it in idleness, than it was at first. This mystery of use without
consumption, of warmth without combustion, seems like magic, but was
merely an ingenious application of the art now happily lost but carried
to great perfection by your ancestors, of shifting the burden of one's
support on the shoulders of others. The man who had accomplished this,
and it was the end all sought, was said to live on the income of his
investments. To explain at this point how the ancient methods of
industry made this possible would delay us too much. I shall only stop
now to say that interest on investments was a species of tax in
perpetuity upon the product of those engaged in industry which a person
possessing or inheriting money was able to levy. It must not be
supposed that an arrangement which seems so unnatural and preposterous
according to modern notions was never criticized by your ancestors. It
had been the effort of lawgivers and prophets from the earliest ages to
abolish interest, or at least to limit it to the smallest possible
rate. All these efforts had, however, failed, as they necessarily must
so long as the ancient social organizations prevailed. At the time of
which I write, the latter part of the nineteenth century, governments
had generally given up trying to regulate the subject at all.

By way of attempting to give the reader some general impression of the
way people lived together in those days, and especially of the
relations of the rich and poor to one another, perhaps I cannot do
better than to compare society as it then was to a prodigious coach
which the masses of humanity were harnessed to and dragged toilsomely
along a very hilly and sandy road. The driver was hunger, and permitted
no lagging, though the pace was necessarily very slow. Despite the
difficulty of drawing the coach at all along so hard a road, the top
was covered with passengers who never got down, even at the steepest
ascents. These seats on top were very breezy and comfortable. Well up
out of the dust, their occupants could enjoy the scenery at their
leisure, or critically discuss the merits of the straining team.
Naturally such places were in great demand and the competition for them
was keen, every one seeking as the first end in life to secure a seat
on the coach for himself and to leave it to his child after him. By the
rule of the coach a man could leave his seat to whom he wished, but on
the other hand there were many accidents by which it might at any time
be wholly lost. For all that they were so easy, the seats were very
insecure, and at every sudden jolt of the coach persons were slipping
out of them and falling to the ground, where they were instantly
compelled to take hold of the rope and help to drag the coach on which
they had before ridden so pleasantly. It was naturally regarded as a
terrible misfortune to lose one's seat, and the apprehension that this
might happen to them or their friends was a constant cloud upon the
happiness of those who rode.

But did they think only of themselves? you ask. Was not their very
luxury rendered intolerable to them by comparison with the lot of their
brothers and sisters in the harness, and the knowledge that their own
weight added to their toil? Had they no compassion for fellow beings
from whom fortune only distinguished them? Oh, yes; commiseration was
frequently expressed by those who rode for those who had to pull the
coach, especially when the vehicle came to a bad place in the road, as
it was constantly doing, or to a particularly steep hill. At such
times, the desperate straining of the team, their agonized leaping and
plunging under the pitiless lashing of hunger, the many who fainted at
the rope and were trampled in the mire, made a very distressing
spectacle, which often called forth highly creditable displays of
feeling on the top of the coach. At such times the passengers would
call down encouragingly to the toilers of the rope, exhorting them to
patience, and holding out hopes of possible compensation in another
world for the hardness of their lot, while others contributed to buy
salves and liniments for the crippled and injured. It was agreed that
it was a great pity that the coach should be so hard to pull, and there
was a sense of general relief when the specially bad piece of road was
gotten over. This relief was not, indeed, wholly on account of the
team, for there was always some danger at these bad places of a general
overturn in which all would lose their seats.

It must in truth be admitted that the main effect of the spectacle of
the misery of the toilers at the rope was to enhance the passengers'
sense of the value of their seats upon the coach, and to cause them to
hold on to them more desperately than before. If the passengers could
only have felt assured that neither they nor their friends would ever
fall from the top, it is probable that, beyond contributing to the
funds for liniments and bandages, they would have troubled themselves
extremely little about those who dragged the coach.

I am well aware that this will appear to the men and women of the
twentieth century an incredible inhumanity, but there are two facts,
both very curious, which partly explain it. In the first place, it was
firmly and sincerely believed that there was no other way in which
Society could get along, except the many pulled at the rope and the few
rode, and not only this, but that no very radical improvement even was
possible, either in the harness, the coach, the roadway, or the
distribution of the toil. It had always been as it was, and it always
would be so. It was a pity, but it could not be helped, and philosophy
forbade wasting compassion on what was beyond remedy.

The other fact is yet more curious, consisting in a singular
hallucination which those on the top of the coach generally shared,
that they were not exactly like their brothers and sisters who pulled
at the rope, but of finer clay, in some way belonging to a higher order
of beings who might justly expect to be drawn. This seems
unaccountable, but, as I once rode on this very coach and shared that
very hallucination, I ought to be believed. The strangest thing about
the hallucination was that those who had but just climbed up from the
ground, before they had outgrown the marks of the rope upon their
hands, began to fall under its influence. As for those whose parents
and grand-parents before them had been so fortunate as to keep their
seats on the top, the conviction they cherished of the essential
difference between their sort of humanity and the common article was
absolute. The effect of such a delusion in moderating fellow feeling
for the sufferings of the mass of men into a distant and philosophical
compassion is obvious. To it I refer as the only extenuation I can
offer for the indifference which, at the period I write of, marked my
own attitude toward the misery of my brothers.

From Looking Backward: 2000-1887

Tamron SP AF 28-75mm f/2.8 XR Di for Canon

11/02/2011 02:25:05 PM · #96

Originally posted by tnun:

not at all surprised but your logic continues to astound.

Hmm, you'll have to explain since I wasn't employing a logical argument in the last post but rather just stating positions.

BrennanOB

Canon EOS-1D Mark II

11/02/2011 02:34:15 PM · #97

Originally posted by DrAchoo:

So what's your point?

It is a slippery point because we live in a capitalist society, and it is a bit like fish trying to talk about being too wet. However we are living through a period of reevaluation of who ought to run our world. The flag of unfettered capitalism has flow over our world for the last thirty years, and people are seeing some of the discontents of that rule.

The center point of capital in the USA is now somewhere near the richest 8% holding half and the lower 92% holding half. Because the 8% have a vastly higher proportion of discretionary spending, their money's power is greatly amplified. You just can't financially support candidates you like when you are scraping by. when you make several hundred thousand over the poverty line, you can. The lower 99% may control the majority of the money, but most of that money gets used keeping the lights on.

At the moment our country is debating cutting entitlements, decertifying teachers unions, and incentifying "job creators" and getting rid of the "death tax". We are in short trying to figure out how to get more money into the hands of those with the most money. My point is that this is a bad policy. Trickle down economics is a proven failure, we ought to find a new path.

During the Age of Reason, Francis Bacon wrote "Above all things good policy is to be used so that the treasures and monies in a state be not gathered into a few hands... Money is like muck, not good except it be spread."

Message edited by author 2011-11-02 14:35:13.