Occupy Wallstreet... and Bs As?

[steveinbsas]

...And maybe I've missed it but what exactly is the "helping hand" that the protestors are looking for?

I'm being completely serious here. I had no idea what the message was. SOmeone today explained to me that they're pissed off and want the liberal voice to be heard. Okay, totally get that and if that is the intent of the protests, kudos. It's working and the hot button issues are getting coverage.

But I still don't understand if there is any type of agenda. What are they hoping to accomplish beside getting their voice heard? Become a new political movement (ie,the liberal version of the Tea Party). Support candidates that will espouse their agenda (whenever they decide what it is)? Force change? Get a helping hand - what does that even mean?

They don't want a voice. They want direct democracy..aka mob rule.

They also want to set right all the injustices perpetrated by corporations.

Funny, though, their mini-manifesto didn't mention even one corporation that has made any positive contributions to their lives (as they connect with the world on their iphones).

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=N8o3p...layer_embedded

(Thanks to Joe for originally posting this link.)

If they can bring down "the system" the good corporations will fall along with the bad ones.

Perhaps it's time to put an end to the money and banking system that relies on the investment of private capital (immorally expropriated from others) for the purpose of making a profit (by exploiting people and resources).

Perhaps Bradlyhale is right. If "we" have the resources to provide everyone everything they need then "we" should just provide it.

There's only one problem: Who is going to produce everything and why would they want to?

Perhaps its time to open the reeducation camps and start teaching humanitarianism and everyone will learn how to share. (as opposed to hoarding).

Of course that will only work if there is anyone left to produce something to share.

And what can be done about those (Wall Street Bankers) who cannot be reeducated?

Rosanne has the answer:

http://news.yahoo.com/roseanne-barr-wall-street-bankers-off-heads-203900180.html


Of course this will apply to more than just the bankers...

Perhaps as many as 25 million of us...if Bill Ayers' plan is ever implemented.

www.youtube.com/watch?v=HWMIwziGrAQ

Yes, he said this a long time ago, but he never recanted. Perhaps it will soon be an idea whose time has come.

 

[Matt84]

But I still don't understand if there is any type of agenda. What are they hoping to accomplish beside getting their voice heard? Become a new political movement (ie,the liberal version of the Tea Party). Support candidates that will espouse their agenda (whenever they decide what it is)? Force change? Get a helping hand - what does that even mean?

This 1922 novel (set during the 1890's "crisis") begins with the story of a movement just like this one. It's a great read btw with a great story that inspired other more successful writres. https://mises.org/resources/3206

You ask what they are hoping to accomplish and I ask what are they actually accomplishing.

I believe the people protesting have their own reasons that might make sense within a worldview that considers money (and money traders) the root of all evil. We can see some examples of that thinking in this thread.
Money is the ultimate -tangible- abstraction, like the apple of knowledge. Communism is industrialized Christianity whereas the original sin is money.

The people benefiting from those protests are those whose job is to "correct" the public opinion compass back to the -prescribed- center. Ron Paul, the Tea Party, the "Obama deception" and the wars from Lybia to Afghanistan, all contributed to a "smaller government" mindset, with only Healthcare reform to counterbalance it.
This movement surely counterbalances it. It might mask with some anarchism/anonymous to appear cool (!) but as already pointed out here, in the end property can be held either privately or by the institution supposed to protect that right. such is (was supposed to be) the agreement.
So the fruit of these "occupations" will be at best a leveling of the political field (which can help either party as long as there is no spoiler third)

 

[citygirl]

It is very deceptive for GM to claim it paid back the loans.

http://grassley.senate.gov/news/Article.cfm?customel_dataPageID_1502=26293

RE: the point that it would have cost the government more to have done nothing....

I offer you the example of Ford, which took no bail out money and survived on its own. That's what happens in capitalism...companies adapt or they die on their own. When government bails them out, companies have no incentive to make the changes necessary to make themselves stronger and more competitive.

Who said anything about GM? I said Chrysler paid back 7.6 bn to the US and Canadian gov't 6 years only.

And Ford actually lobbied the gov't to loan money to its competitors as it was their belief that if those companies went under, all the auto subtier companies and suppliers would also go under which would have caused egregious harm to its business.

I didn't sit in on the meetings when the US gov't made the decision to loan money to the auto industry. Maybe it was corp welfare, maybe it was the right decision.

But I hardly think its a valid comparison to an individual asking for a "helping hand" - and I still don't understand that exactly that helping hand is.

 

[Matt84]

want in the midst of plenty

After that it was the voice of government saying to the people there had been too much freedom. That was their trouble. Freedom was for the strong. The few had used it to exploit the many. Every man for himself and the devil take the hindmost, boom and bust, depression and unemployment, economic insecurity, want in the midst of plenty, property rights above human rights, taking it always out of the hide of labor in bad times — all of that was what came of rugged individualism, of free prices, free markets, free enterprise and freedom of contract. Let that be the price of freedom, and who would not say it was too dear?

So, instead of this willful private freedom, trust the government to administer freedom, for all the people alike, especially the weak. To begin with, the government would redistribute the national wealth in an equitable manner. Then its planners would plan production and distribution in perfect balance, and thus no more boom and bust; the government then would see to it that everybody had always enough money to buy a decent living and beyond that it would provide for the widows and orphans, the sick and disabled, the indigent and the old.

To perform these miracles, it would require more freedom for itself — that is, freedom to intervene in the lives of people for their own good, freedom from old Constitutional restraints that belonged to our horse-and-buggy days, and freedom to do as it would with the public purse. And if it should be said that this increase in the government's own sphere of freedom meant a curtailment of the individual's freedom, it came to this — that the individual was asked to surrender only the freedom to starve and what he received in return was freedom from want. Was that not a good bargain?

sounds familiar? even current?

 

[Joe]

Those providing the ideology for the Wall Street protesters are calling for the collapse of the banking system (which means the collapse of Capitalism).

I wonder how many union jobs that will create or save.

Maybe the collapse of Crony Capitalism.

Part of real capitalism is failure. If the banks had been allowed to fail then competent management at regional banks would have taken up the slack. Instead regional banks are being loaded with new regulations designed by big bank lobbyist to keep the big banks protected.

Capitalism works but unfortunately the greedy crony capitalists through their corrupt agenda are going to drive the people to socialism.

 

[marksoc]

Just a remainder to everybody: corporations do not produce products... people do.
A corporation is not a person (despite crazy US jurisprudence). The same people will produce the same or better products when capitalist corporations are forgotten in the dustbin of history, sharing a room with feudalism, slave owners and Ayn Rand. The money came from somewhere, it could come from somewhere else. The fact is that people work, people have ideas, people produce.

 

[steveinbsas]

Just a remainder to everybody: corporations do not produce products... people do.
A corporation is not a person (despite crazy US jurisprudence). The same people will produce the same or better products when capitalist corporations are forgotten in the dustbin of history, sharing a room with feudalism, slave owners and Ayn Rand. The money came from somewhere, it could come from somewhere else. The fact is that people work, people have ideas, people produce.

I have an idea. I'm going to invite all of the people from Punta Alta (at least 60,000) to come to my house next week to produce a pickup truck.

I hope they can produce a hybrid that runs on nafta and GNC so I can save money for our next project.


Oh, I forgot I don't have enough money to buy the equipment and materials necessary to produce the truck in the first place.

Perhaps the people will be willing to invest theirs (if they have any).

Then again, without making a profit on their investment, perhaps they won't.

Unless we call it the "people's" truck. And it is owned by everyone.

I wonder how often I'll get to use it...and who (or what committee) will make that decision.

To equate Ayn Rand with feudalism and slavery is an obscene equivocation, especially if you know where she came from and what she truly believed.

 

[Matt84]

Maybe the collapse of Crony Capitalism.

Part of real capitalism is failure. If the banks had been allowed to fail then competent management at regional banks would have taken up the slack. Instead regional banks are being loaded with new regulations designed by big bank lobbyist to keep the big banks protected.

Real Capitalism can be more or less measured by private property. In America, as in most of the world, property is not entirely private. It's subject to regulations and therefore inspections (rendering it not private at all), and eventual confiscation through taxes and inflation. But why confiscate a car when you can force the owner to chauffer you around town ad infinitum through regulations.
America is a mixed economy.

It's one of the two elements of the such mixed economy that is failing.

Capitalism works but unfortunately the greedy crony capitalists through their corrupt agenda are going to drive the people to socialism.

How ironic, what you call crony capitalism came into existence as a deterrent and alternative to socialism.

I believe that the cronies through their corrupt agenda will drive the people to more institutionalized "crony capitalism".

 

[Matt84]

back in b.a. the "people's truck" is very aptly called colectivo and the subsidized experience lets you be in real contact with your fellow humans and their secretions.

 

[steveinbsas]

Sadly, that's actually funny.