Originally posted by Moral Hazard
Certainly, I'm quite comfortable, are you?
well, that's just such an strange way to think. only care about yourself? oh well.
i am only choosing to quote this one thing because all your other questions and comments are just cop-outs. "well, there is nothing that can be done about it so why even try. life/politics/economy are just the way they are and nothing can be done about it."
Elendil
quote:
Originally posted by StereoPrincess
i really find it interesting why it's so hard to understand why Occupy Wall Street is happening.
From their own website:
"The participation of every person, and every organization, that has an interest in returning the US back into the hands of its individual citizens is required.
Our nation, our species and our world are in crisis. The US has an important role to play in the solution, but we can no longer afford to let corporate greed and corrupt politics set the policies of our nation.
We, the people of the United States of America, considering the crisis at hand, now reassert our sovereign control of our land.
Solidarity Forever!"
That's pretty concise to me.
I'd say its only seems concise, but on a deeper level, it is simply platitude (as moral hazard so eloquently put it).
As I've said before, and I'll say again, they have control already.
NO ONE forces them to buy products from the conglomerates they they are "fighting" against. No one forced anyone to acquire mortgages they could not afford. The minute the "99%" redirected their funds and time towards ventures that do not support the "mechanism of corporate greed and corruption", they'd be asserting that control.
No one forced them to follow the status quo right up to the point of crisis. They simply did it. That they're upset at this point is understandable. So take financial action and change things.
These corporations live only off of the blood you feed them. Period. They exist to meet your demand. Period. If you do not demand from them, they are obliterated. They posses means to manipulate - marketing for example. If you're not capable enough to evade these tactics, you're certainly not capable of making policy decisions on a complex level.
As for politics: one way or another, asserts itself into any collective body of individuals. It is the means through which we manage to exist in such large bundled numbers. Any "escape" from it will be illusion, and this illusion will be revealed in but a moments passing time.
Form a political body, seek election on every possible level, in every state and town. Assemble in large bodies and demonstrate values. If the people appreciate your viewpoints, you will be elected. If not, perhaps you don't speak for them after all? Or, perhaps the people are simply not ready to accept a psychological position you place on them. This is always possible. One way or another, the example should be true democracy.
Moral Hazard
quote:
Originally posted by StereoPrincess
well, that's just such an strange way to think. only care about yourself? oh well.
i am only choosing to quote this one thing because all your other questions and comments are just cop-outs. "well, there is nothing that can be done about it so why even try. life/politics/economy are just the way they are and nothing can be done about it."
You've put words in my mouth... I'm just asking questions. They have put forth a vague and largely meaningless mission statement. Unless they can answer the other questions; most importantly, what the crisis is, how specifically the greed of which specific parties caused it, who should be tasked with rectifying the cause and crisis, how they should go about rectifying it, and what the ultimate end game is, then this is not a movement; rather, it is just a bunch of people expressing non-specific complaints. To this point the only end game they have exhibited is a desire to lower the profits of corporations either by lowering prices, raising wages, raising taxes (presumably to redistribute this wealth to them), or a combination thereof. The ultimate result of all these would be more money to the "99%"
Moral Hazard
quote:
Originally posted by StereoPrincess
well, that's just such an strange way to think. only care about yourself? oh well.
additionally... I assure you that most to all of the protesters are really only caring about themselves.
GGM
I don't understand why people are so frustrated in the fact they don't have clearly defined goals, plans, enemies etc. Right now the general consensus seems to be spreading awareness and getting more disgruntled citizens (there's plenty of them these days) on board. Keep in mind this is a new era of global protesting and if it's going to succeed it needs to be vague imo. The problems faced in the States will be different than the ones in Canada, Greece, rest of EU, Africa etc. If they narrow it down to specifics they're limiting it's capability to spread worldwide as the same message won't apply to each nation.
I'd say from what I've seen the messages are:
-The general population needs more power and influence in how their country is run
-Income should be spread more evenly
-The current degree of control that a minority of the population has on our lives is too large
-People should not be treated like a commodity
These messages are extremely vague indeed but it's the only way you can word them and still have them apply to all the developed countries out there. If you start naming corporations, specific people, governments etc then you might strengthen the movement on a local level but degrade it on a global level.
It's more than clear that they don't have an action plan for this right now. But in just over a month or so it's gone from a few hundred people in NYC to an 80 country worldwide movement with hundreds of thousands of people behind it. I'd say that is success enough for the time being and the awareness/attention this has created for a problem that the media would rather sweep under the rug is phenomenal.
ChemEnhanced
quote:
Originally posted by GGM
I don't understand why people are so frustrated in the fact they don't have clearly defined goals, plans, enemies etc. Right now the general consensus seems to be spreading awareness and getting more disgruntled citizens (there's plenty of them these days) on board. Keep in mind this is a new era of global protesting and if it's going to succeed it needs to be vague imo. The problems faced in the States will be different than the ones in Canada, Greece, rest of EU, Africa etc. If they narrow it down to specifics they're limiting it's capability to spread worldwide as the same message won't apply to each nation.
I'd say from what I've seen the messages are:
-The general population needs more power and influence in how their country is run
-Income should be spread more evenly
-The current degree of control that a minority of the population has on our lives is too large
-People should not be treated like a commodity
These messages are extremely vague indeed but it's the only way you can word them and still have them apply to all the developed countries out there. If you start naming corporations, specific people, governments etc then you might strengthen the movement on a local level but degrade it on a global level.
It's more than clear that they don't have an action plan for this right now. But in just over a month or so it's gone from a few hundred people in NYC to an 80 country worldwide movement with hundreds of thousands of people behind it. I'd say that is success enough for the time being and the awareness/attention this has created for a problem that the media would rather sweep under the rug is phenomenal.
The problem is if you don't have any real goals or any real action plan then this is nothing more then people bitching and complaining. Awareness is great but if change isn't seen then this will all just fizzle out and it will be back to normal in 6 months.
Moral Hazard
quote:
Originally posted by GGM
I'd say from what I've seen the messages are:
-The general population needs more power and influence in how their country is run
funny how this comes after an election with record low voter turn out... seems to me people want less control rather than more.
quote:
-income should be spread more evenly
which supports my earlier contention that these people just want to be able to acquire more of those luxury items that serve to satisfy the corporate greed they are protesting.
quote:
-The current degree of control that a minority of the population has on our lives is too large
again, funny considering record low voter turn out... I suppose they want more control provided they don't need to walk down to the nearest polling booth to exercise it.
quote:
-People should not be treated like a commodity
corporations don't treat people as commodities (as illustrated by the fact that there is no mercantile exchange for them. Corporations treat people as consumers and/or resources depending on their relationship with the person. People treat corporations as employers or suppliers... this is how exchange based economies work.
FunkyCrew
quote:
Matt Gurney on Occupy Canada: Here’s the deal. Put me into the 1%, and I promise to not annoy you
On Monday, I spent about an hour walking through the Occupy Toronto site, chatting with the protesters. I found most of them to be thoughtful and intelligent, many with legitimate gripes. None that are necessarily The System’s fault, of course. But you’d hear their story and understand why they felt the need to do something, even if only to feel better. Unfortunately, these people are being drowned out by the usual rabble of conspiracy theorists and one-issue fanatics. Par for the course, and as I wrote, an inevitable consequence of a leaderless-by-design movement getting a lot of media attention.
That was apparently too sharp a criticism for some. I got some nasty email accusing me of being part of the corporate media (that’s actually kind of true, I guess) and my personal favourite — telling me I’ll only care about the people once I’m no longer one of the fat cats that runs the world. Umm … guys? I’m a print journalist. We’re not exactly raking in a king’s ransom here, but that’s OK, because it’s a fun job. Or at least I used to think it was OK. But that comment about me being one of the elite got me thinking. Being one of the 1% sounds pretty sweet, and it’s something I’ve decided I’d like to see happen. And I know how I’m going to make it happen. All you people out there, reading this? Send me lots of money. I have a plan for how I’m going to use it, and I think when you consider how you could spend it otherwise, you’ll come to like my offer. I call it the Anti-Bono Plan for Matt Gurney’s Enrichment. Give me your money and I won’t annoy you with it.
The advantages to being part of the 1% are obvious … you’ve got like mega bucks, yo. But I think it’s the fringe benefits — the incidentals, so to speak — that really make me want to jump from my current position as a mid-range 99%er to a full-on 1% Man-God. Things like controlling the courts, so I can break a few of the small, more inconsequential laws, just for fun (not any of the serious ones, though … even as a 1%er, I’d still be the decent sort). Fresher seafood. A fallout shelter in my backyard. I’d also like to fly into space, and the Russians charge like $20-million a pop for that. It’s not just about having that $20-million, you see. It’s about having $20-million you don’t really need, anyway, and that’s a whole other kind of rich.
So what I want you all to do is give me money. Not all of your money. That’s just silly. But, like, a lot of it. And not $5 or $10 at a time here. Frankly, it’s not worth the logistical hassle of sorting through a wad of cash and baggies of loose change. I want smooth, efficient transfers of big sums here, people. Own your home? Give it to me. Got a whole whack of money in an investment account somewhere? Just email me a transfer authorization and I’ll take it off your hands. Investment properties? Sign over the deed and I’ll sell them and pocket the cash. And for you older folks, or just those that live unhealthy lives or enjoy extreme sports, it’s even easier. Just tweak your wills to send it all my way. And then go eat a pound of bacon, and by all means, smoke if you got ‘em.
You might be wondering why I think I deserve a significant portion of your personal wealth. Easy answer: I don’t. I want a significant portion of your personal wealth. I don’t pretend that I deserve it.
Frankly, I think that makes me more deserving of it than most. I don’t have any sense of entitlement here. No one owes me much of anything. I’m trying to be reasonable about this. I want to go to a lot more rock concerts, I want to spend more time up north, I want to play more video games, and, yeah, that whole space travel thing. I’m not conflating wants and needs here like so many of today’s overly entitled youth. I’m not a babyboomer who can’t balance a chequebook and thinks the government will fund my retirement. I’m certainly not saying I have a right to the things I want. But I want them, and I want you to give them to me, one used car, surprise inheritance or RRSP at a time.
Here are some things I don’t want, though: No payments in drugs, guns, Soviet nuclear warheads, looted art treasures or stolen property. I know that these things fetch a pretty penny on the black market. But it’s just not logical for me. I need to be in the 1% before I could afford to beat the heat if I got caught with a trunk full of heroin. So it’s a chicken-egg problem here. I can’t break the law until I’m rich, so I can’t get rich by breaking the law. Everyone clear on that? Good.
Once I’m part of the 1%, what’s in it for you? Not a lot. It’s mostly going to benefit me, my family, my friends and my dogs. But there is some upside here. I’m not going to be nearly as irritating as many of the existing super-rich. I’m not going to go on a crusade to eliminate poverty. I’m not going to chain myself to trees, or try to camp out on U.S. Navy munitions testing ranges. The baby seals? Screw ‘em.
I sure as hell am not going to guest-edit an edition of a newspaper and pretend that that will somehow save Africa. I won’t ever live a celebrity lifestyle, and then act like being famous means that I have the first damned clue what the hell I’m talking about when it comes to major global issues. Think of the most annoying celebrity you can (Bono, people, Bono), and then imagine the exact opposite of that. That will be me. I’ll just hang out at my place, read books, order in dinner for the wife and I, and stay out of your lives while accruing millions and millions of dollars in interest on the money you all inexplicably gave me.
And I won’t be nearly as annoying as the government. First of all, my taxes are entirely voluntary. If you don’t give me a huge amount of money, I’m not going to come after you in the courts or put a lien on your house. Don’t get me wrong, after I’m in the 1% and immune from prosecution, maybe I’ll draw up a list of people who didn’t give me huge amounts of property and cash and make your lives a bit unpleasant. But that’s about it. And best of all, I promise to not use any of the money you gave me for the following: Funding the arts. Transfers to Quebec. Feeding the children. Establishing federal registries for this and that. Curing diseases. Hosting major summits in large urban areas. Gazebos. Climate change conferences. Abortions. Giant cheques of taxpayer money that I’ll hand out to the voters like I’m frickin’ Santa Claus, as if it wasn’t all their money to begin with. The monarchy. And the only military equipment I buy will be for my own personal use. I figure having a VTOL F-35 would cut my home-to-cottage trip down to about seven minutes.
Think about it. I’m not promising to fix the world or make your lives better. I’m being honest. Give me your money, and I’ll use it for my own gratification. It’ll trickle down some, but probably not to you, and I’m not going to pretend otherwise. I won’t tell you I’m doing it for the good of the public, or that you’re helping share the wealth and build a more equitable society where everyone can get health care or an education or bla bla bla. I just want to play a lot more golf. Is that so wrong? And, besides, have you looked at the recent history of the stock market? Giving me all your money on the assumption that I’m going to blow it all on fancy hats really isn’t the worst investment option out there right now. I at least provide certainty as to your rate of return: Zero.
There’s some precedent for this. In 2002, a woman named Karyn Bosnak started a website where she asked people to send her money so she could pay off her $20,000 consumer debt tab. It worked. In five months, enough donations had rolled in to pay off her debts. What I’m asking is similar, except I’m not a pretty lady who will frequently post witty, self-depreciating blogs. The deal is simple: Give me a few hundred million bucks, and I go away. That’s it.
The deal I’m offering you sucks. But you all know it could be worse — it usually is. Let’s get started. You won’t regret it. At least not when compared to your other options.
Went to highschool with the guy who wrote that, a fellow Richmond Hiller ;)
FunkyCrew
I enjoyed the lightheartedness of that article :) GIMME UR MONEY!
GGM
quote:
Originally posted by Moral Hazard
I'd say low voter turnout is due to frustrations and loss of faith in the current Canadian system altogether, which further supports the motion we need change. But I absolutely agree with you, anyone who gives 2 s about this stuff better have voted.
In terms of even economic distribution and people being treated as commodities I don't think the protesting for this pertains as much to Canada as it does to certain other areas of the world. Think of India as an example which currently has many of the worlds richest people but also has hundreds of millions living on less than a dollar a day. For humans being treated as a commodity I can think of things I've read about taking place in some of the other Asian countries that would fit the bill. These are global issues though and this being a global movement I don't see anything wrong with people in North America protesting for people on the other side of the world.
quote:
Originally posted by ChemEnhanced
The problem is if you don't have any real goals or any real action plan then this is nothing more then people bitching and complaining. Awareness is great but if change isn't seen then this will all just fizzle out and it will be back to normal in 6 months.
I totally agree, if they can rile up worldwide support and then don't initiate a phase 2 then all this is nothing but doing circles around problems we've been living with for ages. I think it would still be effective in creating awareness which could change how people vote or act, but the effect of that wouldn't be huge. All I'm saying is I hear a lot of people completely writing them off because they aren't putting forth clear plans at the moment. Unfortunately but not surprisingly this seems to be the angle most of the media is covering it with as well. I'd give them a couple more months to get their crap together and if they're still in phase 1 at that point it'll be likely it will wind down with no massive impact just like the wikileaks cables.
hardcore trancer
This interview doesn't necessary relate to the Occupation Toronto movement but it is a great interview regardless and Immortal Technique makes lots of great points here.
