Things About The Meltdown You Need To Know
Readers suggested a topic on what to know when protesting. “I think we should put together a top ten list of ‘things about the economic meltdown you need to know before you get in front of a camera at a protest rally’. For instance…I think one should be – the repeal of glass-steagall. What are some others we could add?”
A reply, “We met the enemy and he is us?”
Another said, “Originators of loans should have to keep a 10% equity stake (subordinated to all other interests) of any loans they make. They should be regulated to make sure that they have sufficient capital to cover that 10% if it goes bad. Any originator that is found not to do this will be broken up, with its assets sold to the highest bidder. All executives with compensation contracts, will have to have a clause in that contract allowing a clawback of all salary and bonus abover $100K per year for any years the organization was not in compliance.”
A reply, “Ha, they can barely swallow QRM, where they have to keep 5%. And that’s only if they make loan <20% down.”
Another said, “The Gov’t focus should be not on the American people on the OUTSIDE of Goldenman$ucksInc. et.al., but on the American people “doing God’s work on the INSIDE of Goldenman$ucksInc. et.al.”
“This might be a good start: Gov’t Auditor’$ [with the a promise of a commission bonu$] should show up monthly & unannounced @ MegaCorpInc.$, escorted by Federal Marshal’s with multiple sets of hand-cuffs & (x100 quantity) bag of tie-wrap wrist straps, pillows, cots & sleeping bags, and x20 pencil sharpeners.”
“History - Broad Range of Authority: The offices of U.S. Marshals and Deputy Marshal were created by the first Congress in the Judiciary Act of 1789, the same legislation that established the Federal judicial system. The Marshals were given extensive authority to support the federal courts within their judicial districts and to carry out all lawful orders issued by judges, Congress, or the president.”
One had this, “How about NO DRUM CIRCLES? They had streaming video of the local Occupy support protest, and there were people trying to speak but you couldn’t hear them over the drum circle. I wish I was joking. I think a lot of average folks would be more likely to get behind these protests if that sort of element was discouraged from taking over. I’m a big lefty myself, but I also realize that tactics need to change from what was done in The Sixties, Man. Please, don’t make this Burning Man.”
“I swear, ‘The Man’ doesn’t need to infiltrate the movement with a Black Bloc to break windows and vandalize in order to turn people against it. They just have to send a few guys to the protest in tie dye shirts and and dreads and suddenly, anything anybody intelligent has to say is instantly irrelevant.”
“If the protesters really want to freak out the powers that be, they should go all Nation of Islam and wear dark suits and sunglasses. That would put the fear in ‘em.”
I have one suggestion: understand who actually owns the Federal Reserve.
And it isn’t We The People. It’s the banks(ters).
‘A protest that began with a few dozen demonstrators in New York City has grown to thousands in cities across the country, including Dallas. As the group flooded Wall Street in New York for the 19th-straight day, about 200 people rallied at Occupy Dallas on Thursday. The demonstrators marched from Pike Park near the American Airlines Center to the Federal Reserve Bank of Dallas on Pearl Street in downtown Dallas.’
‘Participants listed numerous reasons for why they attended. “I came out here to fight for the people so that way we can end corporate greed,” Amanda Cuenca said. “We’re hoping to change the whole government system, hopefully tomorrow,” Liomara Diaz said. “You never know; [I'm] staying positive.”
“We’re protesting everything, you know, like them giving everything to the 1 percent, the rich 1 percent,” Andrea Nauman said.’
http://www.nbcdfw.com/news/politics/Protesters-Surround-Dallas-Federal-Reserve-Bank-131223449.html
People carried signs as varied as “I work to be poor;” “don’t Tase me bro;” “people before money, love before greed, wake up and see;” “we are under assault by tyranny;” and “99% can’t be wrong.”
In OC, on the left coast, numbering hundred(s) of people at the Traffic Circle in Orange. Not thousands, like I hoped.
Some want to impeach Obama and elect Lyndon La Rouche, others want jobs, others hate corporations, still others decry the greed of the banksters and Wall Street.
A large number identify themselves as being, like my wife and I, in the bottom 99%.
At times the police seemed to outnumber the less-than-cohesive yet still interesting protesters.
Advertised online and on TV, surprisingly no MSM.
Curiouser and curiouser.
You don’t seem curious. You seem dismissive.
Hi Ben, this is a pretty mis-understood aspect. Technically, non-voting stock of the fed is owned by memberr banks. But its mandate is from congress–low inflation and low unemployment.
Conspiracy theorists brand the fed as owned by banks. I believe it is the tool that allows the gov to tax via inflation, and to never have to balance the budget.
One of the guests on Bill Maher’s show last night thought that Secretary Geithner ran or at least could dictate policy to the Fed. It was sad.
‘thought that Secretary Geithner ran or at least could dictate policy to the Fed’
It’s not surprising as how this system is taught or discussed is not clear. Consider how the media will listen to every work Bernanke says, trying to catch some meaning out of a single phrase. Obviously there is something important going on with this organization, but we know so little about how it works. Yes, we can read the minutes of the some meetings, but what does the board do? Who sits on it, and how does the money move around? Why do they resist (successfully) an audit? I’ve mentioned before, the Girl Scouts of America has an audit of their cookie sales, but we aren’t allowed to know what the Fed is doing?
I’m not trying to tell anyone what they should think about the central bank. I do suggest that given all the problems, we deserve to know more. People can connect the dots as they please. I will note that the Federal Reserve was given more regulatory oversight power of the financial system, including WS investment banks, by Dodd-Frank.
Executive Order 12631–Working Group on Financial Markets
Source: The provisions of Executive Order 12631 of Mar. 18, 1988, appear at 53 FR 9421, 3 CFR, 1988 Comp., p. 559, unless otherwise noted.
By virtue of the authority vested in me as President by the Constitution and laws of the United States of America, and in order to establish a Working Group on Financial Markets, it is hereby ordered as follows:
Section 1. Establishment. (a) There is hereby established a Working Group on Financial Markets (Working Group). The Working Group shall be composed of:
(1) the Secretary of the Treasury, or his designee;
(2) the Chairman of the Board of Governors of the Federal Reserve System, or his designee;
(3) the Chairman of the Securities and Exchange Commission, or his designee; and
(4) the Chairman of the Commodity Futures Trading Commission, or her designee.
(b) The Secretary of the Treasury, or his designee, shall be the Chairman of the Working Group.
…
So you are saying that the chairman of the President’s Working Group On Financial Markets is able to dictate to the Chairman of the Federal Reserve Bank how to run monetary policy? Really?
All I did was to post a verbatim copy of the executive order that President Ronald Reagan signed to create the President’s Working Group on Financial Markets.
I admit the executive order does kinda sorta lend itself to your interpretation, though…
“I admit the executive order does kinda sorta lend itself to your interpretation, though…”
Huh?? Chairing the working group does not imply that the working group has any control over a members other duties in any other organization.
Exactly. Unless there is direct authority, none of this stuff means anything except that they are supposed to sit in a room together a few times a year and chat/share thoughts/whatever. Meaningless.
“Chairing the working group does not imply…”
I didn’t say that. I said ‘lends itself to your interpretation…’
Please read carefully before posting.
“…chat/share thoughts/whatever. Meaningless.”
Got straw men?
Polly:
He posts the rules verbatim, you draw conclusion X from the rules, and then you go on to argue that conclusion X does not follow from the rules.
I will never understand the attorney thought process, so long as I walk the face of the planet.
No, Bear, you won’t. You have to actually read the words on the page. You regularly tell us that we shouldn’t draw any conclusions about your actual thoughts when you post stuff that quotes other sources in response to a post. I don’t buy it. Innuendo is a game for the junior high school students. The rest of us actually pay attention to the way the world works.
In government the only person who has any control over you is the person who writes your performance reviews, the person who decides your salary, the person who decides if you get reappointed, and the person who can fire you. Treasury has none of that control over the Fed. And besides, all of those controls are pretty meaningless when you have a tenured spot at Princeton waiting for you when you leave.
Polly, I always appreciate your perspectives, even when I disagree with them.
“So you are saying that…”
Putting words into others’ mouths is a game for the junior high school students.
The Federal Reserve is a complex computer financial model packed with hundreds of Quantitative algorithms linked to thousands of smaller but no less complex financial institutions like banks, stock and commodity markets. In this sense the FED is like a massive machine and it doesn’t depend on any one individual like Greenspan or Bernanke. And like the mythical Hydra you don’t kill it by just chopping off the head. Invasive surgery will be required to reveal the source of the problem… Calling Dr. Paul, Dr. Paul! To the operating room STAT.
The “end the fed” is not what the protest is mainly about. It is about ending capitalism. I wish it was about protesting bailouts of corporations, but it is naive for Paul supporters to agree with the protest when you see unions and red flags and bandanas there.
So you don’t think it’s possible to agree to disagree on some things and work together on common interests?
‘it is naive for Paul supporters to agree with the protest’
I worked in on of Dr Paul’s campaigns for a year and a half in the mid-ninety’s in central Texas. I went door to door, rallies, everything. I can say the support came from all types, and I never saw anything from the candidate but a desire to work with anyone would could understand the issues.
That was an election; this is not. If there is one aspect to this that is different it’s that the people involved see the financial industry needing reform. Consider that it was Bernie Sanders who put the provision into Dodd-Frank that revealed the Fed had loaned out $12 trillion. If not for that provision, we’d never have known about that. It’s not that hard for people to understand that an audit of such a powerful organization is in order.
If that is achieved, I for one will consider it a huge success.
I worked in on of Dr Paul’s campaigns for a year and a half in the mid-ninety’s in central Texas. I went door to door, rallies, everything. I can say the support came from all types, and I never saw anything from the candidate but a desire to work with anyone would could understand the issues. </i?
The next time Ron Paul has a money bomb (October 19, I think) watch the names of the donors as they scroll past. You’ll see a very broad cross-section of races, ethnicities, religions, regions, etc. represented. He has far more individual donors than corporate-backed Republicans like Perry and Romney.
General disagreement on where the problem lies coupled with widespread ignorance of economics stand as major impediments to any kind of constructive agreement on common interests.
Capitalism, taken to its logical conclusion, leads to monopoly and moneyed oligarchy that approximates the late medieval or thrid world systems. Modern capitalism is very close to that point, so maybe it should be ended.
I hope that eventually the protests will crystalize into one basic narrative: corporate shareholders’ demands for ever more and more profit led corporations to unfairly take advantage of globalization and give away hard-earned government-subsidized innovation, thus spreading the standard of living of ~300 million people to about 1.5 billion people. Corporations, through lobbyists and media manipulation, effectively bought off the government to keep the system in place. Now the eviscerated middle class, with no job to report to, is free to protest wherever and whenever they want.
Bill, my brother from another mother, I salute the Ron Paul guys who are attending the OWS protests. They are like the intellectual leavening that would otherwise be mostly absent. Granted, most of the protesters look like the empty-eyed Obama Zombies of 2008, who fail to see the irony at protesting “Wall Street Greed” when their champion of hope ‘ change has given Wall Street unlimited bailouts and made Goldman Sachs the de facto Fourth Branch of Government. Maybe the RP folks can instill sense into some of those barren little craniums. There are also unaffiliated protesters who seem to be genuinely decent and concerned people fed up with the grotesque degree to which the corporate cartels and high finance has corrupted and subverted our political process. So, the seeds of hope are there.
‘unaffiliated protesters who seem to be genuinely decent and concerned’
I don’t think most people see themselves as ‘belonging’ to anything. I’ve never met any one person that I completely agreed with, and I don’t expect to. What’s most interesting to me is the understanding that something is wrong, and that the political system isn’t serving us well.
What happened in Tunisia and Egypt was also not about an election. Those people held together, won over their fellow citizens and achieved change. Now they have to sort out their differences. It probably won’t be smooth, but I doubt any of them would wish to be under the old dictators again. I’m an optimist, so I look forward to where this is going.
You are wrong, bila. And unusually simplistic.
The protests are not about “ending capitalism.” They are about re-instituting a populist democracy and ending the corporate/crony oligarchy that controls our government and our economy.
I’m told I’m always simplistic because I’m a capitalist.
+ 1,000,000. Audit the Fed. Start criminally prosecuting Wall Street fraudsters and their political accomplices. Then end the Fed.
“I have one suggestion: understand who actually owns the Federal Reserve.”
Tower of Basel?
Anyone?
Who owns the Fed is less important than who runs it. Board of Governors is a federal government agency. Governors are appointed by the President and approved by the Senate, just like the Supreme Court.
Federal Reserve District Banks are nominally owned by member banks in their district, who hold shares and get a modest dividend. But the District Banks have local Directors, approved by the Board, who represent businesses and public interest groups (educators, union officials, consumer advocates etc.) as well as their bank owners. Reserve Bank Presidents are nominated by their Directors subject to Board of Governors approval.
Most Fed decisions are made by the Washington Governors alone. District Banks implement these decisions and share voting rights on the Federal Open Market Committee that sets the target levels and ranges for interest rates and money growth. But these are committee decisions, and the Board Members are in the majority. District Bank presidents represent the interest of their districts, which may be facing different economic conditions than the nation as a whole.
No surprise that differences of opinion have recently surfaced from mid-Western presidents, St. Louis, Dallas, Kansas City, as the rust belt and both coasts suffer more from the housing bust. The minority concern is that too much easing, will lead to inflation, a bigger problem for Mid-American savers than for Coastal borrowers.
The big issues now are whether audit Open Market Policy (other Fed work is already audited) or replace the District Presidents with political appointees. These really boil down to how much Washington you really want.
My view is that more Washington is not the answer. Keep in mind that most federal financial regulators, the SEC, the OCC, the FDIC etc have not done a stellar job of keeping us out of trouble. Giving the Fed more responsibility in this area is a good idea ONLY as long as the Fed remains independent of partisan politics.
To be up front on this, I once worked at the Fed. And I was on an interagency regulatory committee while the savings bank fiasco was unfolding. The then responsible FDIC examiners who wanted to stop the insider property flipping were overruled by their political masters. Letters from respected Senators, including my own boyhood hero John Glenn, chastised the field examiners for criticizing the savings bankers who were major political contributors and entertaining senators on a yacht in the Potomac. The political appointees in charge at the time bowed to the Senators and overruled their examiners. On an issue that should have been obvious to anybody who understood double entry bookkeeping.
I am very skeptical on the ability of Washington politicians to oversee anything as complex as our modern financial system or monetary policy. They need to focus on their own budget. A lot needs changing in our financial system (too-big-to-fail, separation of investment banking and wealth management) but more centralization does not seem like a good direction to go.
An audit doesn’t make the Fed less independent. I mean really, $12 trillion in loans in one period, and we shouldn’t have some idea of what’s going on? Those who argue against transparency don’t have a leg to stand on, IMO.
If it’s all as above board as you describe, an audit should not only be published, but should be published every quarter, and there would be no surprises.
I know this is complicated, but the Reserve banks are already audited and the FOMC credit extended is published monthly in the Federal Reserve Bulletin. Transparency obviously does not assure understanding.
The real issue is how can we get more effective financial policy and regulation. Ask first what you want to accomplish, then figure out why you aren’t getting it and finally consider what changes you need to make.
Of course this does not look so good on protest posters. Why not “TAX BANKERS’ BONUSES”, “NOBODY IS TOO BIG TO FAIL”, or “TAX RISK”. Eliminating FOMC dissent or publishing more incomprehensible audit reports really seems like small change in comparison.
I passed the CPA exam the first time I took it. Give me an audit and I’ll understand it. In auditing we are taught to use professional skepticism. If an entity insists there is no reason to put an audit through public scrutiny, that’s enough reason to suspect there is something they are hiding. And you don’t have to be an accountant to know that.
How do we put firewalls between different sectors of the economy?
The core injustice I see is Wall Street financial companies making hundreds of billions of dollars with a system they know is flawed, having it implode, and the executives who created the mess not only not losing money, but making more money. And the American working man and woman have to pay the price through more debt, less purchasing power and grinding unemployment.
How do we make this government once again “government of the people, by the people, for the people” and not government of the highest bidder, by the highest bidder, for the highest bidder?
They tell us the banks are the cornerstone of the economy. Without healthy banks, nothing else can flourish. That’s why they mortgage the country’s future to save the banks.
I’m concerned with politicians having more control than they do. There is not a more feckless and venal breed to be found. I don’t want to nationalize banks for I fear politicians will cause more harm than good.
So how do we create a system which allows banks to fail if they behave badly? How do we create a system which forces the financial company executive teams to go to jail if they act with reckless malfeasance? And not reward them with bonuses?
The financial sector has successfully created a Gordian Knot in the mind of the public. How do we cut it?
Neuromance:
IMO, we cut it with tariffs. By enacting tariffs against goods imported from nations that do not have free markets, we can even out the playing field between the corporation and the worker. The employer is forced to hire from the same FREE market that it sells into. Once done, corporations will no longer have such outsized power over government (since their wealth won’t be as huge compared to ours).
After that, our system of government should continue to function as always. A dynamic throng that suffers the consequences of its own actions. Bank fails, FDIC bails out depositors. Executive commits crime, district attorney prosecutes because there is not enough bribe money to make him chance getting fired when people find out about it.
I think that when we get back to being a truly sovereign nation, free from the shackles of other people’s governments (China, India, Mexico), then our socioeconomic situation will improve.
“The core injustice I see is Wall Street financial companies making hundreds of billions of dollars with a system they know is flawed, having it implode, and the executives who created the mess not only not losing money, but making more money. And the American working man and woman have to pay the price through more debt, less purchasing power and grinding unemployment.”
That’s the essence of the ‘too-big-to-fail’ business model. Do the Occupy Wall Street grasp this as a key part of the problem?
Thank you, Ben. (And neuro, too.)
Would appreciate a more in-depth discussion of this critical issue if you and Will would agree to share it with the board?
Thank you, Will.
The drum circles sound like the protest in San Francisco. This is the problem; as the protest is copied on the west coast it will increasingly look like a dirty hippie party. Everything out here becomes an excuse to party, justifying those from the bottom 99% who continue to sit on the fence in their fence-sitting, and justifying in the minds of those from the bottom 99% the inevitable crackdown that will soon come. BUT, try to reason with these “Every protest is a chance to smoke weed with a crowd” people? No way man, you’re just a buzz-kill. Get with the program, man, its the 60’s all over again. (As if regular people won the battle of the 60’s–if they did, why are things so bad now?)
The best chance for progressive social protest to succeed would be to lop the west coast off the U.S. and let the rest of the country (especially the east coast (witness Wall Street) and midwest (witness Madison, WI)) move left with savvy dialogical protests producing people-focused as opposed to corporate-focused policies.
Many people see California as some kind of leftist paradise. It is, in fact, a libertarian paradise. That’s why we have Prop 13, broken roads, political gridlock (no one should listen to anyone else), and lead the country (even Texas!) in prison inmates. The only principle these people know is “everyone should have a choice.” They never can understand that that justifies Monsanto’s genetically-modified food (they have the choice to make it, you have a choice to not eat it–even though the bees and butterflies have no real choice to avoid spreading it beyond the GMO field), capital punishment (you had a choice to not travel through Texas and get framed for a murder you did not commit, what the hell were you doing in Texas!?), and so on.
I guess living out here makes one hopeless for positive change. I didn’t feel as demoralized when I lived in the upper midwest.
IAT
Very good post right above me .
A friend called me up and said in essence that it would be great to fly to New York and protest and it would be just like WOODSTOCk
all over again and a great party .
i told this Friend they could go if they wanted to party because I
won’t go with that being my purpose .
Well said, IAT.
My vision of a Libetarian paradise wouldn’t include an ever increasing band of illegal invaders who were being supported by the actual citizens of this paradise.
We now have our esteemed Governor who just signed the second part of the “Dream Act” for our third world state. State education benefits for illegal spawn.
I already miss the California of my youth but I wont miss this sh*thole when I’m gone.
That’s because you reflect the core hypocrisy of libertarianism. Libertarianism implies that anyone can go anywhere (as long as they do not trespass private property). National borders have no coherent justification under libertarianism, so it is incoherent to stand against “illegal” immigration because under libertarianism a person’s right to move wherever they want is inviolable, making the term “illegal immigration” an oxymoron.
This is just another in a long line of illustrations of the fact that libertarianism is at its core hypocritical. Every libertarian has an implicit list of things they do not want others to do (e.g., move to my country, drive fast down my street). But, they also hold a philosophy that makes it wrong to limit what other people do (except, they say, in the case of violence). Then, they get angry when other people do what any person of integrity would have been able to see coming.
In short, illegal immigration into California is the best sign available that California is the libertarian paradise.
IAT
IAT,
Do you remember the old United Way commercials? “I don’t know you but I love you”.
Well I’m kind of feeling 180 degrees from that now.
And before you whip out the knee jerk paint brush again, let me clarify my position. My libertarian belief, which has grown from my disdain of the present alternatives, goes about this far for the sake of this conversation.
#1 - Real money.
#2 - Leave me the f*ck alone.
Obviously there are a few finer points to my positions. Maybe we can explore them in the future conversations that I so look forward to.
SV guy,
(Chuckling) You certainly don’t have to be a libertarian to want to say, “Leave me the f*ck alone.” I’d say you have to be human.
IAT
SV–
So what do you do when someone DOESN’T leave you the eff alone? And where do you draw the line about THEIR choices? (Mariachi music at 3 AM? A pit bull breeding operation across the street? A police department full of brothers-in-law? Someone building a strip club next door?)
It’s easy to say, but not so easy to define. Then there are things like roads and hospitals….
I’m not an all or nothing type guy. We would certainly need some regulations as we have seen what happens when the existing ones are barely enforced. I also think there should be basic health coverage for all. Infrastructure would need some oversight.
I think most can agree that what we are witnessing now is a big steaming pile o’ you know what.
A fair chance is all we should expect, no?
Fellow 99%,
SV
Then SV Guy, you are not a libertarian. Once you admit that there’s a time when your neighbor should not be allowed to blast their stereo, you have left the world of libertarians and entered the world of rational discourse, where matters are not black and white and people who live together have to live by certain constraints (beyond the “don’t do violence to your neighbor) to respect their peers.
Here is another libertarian view, quoted directly from the libertarian party platform which was ratified May 2010.
3.4 Free Trade and Migration
We support the removal of governmental impediments to free trade. Political freedom and escape from tyranny demand that individuals not be unreasonably constrained by government in the
crossing of political boundaries. Economic freedom demands the unrestricted movement of human
as well as financial capital across national borders. However, we support control over the entry into our country of foreign nationals who pose a credible threat to security, health or property.
In other words, the libertarian party supports unfettered immigration. I wonder how many libertarians on this blog knew that.
I don’t think I’ve ever claimed to be a pure Libertarian.
More of a hybrid.
“How about NO DRUM CIRCLES?”
The prospect of encountering a drum circle is enough to motivate me to keep a safe distance from the protests.
Yeah, the weather has turned cold this weekend and I’m feeling like I should drive down and donate a couple of army issue cold weather sleeping bags with air mattresses and ponchos. But I need to overcome my fear of drum circles and unkempt beards to do it :-).
I don’t know if this makes it any clearer, but I did have a relevant discussion/revelation along these lines. Back in the mid-90’s I was at an activists meeting in Austin Tx. It was for a non-profit public radio station I help out at. I was talking with one of the main organizers, a trust fund beneficiary who said something about another person who was very helpful and was, “smelly like us.” I was standing there fresh from work in a white shirt and tie. I think he got a little embarrassed, or maybe I did, I don’t recall. But people in Austin did make a point of being kinda slobby back then.
Instead of ‘don’t trust anyone over 30′ it’s ‘don’t trust anyone who takes a bath?’
Anyhoo, I’ve seen several posters on being ‘dismissive’ of the protesters. I like any activism, but I still think they’ve got to spell out something about objectives. I saw some stuff about globalism which I could agree with.
I do not mean to dismiss real protest. And, I agree OWS protesters need to spell out some specifics.
But, there is also the matter of tactics. Why adopt tactics that just alienate the vast majority of possible allies? You want to know why? Because while the original protesters were there to protest, and thus they care about tactics, most of the west coast is there to party. The only tactics many west coast protesters care about is what’s the best way to find their dealer in the crowd.
IAT
Its-
Urban camping (which let’s face it, is what’s going in with these protests,) is no more conducive to “normal” standards of hygiene than its wilderness counterpart– maybe even less so, as any homeless person can attest. Washrooms, laundry and bathing facilities, cleaning cloths and towels are simply are not readily available. Even toilets are restricted and difficult to come by.
Expecting these people to be clean-shaven and well-pressed is absurd. It’s not like most can afford a hotel room every night so they can clean up to your aesthetic specifications.
The point here is not to present a nice, clean, middle class face to the issues at hand, the point is there IS no middle class face for them to present.
And jfyi, as a former “hippie” (the technical term for us was “freak.” “Hippie” was a media creation, and no one who was actually hip used the term unless it was done so ironically,) I strenuously object to your facile references to “dirty hippies.” Because we weren’t.
In fact, as horny young students, we were a lot more concerned with personal cleanliness and inter-genderal attractiveness than our hardhat antagonists– who were far more likely to be foul and sweaty and stinking of beer after a day’s work. So don’t make yourself look like a lackey mouth organ of the imperialist media running dogs, okay?
Thanks.
Fine. Call ‘em what you want. I personally have no problem with stinky homeless people, or even stinky homeless people protesting. On the other hand, I have a big problem with stinky homeless or homed people drumming and dancing in a circle at a so-called protest while CLAIMING to speak for me. JFYI. Got it? Don’t make yourself look like a sloganeering organ of vapid cliche’s, okay?
IAT
Expecting these people to be clean-shaven and well-pressed is absurd.
From the pictures I saw they showed up with the wannabe-young-Castro beards on day 1. It’s a cultural thing, not a hygiene thing.
“…but I still think they’ve got to spell out something about objectives.”
I agree with this in principle, but I don’t claim to have much knowledge of how protest movements arise, consolidate, or find their voices.
My wife watched Ken Burns’ fascinating documentary of the Prohibition movement over the past few days (freely available here), and I caught occasional snippets. What grabbed me was how long it took the Prohibition movement to take shape. What began with the individual actions of a few isolated crusaders many years later reached the top echelons of U.S. political power.
As they say, ‘Politics breeds strange bedfellows.’ For now, I suspect many protestors have a grave sense that the U.S. financial system is in a state of existence which puts them at a personal disadvantage, but don’t apprehend the unholy alliance between politicians and top financiers which sustains the situation. Others may be curiosity seekers in search of their next drum circle. But I suspect opportunistic political leaders will eventually focus the vague sense of injustice which drives the movement. Viewed through the lens of history, the objectives of the protests will seem to have been clear from the outset.
Reminds me of Nancy Reagan and her, “Just say no” campaign.
PB,
The OWS movement is very aware of the co-opting of the Tea Party (which started out in much the same way, and with many of the same goals). They are trying to keep this from being labeled as “liberal” or “Democratic” or “Republican,” specifically because the OWS movement understands that this is how the PTB divide, manipulate, and conquer the masses.
Everyone seems hyper-aware of the potential for the “wrong people” to try to wrest control of the organization from the masses. They are making a point of having group consensus on things, and try to ensure every individual has an equal voice.
FWIW, while there are hippies there, we had a large number of perfectly “normal” people who were well informed about what’s going on. I was impressed by the depth of knowledge out there.
‘Everyone seems hyper-aware of the potential for the “wrong people” to try to wrest control of the organization from the masses.’
But it’s so easily done! All a Sara Palin type needs to do is to put on a red blouse and set up a teevee news interview with a local media contact, and all of a sudden the movement officially has a leader…
‘FWIW, while there are hippies there, we had a large number of perfectly “normal” people who were well informed about what’s going on.’
Hippies in drum circles make a very convenient media picture for any politician interested in creating a straw man to dismiss the movement as irrelevant.
There is a small core of people who live for this stuff…30 years ago I was at a peace group meeting here, and an ol guy from SF reminisced how they’d had a ‘hold hands around Lake Merced’ rally fo peace, but had only enough people show up to go half way around. stll, it was a beautiful thing!
I think this is part of the problem. The people who have made a career of this sort of thing since the 60’s haven’t exactly been effectual. But I realize it is easy to criticize. At least they’ve been doing something. Part of the problem is that the “average joe” hasn’t cared enough to get involved.
If we want the protests to better reflect our own views, WE have to get out there and join the protesters. Overcoming this inertia is tough because, yeah, anytime I see a drum circle my first response is to avoid that crowd at all costs. But, I’ve got more in common with the drum circle kids than I do with Lloyd Blankfein. We (myself included) have got to get over it.
‘I’ve got more in common with the drum circle kids’
As do I, as long as I don’t have to listen to it. I think what the original poster meant was that it turns people off. If one is looking to build a group, it doesn’t hurt to pay attention to such things. Stating that you are THE 99% puts a big obligation on those making that claim, btw. Otherwise, the first thing an observer will be tempted to say is, ‘you don’t necessarily speak for me’.
I’m not arguing, I agree 100%. Look at the pics from the Austin protest:
http://galleries.statesman.com/gallery/readers-photos-occupy-austin-100611/#270042
Not my crowd. It is frustrating because I feel like those who are able to attend are kind of representatives for those of us with job and family responsibilities who can’t make it, esp. if they want to start at 3 pm on a weekday. I wish they’d take into account how they might appear to the average onlooker.
But again, if we want to see our ownselves reflected in the makeup of the crowd, the best way to ensure that is to be there ourselves. Holding our noses, if need be.
Yeah, but if you look through the whole group of pictures, there are plenty of normal looking people there, too.
Yeah, but if you look through the whole group of pictures,
Like Fox News is going to do that? No, they’ll focus on the hippies.
For what it’s worth, one of the #occupiers actually said that the Republicans filibustered a bill to prevent offshoring. So that is getting traction too.
And it’s a shift in media that #occupy is getting traction. When Jon Stewart held his Sanity rally on the National Mall a year ago, he got AT LEAST 200,000 people. I know, I was there. There were probably more people at that single rally than at all the Tea Party rallies put together.*
On these news? Nada.
———————
*Libs usually went to the Tea Party rallies to take video from different angles to show just how much empty space there was, or to show how much of the actual space was taken up by lawn chairs or Medicare scooters. It’s akin to C-Span showing the empty seats in the Congressional chambers.
I did get out there myself, for 2 tax day tea parties. Like others there, never been in a protst in my life. Later heard I was a religious bigot and racist for being there etc.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/picturegalleries/worldnews/8813668/Occupy-Wall-Street-protests-spread-from-New-York-to-other-cities-in-the-US.html
More pics of the OWS protesters. Lost souls and unreconstructed Obama Zombies well represented, to be sure, but so are normal, self-respecting people with a genuine concern for the country’s future, and their own, if the present plutocracy is allowed to continue.
Sounds very familar, Montana. I too was a bigot and a racist. People on the HBB told me so.
Well, I’m still a bigot and a racist. I’m still a Tea Partier. I’m still anti-bailout, anti-lobbyist and pro-individual. I’m still pro-Constitional Law. And unless someone better comes along, I’m a Herman Cain supporter. I have been since June. I like his business, his Fed Reserve experience, his small government stance and his no Beltway experience.
Whether I will still like kim a year from now is unknown.
Like most Tea Partiers, I turned my back on both Bachmann and Perry in short order because of their fundamentalism. I’m not a church goer. Never have been. I don’t belong to the Church of Environmentalism/EPA or Green Technology, either. They’re sham outfits, much like Focus on the Family.
Ahh Poser
Then how do you square Cains anti abortion stand, overturning Roe vs Wade and keeping government out of doctor/patient decisons?
he needs to really explain that to me.
I’m old enough to remember “Hands Across America” back in the 80’s…
I keep seeing this complaint in the media - that there are no specific demands or “official” statements from the protests. Frankly, the lack of specifics doesn’t bother me. You could say it’s the Fed, the disparity between CEO and worker pay, the bailouts, reinstating Glass-Steagall - all fine. Most people protesting know what the problems are, the rest are learning. But to complain,
“Why, whatever are these people going on about? We need an enumerated list of complaints before we can even begin to talk about anything!”
is simply a way for those in power to dismiss what’s going on. Whenever I read an op-ed or see a talking head spout this sort of thing I think this:
There are enough reasons to be pissed off that if you even have to question WHY the public might be angry with the financial sector, you are part of the problem.
I’m trying to stay sympathetic here.
‘There are enough reasons to be pissed off’
I said a few days ago that there are plenty of issues. So pick some.
‘if you even have to question WHY the public might be angry with the financial sector, you are part of the problem’
That’s only going to go so far. The rubber hits the road when you take a position. I mentioned the movie Network the other day. Sure, we can all go to the window and yell out. What will that accomplish? Even recent history is littered with reform movements that went nowhere. At some point, and I’m not saying when that should be, a tangible list of demands or goals or something has to emerge.
I agree that there are professional protestors out there, happy to latch onto any cause because it’s their way to feel community. There’s something to be said about the energy of the group, as an ex-club goer I can speak to the amazing buzz of dancing in the midst of a throng. (and yes, you can get this buzz drug free). I do however resent the MSM for marginalizing these protests, raising the spectre of the 60s which, for all it’s excess, was in its first inception addressing social injustice and US foreign policy. Nothing like the draft to focus people’s attention. The problem we have today is that the corporatism being opposed is insidious, a multi-armed hydra. Yes, we protest while wearing/using/eating corporate products. Not by accident that Matt Tabbai calls Goldman Sachs a vampire squid. You can cut off one tentacle and another grows back.
You might find the book “The Whole World is Watching” by Todd Gitlin of interest. It analyzes movements of the 60’s. One lesson of the book is that the dancing in the street you enjoy facilitates the marginalization of the movement. It makes the movement look frivolous and can be characterized as such. If you think back to movements that made a difference — abolitionists, suffragettes, the civil rights struggle in the south — no one was dancing in the street. Marching somberly, yes. Not dancing. Why is this lesson so hard to learn?
Another lesson of the book is that as movements move forward they attract people with no interest in the movement. They’re just looking for the next big thing. And, they tend to escalate actions, because one thing about highs — you always need a bigger hit to get the same feeling.
Exacerbating this problem is that we have a “demonstration class” that just roams from one big event to another, usually causing trouble. When they do so, that’s when the MSM pays attention, and that attention is usually turned to make the movement appear dangerous, disrespectful, and idiotic. And the dancers in the street do nothing to counter that narrative.
So I guess the question: is this going to make a difference, or is it just going to degenerate into another social event for people to fondly recall a few years from now. Alas, I am betting on the latter, but hoping for the former.
IAT
Ben, here is the closest thing I have seen to a list of grievances/demands:
Declaration of the Occupation of New York City
THIS DOCUMENT WAS ACCEPTED BY THE NYC GENERAL ASSEMBLY ON SEPTEMBER 29, 2011
As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.
As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.
They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.
They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.
They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.
They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.
They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless animals, and actively hide these practices.
They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.
They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.
They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.
They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.
They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.
They have sold our privacy as a commodity.
They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press. They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.
They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.
They have donated large sums of money to politicians, who are responsible for regulating them.
They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.
They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives or provide relief in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantial profit.
They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.
They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.
They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.
They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad. They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.
They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts. *
To the people of the world,
We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.
Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.
To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.
Join us and make your voices heard!
*These grievances are not all-inclusive.
http://morallowground.com/2011/10/06/occupy-wall-street-declaration-of-the-occupation-of-new-york-city/
Yes, I have Todd Gitlin’s book. Wasn’t trying to infer that protests should include dancing or drum circles by any means, was just trying to allude to the seductive energy of being in a large group and how it may attract joiners who really have no interest in the cause itself, and in particular no interest in doing the behind the scenes grunt work that serious causes require.
Here’s a great interview with Chris Hedges. Don’t be misled by his “lefty” cred, there’s no love lost for Obama.
http://www.nationofchange.org/chris-hedges-shares-his-thoughts-occupy-wall-street-1318086994
‘Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions’
This is probably the best part, IMO. A simple call to action.
‘We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies’
Here’s where it starts to get tricky. This list of grievances is pretty broad. Are they focusing on wall street because that’s where stocks are traded? Or is it the big investment banks? I thought that striping corporations of their limited liability would solve a lot of problems over 20 years ago. But I’ve never met anyone that believed it could ever happen. One reason why is it would reshape the entire economy; the PTB would resist strongly and the public can’t handle that much change.
I’m sure this list was written by one person or a few people and doesn’t represent any more than that. IMO, they’ve got a certain amount of momentum, and should focus on a few crystallizing goals. Or maybe run with the idea that they don’t have all the answers, but want the movement to grow and develop an agenda as they go along.
Like it or not, they are in the realm of politics. Too much talking can be damaging. Goals too broad or radical - same thing. This is why politicians either read from scripts or choose their words very carefully. They’ve got an uphill climb ahead anyway they go, and I hope something good comes out of it.
Here are some thoughts about those weird people you will see at these OWS events.
Quote:
“The pragmatic progressives like me didn’t start this movement. We thought about the long-term impact for the left and the short-term electoral optics for Democrats. When the economy collapsed, we were quiet, the tea party spoke up, and the rage the country felt was directed toward government, not Wall Street. In short, we were afraid.
Thankfully, the crazy ones weren’t.
And in spite of all I saw that I didn’t like, there were clear signs that the movement is maturing, getting more organized, coalescing around a message: “We Are the 99 Percent.” Like the protesters in Tahrir, there are clean-up crews keeping Zuccotti as spiffy as possible. Organizers are even enforcing message discipline by urging supporters on Twitter to shorten protest-related hashtags from #OccupyWallSt to #OWS.
Perhaps it’s a natural evolution, but it also seems likely that the movement is changing because the seasoned organizers and pragmatists are working alongside the radical idealists who were there from the start.
The only reason those pragmatists are there is because the crazy ones took the first steps.”
Occupy Wall Street, Steve Jobs, and the Crazy Ones.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-steve-jobs-and-crazy-ones
http://www.truthdig.com/report/item/calling_all_rebels_20100308/
Chris Hedges is in the “progressive” camp, but unlike a lot of that crowd, he has actual principles and intellectual integrity. I hope he can be a catalyst for defining the issues and waking people up. His “Calling All Rebels” essay is brilliant and much-needed.
Bluestar -
That was a great article. The first paragraph was pretty much my attitude when this started:
“My first reaction to Occupy Wall Street was a sigh. Is the left in this country so anemic, I thought to myself, that we need a Canadian magazine to tell us to protest? It bothered me that the usual suspects—the dreadlocked, bandannaed bongo drummers—were the ones who answered the call and set up first camp in Zuccotti Park. Why couldn’t some clean-cut, American-flag wavers—folks who wouldn’t immediately, viscerally alienate mainstream America—be the ones who occupied Wall Street? Why did it have to be those people? I was angry at them; I was actually rooting for them to pack up and go home. I thought they would embarrass the left and further alienate the mainstream from the cause pragmatic progressives like me care about: getting money out of our politics and creating a more equitable society.”
But the author comes around in the end, with the great section that you quoted above. I think I am coming around, too.
Occupy Wall Street, Steve Jobs, and the Crazy Ones.
http://motherjones.com/politics/2011/10/occupy-wall-street-steve-jobs-and-crazy-ones
Interesting article but I don’t like his assumption that OWS is a lefty counterweight in opposition to the tea party. If they go very far down that path they will lose…they need tea partiers to join them IMO.
At the left coast OC rally at the traffic Circle in Orange, I did flash the Peace Sign at a woman whose sign read, “Stop offshoring our jobs”.
Four semesters of economics (maybe five, I forget). I understand it as an MBA, but I can’t forgive it as a citizen, a neighbor, a relative, an employer or employee. Or as a jobseeker.
I think somebodies sacrificed our future in favor of short-term profits that regularly result in immediate bonuses. Little pricks! (Except Meg Whitman - Hers is bigger -
)
I have to admit that I hate drum circles. I’m a curmudgeon that way.
While it’s a positive sign that people know something is wrong ,and they are seeking change ,right action and right solution becomes
important .
If the protests mean ,”Give me a free house “,than that’s not exactly the right solution .
If the protests are a statement that the THIEVES are taking the whole
Beehive down the tubes ,that might be a better point to start from .
Agreed.
What I am interested in the OWS (occupy wall street) crowd is the difference between “occupy wall st.” vs. the Tea Party.
The Tea Party is pretty much a conservative group of people, and the movement is doing a lot of critiquing of the Republican party. There was an is a real effort by the Tea Party to take back the Republican party from the elite like Bush, Mc Cain and all the other Rino Republicans that voted for the massive bail-outs and got our country into so much debt.
The thing I don’t see in the OWS is their critique of the Democrate Party, and their elite’s roll in the bail-out to Wall St.
In fact the Occupy Wall St. seems to be the far left that is dissatisfied with their own leaders, yet they are unwilling to say it. or even look critically at their own people.
They put Obama in office, yet it was Obama who voted for both bailouts. In fact the second bail out was exclusivly supported by the entire Democratic party, not one Republican voted for it. They also refuse to acknowledge that Obama received the largest donations from Wall st. corporations, for any predidential candidate in history, yet they are angry about corporate influence in our government.
I have very little sympathy for these people because they refuse to look at their own leaders. Until they start to acknowledge the lefts own dirty hands, it’s hard to take their complaints seriously.
“The thing I don’t see in the OWS is their critique of the Democrate Party, and their elite’s roll in the bail-out to Wall St.”
Where are you getting this information from? This isn’t even close to reality. In fact, many folks involved in OWS have been openly critical of Obama from the beginning.
http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011/10/why-occupywallstreet-doesnt-support-obama-his-nothing-to-see-here-stance-on-bank-looting.html
“Despite the efforts of some liberal pundits and organizers (and by extension, the Democratic party hackocracy) to lay claim to OccupyWallStreet, the nascent movement is having none of it. Participants are critical of the President’s bank-coddling ways and Obama gave a remarkably bald-face confirmation of their dim views.
As Dave Dayen recounts, Obama was cornered into explaining why his Administration has been soft of bank malfeasance. His defense amounted to “They’re savvy businessmen”: “Banks are in the business of making money, and they find loopholes.””
I got this information from the blogs that are covering it. A lot of the people joining the OWS protestest are open about their support for Obama. As well, a lot of the people joining are avoud socialists.
I don’t think there is any doubt that this is a leftist movement, and Obama is part of the left.
I agree with you that some in the OWS crowd are correctly appauld how Obama and Pelosi and almost all the Democrates in office sheltered the too big to fail, but it does seem to me that most at these rallies don’t. They just seem to blame the rich, call corporations greedy and demand more socialism to make everything eaqual.
Bud I wish you were right, we need a valid liberal party to keep the Republicans in check, but if this crowd doesn’t step up to the plate and be a stronger critique of the Democratic Party, and it’s participation in our countries debt, housing, economic, and jobs crisis, people are going to throw their hands up and say that the American left has no answers. They just cry and scream like children and blame the rich.
You need to read some different blogs.
“A lot of the people joining the OWS protestest are open about their support for Obama. As well, a lot of the people joining are avoud socialists.”
These two statements don’t go together, yet you seem to think they do. Nobody who is truly an “avowed socialist” is going to be an Obama supporter. Go over to socialistworker.org, do a search for “Obama” and try to find some articles that have anything positive to say. Obama has continued all of the same economic policies as his predecessor.
If you seriously believe that Obama is a socialist, well, I don’t think there’s much point in continuing the discussion because it isn’t going to be productive. I’d love to see some evidence of Obama’s socialism, besides name calling.
“I don’t think there is any doubt that this is a leftist movement,”
Left of Goldman Sachs, yes.
“and Obama is part of the left.”
This is highly debatable.
Bud there are socialist and there are communists. “socialistworker ” is communist, but they call themselves socialists in the same way that lenin and Stalin did.
Bud you can debate what Obama really is. Only it’s the Left in this country that thought that he was one of there own, only now after three years of his rule many on the Left have woken up to the reality that Obama rules a lot like George W. Bush.
Obama kept and expanded the war in Afghanistan, our troops are still in Iraq and now we are in Libya. Obama continued and expandid the bail-out to wall street too big to fail, and Obama keeps open borders with Mexico and promises amnesty to illegal aliens just like Bush.
Bud I understand the left’s frustration (maybe it is yours as well), The left thought that they got a European socialist and instead they got Bush lite.
“and instead they got Bush lite.”
So Obama is both Bush lite and a socialist. So Bush was a socialist too? Or are your arguments just incoherent strings of talking points you’ve heard elsewhere?
Alpha-sloth, the facts speak for themself.
Obama continued and expanded the war in Afghanistan and Iraq, and now includes Libya.
Obama continued and expanded the Bush bail-outs.
Obama protected the bank Ceo’s from investigation and prosicution just like Bush.
Obama keeps the Mexican border open to insure the cheap labor supply just like Bush.
Many conservatives including myself consider Bush to have ruled like a big government liberal. These are the facts Alpha, there is nothing incoherent about it?
So Bush and Obama are both socialists. Who was our last non-socialist president? And why was he not a socialist?
Here’s another example:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/25976845@N06/6220212008/in/photostream
Bub is right.
Go to the rallies and see. One of my friends who went with us had a sign that was critical of the Republicans. Many people, including myself, pointed out that the Democrats have been just as bad.
Greg, you’re not seeing the truth. Find out for yourself by going to the rallies.
And you should go to Tea Party rallies.
Mark my words. Actual Tea Party rallies have already disappeared. What I see are the decades old conservative organizations like Family Values, US Chamber of Commerce and Americans for Tax Reform with Tea Party stickers pasted over the GOP label. Good example: A few weeks back Sara Palin was the featured speaker at a official Kansas Tea Party rally. It was on C-SPAN with music, a right wing comedian and several Tea Party officials on stage. It was Sara’s “Crony Capitalism” speech which poked a sharp stick at Rick Perry and Mitt Romney. Well it all seems so fake now since Palin took the money and went rouge again. I can tell you from reading other blogs that pissed off some of the Tea Party folks. Anyway, the last really big rally they had was the Glen Beck/Fox News Revival/Faith tailgate party on the steps of the Lincoln Monument. I also remember the Daily Show had a rally that was, in spirit at least, anti-Tea Party and it was even bigger than the TP rallies.
“…Tea Party stickers pasted over the GOP label. Good example: A few weeks back Sara Palin was the featured speaker at a official Kansas Tea Party rally.”
Exactly!
The other thing is the stoopid MSM immediately jumped on board with Simple Sara’s move to hijack the Tea Party movement.
What I am interested in the OWS (occupy wall street) crowd is the difference between “occupy wall st.” vs. the Tea Party.
Me too…since I’m a little bit of both.
Most of us are a little bit of both.
Back when the Tea Party first started gaining momentum it was focused on the banking/financial industry. This was before it was co-opted by the Republicans (who were aided and abetted by the Democrats when they brought out the healthcare bill right in the middle of “The Great Recession” — the timing was so suspicious, but nobody called them on it).
Many of the people with OWS are the very same people who originally supported the Tea Party. We are the same people. We are the 99%.
Don’t let politics distract you from reality. Take away all names and labels, and you’ll find that the rest of us are very similar to one another in our beliefs and hopes for our country and its citizens.
Many of the people with OWS are the very same people who originally supported the Tea Party.
I’m having a hard time with this one…I’m not really seeing the overlap unless they deserted the Tea Party VERY early…
“Don’t let politics distract you from reality. Take away all names and labels, and you’ll find that the rest of us are very similar to one another in our beliefs and hopes for our country and its citizens.”
Very well stated, Ca.
Keep your eye on the prize!
The OWS crowd is not trying to hype a political party. That is so old-school. They are trying to drive home a very somber point:
The government does not own us. We own the government. If we can see that the government is controlled by someone other than ourselves, then we are going to overthrow it. Corporatists are out. Everyone else is welcome to the fight.
That is very well and concisely put, V!
Another thing that I don’t quite get about the left is how they always bemoan “corporate greed”.
Well yeh their greedy, but so are the public sector unions that have bancrupted every American city, county and state. Yet allowing S.E.I.U to join their ranks is somehow going to garner credibility to their cause.
what I see is that the is left angry about the effects liberalism has had on our country, yet is demanding more liberalism to cure what has sicking our country.
This country has never had liberalism. However, it has had mountains of neo-liberalism over the last 30 years. And you wonder why average people are in trouble.
IAT
The unions didn’t bankrupt the municipalities and states.
The pension funds in California were “super-funded” in the late 90s, as a result of the dot-com bubble (another disaster created by the financial industry), and the pension fund managers told the public employers/employees that they didn’t have to fund the pension plans for a number of years. They were also told that they could increase benefits and wouln’t have to pay anything because of the excess money in the pension funds.
Again, the unions didn’t cause any of these problems. Wall Street did.
Yes the public sector unions did bancrupt the cities, counties and states.
It’s the corrupt allience between the Democrate politicians and the union dues that fund the Democratic politician’s campaigns. The pay back for the unions always comes back as increased pay and larger retirement packages for the union members.
Most of our local tax dollars goes to pay the saleries and retirement of unionized public sector employees.
With out a doubt this corrupt system is what has caused the bankruptcy of all our city,county and state governments.
“Yes the public sector unions did bancrupt the cities, counties and states.”
Greg, turn off the TV. You’re falling for their BS.
Surely there are examples, many examples in fact, of public union pension largess. I don’t think anyone outside of one of these unions would defend such a practice. And I would say that the abuse is in a minority of the overall group.
IMO the real target of our angst should be the people that control the creation of and the distribution of the $$ that we all toil for.
We can deal with the smaller fish when appropriate.
With out a doubt this corrupt system is what has caused the bankruptcy of all our city,county and state governments.
Is that why non union Texas has the mother of all budget deficits?
Greg:
When the Republicans have been in power for 17 of last 20 years, how do you justify blaming the countries problems on “liberalism”? Are you saying that the Republican party is liberal?
Please excuse all misspellings and grammar mistakes.
Big V, The democrates controlled congress from 06 -10 and had the Presidency for 11 of those years.
Bush was no conservative, he was a Neo-con that ruled like a big government liberal.
This is the problem with labels. You reason that every conservative that ever caused a problem was actually a liberal. Now you no longer have to address the issues. It’s back to the name-calling again. “It’s all the liberals’ fault!”
Big V, politicians cross over and act like the opposition all the time, unfortunatly it is called “bipartisanship”.
When Hillary Clinton, and Kerry and many other Liberal Democrates, voted to give Bush a blank check to wage war in Iraq, were they acting like “liberals”? no way! the liberals went along with it to prove that they could be as tough as Republicans.
When Bush, McCain, Gramnesty, and many other Republicans voted with Ted Kennedy and obama to give amnesty to every illegal alien in our country, were they acting like law and order conservatives? Of course not, they were acting like liberals, only they called it bipartisanship.
Republicans love illegal immigrants because they provide cheap labr.
Yes, that is true. We call those ones the cheap labor lobby, and they love bipartisanship. The Rino Republicans want the illegal aliens for their cheap labor and the Liberal Democrates want their population for future Democrate voters.
I call it treason.
Never mention your effing cats. Seriously. Don’t bring it up.
I love cats. Grilled, with a side of mashed potatoes.
Blech…
My cat could kick your cat’s asce.
“My cat could kick your cat’s asce.”
Never mention your effing cats. Seriously. Don’t bring it up.
Have I ever told you guys about my cat?
Another one: college is a choice, so I am not interested in hearing about your $100k in student loans. I know A TON of people that didn’t work during college. I was the RA cleaning up everyone’s vodka chunks. In return I got a free room and $300/mo.
So what if tuition is rising. Do 2+2.
Reason for the protest?
Stop unfair competition and theft of property. Buy American.
Here is something from the Occupy Wall St. rally in Atlanta, GA that was published on the Drudge Report. This really illustrates how weird the OWS people are.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3QZlp3eGMNI (I hope the link works).
Aside from the strange zombie like chanting that the OWS crowd is doing, Dem. party congressman tried to speak at the rally, but wasn’t allowed. Maybe this looney crowd isn’t so bad after all.
Here’s my other sign:
I just want an affordable house, jerky!
They aren’t weird.
They are repeating in that manner so that everyone can hear what the speaker is saying. They are also attempting to keep everyone focused.
I saw nothing “weird” about what happened in that clip.
I’ve never seen that done before…which automatically makes it a bit weird to me (and other’s who have never seen it before, I assume).
It did seem to be an effective way to avoid having your agenda hijacked, though. Even if it did mean missing out on an opportunity for something good.
They aren’t allowed to use megaphones. The call and repeat is so everyone can hear what was said. New York City requires a permit to use powered sound equipment.
Yes, sometimes something seems weird at first, but then you realize that it’s actually a good idea. That’s what makes odd-balls so important to humanity. I like it.
My sign will say:
I HATE YOUR POLITICS!
Do you care to share any family recipes?
My shirt will say:
I have beans, rice, hot sauce, and box wine. I will be the last man standing.
I saw “Contagion” last week. Your list better include some firepower or your beans, rice, hot sauce & box wine may not be yours for very long.
I’m armed to the teeth, and a good shot, but I ain’t dumb.
You will be sitting on the pot with a recipe like that.
Is it inherent in the human race that they can see “GREED’ in people they disagree with , but ignore their own “GREED” in wanting to take from the people they think are “greedy”?
It is incomprehensible to me how people can advocate taking from the people with excess money , and distribute that money to their own class of people who do not have excess money!
Is that not the Greed that the ows is talking about!
They don’t want to take the money away from the people to give to the government, they want to take the money away and get it for themselves.
Am I in error in this?
They do have a lot of jealousy, and I think that you are correct in saying that they are displaying their greed.
What I think the OWS groups and the Tea Party have in common is that both would agree that the too big to fail, like Goldman Sacks, BOA, Chase and CIti need to be broken up into a million pieces.
‘What I think the OWS groups and the Tea Party have in common is that both would agree that the too big to fail, like Goldman Sacks, BOA, Chase and CIti need to be broken up into a million pieces.’
Maybe if they want to represent 99%, pick goals we can all get behind and then join forces?
“Am I in error in this?”
Yes, though I doubt trying to engage with you would be worthwhile. Sounds like your mind is already made up.
“It is incomprehensible to me how people can advocate taking from the people with excess money , and distribute that money to their own class of people who do not have excess money!”
How did those people get their “excess money”? Was it through honest labor? Or through exploitation, coercion, and outright fraud and theft? I think it is pretty rich to claim to be opposed to “greed” and then come down on the side of the multi-billionaires rather than the 99% of everybody else who has less and just wants a fair shake.
Exactly, Bub.
Most of those in the 1% never worked for that money. They take a piece of almost every legitimate transaction — the transactions made possible by the 99% who do all the productive work — and keep it for themselves. They insert themselves in the middle of transactions and pass laws that force everyone else to use their “services.”
They trade and make deals for their money. In many cases, they simply bet on the price movements of assets, which is zero-sum, and doesn’t benefit society in any way (does harm to it, as a matter of fact).
There is a faulty assumption on the part of the very wealthy (and the minions who they’ve convinced to serve them politically) that wealth is always “earned” honestly and ethically. That simply is not the truth.
See also Tom Wolfe’s book “Bonfire Of The Vanities” in which protagonist Sherman McCoy explains his job as a Wall Street Bond Trader to his daughter as collecting crumbs
Don’t forget family money. The kids of these rich folks get the best schools and best connections and marry rich and get a free ticket into the club, not much different from the lines of royalty from hundreds of years ago. Hardly a meritocracy. As they say, being born on third and thinking they hit a triple.
I find Forbes 400 list of richest “familes” to be vaguely offensive. Nobody begrudges Sam Walton his wealth, but the family didn’t work hard for the money they make now.
Maybe corporate “personhood” right should die with the company’s original founder.
Typical response, I guess. the rich never worked a day in their life!
And the rich never do anything for the poor, and you all ignore Bill Gates, and Warren Buffet, who give millions of dollars to charity. But I guess you don’t get any of that money so it is of no interest to you.
Lest you think I am rich, I have an income of about $60,000 a year, and owe no money to anyone.
But , I see the attraction of attacking the rich as it is obvious that they have lots of money.
But do not most of the protester realize that they money they have is the money that is backing up all of the loans and credit that the protester use.
If there were no rich people where would the banks get the money to finance business? Oh, you think the government could do it? And where does the government get the money?
Oh, they get it from the rich, don’t they? As the poor don’t have money in the banks or pay a lot of taxes to the government!
Take the money away from the rich, distribute it to the poor , and everyone will be happy, except the government who provides the money to the people who need it to live.
Arithmetic is suggested for consideration of the problems of finance.
But do not most of the protester realize that they money they have is the money that is backing up all of the loans and credit that the protester use.
If there were no rich people where would the banks get the money to finance business? Oh, you think the government could do it? And where does the government get the money?
Oh, they get it from the rich, don’t they? As the poor don’t have money in the banks or pay a lot of taxes to the government!
You haven’t been here long, have you? The banks haven’t needed anybody’s money in order to loan as much as they want for a while now…
Deposits? From lots of average folks?
And getting jobs from rich people - how many businesses need the masses patronizing them to make money? Average folks, retail workers, box movers, clerks, etc.
It’s a circle. A circulatory system. Saying that rich are more essential to the economy than the poor is like asking which is more important, the heart or the blood? Both are necessary.
Granted - the individual who can organize others and has vision is a rarer breed, and does often become rich. But it’s the masses who vote for a system which allows him to succeed. If that rare individual were living in Zimbabwe or North Korea, his skills would be useless.
Masses -> vote for system in which rich guy can organize businesses -> needs masses to patronize business.
For a healthy economy, asking who is more important, the rich or the average masses, is like asking which is more important in making water - the hydrogen or the oxygen. You need both.
The fundamental error you”ve made is using alternate usernames to blow smoke up everyones ass in order to advance a political party.
You’re here pandering with with a political ideology to divide. Party minions like you, Rangel, trade union leaders and the rest of you creeps need to drag yer collective asses. If you can’t drag it… pick it up and carry it.
Do you remember TARP? Do you remember when they repealed Glass-Steagal? Do you remember when they embarked on the destructive path of “Free Trade”?
They took our money and they took our freedom. That made us mad.
V,
Protect the movement, invite the T party, reject party affiliations.
Bud, nobody is forcing you to engage, obviously it’s all voluntary.
You are talking about taking (taxing) the billionaires money, but somehow that ends up getting translated in congress to heavily taxing people who make $250k per year. and I am sorry to say a lot of the liberal/socialist rif-raff that promote all of this don’t make much of a distinction between the two .
As for really taxing the mega wealthy, I truely don’t believe that is going to come anywhere near solving our debt problems. Our government has a spending problem not a revenue problem.
Bud, the only thing that I truely believe will help our countries situation at this time is to break up the too big to fail banks into a million pieces, so that individualy they have less power and there failures pose less of a threat. As well we need national right to work laws and we need to abolish public sector unions, because the public sector unions have bankrupted almost every city, county, and state government. Furthermore we need an immigration moratorium, until unemployment reaches 4%, Why are we importing 1 million new workers every year when we have historic unemployment levels!
We also need attrition through enforcement to deal with illegal immigration, so that Americans can take back the jobs that the illegals have taken. And end the wars in the Mid East, and vacate many of the military bases over seas, to save money.
This is what needs to be done, but Goldman - BOA - Citi are too powerfull and won’t allow it.
The Democratic party is too financially dependent on the public sector unions to allow its abolition.
Corporations are too dependent on the cheap foreign labor for an immigration moritorium, as well as the Democratic party wants amnesty for illegals for future Democratic voters.
Our country continues it’s route to suicide, because those in power remain powerfull enough to prevent the changes I just mentioned.
Bud I am a Tea Party Republican, I know the failures of those in my party like Bush, McCain, Gramnesty… I can’t support them, but until the OWS can come to terms with what I listed above and say something besides ” CORPORATE GREED!!!!”, we as a nation will just have to continue our long march to suicide.
go away
I agree with most of what you wrote here, Greg.
lmao.
You must be an original Tea Party Republican then. The Tea party as I see it now looks like a combination of racist Dixiecrats, a Medicare fraud client list, and the religious nuts from Jesus Camp.
“You are talking about taking (taxing) the billionaires money, but somehow that ends up getting translated in congress to heavily taxing people who make $250k per year. .. as for really taxing the mega wealthy, I truly don’t believe that is going to come anywhere near solving our debt problems. Our government has a spending problem not a revenue problem.”
Our government has both a spending problem AND a revenue problem. The revenue problem is that instead of taxing a few people a lot more, we need to tax a lot more of people. That means bringing the jobs back from China and India, and letting the Bush tax cuts expire, but which never should have been made in the first place.
The spending problem is laregly demographic. 15 years ago, the baby boomers were all employed, earning peak income, and paying into their safety net. Now, those same boomers are costing money instead of making it. If they are not collecting SS and Medicare, then they are hanging on to their jobs and shutting out the next generation.
Oh you know I am a bible thumping Repugnant wanting to plant cops in every bedroom don’t you?
You know better by now that I’m an atheist.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KwggusZYMQE
Greg in LA, maybe you can explain to me why Sarah Palin is such a tea party darling, when A) She’s a transparent fraud and fame whore; and B) She was Uber-RINO John McCain’s running mate and gave a spirited if incoherent defence of TARP and statist central economic planning in her infamous interview with Katie Couric. I can only conclude that her Tea Party fans are even bigger morons than she is.
Yes Sammy, she was McCains running mate, McCain is a Rino Republican, and Conservatives like myself really dislike McCain. that is why McCain chose Palin as a running mate, to placate the Conservatives.
I like Sara Palin because she is conservative on a lot of issues. I am disappointed in Sara Palin because her position on illegal immigration isn’t all that strong, and she hasn’t been real forthcoming on her position pertaining to illegal immigration.
One thing you don’t doubt about Sara palin is her loyalty to this country, and to Americans.
I like the fact that she didn’t go to Harvard or Yale. I like the fact that she is a successful and educated white woman who isn’t afraid to breed. I like that she is from Alaska, which exemplifies the American pioneer spirit. most of all I like the fact that Liberals hate her so much… and most of all, she has all the right enemies.
Greg, I think you are projecting a lot of your own values on Palin. She has shown herself to be someone with few principles, fewer scruples, and fewer still active brain cells. I’m no liberal, but I have no respect for charlatans of any persuasion.
Bud, Until the OWS comes to terms with the failures and corruption in the Democratic party, and starts calling out Obama’s failures and coddling of the Wall St. Banks, nobody is going to take them seriously. The OWS will seem too joined to the DNC.
The Tea Party came to terms with the failures within the Republican party, It’s the Democrats turn now. I hope they are up to the challenge.
If all there is and will ever be just a two party system then I predict the OWS will try to seize the core of that Democratic political apparatus and bend it to our needs. What the Tea Party did was take control of the GOP when what I wanted to see was for them to divorce it self from the Republican Party and start a new movement to get away from all the Gay-Guns-G*d issues and focus on structural issues that would change the trajectory of our collective standard of living. Greg, The Tea Party Failed… Now our bonds are AA+ and we got a super committee is going to take a meat cleaver to our government. Great.
I do not think they are there to support any particular political ideology. They are there to scream and shout and get it all out. NO MORE WALL STREET CORRUPTION OF GOVERNMENT. It’s not that hard to accomplish, really.
Not that hard to change? I have done some statistical modeling of the number of ‘citizens’ that are needed to rise up and maintain a concerted resistance long enough to have a chance of changing the course of a modern industrial nation. I added and subtracted % based on other issues like race, religion, morals ect. and I estimate the USA would need a mass demonstration of at least 20 million people (from a base of 310) for more than 2 weeks before 1) the government caves and calls for a national referendum or 2) the government hands over power to the military.
So yes it could happen if you’re ready to see blood spilled but if we are talking about rewiring the guts of government and our distorted financial sectors without utter chaos well then I’m thinking more like a generation or more. Young men and women, the next batch of leaders, need to join this movement and learn how to wield power wisely.
This will yield a viable candidate.
“1) the government caves and calls for a national referendum or 2) the government hands over power to the military.”
I’d be happy if they just re-instated Glass Steagall,, allowed Bush’s tax cuts to expire, and taxed capital gains like income. Oh, and gave us a public health care option (eg buy into the VA system).
Alpha-sloth, I would like to have health care that I didn’t have to pay much extra for as well. Unfortunatly I don’t believe nationalized health care will work in the USA.
I’ll give you 3 reasons for this…the post office, the DMV and city hall.
If you ever go to any of these places and interact with the employees,you will see how it would be in a nationalized hospital. It would be just like the DMV or the post office, the employees are incompetent, lazy, and would be choosen out of a qouta system(affermative action) instead of skill or qualifications. As well the new nationalized health care workers would be unionized and therefore bankrupt the entire system just like they have everywhere else.
Isn’t it amazing that all the other advanced countries of the world can run public health care quite well, and far cheaper than our system, but somehow we’re incapable of doing the same?
I guess that’s another example of American ‘exceptionalism’? We’re exceptionally incapable?
This is an excellent development, from the political entertainment standpoint. It looks like battle lines are now drawn, with Democrats expressing sympathy with OWS and Republicans disparaging them, when they are not preoccupied attacking each others’ religion. Time will tell whose strategy works best.
Pelosi Supports Occupy Wall Street Movement
PHOTO: Dem. Leader Nancy Pelosi sits with “This Week” anchor Christiane Amanpour.
Rick Perry Supporter Shuns Mormonism
By JESSICA DESVARIEUX
WASHINGTON, Oct. 9, 2011
House Democratic Leader Rep. Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., said she supports the growing nationwide Occupy Wall Street movement, which began on the streets of downtown New York City in mid-September.
“I support the message to the establishment, whether it’s Wall Street or the political establishment and the rest, that change has to happen,” said Pelosi in an exclusive interview with ABC News “This Week” anchor Christiane Amanpour. “We cannot continue in a way this is not relevant to their lives.”
Pelosi sees the protestors’ anger stemming from unemployment, which remains above 9 percent.
Pelosi added that the failure of TARP, commonly known as the bank bailout, to add liquidity to the Main Street marketplace is fueling Americans’ animosity towards Wall Street.
“The thought was that when we did that [pass TARP], there would be capital available and Main Street would benefit from the resources that went largely to Wall Street,” said Pelosi. “That didn’t happen. People are angry.”
…
Does this now mean we HBBers should whine and plea for Nutty Nancy to get back her political power?
No — it means you should make some popcorn, kick back, and enjoy the partisan battle over OWS.
Yes Nancy, people are angry that Congress passed TARP with a 90% disapproval rating. We are angry that Congress took a superior stance and insisted that Americans were stupid, and that Congress MUST vote against our wishes, to protect us from ourselves. Goodbye Nancy, goodbye y’all.
Oh BTW:
We’re getting tariffs, we’re getting ta-a-riffs. Na-na-na-na-na.
Protest Spurs Online Dialogue on Inequity
By JENNIFER PRESTON
Published: October 8, 2011
What began as a small group of protesters expressing their grievances about economic inequities last month from a park in New York City has evolved into an online conversation that is spreading across the country on social media platforms.
Inspired by the populist message of the group known as Occupy Wall Street, more than 200 Facebook pages and Twitter accounts have sprung up in dozens of cities during the past week, seeking volunteers for local protests and fostering discussion about the group’s concerns.
Some 900 events have been set up on Meetup.com, and blog posts and photographs from all over the country are popping up on the WeArethe99Percent blog on Tumblr from people who see themselves as victims of not just a sagging economy but also economic injustice.
“I don’t want to be rich. I don’t want to live a lavish lifestyle,” wrote a woman on Tumblr, describing herself as a college student worried about the burden of student debt. “I’m worried. I’m scared, thinking about the future shakes me. I hope this works. I really hope this works.”
The online conversation has grown at the same time that street protests have taken place in several other cities last week, including Boston, Los Angeles, Chicago and Washington. A Web site, Occupy Together, is trying to aggregate the online conversations and the off-line activities.
“We are not coordinating anything,” said Justin Wedes, 26, a former high school science teacher from Brooklyn who helps manage one of the movement’s main Twitter accounts, @OccupyWallStNYC. “It is all grass roots. We are just trying to use it to disseminate information, tell stories, ask for donations and to give people a voice.”
…
Kudos to the protestors for demonstrating against the unfairness of bailouts which made Wall Street Megabanks whole while throwing the rest of America under the bus!
Wall Street protesters look to expand N.Y. presence
A protester holds a sign during an ‘Occupy Wall Street’ rally in New York’s Washington Square October 8, 2011. New York Mayor Michael Bloomberg accused anti-Wall Street protesters on Friday of trying to destroy jobs in the city, even as he said he was sympathetic to some of their complaints. REUTERS-Jessica Rinaldi
By Ray Sanchez
NEW YORK | Sat Oct 8, 2011 6:04pm EDT
(Reuters) - Anti-Wall Street demonstrators said on Saturday they are growing out of their lower Manhattan encampment and are exploring options to expand to other public spaces in New York City.
Protesters complaining about what they view as corporate greed have been camped out near Wall Street in Zuccotti Park for three weeks, staging rallies and marches that have mostly proceeded peacefully but have also resulted in confrontations with police.
On Saturday, several hundred protesters marched north to Washington Square Park — the site of protests against the Vietnam War in the 1960s and 1970s — to discuss expanding their encampment to other sites.
There were no arrests.
Lucas Vasquez, a student who was leading the march, said protesters were looking at expanding into Washington Square and Battery parks, but stressed: “We’re not going to give up Liberty Plaza” — the protesters’ name for Zuccotti Park, where about 250 have camped out around the clock.
“It’s sometimes hard to move around there. We have a lot of people,” he said.
By late on Saturday, no decision had been reached.
The movement has surged in less than three weeks from a ragged group in downtown Manhattan to protesters of all ages demonstrating from Seattle to Tampa.
The protesters object to the Wall Street bailout in 2008, which they say left banks to enjoy huge profits while average Americans suffered under high unemployment and job insecurity.
…
“Things About the Meltdown You Need to Know”
Where do bailout funds originate? And does the actual amount in the fund (e.g. EUR440 billion) really matter, or is it just important the figure be a really, really big number?
Please share if you know the answers.
OCTOBER 9, 2011, 5:37 A.M. ET
Slovak Anti Euro Bailout Party May Vote EFSF Down -Leader
BRATISLAVA (Dow Jones)–Slovakia’s Freedom and Solidarity, or SaS, party, the key opponent of the bailout approval in the four-member coalition cabinet, is likely to vote against the temporary European Financial Stability Fund unless it gets a veto on the permanent bailout program, the SaS leader said Sunday.
“As it seems to me now, we may vote against the EFSF,” Richard Sulik said in a live midday news show on Slovakia’s TA3 news channel.
Slovakia’s parliament is scheduled to vote on the EFSF endorsement Tuesday. Slovakia is the last euro zone member to vote on the program. Malta is expected to approve it Monday.
The entire seventeen-strong euro currency union has to endorse the EFSF for it take effect. The EUR440 billion EFSF is to be replaced by a much larger permanent European Stability Mechanism from mid-2013.
SaS still hopes to persuade their coalition partners during final talks, scheduled for Monday. “We’re ready to talk until the last minute,” Sulik said.
…
Why do U.S. stock market investors get so excited over euro zone bailout prospects?
Atlanta Business News 6:06 p.m. Thursday, October 6, 2011
Stocks rise on help for European banks; Dow up 183
By DAVID K. RANDALL
The Associated Press
NEW YORK — The Dow Jones industrial average jumped 183 points Thursday after the European Central Bank moved to support that region’s lenders and U.S. retailers reported stronger September sales.
In this Oct. 4, 2011 photo, trader Vincent Quinones, second from right, works on the floor of the New York Stock Exchange. Hopes that Europe is preparing a big plan to shore up its banks gave stocks around the world another lift Thursday, Oct. 6, 2011, ahead of keenly-awaited policy decisions from the European Central Bank and the Bank of England.(AP Photo/Richard Drew)
It was the third straight day of gains. The Dow has soared 468 points since Tuesday, or 4.4 percent.
The European Central Bank promised to provide unlimited one-year loans to the region’s lenders through 2013. The goal is to shield banks from poorly functioning short-term credit markets, in which banks are becoming too worried about each other’s financial stability to lend money to one another. Germany’s DAX jumped 3.2 percent, and France’s CAC-40 rose 3.4 percent.
The loans are also meant to help protect the banks in the event Greece’s government defaults on its debt. If that happens the value of Greek bonds held by those banks would be likely to drop sharply, weakening the banks’ balance sheets and making it harder for them to lend.
The European Central Bank disappointed some investors by announcing that it would keep interest rates unchanged. Analysts were hoping the bank would cut rates to encourage lending and give a boost to Europe’s sagging economy.
…
Goodby, European Union. Goodbye, globalism. Parting is such sweet sorrow.
Not so soon.
Globalism is here to stay.
Telecommunication is only in its infancy. If you know Mandarin and perhaps Spanish, you will be able to work from home along with your Asian and South/Central American colleagues.
Yes our incomes are going to drop much more. It’s going to be painful for Americans used to being the only kid on the block for decades. But then the 30 year credit bubble was the time when the average white collar American should have lived well below his means and saved. There is no law that says the boomers must have several kids and two SUVs and a McMansion. Well at least no cop came to my door and arrested me for renting a 900 square foot apartment and driving an economy car and being single…
‘Globalism is here to stay’
I can believe words or what I see. Asia; communist riding on bubbles, soon to wipe out their over-leveraged economy. NAFTA, fail. European Union; fail. Actually, I can’t think of one single success of globalism or one reason we shouldn’t throw it in the dustbin of history.
“…communists riding on bubbles, soon to wipe out their over-leveraged economy…”
If I turn towards the Pacific, I think I can hear a loud popping sound from the other side.
Oct. 10, 2011, 1:01 a.m. EDT
Chinese real estate shows signs of weakening
By Chris Oliver
HONG KONG (MarketWatch) — Chinese house prices eased in September, the first such drop this year, while sales activity fell sharply in the Golden Week holiday last week, traditionally a peak period for property sales. Reports from the region citing data from the China Real Estate Index System showing house prices in 100 cities it tracks eased 0.03% during September. On a year-over year basis, however, new home prices were up 6.2% in September, compared a 6.9% rise in August, according to the index. Meanwhile, Meanwhile, Golden Week transactions were down sharply from a year earlier, according to the China Index Academy survey of 20 cities, cited in research by Bank of America Merrill Lynch. Sales fell 44% from a year earlier, while former real-estate hot spot Shenzhen saw activity drop plunge 90%, and Ningbo and Shanghai recorded year-on-year sales declines of 78% and 73%, respectively. However, Merrill Lynch cautioned against reading too much into the sluggish activity, saying: “The data here were clearly distorted because home sales surged in October last year due to inflation fears.”
Telecommunications and globalism are not the same thing. There are these border thingies, see. And people who live within the confines of one border do not play by the same rules as people who live within the confines of another border. They may or may not be able to use their telecommunications devices, but they do not trade in the same currencies or follow the same laws.
Globalism cannot be prevented when other nations free themselves up and offer products at lower prices and better quality. Consumers are not stupid. They know about buying quality over price. They would pay more for something lasting a long time than they would for a product that breaks. It does not matter if that product is built in America or Armenia.
People here on HBB have asserted that Americans are too dumb to be able to figure out the quality / price tradeoffs to come up with which product is the best value. HBBers here say people opt for low price even if they have to buy replacements that would end up more expensive than buying American. I say bunk.
Bible Thumper Pat Buchanon is on the side of the anti-globalists, if that helps. I betcha Bible Thumper Mike Huckabee is also anti-globalist. Now you happy?
Cool graphic here…
Wall Street protests: Expanding nationally
Uncertainty is indeed disquieting. But one thing about the meltdown seems quite certain: There has never been a better time to lose lots of money by catching falling knife investments during the course of a slow-burn financial panic with no end in sight.
This Time, Uncertainty Took a Huge Toll
Yiorgos Karahalis/Reuters
A protest in Athens. Worries about Europe’s financial system have weighed heavily on investors.
By CONRAD DE AENLLE
Published: October 8, 2011
Then, in the third quarter, the weight of many unanswered questions, mainly about the economic recovery’s staying power and the soundness of Europe’s financial system, dragged stocks sharply lower.
The 14.3 percent decline in the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index in the three months through September was the worst quarterly loss since 2008 and left the index down 10 percent since the start of 2011. Treasury bonds, often a haven in difficult times, went in the opposite direction, recording double-digit gains and pushing yields on 10-year instruments as low as 1.7 percent.
The catalyst for both moves, an ironic one at that, appeared to be S.& P.’s downgrade of Treasury debt in early August after a rancorous debate in Congress over federal spending left no clear path to long-term deficit reduction. The deterioration of Europe’s debt crisis added to the downward momentum, as a resolution of Greece’s problems remained elusive, raising fears of default.
Perhaps even more unsettling to investors was the prospect of contagion in Europe — a wider destabilization of treasuries and banks in the region resulting from anticipation of just such a calamity. In this picture, investors spooked by events in Greece would sell bonds elsewhere, driving up interest rates and adding to debtors’ stress.
The chance that these economic woes will derail an already fragile global economic recovery, spread alarm in the stock market. Yet there was more. Political stability in pockets of the Middle East and North Africa remained in doubt, as did China’s ability to maintain strong economic growth while controlling inflation. And supply-chain disruptions for manufacturers in certain industries, a remnant of the March tsunami in Japan, continued to cause concern.
“There are crisis situations all over the world,” said David Marcus, chief investment officer of Evermore Global Advisors. “Investors have been in panic mode, selling indiscriminately without regard to value. They want out at any price.”
When assets are sold at any price, they become cheap. And that has indeed happened to stocks, some investment advisers contend, which were trading at about 12 times earnings as the quarter ended, compared with a long-run average of closer to 15. Buying now may not make for a peaceful night’s sleep, but it could result in healthy gains for the long term, they say.
“There is an absolute fear of having money exposed to anything that can fluctuate in value,” said David Steinberg, managing partner of DLS Capital Management. Investors who take a chance now “are going to be rewarded once the dust clears,” he predicted. “There is a very high probability of high returns and a low probability of losing a lot on a long-term basis.”
In the short term, though, fund investors have lost a lot. The average domestic stock fund in Morningstar’s database fell 16.2 percent in the third quarter.
Funds focusing on cyclical industrial companies, financial services and natural resources were among the weakest performers. Those with concentrations in consumer-oriented companies and utilities lost ground, but less than average.
International stock funds, down 18.3 percent, fared worse than domestic ones and were dragged down by a 23.7 percent decline in Europe portfolios.
Taken as a whole, bond funds were little changed in the quarter, down 0.6 percent, but there were exceptions. The persistent appetite for the perceived safety of Treasury bonds sent long-term government bond funds to an average gain of 26.9 percent.
Conditions may improve for the long haul, but ponderous progress on major issues could bring more pain in the short run. Rick Rieder, chief investment officer for actively managed fixed-income portfolios at BlackRock, says, for example, that he foresees no immediate end to Europe’s crisis.
…
“The 14.3 percent decline in the Standard & Poor’s 500-stock index in the three months through September was the worst quarterly loss since 2008 and left the index down 10 percent since the start of 2011.”
What’s worse, this happened after the end, not the beginning, of a lost decade. And nobody could have seen it coming!
Doug Nolan this week (he’s sound nervous this week):
It’s been my long-held view that, in the grand scheme of major Credit busts, calculations of necessary additions to depleted bank capital basically become meaningless. The critical issue is not some quantifiable (and “plugable”) hole in banking system capital but, instead, the overall Credit needs of maladjusted Bubble economic structures and inflated system-wide prices levels and spending patterns. This is a critical distinction. In the U.S., for example, I have argued that a period of prolonged Credit excess created a financial and economic structure requiring in the neighborhood of $2.0 TN annual net non-financial Credit growth - to keep the economic wheels rotating and (speculative) asset markets levitating. Post-2008 crisis bailouts threw hundreds of billions (Trillions?) at the financial sector, although this changed little with respect to the economy’s requirement of massive Credit creation on an ongoing annual basis. This is an enormous festering problem that goes unnoticed with attention fixated on European carnage.
From the European experience, we now appreciate that the little, almost inconsequential Greek economy is quite an impressive financial black hole. And as things have progressed, critical Credit Bubble Dynamics have been illuminated for all who want to see. The market has witnessed how the “money” from Greek Bailout One was soon vaporized. Dexia’s 2008 bailout: vaporized. Greek Bailout II, when it arrives, will be similarly vaporized. European bank capital: poof. The potential amount of “money” to be vaporized if Italy succumbs to the highly contagious path of Greece, Portugal and Ireland: Unfathomable Black Hole. Well, everyone knows this is not an option. So incredible effort will be exerted to present the European crisis in terms of some quantifiable, manageable, solvable problem - some quantifiable cost that might, with the euro at risk, be tolerable to, say, the German voter.
The markets are somewhat relieved to see policymakers now completely engaged. Yet I don’t foresee an increasingly enlightened marketplace really buying into any notion that policymakers are getting their arms, minds or pocketbooks around the problem. Seeming at times in lonely isolation (and I’m not referring to either their AAA debt rating or manufacturing-based economy), the Germans appreciate the unfolding “financial black hole” and monetary “slippery slope” nature of how things are progressing. Meanwhile, on a more daily and hourly basis, the market focus seems to be whether policy pronouncements are sufficient to engender another “rip your face off” short squeeze.
Despite stringent austerity measures, Greece will run a deficit this year of at least 8.5% of GDP. Without a massive and open-ended commitment from a rapidly depleting European “core,” the situation is utterly hopeless. In a microcosm of the predicament shared by other developed economies, Greece for too long depended on the creation of new financial claims (Credit) and consumption at the expense of investment in real wealth creation (is this type of analysis sounding any less archaic these days?). As much as policymakers will never admit it, impaired economic structures are at the heart of an unquantifiable global Credit crisis of confidence. And as de-risking and de-leveraging empowers contagion effects worldwide, the scope of the unquantifiable grows only more unfathomable.
And it all seems to boil down to this: Credit cannot be stable within a backdrop of such extraordinary uncertainty. And, I would argue, no amount of central bank liquidity (”money”) and bank capital is going to engender sufficient certainty to stabilize global Credit, financial flows and asset markets. Not with the large number of dangerously maladjusted economies; not with such well-entrenched global economic and financial imbalances; and not with today’s unbelievable Credit, derivatives, and speculative leverage overhang. The issue is certainly not a lack of “money” - but rather a lack of confidence and trust - the bedrock of Credit.
What I take from this a very big system shock is close. Not fatal yet but another leg down might blow up the derivative market and from that everything else will fall too.
Updated 1:13 PM
Clergy Members March Alongside “Occupy Wall Street” Protesters
By: NY1 News
The “Occupy Wall Street” demonstrators who have been camping in Lower Manhattan for more than three weeks to protest the country’s economic inequality are once again marching to Washington Square Park today, and members of the clergy are joining them in solidarity.
The group is retracting the same path from Zuccotti Park to Greenwich Village that it took yesterday.
Police say there were no arrests yesterday, compared to the past two Saturdays, when hundreds of protesters were arrested.
While the demonstrators do not have a common set of goals, individual protesters say they have their own reasons for being part of the ongoing movement.
“Well, I’m down here because Wall Street’s been bailed out, and the American people have been sold out,” said one protester. “I’m a former United States Marine…. I love the country, I love the people, but the government is criminal.”
“I am currently a law student, I’m at law school, and it is taking a lot to adjust to make that possible in terms of education, because of the debt,” said another protester. “The interesting thing about our school is that we have a social mission. And a lot of us would like to serve that social mission upon entering law school, but we can’t because we need to find a job that’s going to satisfy our debt, so we won’t be in it for 25 years.”
“Message is, you know, I was a business owner and lost my business because of the economy. My dad’s house is in foreclosure because of the economy and being taken away from him right now, and there’s just too much money in too little pockets,” said a third.
For more than three weeks, protesters have been camping out at Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan.
…
It should be interesting to see how blaming the victim is going to play out for Cain.
I have a question for his economic team members:
How do bailouts of Wall Street, Detroit and other too-big-to-fail financial entities owned by top 1%ers qualify as “the success of somebody else” in the scheme of his his folksy economic wisdom?
Cain: Protestors are playing “the victim card”
GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain slammed the Occupy Wall Street protests on Sunday, dismissing the demonstrators as “people who want to protest the success of somebody else.”
News Desk
October 9, 2011 13:43
GOP presidential candidate Herman Cain slammed the Occupy Wall Street protests on Sunday, dismissing the demonstrators as “people who want to protest the success of somebody else,” CBS News reports.
“Part of it is jealousy,” he said, according to CBS News. “I stand by that. And here’s why I don’t have a lot of patience with that. My parents, they never played the victim card. My parents never said, ‘We hope that the rich people lose something so we can get something.’ No, my dad’s idea was, ‘I want to work hard enough so I can buy a Cadillac — not take somebody else’s.’
…
This is why the Republicans will not “take over” in 2012, as has been so mind-numbingly suggested ever since Obama won in 2008.
I agree. The RNC has proved itself equally inept in fielding a candidate in 2012 as they did in 2008.
I hope Cain gets the GOP nomination so I can watch every bigot and racist’s head explode.
I was just on my way back home, thinking about Cain’s, “blame yourself” statement. And I’ve determined it’s a silly thing to say and he’s silly for saying it. I DO blame myself for not being rich, and I don’t want to be rich. I never have — I just want to get by, and there’s a whole frickload of people to blame for making this a lot harder for a lot of people.
This is the part of OWS that I agree with.
Yep. It’s sad when individual choice boils down to to either struggling tooth-and-nail to become a highly successful greed pig, or going down the tubes financially.
I am right with you on that Muggy. I never wanted to be in the 1% group. All I really need is be remembered as a decent citizen and father, everything else is dust in the wind.
I would consider voting for him for that prospect alone.
I hope Cain gets the GOP nomination so I can watch every bigot and racist’s head explode.
And that’s why he won’t get it. The GOP knows that a big chunk of its Dixiecrat base will walk if they nominate him.
The RNC has an extremist problem:
- Dixiecrats who won’t go for a black conservative like Cain;
- Evangelistas who won’t go for the Mormon Romney;
- Conservative purists who won’t go for anyone positioned to the left of Romney or Cain;
- A national electorate who won’t go for any candidate who with sufficient conservative credentials to satisfy extremists in the Republican base.
A problem indeed. Purity Tests always end in self destruction. Remember racial purity?
1. Thanks to Obama, we are getting tariffs against Chinese tires.
2. Thanks to Obama, there is now a competition between the two parties to see who can enact the most tariffs more quickly. Republicans now want tariffs against China to counteract their manipulated currency. Member when Republicans said that Obama was “naive” for wanting that little tiny tariff against tires? Member?
3. I like the protestors. They are not the type to just sit down and shut up and do what is told by their corporate masters, hoping for a bone one day. I do NOT like the people who are trying to discourage them from actually taking a stance. It is our duty as American citizens to take responsibility for our government. When corporate America has taken control through campaign contributions, bribes, and media domination, then protests are THE WAY TO GO. They are the only way to circumvent the other systems that are not functioning correctly. The media have to report on these protests because they’re too big to ignore. Good on the folks in the street.
“I do NOT like the people who are trying to discourage them from actually taking a stance. It is our duty as American citizens to take responsibility for our government.”
Would any of our RNC regulars care to weigh in on this?
Because I don’t hear Romney, Cain or any other Republican candidate acknowledging the OWS protestors rights to exercise their American Constitutional privilege to peacefully demonstrate. The Republican candidates better get on board with this, or we will start to suspect them of preferring dictatorship of a timid, voiceless electorate, rather than government of the people, by the people, for the people.
http://market-ticker.org/akcs-www?post=195681
From Lee Adler: “We as a society must stop pretending. Most of us think that we still have money in the bank to protect, so we go along with the game of extend and pretend. For some of us, the game has already ended. The rapacious zero interest rate policy that I call Bernankecide has already robbed millions of savers of their life savings. This is the reality that has yet to hit home for many Americans who are content to wallow in the status quo. Unfortunately, the longer it takes for them to wake up, the worse their, and our, fate will be.”
It is our duty as American citizens to take responsibility for our government. When corporate America has taken control through campaign contributions, bribes, and media domination, then protests are THE WAY TO GO.
Absolutely. That core principle of a healthy democracy seems lost on most people. My only caveat would be to not just protest, but to organize around viable alternatives to the present corrupt Republicrat duopoly, and make the sacrifices of time, money, and effort needed to ensure a vibrant and principled opposition emerges to the status quo.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KWu-efNN8PM&feature=related
A blast from the past: Classic rant from Wall Street Pro. Warning: Strong language and opinions!
Foreclosure backlog deepens
CNN/Money ^
NEW YORK (CNNMoney) — As the foreclosure backlog continues to build up, delinquent borrowers are spending even more time in their homes without making mortgage payments.
Once borrowers start missing payments, they spend an average of a year and nine months, or 611 days, in foreclosure before banks repossess their homes, according to LPS Mortgage Monitor. That’s more than twice as long as three years ago, when the average was 251 days. Earlier his year, the average was 523 days.
“The number of defaults in the pipeline has been huge and we had more problem loans than ever before,” said Herb Belcher, who supervises analytics for Lender Processing Services (LPS), which provides mortgage industry information and analytics to big banks.
With so many bad loans, servicers have had to prioritize which ones they can deal with and which ones to push aside.
Squatter nation: five years with no mortgage payment
Poor little FBs.
Why won’t the banks kick out the squatters?
I thought an “agent provocateur” was supposed to incite others to commit illegal acts, not commit them himself and then write about it online?
American Spectator Editor Admits to Being Agent Provocateur at D.C. Museum
“Immediately after the incident began hitting the newswires Howley published a “Breaking News” story with The American Spectator online in which he reveals that he had consciously infiltrated the group on Friday with the intent to discredit the movement. He states that “as far as anyone knew I was part of this cause — a cause that I had infiltrated the day before in order to mock and undermine in the pages of The American Spectator — and I wasn’t giving up before I had my story.”
According to Howley’s story he joined the group in its march toward the Air and Space Museum but the protesters on the march were unwilling to be confrontational. He states “they lack the nerve to confront authority. From estimates within the protest, only ten people were pepper-sprayed, and as far as I could tell I was the only one who got inside.”
“Howley refers to the Museum as “the scene of my crime.” In light of his detailed description of his activities today the fact that they clearly document the commission of the crime of trespassing on federal property, if not the intent to incite a riot there, these admissions should not be taken lightly or ignored. As a result of Howley’s activities a large number of people were subjected to pepper-spray attacks including journalists and tourists who had nothing to do with the protest. Given the negative light that the press is attempting to spin this incident with regard to the ongoing occupations, from Wall Street and D.C. and now spreading to Main Streets across the country, the presence and admitted activities of this self-proclaimed agent provacateur should be brought to the attention of federal law enforcement officials.”
Link at sig.
How is it legal to spray someone with an irritant, just because you think someone else might have pushed someone?
It seems to be an impossible postion for the USA!
The poor need to be rich, the rich need to be poor, and we finally arrive at the progressive society where there are no poor, no rich, and everyone is equal financially.
We consider people in poverty who make$3,000 a month ( the low income definition for housing in this area), and vey low income at $2,000.
And the media shows the poor living in the subsidized housing units with their cell phones, tvs, and computers.
At what level of income do you think all citizens be entitled to in this country? And how do you proposed that be accomplished.
I note in today’s paper that Colorado onion farmers paying $11 an hour for field work had people quit after a couple of hours as the work was too hard.
At what level do you think that the field workers should to paid to get the local citizens to work in the fields?
Is part of the blame for the economy the problems with the consurmers wanting to pay less for products and selecting imported goods because of the lower prices?
Can we change that position so that the business community can use USA workers and require higher retail prices.
Is the country that bad?
The free market should determine these things. Unfortunately, US corportions have been allowed for last 30 years to practice outside the free market. They have been allowed to enter foreign countries, where they then employ people who are not free, in a market that is not free. This has undermined the US system of free markets by undermining the most important market of all - The labor market.
We should not allow this. Free markets and free people or bust.
In other words, we need tariffs.
Ben, you are successful here with the HBB. Why not spin off another blog dedicated to assembling 5-10 non-negotiables with a rationale for each?
Create the list.
Cain is still at it. I don’t want to take a dude’s Cadillac. I just want the guy with the Ferrari to get his hand’s off my rice.
COMMIE!
Pipe down, cat lady!
I was Googling “China Tariffs”, and I discovered that China has started a trade war with the entire world. It’s not just us. It’s the EU and Brazil too. China also enacted tariffs against American chickens recently. Don’t you guys find all this very interesting?
Protectionism
The battle of Smoot-Hawley
A cautionary tale about how a protectionist measure opposed by all right-thinking people was passed
Dec 18th 2008 | from the print edition
Hawley and Smoot, the bogeymen of trade
Library of Congress
EVEN when desperate, Wall Street bankers are not given to grovelling. But in June 1930 Thomas Lamont, a partner at J.P. Morgan, came close. “I almost went down on my knees to beg Herbert Hoover to veto the asinine Hawley-Smoot Tariff,” he recalled. “That Act intensified nationalism all over the world.”
According to David Kennedy, an historian, Lamont was “usually an influential economic adviser” to the American president. Not this time. Hoover signed the bill on June 17th: “the tragic-comic finale”, said that week’s Economist, “to one of the most amazing chapters in world tariff history…one that Protectionist enthusiasts the world over would do well to study.”
The Tariff Act of 1930, which increased nearly 900 American import duties, was debated, passed and signed as the world was tumbling into the Depression. Its sponsors—Willis Hawley, a congressman from Oregon, and Reed Smoot, a senator from Utah—have come to personify the economic isolationism of the era. Sixty-three years later, in a television debate on the North American Free-Trade Agreement, Al Gore, then vice-president, even presented his unamused anti-NAFTA opponent, Ross Perot, with a framed photograph of the pair. Now, with the world economy in perhaps its worst pickle since the Depression, the names of Hawley and Smoot are cropping up again.
In fact, few economists think the Smoot-Hawley tariff (as it is most often known) was one of the principal causes of the Depression. Worse mistakes were made, largely out of a misplaced faith in the gold standard and balanced budgets. America’s tariffs were already high, and some other countries were already increasing their own.
Nevertheless, the act added poison to the emptying well of global trade (see chart). The worldwide protection of the 1930s took decades to dismantle. And bad monetary and fiscal policies were at least based on the economic orthodoxy of the day: economists would tear each other apart over the heresies of John Maynard Keynes. On protection, there was no such division. More than a thousand economists petitioned Hoover not to sign the Smoot-Hawley bill. Bankers like Lamont sided with them; so did editorialists by the score.
…
“The worldwide protection of the 1930s took decades to dismantle.”
Those decades would coincide with America’s golden period, no? The period of the rise of a large, well-paid middle class? And then when we got the protectionism dismantled, we lost our living standard.
Quite a coincidence.