Badmovies.org Forum

When did this "Occupy whatever" thing get started? Is it some hip new movement?
It seems to be all over the place lately and is starting to annoy me.

It's the liberal equivalent of the Tea Party.  Unfocused outrage with no practical ideas.  Ignore it and it will go away soon enough.

I wish they would occupy my undies: that would make them go away in a hurry.

A good friend of mine in New York has to pass by or through these characters 5 days a week to get to where he works. He says it looks like a bad party with no focus....that has gone on too long.

If they're the 99%, I suppose I'm the other 99%.... :question:

Bored college students that don't really know whats going on.

I think the Reverend nailed it.  These folks are mad at everybody that has more than they do, because it's just not fair!  Most of them seem to be in violation of numerous civic codes, others have crossed the line into vandalism, arson, and assault.  The Oakland bunch was particularly thuggish.

Time for that Napoleonic "whiff of grapeshot"! :bouncegiggle:

I find the whole thing pretty interesting, especially since I've noticed that people's viewpoints about it seem particularly colored by the manner in which people receive their news.

There are plenty of people involved in the Occupy movement with more nuanced views than are generally reported. If you receive your news from organizations that are not in sympathy with the protestors, they are generally presented as either naive college kids or, at worst, thugs similar to the recent riots in England. There's more going on there than that.

A lot of what the occupiers do is theater, but that's protest. It is what it is.

Stepping aside the politics of the protestors, I find the police response to the situation to be fairly odious. indianasmith brought up Oakland. The Oakland police have been some of the worst offenders as far as the over-use of force, such as shooting clearly non-threatening photographers with non-lethal projectiles, or tossing a flash grenade into a group of people attempting to help another wounded person. Both of those incidents are very easy to find online. Combine that with the widespread practice of police covering up there name tags to avoid identification (also readily available online), well... that is just inexcusable.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=OZLyUK0t0vQ

I like the police, but there's a reason people in positions of authority need to be held to a high level of accountability. The abuse of authority going on in these situations should concern anybody who cares about this country.

I support them fully. The only way to affect real change is to take action. People are fully within their rights to protest and well should be if they're really in  a democractic society...something of which I wonder about more and more these days.

I sympathize with the ideas behind the movement, shame that the only people within it that get press/media attention are the delusional wanna-be's and the clueless who are just hanging out cuz it's the new "hip" thing to be doing.

The prolonged occupations turn into shanty towns.  This does nothing to impress or attract the support of the public.  In Toronto the social workers are saying that (by Friday last) at least 10% of their clients have moved out of shelters and into tents in the park.  Hard to see that as a good thing.

No focus, no practical suggestions and no sign of the potential of getting any soon.  They've passed the point of having any positive effect: time to pack up and move on to the next thing.  Whatever that may be.

Thanks Rev for a succinct yet measured response. The liberal equivalent of the Tea Party movement is about as appropriate a comparison as we're likely to get.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oaohFnBHtkk

Me too.  My question is, how are these people eating and paying for the bills.  If they are the 99% that is, (I have a lot to say and the server will crash with my wordage about this goofs) Oh nevermind.  All I know is that these people need to stop occupying everything and start applying for everything (employment).

I think I will keep the rest of my opions about these people quiet.

Later,

John

Those are my sentiments as well. It's not that I don't have sympathy. Believe me, I do. It's not that I don't understand how rough it is. I do.

However, economic recovery is what we need. Occupy Wall Street, whether they mean to or not, are countering economic recovery. I understand that they are angry for being out of work. But shutting down businesses is exactly what you DON'T want to do if you want econmic recovery. It's like trying to cure a headache by cutting off your head.

Man, I'm disappointed in you guys , you don't have a clue, this movement ain't going away.  I've been mesmerized with this thing since it started .

First off it's not just a bunch of partying kids.  The mayor of Oakland's legal advisor resigned over the police raids , and yesterday when the protestors almost shut down the

down the New York stock exchange, a bunch of New York city council members joined in with Occupy.

They are saying that yesterday was the beginning.

The 99% are the middle class and poor in this country, if you haven't noticed the Middle class in this country is swirling down the drain.


Do some research before you judge these folks

I never said that it was going away. My point is it is a misdirected movement that is harming economic recovery, not helping it.

What I wonder is, what is the expectation? I have yet to hear a coherent answer. To send a message? If so, what's the message? What is the outcome? Can you tell me what it is? I'm genuinely eager to learn. I haven't researched this movement thoroughly as I don't feel a need. Whenever I read an article it looks like little more than a mob with a lot of anger.

So, anyway, I'm curious to know what the agenda is.

My agenda is I would like to see this country recover. It can be done. It is NOT going to be done by the Occupy Wall Street movement. Ask any econimist, this is fundamental stuff. At times when this country has seen really hard times, the recovery happened when people got back to work. And please don't tell me "well don't you think they would be working if they could?" Because I'll tell you that I firmly believe that at least a decent portion of protestors have NOT done all they can. You can't tell me there isn't a significant component of them that have spent more time and energy protesting than they have seeking employment or volunteering or doing something positive.

Fine. Protest. Shut down businesses. Just don't kid yourself that this is about recovery. This is about collapse, and bringing the whole thing down. What exactly do you think the aftermath will be like? Do you think all the wrongs of a corporatist state will be righted? Occupy Wall Street is not going to change the fact that there is an enormous population of people in the Eastern hemisphere, much larger than our own, who ARE ready to work, and are more than happy to pick up the pieces.


Just what research am I supposed to do?

I honestly believe a lot of people feel they are fighting as much for their rights as a lot of protestors overseas are also continuing to do as well. The police actions remind me of a dictatorship, not a free country.

   I think the problem is that whatever genuine complaints and gripes these folks may have with runaway corporatism have been completely drowned out by the lawless, burn-it-all-down thugs and miscreants that have hijacked the movement.  The widespread filth, obscenity, drug use, poor sanitation, and tolerance for lawbreaking in the camps left civic authorities little choice but to shut them down.  In the end, their protest have hurt the very people they claim to represent and generally irritated more than inspired the American public!

  The Constitution guarantees "the right of the people to peacably assemble;" it does NOT guarantee immunity from consequences when you break the law.  These folks could learn a lesson from the respect for authority and general cleanliness and order of the Tea Party movement.  You might despise the values of the Tea Party, but the fact is when several hundred thousand of them marched on Washington, they left the National Mall cleaner than they found it, and did not tolerate obscenity or slogans that were racist or promoted violence.

Not to mention that they are directing their anger at the government, the entity that has allowed the conditions in which a corporatist environment has risen and thrived. I never thought I would defend the Tea Party movement, because I always thought they were a bit nutty, and still do, but in comparison they almost look the model of rationality and purpose. The poster for Occupy Wall Street would be amusing if the movement weren't so destructive:

(http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/5/57/Wall-Street-1.jpg)

Yeah, what IS your one demand? Indeed.

Oh, and let's not kid ourselves by trying to paint a picture of them as a bunch of frustrated unemployed people protesting injustice. In a poll of 200 protestors by the polling firm Penn Schoen and Berland, 98% percent would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, 31% would support violence to advance their agenda, and most are employed.

What's more, according to the Liberty Square Blueprint, which is supposed to be a very loose kind of manifesto of Occupy Wall Street, the agenda is essentially communism. In tone and methodology it resembles the Russian Revolution, except the Russians were more organized and were more honest about their agenda.

Do people forget that the monstrosity called the Soviet Union slaughtered about 60 million of its own citizens in the 70 odd years of its blighted existence?  That it denied all freedoms and civil rights to its citizens?


If these people hate capitalism so much, let them throw away their IPods and Cell Phones and cars and computers and all the other thousand and one conveniences invented in the last 100 years because capitalism finally harnessed and empowered mankind's creative impulses!

I think that whatever this was intended to be has been left behind. I'm afraid that some are using this as a way to simply act out. I do believe in free speech,don't get me wrong...I firmly believe in it. But Some of these characters are pushing it.

I really don't believe America is a democracy anymore....at least I'm not fully convinced it is.

It never was. It has always been a constitutional republic.

I really don't understand why socialism gets such a bad rap in the U.S. - we've had socialist principles for years and years at work here and some political parties where clearly built on those ideals at work there. The Soviet Union under Stalin clearly wasn't really a socialist system but a dictactorship.

Capitalism works as long as money does come down through the system and is used to create more jobs and boost the economy but when the mafia and corporate greed controls the purse strings, it seems not much does...

Well, you were lamenting a loss of democracy, yet you appear to favor socialism. I'm confused.

The reason for U.S. attitudes toward socialism is a complex one.

On one hand, these attitudes are based on attitudes that were applied to European socialism of the early part of last century. Socialism has evolved softer forms since that time, but initially, it was very much hand-in-hand with Soviet socialism (and yes, it was a form of socialism) and the German national socialist movement, also known as the Nazi Party. Americans have largely been reluctant to acknowledge the softer forms that have developed since the fall of the Soviet Union.

Another factor in American attitudes comes from the U.S. economic position. The U.S. has been the economic superpower for a good stretch, although sadly that is changing. This economic superpower status did not develop via socialism, but rather through rugged individualist capitalist models. And don't underestimate the sheer weight of the U.S. economic system. It may under the threat of crumbling at the moment. But nobody can really deny that the global financial crisis is almost inextricably linked to the U.S. crisis. What happens to the U.S. financial markets affects EVERYBODY.

Then there's profitability and all of that. Socialism can be very touchy feely with things like free healthcare and free this and free that. And the U.S. simply can't support socialism right now. We don't have the infrastructure to support it. Socialism would absolutely destroy us right now. Lack of infrastructure is a much bigger factor than anybody cares to admit. The reason China has emerged as it has is because of investment in infrastructure. They have it. We don't. We also can't afford to spend on it unless taxes are raised to a level that will absolutely cripple economic growth. The U.S. is in a serious catch-22 right now and we're kinda stuck.

Now, you made an absolutely solid point about capitalism. Capitalism works when it is capitalism. What you're talking about, with corporations controlling the purse strings, that is not capitalism. But you can't blame the corporations. Corporations function, and will only function well, when pursuing profits. They can only do this by exploiting opportunities. If there is a complete separation of business and state, then no such purse strings can be controlled, and businessed operate on a level playing field, and the laws of supply and demand regulate themselves. It drives me a little nuts when people blame capitalism for what corporatism is doing. And if you don't know the difference between the two, I suggest you look it up. Not you personally, Jase, but anybody.

I also wonder why we, my own country included, trade with China in essence helping to keep in power a Communist government regime...sending jobs overseas and reducing levels of pay here in doing so both with raw material and in production.

I'll admit I'm no political expert but I know some parties here embrace socialist "ideals" and we have had social programs for many, many years here I couldn't imagine living without. The U.S. admittedly is a whole 'nother place with a far greater population to deal with but those numbers are out there, a large number of dissatisfied folks and if they do organize and get together, serious change may well be looming around the corner...

The "Occupy" movement is unfortunately not a monolithic entity. There are quite a few people of differing ideas out there, I don't think there's any sort of central consensus.

However, the central idea is not to shut down businesses. I really don't think that's ever been one of the protestor's aims. It's protest as theater, to call attention to a runaway system of financial interests that led to the recent financial meltdown.

The sub-prime mortgage meltdown was not caused by any system of government, it was caused by a***oles who decided to game the system to make themselves a s**tload of money, and the devil chase the rest. Once that clusterf**k came home to roost, what was the governments best solution? Give them all of our money, because they're "too big to fail."

I'm all for the vagaries of economic recovery, but what's the solution? To give more money to the irresponsible a***oles who set everybody else to fail in the first place?

Like I said, the "Occupiers" are not one monolithic entity, but I believe the central idea is that we should not continue with that.

That's economics and politics, and we can argue about that until we're blue in the face.

The one thing I will not give in for is the police response to the protestors. No matter what your politics are, the violence and jack-booted thuggery is unacceptable for a society that prides itself on "freedom." Pepper-spraying innocent protestors, tossing flash grenades into a crowd of people trying to help a person injured by police violence? There has been an incredibly violent response against the protestors perpetrated by those who should be our protection.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6AdDLhPwpp4

This happened. I can not believe that this is acceptable for anybody, and it's just one example.

The pepper spraying of the students at UC Davis makes me sick.
Whats next?
Anyone remember Kent State in 1970?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BSU3zqLjXNA&feature=related

The solution for economic recovery has always been everybody getting back to work, earning and spending. Why would now be any different?

We live in a climate in the U.S. where people demand immediate results. If people don't see an economic recovery within a couple of years, or within an administration, they panic and start protesting, not realizing that by protesting and not working they are exacerbating the problem. I like how the poll I mentioned earlier indicated that most of the protesters are actually employed. Why aren't you at your jobs then?

The name of the movement is Occupy Wall Street, what are they if they're not trying to shut down the financial system? What is the inevitable result of success? Collapse. And if it goes bad for the U.S., it will go bad for everybody.

Well, I personally believe that socialism does work. However, a lot of things have to be just right for it to function well. It tends to work best in smaller populations, amongst people of homogeneous culture, with a strong infrastructure in place, and either abundant resources available or in the vicinity of another country that produces significant wealth. If you start removing any of those conditions, socialism starts to fall apart or turn in to communism. Don't forget that socialism was originally intended to be a stepping stone to communism.

I can tell you exactly why we trade with China and outsource labor to China and outsource services to India. They have enormous populations of people that are more than happy to do the work, while people here are protesting. It is more profitable for businesses to broker and focus on technology development because things are so regulated here that the labor market costs too much. So they outsource it, and it is cheaper, even considering all the money spent on fuel to get it over here, it is still cheaper. That speaks volumes. So the wealth is being made, but it's in brokering and technology, and the labor market shrinks and this is why we have a shrinking middle class and this tiny percentage of people that have most of the wealth. If it were cheaper for companies to produce here, they would.

Another problem is that too many Americans don't want to take a reduction in pay or don't want to do any dirty work or jobs that they see as beneath them. Now many are being forced to. While this is not nice, economic recover won't happen until people accept that they have to tighten their belts and get back to work. We can't all have college degrees and work in a clean office. Some have to do dirty jobs. That's life. Deal with it. Besides, I've always thought there was a good deal of honor in a hard day's work.

Anyway, I think I'm winding down in my input on this thread. I think I've said about all I can.

Your input has been great here Flick. I know all about doing an hard day's work and I do have what many might consider a "dirty job". Anyways the thing here too is that banks got away with so much and hose being at the top n big business got away with so much....that plain p'o' ed people off and rightly so. If Obama had followed through on more of his promises, this probably wouldn't even be happening now...still I'm disturbed by the police action I've seen on the news. It doesn't make the U.S. look favorable in the international news, not at all.

They got away with things because there were no consequences for anything. In the real capitalist world, when businesses make bad decisions, they pay the price.

Please enlighten me on what Obama promised to do that he did not. Something tells me it involves even more government intervention to solve a problem created by government intervention.

The guilty and criminal should have been brought to justice...some shouldn't have been bailed out at all. The system shouldn't be structured with such a wide divide between earners at the top in big business and those at the bottom, money that just grows in their pockets while everyone else is made to work for less and less income while inflation grows more and more out of control.

I have a lot of friends, some of the best and brightest people I've ever known, involved in the Occupy movement in the U.S.. I've seen a lot of them struggle to keep a job and those who have are often being paid far less than they should be. Yet those right at the top are still being protected and sheltered no matter what they do...

Brought to justice for doing what? What crime did the banks commit? Be specific.

I don't know if it's a crime in the literal sense (although no doubt some criminal activity did happen too when we're talking big money and big business) but I'm sure some taxpayers feel that money was being robbed from their pockets to bailout huge corporations and help promote a corporatist state without moral repercussions and will likely expect more bailouts in future at the expense of said taxpayers. Money that could have went instead into other infrastrutuce to help the many instead of the few. Is the U.S. a corporatist state?

Well, nobody can be brought to justice unless there is an indictable crime that took place. You can't bring corporations to justice for something the government did. Did the corporations and banks give themselves a bailout? No, the government did. So the only ones that are truly culpable are those in government that gave the money, yes? The corporations didn't rob the money from the taxpayers. Geesh.


Yes.

They can still pay back the government, couldn't they? And than said money could be used for other important needs, could it not?

While driving home from work about a week ago, I noticed a couple of "Occupy" protestors out in front of Town Hall near where I live... and when I say "a couple," I mean two bored looking guys standing out in the rain waving "WE ARE THE 99 PERCENT" signs near a stop light.

I couldn't help but wonder if they were hoping that others would be inspired to join them, or if they'd merely missed the last bus to the "real" protest.

Geesh.

Too facile, Flick James.

What there should be is a governmental committee to see when the financial sector is doing something that would be damaging, the sort of thing that might damage America and might be illegal. You know, insider trading and things that may be against those anti-monopoly laws.

What has happened is that those who were in a position to call attention to corporate malfeasance conveniently decided never to push the matter. In many cases, once these stalwarts of democracy didn't decide to push charges, they quit their positions and took very lucrative positions amidst the very same companies they were investigating.

Nothing illegal has happened because the people who were supposed to be investigating them thought it would be better to join the Dark Side.

It's the graft, just in more high-falutin' tunes.

Great, then if the government agencies assigned to investigate and prosecute crimes are incompetent, then I'm right back to the premise I've been providing all along. Corporations are ALWAYS going to exploit opportunities. That is what they do in the endeavor of seeking a profit. If they don't behave that way then our economic sector doesn't do as well. Any way you slice it, government intervention, either through active interference or incompetence, is to blame, facile as that may seem.

As for anti-trust laws, they're a joke. Monopolies happen from time to time in a laissez faire free market. So be it. They never last. In a free market, if a company manages to establish and maintain a monopoly, it took a lot of talent and ingenuity and hard work to get there, and good for them. But monopolies in a free market can't last indefinitely. Competitors cannot be kept out forever. There are only two ways a firm can have a true monopoly: by exclusive patent or by government intervention. Exclusive patents eventually run out and allow competitors into the market. Government intervention is tougher because it is impossible to get rid of. Government intervention causes coercive monopolies, the very kind of monopolies that anti-trust laws are supposed to prevent.

I have yet to have anybody present a real-world scenario to me in which entrepreneurs created a coercive monopoly through the free market. Coercive monopolies are ALWAYS due to government involvement. One of the oldest examples in American history is the railroad expansion of the 1800's. People say that capitalism was to blame for the enormous power and coercive monopolies on rail transportation that the big railroad companies held. Nonsense. They had such power because the government subsidized westward expansion, giving unfair advantage to the companies they subsidized.

I challenge you to find me an example of a coercive monopoly created by capitalism. I doubt you'll be able to find one. Sooner or later, they all come down to some kind of government involvement that, had it not been there, the coercive monopoly or crisis would not have happened.

Don't get me wrong, the government SHOULD be investigating and prosecuting criminal activity in the corporate world. But let's not sugarcoat things. The government is again having to solve a problem that they themselves created, while businesses get the finger pointed at them as the cause of the problem. I would much rather slowly dismantle the anti-trust laws, the Federal Reserve, and any other form of government intervention in business and let companies stand or fall on their own. This is exactly what the big corporations DON'T want. Trust me, the last thing the big corporations want is to upset the corporatist culture we live in now, and be forced to compete in an organic free market. The economy may experience very slow growth, but at least it would be real growth, not an illusion of growth manufactured by credit expansion backed and encouraged by politicians looking to make their administration look like they're good for the economy, constantly blowing up that credit bubble until it pops. And now look at the mess we're in. And who will yet again be called in to save the day? The same government f**ked it up in the first place. And on and on it goes.

The Occupy Wall Street movement may have a confused and scattered body of people involved, but don't kid yourself, the underlying ideology, as loose as it is, endeavors to bring the whole thing down and replace it with direct government control of EVERYTHING. So, quite literally, they want communism.

Was that less facile?  :wink:

 

That reminds me of a good many years ago when I was still living in my home town. The KKK decided to have a rally there to boost support. All that showed up were two guys who stood on the court house lawn holding up signs and occassionally calling out to passers by. A big line of cars started to circle the court house just to see two "real Klansmen" and many were yelling out insults. One gave up after an hour,leaving one pretty uncomfortable guy to wait it out another hour before retreating. It was talked about for days....a lot longer than they were there!

Sorry about the change of subject....carry on!

     Also, you have some of what you saw in the 60's, priviliged young people who develop a sense of guilt over having so much, who feel a skewed obligation to "level the playing field".

     In any event, they're an impediment, and should be dealt with, not showcased on what passes for the news these days.

There is something to be said for that. I just think of the current telecommunications industry in Canada. We pay through the nose for telephone, internet, etc., and the little companies that try to offer better deals or cheaper alternatives run into, among other things, regulations that make it impossible to charge significantly less than the big players.

And anti-monopoly laws are among the most unenforceable. There are a number of industries where there does not appear to be a whole lot of active competition between the major players. It might be illegal for competing companies to form unofficial cartels and fix prices, but it's a hell of a thing to prove. Think about that the next time you're buying gas.

As for the question of responsibility, a good way to think of big business is as a dog. A dog can be friendly and well-behaved, eager to please and conditioned to do the right thing most of the time, but it's always driven by its instinctive needs. It knows nothing of long-term consequences or how its actions affect others. Its strongest impulse will always be to do what will provide immediate reward. Leave a plate of food on the coffee table while you run for the phone, and the dog is going to eat it. Some dogs might do it right away and some might fight the urge, not because they know right from wrong, but because they know what brings punishment or reward. Most will give in sooner or later. Dogs need to be fenced in, walked on a leash, kept away from temptation and never completely trusted around food or garbage or anything that might be nice to eat or chew. A dog will do as much as it can get away with, and it's up to the owner to consistently train that dog, constrain it as necessary, and take care not to make it too easy or tempting for that dog to misbehave. If it does misbehave, the owner takes the bigger share of the blame. The dog is just doing what it does.

So it is with corporations. They do as much as they can get away with in pursuit of short-term profit. If they are not adequately monitored and the rules are not consistently enforced, they will misbehave. And if you give them a big chunk of cash, they will gobble it up without a second thought. So yes, if big banks created a mess and then squandered a huge bailout, the greater fault is with the people who should have made it harder for them to do so.