Occupy !
- Thread starter DroidHost
- Start date
- Status
Morgain
Well-known member
Joining in ...
There are some basic components here that don't seem to have been covered
(yes I've been reading up not just crashing in)
Welfare payments are not charity, not idealistic handouts in the slightest.
They began in the late 19th and early 20thC.
The reasons were and still are completely practical and self interested by the top class who I call the rulers - the decision makers.
The market competition over the 19thC had created a large class of poor people, driven off the land into the cities. The labour available was mostly poorly paid with no health care. (Some did well, the majority did not.)
Studies late 19thC showed that the lower half of the working class did not earn enough to eat, and house themselves. Simple as that.
Employers drove wages down using immigrant labour, unequal payy for females, and short term agreements.
The result was a huge number of desperately poor people who lived dreadful lives through no fault of their own. That mattered little to the rulers apart from a few philanthropists. Most if the rulers made their money so everything (to them) was fine.
But what did matter was two things.
One was the Boer War where it was discovered that young males needed to serve as soldiers were too weak and too sickly to do so. That affected us as a world power, and our ability to force trade agreements on lesser powers.
The other was disease and crime. A lot of this was held away from the rulers by high walls, guards, physical separation. But when cholera and similar scourges spread from the dens of the poor via the servant class, the ruler families wsere threatened.
Similarly there is a mathematical relation between how unequal people are, and crime. Eventually the crime level, including violence and theft, reaches into even the most well protected ruler family.
As the Romans understood bread and circuses are essential to keep the underclass under control and their dirt, disease, and violence from threatening the moneymakers. So for bread read welfare. For circuses read organised sport, television, pop music and gaming.
We pay welfare so the moneymakers can make their money in peace.
Incidentally the figure of 51% not paying taxes I presume that includes the vast underpayment by the moneyed class both personally and corporately? It always amuses me that when people speak with great contempt of the underclass committing fraud on welfare payments there is rarely reference to the colossal cheating done by accountants, old boy networks etc.
But now there is. The idea of fraud at both the top and bottom of society has entered the discourse and it's part of the Occupy! movement. Why should a welfare recipient who cheats to get £50 be treated far more harshly than UK MPs who fiddled their expenses by £15,000? Or the big corporates who just move their money out of the country where they made it?
As for national debt that is another whole story. But beware of treating it like housekeeping. It's very different.
This isn't like personal debt (nowadays called credit). Pay that off and you're better off. But if a country pays down its debt instead of paying for services them companies crash, unemployment soars, and the economy goes into spin.
It's no good talking self reliance, working hard. Whether you're individually self employed, or trying to run a company - you can't unless the public services are there to support you. If your clients can't get to you in a city because the trains are spaced to far apart or too expensive, then you can't make money off them. The roads will also clog up with private traffic further hitting on business sales. If rubbish is not collected often enough you live with health risks that affect your workers' efficiency.
If the local council cuts its projects that cuts the income of 1000s of private companies - government local and national is a big customer.
Have a look at The Spirit Level (book). It's about how inequality is RELATIVE.
In a poor country if there is a moderate difference between rich and poor, you get a strong economy, and healthy populace.
In a rich country if there is a big difference between rich and poor, you get a weak economy, and sickly populace. This is what has happened UK and USA.
So although protesters may be well dressed, not starving, and using gadgets, they are RELATIVELY poor. They know it.
Also their cheap clothes, food and gadgets come from extremely poor workers who are heavily deprived - part of the global outsourcing. We no longer live in nation states but a global economy with its own underclass and ruler class.
It is that international ruler class the new protest movements are about.
There are some basic components here that don't seem to have been covered
(yes I've been reading up not just crashing in)
Welfare payments are not charity, not idealistic handouts in the slightest.
They began in the late 19th and early 20thC.
The reasons were and still are completely practical and self interested by the top class who I call the rulers - the decision makers.
The market competition over the 19thC had created a large class of poor people, driven off the land into the cities. The labour available was mostly poorly paid with no health care. (Some did well, the majority did not.)
Studies late 19thC showed that the lower half of the working class did not earn enough to eat, and house themselves. Simple as that.
Employers drove wages down using immigrant labour, unequal payy for females, and short term agreements.
The result was a huge number of desperately poor people who lived dreadful lives through no fault of their own. That mattered little to the rulers apart from a few philanthropists. Most if the rulers made their money so everything (to them) was fine.
But what did matter was two things.
One was the Boer War where it was discovered that young males needed to serve as soldiers were too weak and too sickly to do so. That affected us as a world power, and our ability to force trade agreements on lesser powers.
The other was disease and crime. A lot of this was held away from the rulers by high walls, guards, physical separation. But when cholera and similar scourges spread from the dens of the poor via the servant class, the ruler families wsere threatened.
Similarly there is a mathematical relation between how unequal people are, and crime. Eventually the crime level, including violence and theft, reaches into even the most well protected ruler family.
As the Romans understood bread and circuses are essential to keep the underclass under control and their dirt, disease, and violence from threatening the moneymakers. So for bread read welfare. For circuses read organised sport, television, pop music and gaming.
We pay welfare so the moneymakers can make their money in peace.
Incidentally the figure of 51% not paying taxes I presume that includes the vast underpayment by the moneyed class both personally and corporately? It always amuses me that when people speak with great contempt of the underclass committing fraud on welfare payments there is rarely reference to the colossal cheating done by accountants, old boy networks etc.
But now there is. The idea of fraud at both the top and bottom of society has entered the discourse and it's part of the Occupy! movement. Why should a welfare recipient who cheats to get £50 be treated far more harshly than UK MPs who fiddled their expenses by £15,000? Or the big corporates who just move their money out of the country where they made it?
As for national debt that is another whole story. But beware of treating it like housekeeping. It's very different.
This isn't like personal debt (nowadays called credit). Pay that off and you're better off. But if a country pays down its debt instead of paying for services them companies crash, unemployment soars, and the economy goes into spin.
It's no good talking self reliance, working hard. Whether you're individually self employed, or trying to run a company - you can't unless the public services are there to support you. If your clients can't get to you in a city because the trains are spaced to far apart or too expensive, then you can't make money off them. The roads will also clog up with private traffic further hitting on business sales. If rubbish is not collected often enough you live with health risks that affect your workers' efficiency.
If the local council cuts its projects that cuts the income of 1000s of private companies - government local and national is a big customer.
Have a look at The Spirit Level (book). It's about how inequality is RELATIVE.
In a poor country if there is a moderate difference between rich and poor, you get a strong economy, and healthy populace.
In a rich country if there is a big difference between rich and poor, you get a weak economy, and sickly populace. This is what has happened UK and USA.
So although protesters may be well dressed, not starving, and using gadgets, they are RELATIVELY poor. They know it.
Also their cheap clothes, food and gadgets come from extremely poor workers who are heavily deprived - part of the global outsourcing. We no longer live in nation states but a global economy with its own underclass and ruler class.
It is that international ruler class the new protest movements are about.
John
Well-known member
It's called sarcasm
Digital Doctor
Well-known member
I know I was being sarcastic.It's called sarcasm
Carlos
Well-known member
.....Then thank god for YouTube.
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
Name four differences between Occupy whatever and the Tea Party.
- Tea Party members can explain what specific policy changes they want to see enacted and why. There's a substance to the movement beyond "stop greed".
- The Tea Party was a relevant factor in the last election and will be in the next election
- The Tea Party isn't going away when it gets cold
- Tea Party members have money to donate to their candidates
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
Good luck with that. The home next door to me is in foreclosure and up for short sell. But the one I'm in is quite heavily armed and I did tell my neighbor I'd watch after her house. My eviction process would be considerably faster. Gotta love Texas law.
Ramses
Member
Yeah, kill'em all, and if there's no opportunity maybe soon you can do it here:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2011/nov/02/uk-military-iran-attack-nuclear
god bless america ....
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
Bad move. Iran has supports in Russia and China. Better to convexly destabilize the Islamic government and have it replaced with a more moderate government. Besides, trying to deprive a country of nuclear capability once they have the know-how is like trying to unring a bell.
its either work to topple the government, or you have to wipe the place off the map forever and that involved the death of far too many innocent and oppressed people.
EQnoble
Well-known member
TheLaw
Well-known member
Here is the video of Occupy Wall Street at Zuccotti Park, New York City. I was down there for about 20-30 minutes and met some fascinating characters and saw some interesting things. You'll certainly get a very good flavor for who is there, what it's like and who the players are, lol. Had a little fun with this and hopefully it will provide a little curiosity about our website too, lol. Helped me learn Sony Vegas - I'll have a video channel for the law site and need to do just a little video editing on all the clips. Amazing program...
Kim
Well-known member
I enjoyed that, well done, it really helped to get a feel for what it was like to be there, and it was pretty much exactly as I thought it would be! Thanks for sharing.
jadmperry
Well-known member
1. I think this references the Contract from America. Not sure how this is better or less amorphous than "Stop greed."
2. I concede that TP was a relevant factor in last election. Not sure the basis for thinking it will have future relevance. There have been many "movements" that had their moment and later petered out...Ross Perot and his impact comes to mind. However, there has been no election to measure the impact of the Occupy movement. Maybe it is a flash in the pan and maybe it will not have an impact on the next election cycle...however, it may. Not enough data to judge.
3. I think this is a silly distinction...the Tea Party never occupied anyplace for a substantial period of time. By this logic, the TP went away after their one or two day rallies and the Occupy movement already surpassed the TP in commitment to their ideals.
4.
Fred Sherman
Well-known member
1. Are you listening to the people in the Tea Party or the MSNBC commentary about them? I think you'll find a specificity on topics that a 1980s era Contract with America never envisioned.
2. The Tea Party remains relevant for several reasons. First, Tea Party candidates were elected and challenged Boener during the debt ceiling debate and forced him from the business as usual conduct. The debate was initiated by the Tea Party caucus. They continue to influence the legislative agenda.
3. Yes, they did. They occupied their homes. They occupy Congress and they continue to meet weekly all across America. And do you know who quietly attends without the fanfare of the press? Their elected officials. Who did I meet with last week? Jeb Hensarling, the Super Committee co-chair. What we continue to occupy is a significant mindshare of mainstream conservative politics. We don't have nutty meetings where we wiggle our fingers, we simply go about the business of grassroots change.
4. Yes, money does equal influence. Right or wrong, that is the nature of the beast. And influence is necessary to enact change. It isn't necessary to impeach the validity of the ideas of the Occupy nuts. I am content to let them speak for themselves. But you seem to have a flawed recollection of how the housing bubble was created, even though I've posted the information so I see little reason to get into it. Suffice it to say it was Senate democrats, most notably Barney Frank, who brought us to that point and opposed Bush when he could have set it right. As for their right to protest, go for it. I've left various parts of my body around the world to guarantee they have they right. Sadly, I worry for the generation that follows the Entitlement Generation. Who will secure their rights for them?
Oh yes, one thing the Tea Party and Occupy nut bars agree on: no more corporate bailouts or bogus stimulus bills. Where we disagree is that there shouldn't be any bailouts to anyone at all.
2. The Tea Party remains relevant for several reasons. First, Tea Party candidates were elected and challenged Boener during the debt ceiling debate and forced him from the business as usual conduct. The debate was initiated by the Tea Party caucus. They continue to influence the legislative agenda.
3. Yes, they did. They occupied their homes. They occupy Congress and they continue to meet weekly all across America. And do you know who quietly attends without the fanfare of the press? Their elected officials. Who did I meet with last week? Jeb Hensarling, the Super Committee co-chair. What we continue to occupy is a significant mindshare of mainstream conservative politics. We don't have nutty meetings where we wiggle our fingers, we simply go about the business of grassroots change.
4. Yes, money does equal influence. Right or wrong, that is the nature of the beast. And influence is necessary to enact change. It isn't necessary to impeach the validity of the ideas of the Occupy nuts. I am content to let them speak for themselves. But you seem to have a flawed recollection of how the housing bubble was created, even though I've posted the information so I see little reason to get into it. Suffice it to say it was Senate democrats, most notably Barney Frank, who brought us to that point and opposed Bush when he could have set it right. As for their right to protest, go for it. I've left various parts of my body around the world to guarantee they have they right. Sadly, I worry for the generation that follows the Entitlement Generation. Who will secure their rights for them?
Oh yes, one thing the Tea Party and Occupy nut bars agree on: no more corporate bailouts or bogus stimulus bills. Where we disagree is that there shouldn't be any bailouts to anyone at all.
jadmperry
Well-known member
Don't really watch MSNBC and not sure what others say about them has to do with the Occupiers positions. Ironically, though, the very lack of specificity makes criticizing the Occupiers difficult. On the one hand, I agree that this, in the short term, makes passing specific changes difficult (after all, hard to pass what you have not asked for), consider that by having a "wide net" they do a few things...they have a larger potential constituency, they set the groundwork for a "movement" (which may or may not come to pass....but on this point, I have been surprised at how persistent and large the Occupy Movement has been).
I was not talking about 1980's Contract with America- I was talking about the TP platform (or what one group claims as TP platform) Contract from America: http://www.contractfromamerica.com/
I conceded the point that the TP was relevant. However, the challenge to Boehner and the debt ceiling debate were in the past. I questioned the future influence of the TP. Indeed, it appears from polls that their popularity is at an all time low: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/28/tea-party-poll_n_985047.html . In the future, I think their influence shrinks and they become even more irrelevant.
I don't get this point at all...by this logic, just presence or existence qualifies as occupying ( purposefully not capitalized) whether by Occupiers or TPers...so, back to your original post on the topic, the cold will not make the Occupy Movement go away. I also think that cold is a non-factor in places with year round mild climate.
There are a lot of points to tackle in this one...not sure I will get to them all, but here we go:
If the point in your original post was that TP is a more valid group because due to ability to tap money they can get things done, then I missed the point. I thought your point was that rank and file folks who identify as TPers have more money and give more money to the TP and therefore they are somehow better than the Occupiers. I think I missed this in part because I have read some of your earlier criticism suggesting that Occupiers are paid/financed from outside groups. But, this seems to not be a concern of yours any more now that I have pointed out that **** Armey's organization and the Koch brothers are "outside" financing the TP.
As for the cause of the housing crisis, I think we are not going to agree on this one. I don't think Barney Frank was the architect of the housing bubble. I think it was deregulation of the financial industry and the dismantling of the Glass-Steagall act by legislation introduced by Phil Gramm (R-Texas) and Jim Leach (R-Iowa).
As for there not being bailouts for anyone at all...well, first, I think that the bailouts that did occur were horribly executed and left a lot to be desired. However, at the height of the financial crisis, had there been no bailouts at all, the pain we would have felt would have been much greater than the (still disastrous) pain we have suffered through to date. I want to be careful here about injecting issues outside of America, but, since the markets are tied together, I will (with some reticence) ask the policy question- should the EU not "bailout" the members of the EU that are in danger of default on their sovereign debt? While I don't think that it is ideal or that it tastes good swallowing the bailout, a failure to work a bailout by the EU will have disastrous consequences for the world markets (including the US). My point is that while I think there are "good" and "bad" bailouts (and we have had "bad" bailouts), this does not mean that all bailouts are bad or should never happen. I sense we may not shift each others position on this one.
As for who will guard successive generations rights to assemble, I don't see a problem here. It is hard to project too far into the future, but the military has no problem with recruitment. I don't understand the problem or connection between what the Occupiers are doing and our Nations ability to protect our interests and values. If anything, I tend to think that given the choice between a younger generation sitting on the couch playing video games (not to detract from all our video gaming addict friends) and assembling and getting active in real world activities, the Occupy movement bodes well for the future. At least they care about something. (Again, no slight meant to our video-gaming fans here
).
Morgain
Well-known member
Oh what a shame I thought this was a thread about the international Occupy movement which is interesting as a popular INTERNATIONAL movement.
But it's turned into a thread just about a local American outfit.
Occupy is interesting precisely because it is not limited to one country.
Also of course if we don't get some better system going than poor old messed up America has got, then we're into global recession big time. Including a collapse of the global capitalist system which will make the fall of the USSR system look like a storm in a teacup.
Certainly it's time for paradigm shift but America quite clearly is way behind the times having largely caused the problem anyway. Or maybe not - perhaps a catastrophic American collapse will throw up some of the more sensible movers and shakers who are at prwsent pretty suppressed. But anyway that's only America.
The countries in Europe and Asia which are surviving the best are the ones which did NOT follow the American lead. Scandinavia and Germany in particular are doing very well thank you and they were wise enough not to be slaves to the USA like Britain has been under Thatcher and Blair.
It's striking that Britain is the worst off of all the European big powers and it is clearly about copying American habits.
Before the 90s Britain was a robust economy and a great place to live. But through the 80s this was systematically dismantled for the benefit of a small number of rich people. What are now known as the 1%.
"Trickle down" has failed resoundingly. "Spirit Level" (book) analyses how inequality not only damages health physically and psychologically but also damages the economy.
Of course there will be inequality. Countries or groups that claim otherwise just refuse to look at their inequality gap and it operates less obviously perhapse. But inequality must be kept with clearlt set limits for economic, bodily and psychological health.
This is one way of interpreting Occupy. Banks and business is SUPPOSED to be greedy. That's their engine of power.
But let it run without controls and we have an engine crashing around running over defenceless children, and refusing to stop for maintenance work.
But it's turned into a thread just about a local American outfit.
Occupy is interesting precisely because it is not limited to one country.
Also of course if we don't get some better system going than poor old messed up America has got, then we're into global recession big time. Including a collapse of the global capitalist system which will make the fall of the USSR system look like a storm in a teacup.
Certainly it's time for paradigm shift but America quite clearly is way behind the times having largely caused the problem anyway. Or maybe not - perhaps a catastrophic American collapse will throw up some of the more sensible movers and shakers who are at prwsent pretty suppressed. But anyway that's only America.
The countries in Europe and Asia which are surviving the best are the ones which did NOT follow the American lead. Scandinavia and Germany in particular are doing very well thank you and they were wise enough not to be slaves to the USA like Britain has been under Thatcher and Blair.
It's striking that Britain is the worst off of all the European big powers and it is clearly about copying American habits.
Before the 90s Britain was a robust economy and a great place to live. But through the 80s this was systematically dismantled for the benefit of a small number of rich people. What are now known as the 1%.
"Trickle down" has failed resoundingly. "Spirit Level" (book) analyses how inequality not only damages health physically and psychologically but also damages the economy.
Of course there will be inequality. Countries or groups that claim otherwise just refuse to look at their inequality gap and it operates less obviously perhapse. But inequality must be kept with clearlt set limits for economic, bodily and psychological health.
This is one way of interpreting Occupy. Banks and business is SUPPOSED to be greedy. That's their engine of power.
But let it run without controls and we have an engine crashing around running over defenceless children, and refusing to stop for maintenance work.
jadmperry
Well-known member
Well, yes, I see the Occupy Movement as being somewhat international in character, though, I am probably guilty of only really looking at what I see...which for US media is the US activities of the movement.
I think "blaming" America or focusing on the US is neither accurate or very helpful. I challenge its accuracy because, last I checked, there was plenty of blame to throw about- Iceland? Sure, it has recovered well, but its situation was certainly dire and caused by the same type of shenanigans that plagued many countries. The so-called PIGS (or PIIGS)? Don't see any relationship between America and their actions. (And as for Germany as some type of heroic economy that has avoided the taint of American influence...well, I don't think the facts show that they have rounded the turn, at least not yet...maybe the future shows different: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/aug/16/german-economic-slowdown-eurozone-fears)
And I think hanging the blame on America is not very helpful, either. Seems to me the result of such an argument only results in cries of "Damn Americans, screwing everything up...let's not be like America!!!" While I admit that in some circles, there is support for this way, I think that it does not address the real problems- in corporate responsibility, regulation, and in overall inequality. If you pick a bogeyman that is not the real cause of a problem, you end up letting the real culprit get away with things. I think that the issue lies in the financial systems as a whole- which are traits shared internationally. Don't get me wrong, America has a lot of work to do. I just think it is not productive to pillory America and place the blame on the country as a whole (and will turn off some folks needed to get change to happen). I think the problems are much greater than that.
I think "blaming" America or focusing on the US is neither accurate or very helpful. I challenge its accuracy because, last I checked, there was plenty of blame to throw about- Iceland? Sure, it has recovered well, but its situation was certainly dire and caused by the same type of shenanigans that plagued many countries. The so-called PIGS (or PIIGS)? Don't see any relationship between America and their actions. (And as for Germany as some type of heroic economy that has avoided the taint of American influence...well, I don't think the facts show that they have rounded the turn, at least not yet...maybe the future shows different: http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/aug/16/german-economic-slowdown-eurozone-fears)
And I think hanging the blame on America is not very helpful, either. Seems to me the result of such an argument only results in cries of "Damn Americans, screwing everything up...let's not be like America!!!" While I admit that in some circles, there is support for this way, I think that it does not address the real problems- in corporate responsibility, regulation, and in overall inequality. If you pick a bogeyman that is not the real cause of a problem, you end up letting the real culprit get away with things. I think that the issue lies in the financial systems as a whole- which are traits shared internationally. Don't get me wrong, America has a lot of work to do. I just think it is not productive to pillory America and place the blame on the country as a whole (and will turn off some folks needed to get change to happen). I think the problems are much greater than that.
SchmitzIT
Well-known member
And that's how I see the Occupy movement. A fraction of people claiming to represent or be the 99%, pointing the blame-finger at some imaginary enemy; the "1%".
I am not part of the 1%, and I do take offence to the Occupy movement pretending that they speak for me. If they did, I would be protesting with them. I am not, for two reasons:
1) I do not subscribe to their mantra of simply pointing my finger at someone else and expecting that person to fix **** for me.
2) I'm frankly too busy supporting my family to stay away from work to "protest".
jadmperry
Well-known member
Well, I think that in the specific case of the Occupy movement, the 99% is hyperbole- to the extent it references numbers who support them (I am not sure that it does this, though. As far as I understand it, the percentage is meant to reflect the distribution of wealth (here we go with a meta-narrative problem...you object to them pretending to speak for you, then you "speak for them" by your point 1), and I "speak for them" by responding and commenting...the underlying issues seems to be objection towards speaking on behalf of others; which we both do here).
But, I think it is the case that nearly all parties/movements/organizations engage in "speaking for others" (I would think this is a logical necessity in that they seek something that someone somewhere will object to). Look at almost any political party, lobbying group, etc. They all engage in this to some degree or another . Does the NAACP speak for or represent all African-Americans? Does either major party speak for all members of their respective parties? Pick any organization or group, for example the American Medical Association, Trial Lawyers of America, National Rifle Association, or the American Association of Retired Persons...you will have people who would nominally fall into the groups "membership" who either are not members or are, but disagree with various policy positions. This means that you will have others speaking on your behalf, whether you like it or not and whether you agree with them or not. Not sure there is anyway around this, because of relatively unequal power positions (large organizations get more coverage and have a "louder"/more widespread ability to communicate than any individual can to match this ability...however, the Internet has impacted this inequality, and you get exceptions, i.e., viral videos, etc.).
Okay, so I think I gave myself carpal tunnel by writing about what I think can be distilled to a simple point- you don't support the Occupy Movement. Fair enough. It's not mandatory to support them.
- Status
Similar threads
- Question
- Suggestion
