TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Chill Out Room
-- wall street protests...is this the start of the revolution?
Pages (9): « 1 2 3 4 5 [6] 7 8 9 »

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec the mayor is planning a 'cleaning' ruse whereby they kick people out 'temporarily' from parts of the park while they clean. then they are introducing a set of new park rules that state you're not allowed to either lay down or set up sleeing bags and tarps. how do you end a revolution? take away their blankets

Or it could be that a mass congregation of individuals in a relatively confined area constitutes a public safety hazard, requiring sanitation of the immediate area, along with a proactive means of addressing and neutralizing the sources of it.

I'm not attempting to belittle your contention as speculatively cynical, but there's an alternative explanation that's worth interacting with. Even then, they may simply be intent upon putting an end to the constant need to ensure that these protests remain peaceful and orderly, as opposed to a desire to necessarily 'put an end to the revolution.'

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec [the advertising is] negatively affected by the fact that there are a bunch of protestors in front of them.

I don't believe that for a second.

I certainly don't disagree that there is advertising nearly everywhere, but all those brands on the screens/billboards just got world-wide exposure now, from the millions of cellphone pics that were taken and posted EVERYWHERE today - That's why they advertise in places like that.

Any attention is good attention, in this case. There's no way at all that this will negatively effect their brand(s). If anything, it negatively affects the protesters' choice of location. Every pic taken and posted by anyone, does something to promote what they want to fight

quote:

Think Occupy Wall St. is a phase? You don't get it By Douglas Rushkoff, Special to CNN October 5, 2011 -- Updated 1709 GMT (0109 HKT) Like the spokesmen for Arab dictators feigning bewilderment over protesters' demands, mainstream television news reporters finally training their attention on the growing Occupy Wall Street protest movement seem determined to cast it as the random, silly blather of an ungrateful and lazy generation of weirdos. They couldn't be more wrong and, as time will tell, may eventually be forced to accept the inevitability of their own obsolescence. Consider how CNN anchor Erin Burnett, covered the goings on at Zuccotti Park downtown, where the protesters are encamped, in a segment called "Seriously?!" "What are they protesting?" she asked, "nobody seems to know." Like Jay Leno testing random mall patrons on American History, the main objective seemed to be to prove that the protesters didn't, for example, know that the U.S. government has been reimbursed for the bank bailouts. It was condescending and reductionist. More predictably perhaps, a Fox News reporter appears flummoxed in this outtake from "On the Record," in which the respondent refuses to explain how he wants the protests to "end." Transcending the shallow partisan politics of the moment, the protester explains "As far as seeing it end, I wouldn't like to see it end. I would like to see the conversation continue." To be fair, the reason why some mainstream news journalists and many of the audiences they serve see the Occupy Wall Street protests as incoherent is because the press and the public are themselves. It is difficult to comprehend a 21st century movement from the perspective of the 20th century politics, media, and economics in which we are still steeped. In fact, we are witnessing America's first true Internet-era movement, which -- unlike civil rights protests, labor marches, or even the Obama campaign -- does not take its cue from a charismatic leader, express itself in bumper-sticker-length goals and understand itself as having a particular endpoint. Yes, there are a wide array of complaints, demands, and goals from the Wall Street protesters: the collapsing environment, labor standards, housing policy, government corruption, World Bank lending practices, unemployment, increasing wealth disparity and so on. Different people have been affected by different aspects of the same system -- and they believe they are symptoms of the same core problem. Are they ready to articulate exactly what that problem is and how to address it? No, not yet. But neither are Congress or the president who, in thrall to corporate America and Wall Street, respectively, have consistently failed to engage in anything resembling a conversation as cogent as the many I witnessed as I strolled by Occupy Wall Street's many teach-ins this morning. There were young people teaching one another about, among other things, how the economy works, about the disconnection of investment banking from the economy of goods and services, the history of centralized interest-bearing currency, the creation and growth of the derivatives industry, and about the Obama administration deciding to settle with, rather than investigate and prosecute the investment banking industry for housing fraud. Anyone who says he has no idea what these folks are protesting is not being truthful. Whether we agree with them or not, we all know what they are upset about, and we all know that there are investment bankers working on Wall Street getting richer while things for most of the rest of us are getting tougher. What upsets banking's defenders and politicians alike is the refusal of this movement to state its terms or set its goals in the traditional language of campaigns. That's because, unlike a political campaign designed to get some person in office and then close up shop (as in the election of Obama), this is not a movement with a traditional narrative arc. As the product of the decentralized networked-era culture, it is less about victory than sustainability. It is not about one-pointedness, but inclusion and groping toward consensus. It is not like a book; it is like the Internet. Occupy Wall Street is meant more as a way of life that spreads through contagion, creates as many questions as it answers, aims to force a reconsideration of the way the nation does business and offers hope to those of us who previously felt alone in our belief that the current economic system is broken. But unlike a traditional protest, which identifies the enemy and fights for a particular solution, Occupy Wall Street just sits there talking with itself, debating its own worth, recognizing its internal inconsistencies and then continuing on as if this were some sort of new normal. It models a new collectivism, picking up on the sustainable protest village of the movement's Egyptian counterparts, with food, first aid, and a library. Yes, as so many journalists seem obligated to point out, kids are criticizing corporate America while tweeting through their iPhones. The simplistic critique is that if someone is upset about corporate excess, he is supposed to abandon all connection with any corporate product. Of course, the more nuanced approach to such tradeoffs would be to seek balance rather than ultimatums. Yes, there are things big corporations might do very well, like making iPhones. There are other things big corporations may not do so well, like structure mortgage derivatives. Might we be able to use corporations for what works, and get them out of doing what doesn't? And yes, some kids are showing up at Occupy Wall Street because it's fun. They come for the people, the excitement, the camaraderie and the sense of purpose they might not be able to find elsewhere. But does this mean that something about Occupy Wall Street is lacking, or that it is providing something that jobs and schools are not (thanks in part to rising unemployment and skyrocketing tuitions)? The members of Occupy Wall Street may be as unwieldy, paradoxical, and inconsistent as those of us living in the real world. But that is precisely why their new approach to protest is more applicable, sustainable and actionable than what passes for politics today. They are suggesting that the fiscal operating system on which we are attempting to run our economy is no longer appropriate to the task. They mean to show that there is an inappropriate and correctable disconnect between the abundance America produces and the scarcity its markets manufacture. And in the process, they are pointing the way toward something entirely different than the zero-sum game of artificial scarcity favoring top-down investors and media makers alike.

quote:

Originally posted by Sushipunk I don't believe that for a second. I certainly don't disagree that there is advertising nearly everywhere, but all those brands on the screens/billboards just got world-wide exposure now, from the millions of cellphone pics that were taken and posted EVERYWHERE today - That's why they advertise in places like that. Any attention is good attention, in this case. There's no way at all that this will negatively effect their brand(s). If anything, it negatively affects the protesters' choice of location. Every pic taken and posted by anyone, does something to promote what they want to fight

nah, sorry it's NYC - there are ads everywhere, no one gives a shit.

Everyone has seen pictures of times square.

You somehow like to see the fact that the protest is under these advertisements as some kind of hypocrisy, but did you ever consider that the location was selected on purpose, because it draws attention the exact institutions the movement is targeting? - there are a ton of super visible banks and financial institutions right there - Chase, Bank of America, Nasdaq, to name a few. Not to mention an army recruiting station. It was pretty much the ideal place to protest. Yes, the goal was to bring attention to the surroundings, because it shows the protestors against who they are fighting.

quote:

Originally posted by Paradox Lost Or it could be that a mass congregation of individuals in a relatively confined area constitutes a public safety hazard, requiring sanitation of the immediate area, along with a proactive means of addressing and neutralizing the sources of it. I'm not attempting to belittle your contention as speculatively cynical, but there's an alternative explanation that's worth interacting with. Even then, they may simply be intent upon putting an end to the constant need to ensure that these protests remain peaceful and orderly, as opposed to a desire to necessarily 'put an end to the revolution.'

I think you're missing the fact that I go down to the camp, and I can tell you that the place is pretty much spotless. Cleaner than any other park in the city, at any rate. Beyond that it's private property, not subject to the same services as the municipal parks. At any given time there are around 15 people on cleanup detail, regularly hauling trash away.

By the way, the mayor called off the 'cleanup' - it never happened.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec I think you're missing the fact that I go down to the camp, and I can tell you that the place is pretty much spotless. Cleaner than any other park in the city, at any rate. Beyond that it's private property, not subject to the same services as the municipal parks. At any given time there are around 15 people on cleanup detail, regularly hauling trash away. By the way, the mayor called off the 'cleanup' - it never happened.

Yes, I am aware of this, which is why I advanced this explanation as a mere alternative to the one that suggests the city is attempting to undermine the protest under the guise of sanitation, which is something someone with first-hand experience (such as yourself) can help to confirm or deny.

It also doesn't necessarily affirm that the city is using such an excuse as a means of subverting the protest on the grounds that it's a politically pernicious movement, which is what you're apparently suggesting.

great pics nef.
the cops face in the last one is all >.< somewhere between 'fuck these hippies' and 'what do i do what do i do what do i do'

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN absolutely there are places that are not serviced by fed ex. hence my point. the internet may find it difficult to send christmas presents to little tommy in bumfuckville.

so Little Tommy is why we have to operate 30,000+ post offices at a loss and give special treasury loans to? Little Tommy requires hosts of employees and a 5 billion dollar pension shortfall this year?

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN i already mentioned this in my previous posts; you also have a strange view of permanent. the entire sub prime debacle was due to lack of permanency. yes, he (Greenspan) was a failure because he believed in self-correcting markets. 2. there is no such thing as "artificial" interest rates. rates are what they are.

Rates are not what they SHOULD BE if a central bank arbitrarily sets them. That's why I called them artificial. I used the term permanent because if a marketplace were truly "self-correcting", interest rates fluctuate based on market demand, not remain low because the Fed decrees it so.

For the decade leading up the housing bubble, the Federal Reserve policy of low interest rates encouraged bad investment/credit expansion into the housing sector. Not to mention a distortion of traditional safe havens (savings accounts, etc.). Not a self-correcting market in my eyes, but rather a recipe for a volatile boom and bust cycle.

quote:

Originally posted by pkcRAISTLIN 1. too big to fail is a symptom of capitalism as far as it pertains to financial markets.

If this is true, then capitalism is a disease which will end up killing the patient. Which goes back to why I would rather take my chances with "crazy" Ron Paul and his free market of currencies, end all wars, reduce federal spending positions instead of having to always keep taxpayer funds on hand to bail out banks who invested too heavily in scam mortgages.

quote:

Originally posted by TranceArmstrong If this is true, then capitalism is a disease which will end up killing the patient. Which goes back to why I would rather take my chances with "crazy" Ron Paul and his free market of currencies, end all wars, reduce federal spending positions instead of having to always keep taxpayer funds on hand to bail out banks who invested too heavily in scam mortgages.

What's surprising is how little you know about the person you're advocating for. You stated in an earlier post that Alan Greenspan was a failure when dismissing the importance of him being an Ayn Rand acolyte. The man who you are advocating for named his own son after Rand so, for fucks sake, what makes you think his policies would be any different than Greenspan's?






The more I read from you, the more it's clear that you just do not even begin to understand what you're talking about.

EDIT: I struck through the part of my post which turned out to be complete bullshit but there's still no refuting the link between Paul, Greenspan, and Rand.

Eddie, thats the case with any Ron Paul supporter. Its amazing how many kids he gets on his boat and they have no idea that they are supporting someone who is so ultra fucking conservative that he will never win even in the republican party.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker The man who you are advocating for named his own son after Rand

That is not true.

quote:

Originally posted by Wikipedia Despite his father's libertarian views and strong support for individual rights,[9][10] the novelist Ayn Rand was not the inspiration for Paul's first name; he went by "Randy" while growing up.[11] His wife shortened his name to "Rand"

quote:

Originally posted by GoSpeedGo! quote: Originally posted by Wikipedia

Why quote Wikipedia, when he says it, himself, here? Regardless of my belief in what amounts now, to an urban myth, he still cops to being a fan of hers. The coincidence of his name does nothing to dispel the association between him, his father, their policies, Alan Greenspan, and Ayn Rand.


EDIT: Furthermore,



&

http://www.tnr.com/blog/jonathan-chait/78364/rand-paul-ayn-rand

&

http://www.nationaljournal.com/dailyfray/quoting-ayn-rand-on-capitol-hill-is-a-paul-family-tradition-20110413


EDIT 2: That is one hell of a coincidence.

I think it's pretty cool that Rand Paul is an MD.

The protests will accomplish nothing. The fact that people think they will is completely laughable.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced The protests will accomplish nothing. The fact that people think they will is completely laughable.

Why?

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker Why?

Can you think of any mass protest in western society that has worked in the last 20 years.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced Can you think of any mass protest in western society that has worked in the last 20 years.

define 'worked'.

I was going to say that.

quote:

Originally posted by nefardec define 'worked'.

That actually brought around the change wanted.

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced That actually brought around the change wanted.

I think you're missing the essential point of the OWS 'protests'.

The participants aren't asking the government or a company to fix something. They are asking each other and the '99%' to take direct action against a corrupt (unholy) government/financial corporate alliance which serves the '1%'.

So whether it 'works' or not can only be measured by awareness, longevity, geographic distribution, and collective consciousness. The change is incremental, psychological, instantaneous. It's each person not in the 1% realizing 'fuck, this is a problem' (if they dont already) and then next 'i can make a difference with my actions and also spread awareness to others'

quote:

Originally posted by ChemEnhanced That actually brought around the change wanted.

The conditions haven't been the same. Right now, you're looking at a political polarization that hasn't existed since the 1960's and severe economic conditions that haven't occurred since the 1930's. People have had it.

I'd also point to the Arab Spring. They still seem to be undergoing some chaos but I wouldn't discount their achievement, just yet.

The problem with a lot of protests is that they do not gain real traction until there is some sort of real resistance to them. The best way the interests these protests are fighting against can make this go away is ignore them or try and not force them out. People get bored, people go home. I believe earlier I posted that people will not really rise up for huge change while they still have even the most basic life functions available to them, and even then it takes a lot. You would think that a country like India would have revolutionized and been made better because of the horrible economic conditions for a huge part of their population, but it doesn't happen. Sometimes people are just too apathetic or easily put down.

Thought this was sort of funny.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/..._n_1013490.html

quote:

Should people who are tired of paying extra fees be allowed to close their bank accounts in protest? One Bank of America official reportedly doesn't think so. According to Addicting Info, two women involved with the Occupy Santa Cruz movement in California walked into a Bank of America branch earlier this week and attempted to close their bank accounts. In response, the bank manager threatened to lock the doors and call the police on them. Her reasoning? You can't be a customer and a protester at the same time, the manager said.

If there's one thing this movement is doing, it's having people move their money from the TBTF banks and into smaller community banks and credit unions.

quote:

Originally posted by EddieZilker What's surprising is how little you know about the person you're advocating for. You stated in an earlier post that Alan Greenspan was a failure when dismissing the importance of him being an Ayn Rand acolyte. The man who you are advocating for named his own son after Rand so, for fucks sake, what makes you think his policies would be any different than Greenspan's? The more I read from you, the more it's clear that you just do not even begin to understand what you're talking about. EDIT: I struck through the part of my post which turned out to be complete bullshit but there's still no refuting the link between Paul, Greenspan, and Rand.

??

Do you seriously believe that Ron Paul and Alan Greenspan have the same beliefs? Paul has spoken/written out against Greenspan for years, and was doing so long before the housing bubble popped. In the last republican debate, Ron Paul said Greenspan's tenure was "a disaster". why are you so arrogant when you're so wrong about this?

I've never read Ayn Rand by the way, but I'm going to crudely sum up her Objectivist philosophy for the sake of this discussion as one where government DOES NOT intervene in a national economy: No labor rules, no banking rules, no product regulations. (I may be wildly incorrect with these characterizations, someone who actually has the patience to read Atlas Shrugged and knows wtf they're talking about, feel free to correct me.)

The Federal Reserve is by definition at odds with this Ayn Rand philosophy. A government fiat money supply is at odds with Objectivism. Greenspan's actions after 9/11, dropping the interest rate to 1% or whatever, were vital in inflating the housing bubble. They were not however, the actions of a proponent of Laissez-faire capitalism.

quote:

Originally posted by Zharen Thought this was sort of funny. http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/..._n_1013490.html If there's one thing this movement is doing, it's having people move their money from the TBTF banks and into smaller community banks and credit unions.

It's not funny - this happened here in NYC yesterday as well. It's kind of dumb to bring protest signs into the bank though. I mean just film them going in and out, close the account, and debrief on camera.

It is ridiculous though - if you're a dissatisfied customer you should be able to complain about it and still cut off your connection with the service.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.