[TheCacti]

Personally, I'm expecting this protest to gain a lot of momentum and very soon, especially since the NYC transit union has recently committed their support. link

I really think the average Americans are fed up and tired of tolerating corporate fat cats and big banks playing with the economy, and getting off scot-free, while we are the ones to shoulder the burden of its consequences. I think the USA is in a pretty dire situation right now. As long as politicians are working with a bought congress, the laws and policies emerging from Washington will continue to have no interest in us or our well being. And it's f*cked up.

Some Info:
https://occupywallst.org/

Spreading to San Francisco:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/30/o...o_n_988180.html

Relevant Videos








This post has been edited by TheCacti on Wednesday, Oct 5 2011, 14:31

[sivispacem]

What these people seem to fail to grasp is that their jobs, their livelihoods and their savings are entirely dependent on the so-called "fat cats" they hate so much. Periods of recession and economic woes are swings and roundabouts, part of the rise and fall of the general economy and nothing to get unduly worked up about. Sensationalism has more to do with the media's portrayals of these relatively natural peaks and troughs than it does about the economics in general.

Also, direct action is often extremely unsuccessful- the principal reason being that the perception of it is that it's undertaken by a small minority, who chose to use direct forms of action rather than the due political process as they know that their actions only represent a tiny proportion of public thought. It is generally disregarded by policy makers as it's drama and disruption are seen in the same light as many union disputes- an attempt to bypass the proper political process and force the hand of an administration not by strength of support, but by physical action. Whether that is the actual case in examples like this is a completely separate issue; however, direct action is often extremely poorly received by those who actually have the power to make any kind of difference- and not, as some may suggest, because of some kind of taciturn or covert approval for the actions of (in this example) the bankers, but because the individuals involved in action such as this are generally too heavily driven by vitriol and selfish desire rather than what may or may not be good for an economy as a whole.

[TheCacti]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Sep 30 2011, 14:26)

What these people seem to fail to grasp is that their jobs, their livelihoods and their savings are entirely dependent on the so-called "fat cats" they hate so much. Periods of recession and economic woes are swings and roundabouts, part of the rise and fall of the general economy and nothing to get unduly worked up about. Sensationalism has more to do with the media's portrayals of these relatively natural peaks and troughs than it does about the economics in general.

I see what you're saying here, and agree. "Fat cats" are not the problem per se, they've always been around and always will be (I hesitated to use that expression in the first place because I knew it'd garner attention ) But I think it's fair to say that their increasingly greedy behaviors and actions are a problem (e.g. using federal bailout money in a time of economic turmoil to shower themselves with bonuses instead of using it to alleviate a problem that they helped create). They're able to get away with it because they practically own congress. That's a problem, too.

I must say this too: I'm not going to sit behind my keyboard and pretend like I know everything about the economy. I simply don't. Although I certainly want to learn as much as I can. But it doesn't take an economist to see that major corporations are pretty much running the show, and as long as they're allowed to, the average American will never have any say Washington and voting will continue to be a farce.

Despite the labeling of the protest, it's not entirely germane to just the economy:

QUOTE

OccupyWallStreet OUR GRIEVANCES 1.Campaign Finance Reform All votes are no longer equal in our Democracy. Money must be put outside of politics, or politicians willcontinue to pander to those who contribute the most totheir campaigns, rather than their own constituencies.Specifically, we abhor the decision by the SupremeCourt in Citizens United v. FEC. Corporations are NOT people. 2.True Shared Sacrifice While corporate profits have been skyrocketing and thewealthy have been getting wealthier, the averageworker’s income has dramatically dropped. While thecost of living has exponentially increased, wages havenot followed. It has been shown time and time againthat tax cuts for the wealthy are NOT effective. Taxeson those who practice greed should be raised. 3.Equality in Justice This great nation was founded on liberty, but also, onequality. When the balance of justice is swayed in favorof those with wealth, the very fabric of this nation istorn apart. The decision of a judge should not be basedupon the race, creed, or wealth of an individual, butrather, the content of the case. 4.The End of the Revolving Door The Obama administration was supposed to bring change and hope to our country, but instead, brought us into despair and insecurity. Those working in hisadministration are the very people whom we arefighting against. Those who enter Washington shouldnot be representatives of the elites, but representatives of the people. One cannot simply enter anadministration, reap its benefits, and simply exit.

source

This post has been edited by TheCacti on Friday, Sep 30 2011, 15:44

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (TheCacti @ Friday, Sep 30 2011, 16:41)

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Sep 30 2011, 14:26) What these people seem to fail to grasp is that their jobs, their livelihoods and their savings are entirely dependent on the so-called "fat cats" they hate so much. Periods of recession and economic woes are swings and roundabouts, part of the rise and fall of the general economy and nothing to get unduly worked up about. Sensationalism has more to do with the media's portrayals of these relatively natural peaks and troughs than it does about the economics in general. I see what you're saying here, and agree. "Fat cats" are not the problem per se, they've always been around and always will be (I hesitated to use that expression in the first place because I knew it'd garner attention ) But I think it's fair to say that their increasingly greedy behaviors and actions are a problem (e.g. using federal bailout money in a time of economic turmoil to shower themselves with bonuses instead of using it to alleviate a problem that they helped create). They're able to get away with it because they practically own congress. That's a problem, too. I must say this too: I'm not going to sit behind my keyboard and pretend like I know everything about the economy. I simply don't. Although I certainly want to learn as much as I can. But it doesn't take an economist to see that major corporations are pretty much running the show, and as long as they're allowed to, the average American will never have any say Washington and voting will continue to be a farce.

Personally, I don't think the behaviour of the economic heavyweights is any worse these days than it has been at any other time in history. The only real difference is that, thanks to the proliferation of the mass-media, it's more widely known and understood. The same goes for the concept that the "major corporations run the show" as you put it. Now, it's a point of contention, but one of the principal parts of the US political system is that due to the separation of powers and the lack of actual, fundamental policy capability for each branch of government, the onus must fall onto other organisations to advise and decide on policy. Historically, it was the bureaucracy, but for the last five decades or so it's been businesses. Unfortunately, you can't have a separation of powers without other organisations coming to fill in the void, be they pressure or lobby groups, a large, bloated leviathan of a public sector (as is experienced in many more socialist-leaning European countries) or corporations. That's the way that the balance of power works- if a vacuum appears somewhere, someone will fill it. What I'm basically saying that the entire US political system operates almost as if it's designed to discourage "economic democracy"- that is, actively resisting the idea of economic power resting with a large base of public stakeholders, instead choosing to throttle the public sector and outsource literally everything. It's also the way it's going to stay unless the US Neo-right accept that a properly functioning political and economic system needs to balance public and private sector- in my view, a ratio of about 3:1 in favour of the private sector- and stops labelling anything that vaguely resembles and attempt to dismantle the current plutocracy as "socialism" (*shudder*). And that's never going to happen.

As far as I can see it, there are two choices. Scrap the separation of powers entirely and massively ramp up the decision making power of the executive branch of government, or live with the current status quo.

[lil weasel]

In a 'Capitist' society the Politicans are the problem. As they work for the Fat Cats, not the ordinary people, unless it's election time.
I just heard that the US Postal Service is going out of business because it has to fund a Retirement plan that is 'forward' based 75 years.
So if it goes out of business the politicians get to keep that 'billions' of dollars to play with, as there won't be anyone to collect it.

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (lil weasel @ Friday, Sep 30 2011, 17:33)

In a 'Capitist' society the Politicans are the problem. As they work for the Fat Cats, not the ordinary people, unless it's election time. I just heard that the US Postal Service is going out of business because it has to fund a Retirement plan that is 'forward' based 75 years. So if it goes out of business the politicians get to keep that 'billions' of dollars to play with, as there won't be anyone to collect it.

That's not a trend across capitalism in general, just US capitalism. As I said, its your own fault for having and continuing to reinforce the separation of powers. If you didn't have them and the branches of government- particularly the executive- had some legislative ability instead of just bickering and taking years for policies to be enacted, or just filibustered to death, then you wouldn't experience the same problems.

[TheCacti]

QUOTE (sivispacem @ Friday, Sep 30 2011, 15:59)

Unfortunately, you can't have a separation of powers without other organisations coming to fill in the void, be they pressure or lobby groups, a large, bloated leviathan of a public sector (as is experienced in many more socialist-leaning European countries) or corporations. That's the way that the balance of power works- if a vacuum appears somewhere, someone will fill it. As far as I can see it, there are two choices. Scrap the separation of powers entirely and massively ramp up the decision making power of the executive branch of government, or live with the current status quo.

What void, exactly? I think what the Occupy Wall Street protestors ultimately want is to fill this void you're talking about, or at least to fairly participate in the process, instead of just the extremely wealthy. And with ownership of big business being consolidated more and more, it's reached a point where the 'balance of power' is practically non-existent. I agree with you that the balance of power has always been tilted in the favor of wealth and we're just more informed today, but has it always been so extreme?

Scrapping the political system in exchange for another won't ever be an option, in my opinion. I think the country was founded on a good system, and it's partly why I'm extremely proud to be an American. That we developed so rapidly as a nation seems to suggest that the system works well, too. But it seems to be sick with money and greed at this point - and I hate saying that because it sounds so damned cliché. But there is certainly something not right. The nation has become so extremely divisive in the most superficial of ways, and I think a testament to that is just look at the current crop of politicians. We've descended from the calibre of Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln, to people like Sarah Palin, Kerry, Obama, Bush, Perry, and the fact that someone like Bachmann is even giving it a go is just downright pathetic and embarrassing.

Nonetheless, you make some good points on the balance of power that are difficult to refute. In capitalism, money will always be synonymous with power, and so big business and the elite class will undoubtedly have the upper hand. And so how can we really expect a level playing field where disparity of wealth is encouraged by the economic system that we love?

This post has been edited by TheCacti on Friday, Sep 30 2011, 17:52

[sivispacem]

QUOTE (TheCacti @ Friday, Sep 30 2011, 18:27)

What void, exactly? I think what the Occupy Wall Street protestors ultimately want is to fill this void you're talking about, or at least to fairly participate in the process, instead of just the extremely wealthy. And with ownership of big business being consolidated more and more, it's reached a point where the 'balance of power' is practically non-existent. I agree with you that the balance of power has always been tilted in the favor of wealth informed today, but has it always been so extreme? Scrapping the political system in exchange for another won't ever be an option, in my opinion. I think the country was founded on a good system, and it's partly why I'm extremely proud to be an American. That we developed so rapidly as a nation seems to suggest that the system works well, too. But it seems to be sick with money and greed at this point - and I hate saying that because it sounds so damned cliché. But there is certainly something not right. The nation has become so extremely divisive in the most superficial of ways, and I think a testament to that is just look at the current crop of politicians. We've descended from the calibre of Jefferson, Washington, Lincoln, to people like Sarah Palin, Kerry, Obama, Bush, Perry, and the fact that someone like Bachmann is even giving it a go is just downright pathetic and embarrassing.

Your right, that's exactly what they are seeking to do. The actions of groups like this are as much an attempt to stake a claim to their own political influence as they are a rebellion against those that do have it. It's an interesting conundrum- those that actively attack the existing balance of power often become enormously enamoured by it once they gain a position of power, and often cast aside their true ideology to pursue selfish megalomania. This seems to be especially prevalent with left-leaning, anti-capitalist organisations; just look at the rise of Communism and how the principals of equality and revolution against political and economic hierarchy disintegrated into an even more autocratic version of the system that existed before. If you look back to more archaic times, then the balance of power has often been even more heavily favoured towards the wealthy. Serfdom and peasantry are perfect examples of this, where not only did the landowners have control of the land, but also the individuals who lived on it. Of course, things are much better these days and I would personally say that wealth and power equality is better now than it ever has been. In the olden days, it was rare to the point of almost being a fairy tale for someone to rise from poverty to a position of power. Nowadays, it occurs, albeit rarely- there is still far to go in terms of offering people at least equality of opportunity (I'm under no illusions that everyone is in any way equal).

Granted, it's difficult for an outsider to say "the separation of powers is the problem" and avoid being heckled or lampooned, but that really is how I see it. A political system in which no branch of government holds a decisive amount of power is a recipe for the active promotion of "alternate political interest"- the pressure groups, both single-issue and general, the business lobby, welfare-supporters, the Green movement. It's not helped by the lack of viable alternatives when it comes to actual elections- either vote for a main party, or waste it on a nonentity. Nations who possess viable third, forth (ad infinitum) parties who have a realistic chance of gaining some kind of political sway generally suffer from less of a business-centric intrusion into politics. It's much easier to judge the successfulness of politicians with hindsight. Look at Reagan as a perfect example- I doubt many who grew up and matured under his stewardship would have kind words to say about him, yet he's consistently ranked amongst the ten best presidents the United States have ever had. LBJ ranks quite highly, as does Jimmy Carter, neither of whom were afforded that much popular support for swathes of their presidencies. It's difficult to see the effects of long-term political and economic decisions without experiencing those decisions in their entirety. Though, to some extent you are right- the contenders for the 2012 election are of poor quality. Whilst I cant' fault Obama on his foreign policy, I hear a never-ending stream of criticism of his domestic policy (though it has to be said, much of it is not actually his). Remember, presidents are figureheads first and politicians second, and they don't command anywhere close to as much sway over policy formulation and exaction as the executive branches of other, non-federal governments.

[spaceeinstein]

This looks like just another protest, but more widespread. Unlike other countries where protests aren't allowed and voting is rigged, I doubt this is anywhere close to a revolution. Why do this now and not earlier, when they could have more obvious influence? If the American people hate the government for being influenced by Wall Street, should they also hate themselves for voting them?

For me, I would blame the average American person instead for being short-sighted and unknowledgeable. Problems like this happened before and to other countries, but it seems like the average American person lacks the knowledge to vote for the right person - accepting, choosing, and voting for the wrong person with the wrong policies that allowed this mess to happen. How many voters are benefiting from Wall Street compared to voters who suffer from this? If money can actually buy votes, does that mean the average American is easily influenced by money to vote for the wrong people?

From what I've read, financial institutions used to be heavily regulated so that they couldn't take unnecessary risks (see Great Depression). Then the rise of the idea of less government interference and deregulation being good allowed financial institutions to take huge risks that cost the country. North Dakota's state-run banking system doesn't seem to have many problems. Looking at the grievances, why blame Obama on this situation? Sorry if I'm repeating what sivispacem said, Obama has many proposals that would prevent events like this from happening again, but he has no legislative power. Congress is the one who has the power to regulate financial institutions, yet the American people voted for those who oppose government regulation. An inactive and polarized Congress gets nothing important done, so I doubt the protests would affect the government until at least the next election year.

This post has been edited by spaceeinstein on Saturday, Oct 1 2011, 01:35

[E.A.B.]

Is this that protest were they were gonna decide what exactly they're for and what their demands are when they got there?

It's all a bunch of retarded ''fight the power, maaaan'' sh*t. Until they can come up with actual arguments and points other than ''f*ck da fat cats yo'' I'll not be listening.

They were passing off this sh*t in my college the other day. It's f*cking funny, to me.

I mean, the only argument they have is that they actively (bankers, financers, etc) f*cked over people with mortgages and got off while everyone else got screwed. They can argue that the bail out money should have helped the bottom, instead of the top. Prosperity (or at least, security) at the bottom of the hierarchy can ensure the well-being of the top. Basically; an argument consisting of the miscarriage of the bail out money.

But no, instead its just vague and general ''man my sociology teacher talked about this on wednesday and he's right f*ck capitalism brah gooo radiohead''

This post has been edited by E.A.B. on Saturday, Oct 1 2011, 07:44

[AlexGTAGamer]

Here are a few videos on these protests:

[Tchuck]

QUOTE (E.A.B. @ Saturday, Oct 1 2011, 04:39)

I mean, the only argument they have is that they actively (bankers, financers, etc) f*cked over people with mortgages and got off while everyone else got screwed. They can argue that the bail out money should have helped the bottom, instead of the top. Prosperity (or at least, security) at the bottom of the hierarchy can ensure the well-being of the top. Basically; an argument consisting of the miscarriage of the bail out money. But no, instead its just vague and general ''man my sociology teacher talked about this on wednesday and he's right f*ck capitalism brah gooo radiohead''

Correct me if I'm wrong, but isn't the whole housing crisis that brought everything down caused by both sides?
I mean, people were playing the system by taking out mortgage after mortgage as if it was some infinite money cheat, and bankers were giving these people money because they thought they could always get it back no problem. So blaming the bankers without assuming part of the blame is just ridiculous.

In my opinion, if they want to protest, protesting at Wall Street will accomplish nothing. Capitalism is not to blame here. If they want stricter regulations and things of that sort, they should go to the government and have them do it. Protest Washington. But, like you said, it seems these people don't know what the hell they're really protesting for, and are only doing it for the sake of protesting.

I disagree that prosperity at the bottom ensures the well-being of the top. The top in this case are banks, if they crash, people have no money, no more investments in tons of areas, jobs will be cut, people will be unemployed, financial system will collapse. All the money in the world given to those people at the bottom would make 0 difference as they'd probably rather save it while the economy is uncertain than spend it to keep the wheels in motion. Whereas money as the top will ensure banks keep alive, providing the servers they always have and investing in the areas they always did and not resulting in a financial collapse, which would suck. Sounds like people are just butt-hurt about it all and want some compensation for it.

[PacketOVerload_x64Bit]

http://www.livestream.com/globalrevolution

Protestors stopped and being arrested mid-walk on the Brooklyn Bridge. US Marines reportedly being deployed to protect the protestors. NYPD arresting peaceful protestors during the Occupy Wallstreet rally.

I figured as Liberty City is our playground, this might be interesting to you. Protestors stopped on the Brooklyn Bridge.



-I started another thread b/c I didn't see this one Adding from my thread. Good to see info here.

[PacketOVerload_x64Bit]

Another feed as the main feed is dead.

http://qik.com/video/44724201

Corrections buses and two or more ambulances making their way to the Brooklyn Bridge during the live feed outage.

[K^2]

QUOTE (TheCacti @ Friday, Sep 30 2011, 11:41)

QUOTE OccupyWallStreet OUR GRIEVANCES 1.Campaign Finance Reform All votes are no longer equal in our Democracy.

They never were. And if you read federalist papers, they never meant to be. Equal votes lead to many problems, with tyranny of majority being one of the worst. I don't think people who are protesting understand how the system is supposed to work. There are problems, granted. But before you try to fix the problems, try reading the f*cking instruction book.

[AlexGTAGamer]

I hope that this doesn't turn violent like what happened in London for the last G20 Summit and what happened across the UK for the tuition fees protests. They started out peacefully and then they turned violent, very violent.

[PacketOVerload_x64Bit]

Protesting the problems in the face of a system that ignores the people footing the bill is the only way. We all read the instruction book. Unfrotunately, the people who wrote the instruction book forgot to tell us no matter how hard we try, we will always owe them more and they find new ways of taking more from us via prohibition, taxing and one-sided business.

The only way to avoid violence in my opinion is for MORE people to show up. Why is that nobody from Wallstreet or the big banks were put in jail for the billions written in bonuses after the government bail out? For starters.

[Typhus]

Ah, blessed disorder. Soon you Americans will know how wonderful these protestors are when they're pissing on your war memorials and trying to destroy your entire civilisation, just like ours.

[AlexGTAGamer]

QUOTE (PacketOVerload_x64Bit @ Sunday, Oct 2 2011, 00:33)

The only way to avoid violence in my opinion is for MORE people to show up. Why is that nobody from Wallstreet or the big banks were put in jail for the billions written in bonuses after the government bail out? For starters.

In my opinion having more people there would make it even worse. The police would begin to feel more threatened that at any moment the demonstrators can become violent and that they would be outnumbered if it turns violent, meaning more officers would then be brought in to prevent that from happening, and then with more officers there they would begin to push the demonstrators back even further and start to become more heavy handed.

[K^2]

QUOTE (PacketOVerload_x64Bit @ Saturday, Oct 1 2011, 19:33)

Protesting the problems in the face of a system that ignores the people footing the bill is the only way. We all read the instruction book. Unfrotunately, the people who wrote the instruction book forgot to tell us no matter how hard we try, we will always owe them more and they find new ways of taking more from us via prohibition, taxing and one-sided business.

Really? Why don't you explain to me how the system in place is meant to look after the minority groups? Or specifically under which conditions the founding fathers have seen it fit for the people to revolt against their government. Naturally, a protest is a minor form, but the reasoning applies. It's all there in the papers you claim to have read.

The list of grievances is idiotic. The nation was not founded on equality. It never meant to have equal votes. To meet these demands would bring on collapse of the system, with suggested replacements being nothing more than rambling of ignorant fools. The system needs to be protected from the likes of these who started this protest, and if it means arresting people by busloads, so long as due process is respected afterwards, I completely support it.