News Occupy Wall Street protest in New-York

  • Thread starter Thread starter vici10
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Wall
AI Thread Summary
The Occupy Wall Street protests in New York have entered their second week, with approximately 5,000 participants initially gathering on September 17. Protesters are voicing their discontent over issues such as bank bailouts, the mortgage crisis, and the execution of Troy Davis, leading to 80 arrests reported by the New York Times. While some view the movement as disorganized, others argue that it highlights significant economic disparities and calls for reforms like reinstating the Glass-Steagall Act. The protests are seen as a response to rising poverty and unemployment rates in the U.S., with many participants expressing frustration over the current economic situation. The ongoing demonstrations reflect a broader sentiment of dissatisfaction with the financial system and government accountability.
  • #51
mege said:
Shared in what way? Does it need to be equally divided among every citizen of the country? Why not spread the wealth around the world then.

What I mean is shared in a way where the people who it is "shared" among get some kind of benefit for it.

For example if you build a bridge using some form of collected wealth (transferring one form of wealth into another), then a lot of people are directly benefiting from this new form of infrastructure.

It's the same thing if you injected real capital into businesses that needed them: these people could generate revenues, hire people, and through a chain reaction, you get a massive influx of wealth generation for a large number of participants.

The fact is none of this is happening with the massive influx of cheap credit that a selected group of people are getting. It's not used to build infrastructure, and it's not given to your small business people.

So to answer your question, the wealth doesn't need to be "divided" per se, it just needs to be used so that everyone can share in it. You can't realistically divide a bridge into pieces and allocate one block of concrete to an individual: that's the wrong approach. It's better to just think about a way where everyone gains a satisfactory benefit from the valuable thing in question.

With regards to spreading the wealth around the world, then in the context of the above statement, why not? Under the current system, it won't probably happen, and its designed in a way where it won't (or should not) happen.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
  • #52
The protesters will be a good barometer for how far the US government is prepared to go with its own citizens now that they have been accorded the same right to summary execution without trial outside US borders that citizens of the rest of the world already have.

Kent State didn't stop the Vietnam war but the television footage of a US supported ARVN Officer summary executing a prisoner with a pistol hilighted the chasm between public morality and political reality. Is using a drone any different to placing a pistol against someones head and pulling the trigger?

I sincerely hope that no one is injured in this and any further protests in the US.
 
Last edited:
  • #53
chiro said:
...
Let's look at what is happening at the moment.

The Federal Reserve has currently lent out trillions of dollars in backdoor deals to a range of institutions all over the world at near 0% interest. The institutions can then take that money and lend it out at at least 3/4% interest. They could do this in a number of ways but that's for another discussion.

So basically if they borrow money at say 0.1 or 0.01 percent and charge 3% interest on say 10 billion dollars, then in one period of lending they make roughly 3% of 10 billion which is 300 million dollars.

Now if you ever do a financial mathematics course, you are taught that the markets will always go to a situation of no-arbitrage. This means that the market will eventually correct itself so that profits like these won't be made.

Now the Federal Reserve has promised to keep rates low for at least 2 years. With these kind of deals, the no-arbitrage rule does not apply, and these institutions are making completely risk-free transactions.

With this kind of environment you encourage financial speculation, not saving. You punish the people putting money in their pension or bank accounts by giving them no return and you allow others access to ridiculously cheap credit who by any standard means should not have access to this.

The idea of risk is that for higher risk you charge higher interest rates. That is why people like governments and oil companies can borrow so cheaply: they are (or were) most likely to pay the money bank. It's also why credit cards have higher interest. The credit requirements to get access to government bond type liquidity is not the same as what you need with a credit card application.

...

If I may, jumping in ...

I agree with all of the above, though I think there's a required piece missing to create the situation we now see. That is the recognition of how the banks are able to re-lend in a "number ways" the money they acquire from Fed: they can buy US treasuries, because $1.6T in treasuries are available annually, and banks have indeed been adding treasuries to the their balance sheets in unprecedented amounts. This kind of lending i) carries no risk as far as the regulators are concerned, and ii) effectively shuts out normal commercial lending. Thus the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury combined are crowding out the private economy of the United States.
 
  • #54
Meanwhile wall street occupation protests are continuing. Yesterday more than 700 protesters were arrested during the march on Brooklyn Bridge, according to NYTimes.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/01/police-arresting-protesters-on-brooklyn-bridge/"
This march and arrests were recorded also on youtube.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a1tCYAEDl6g

People also were angry on what happened previous week when high ranking officer pepper sprayed peaceful women standing behind orange net on sidewalk.

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2...rotesters-being-pepper-sprayed/?ref=nyregion"

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TZ05rWx1pig&feature=player_embedded

It seems that protests spread to other cities. Three thousand people rally in Boston Financial District.
http://plymouthdailynews.com/occupy-boston-joins-wall-street-protest-movement-14489"

In Los Angeles people marched on City Hall.
http://www.nbclosangeles.com/news/l...Protesters-March-on-City-Hall-130914483.html"

The smaller protest was taken place in San-Francisco in front of bank of America.
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/09/30/occupy-wall-street-san-francisco_n_988180.html"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #55
mege said:
This needs more explaining. So, because the government and banks worked together in an attempt to help the people (and by most accounts created a large destructive wake) they need to keep on doing it?

Actually, I'm saying the opposite. I am saying the social contract has been violated and hence all personal gains due to this violation are suspect.

There is the more general social contract outlined here:

"The social contract is an intellectual device intended to explain the appropriate relationship between individuals and their governments. Social contract arguments assert that individuals unite into political societies by a process of mutual consent, agreeing to abide by common rules and accept corresponding duties to protect themselves and one another from violence and other kinds of harm."
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Social_contract

Which basically says institutions work together for the mutual good, and there is the more specific version "Jean-Jacques Rousseau":

" Man is born free, and everywhere he is in chains.[1]

The Sovereign, having no force other than the legislative power, acts only by means of the laws; and the laws being solely the authentic acts of the general will, the Sovereign cannot act save when the people is assembled.[2]

Every law the people have not ratified in person is null and void — is, in fact, not a law.[3]

The legislative power belongs to the people, and can belong to it alone.[4]

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/The_Social_Contract

which essential says that all laws without the consent of the people aren't valid. This version has clearly been violated given the undue influence over our laws by corporate lobbies. What should we do? Well we certainly the laws should be reformed so that people start out with a more equal footing in terms of: access to knowledge, the tools of production and education. As for whether there should be any reparations or wealth transfers (such as a tax on the rich) I'll leave that up to the politicians.
What is in the interest of the people? The government basically lured 'the people' to take loans and eventually default on them. It was this government intervention that caused it - but... we want more government intervention along similar lines?

I said nothing about wanting more government and each of the links I posted argued for less government (except possibly one). With regards to the interest of the people I simply want to reform the laws as to not give corporate monopolies any advantages over small business. The fact that the people don't know well what is in there own interest means that we need to teach more of the history of philosophy, economics and political science in school.

A few years of a slight downturn (even if it is 'the worst ever') and people are still better off than if our aggressive financial institutions weren't in place.
How do you support this argument?

Now, I agree that the government should stop meddling with them and creating demand for loans where there shouldn't be. The devil is really why these policies are being driven, which I think your posts are missing. You explain the situation, and then provide random devoutly anti-capitalist reports as citations for strawmen.

Actually what my post alludes to is that these policies were being created in order to create more financial products which can be mascaraed as something of value for the short term gains of the CEOs of the institutions which issued these loans.
Does a small business owner have any different rights than a CEO of a corporation?
The rules are such to allow large corporations protection by creating artificial barriers to entry. These include frivolous patients which they call "intellectual property", copyrights extending for ever greater lengths of times, an attack on what is considered fair use of content, abuse of buying power to obtain goods, uncompetitive prices, regionalization of media, the attack on privacy, the weakening of anti trust legislation, the eroding of consumer protection, the subsidization of the global transportation infrastructure which supports multi-national corporations, different trade laws for large corporations then consumers etc.

The great thing about being a monopoly is you don't have to collude to control prices you simply set it. The current business climate is an imperial conquest to devour the small and week in order to protect ones monopoly status. It is a climate where there can only be two of any product in any market and everyone must have the best.

As for the links I provided they aren't anti-capatilist, they are anti-state/corporate-capitalist. The principles of Laissez-faire which hasn't existed since before the new deal are perfectly compatible with the authors (with possibly the exception of JON HANSON† & DAVID YOSIFON need to re-read it). That said, one should not dismiss ones arguments simply because they disagree with the conclusion. When one simply looks for writers which confirm their ideas they severely limit the range of possibilities which they consider. A true intellectual seeks out opinions they disagree with as much or more with those they agree.
mheslep said:
If I may, jumping in ...

I agree with all of the above, though I think there's a required piece missing to create the situation we now see. That is the recognition of how the banks are able to re-lend in a "number ways" the money they acquire from Fed: they can buy US treasuries, because $1.6T in treasuries are available annually, and banks have indeed been adding treasuries to the their balance sheets in unprecedented amounts. This kind of lending i) carries no risk as far as the regulators are concerned, and ii) effectively shuts out normal commercial lending. Thus the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury combined are crowding out the private economy of the United States.

And this is the problem. The credit rating of the United States has been downgraded yet as far as the bank rules are concerned these assets are considered risk free. This allows banks to under report their real leverage because "assets considered zero risk" are not counted in capital adequacy calculations of leverage. I wonder to what extent this is crowding out other loans but I bet it is significant.
 
Last edited:
  • #56
John Creighto said:
...

And this is the problem. The credit rating of the United States has been downgraded yet as far as the bank rules are concerned these assets are considered risk free. This allows banks to under report their real leverage because "assets considered zero risk" are not counted in capital adequacy calculations of leverage. I wonder to what extent this is crowding out other loans but I bet it is significant.
Bond lending is not being crowded out, but small business lending which is dependent on banks is sharply off, those loans replaced on the banks balance sheet by treasury notes.
 
  • #57
mheslep said:
Bond lending is not being crowded out, but small business lending which is dependent on banks is sharply off, those loans replaced on the banks balance sheet by treasury notes.

Which in the end creates a system which systematically favors large business over small and consequently protects large corporate monopolies.
 
  • #59
John Creighto said:
Which in the end creates a system which systematically favors large business over small and consequently protects large corporate
...business. Exactly.
monopolies.
Not necessarily, but it might enable the merely large and well connected become monopolies.
 
Last edited:
  • #60
Proton Soup said:
...one of the reasons that net neutrality is so important if we are to have a chance in hades of extracting ourselves from the current mess.

So in order to arrive at a solution we're to refrain from offering any opinion? How does that work, exactly? Ouija board?

mege said:
Does a small business owner have any different rights than a CEO of a corporation?

No.

You're argument is basically 'because an individual is involved in running a business, they should have less rights'.

No. Each individual, as an individual, should have equal access to government officials. Thus, the CEO of a company, one of it's principle stockholders, one of its minimum wage workers, and one of the employee's spouses, should have equal access.

The corporation, as an entity, should have no access whatsoever. A corporation is not a person. There is no such thing as a government of/by/for the people when non-person entities have buku bucks and lobbyists accessing Congress while the People do not. While a corporation may represent people in some respects, that is not, should not, and should never be to the government. People must be given unfettered ability to represent themselves, directly, should they choose to do so. If any individual chooses otherwise, so be it - that's their choice to do so.

When a corporation starts "representing" it's people to the government, they invariable err on the side of the corporate bottom line, which is often in opposition to the needs of its workers. That's not representation, that's counter-representation. Same thing goes with respect to the community in which a corporation operates.

Now, that said - I do think more individual accountability needs to be had in the corporate spheres so business leaders cannot hide behind the protection of a corporation as easilly. But that shouldn't preclude a business leader from being allowed to donate to a candidate, etc. Corporations don't vote... individuals do.

Agree wholeheartedly with this. The problem is, I'm not talking about a campaign contributions, which are monitored. I'm talking about lobbying activities, which are not, and which steal time and attention away from government representatives while stealing the voices of the people away from their government.

I think what they did today, breaking laws and getting some 700 of themselves arrested, was pretty foolish. What they're doing in general, however, should be head, as they have some worthwhile things to say.

For any government to say, "Hrumph! We've got things in had, thank you for sharing" is more foolish than the protesters break laws. The latter may be illegal, but a government who stops listening to it's people because it arrogantly thinks it "knows better" is immoral.
 
  • #61
In the early 1990's I studied maths of finance at university and fees and charges were just starting to appear in Australia. Now Australia's total annual bank profits equal exactly the extra amount that they now take in fees and charges and everything else they did for profits is now cream for the fat cats. Talk about usury making a comeback.

The problem for the rest of the world (and us) is that our Federal Treasurer was voted the best treasurer in the world this year.
 
  • #62
mheslep said:
If I may, jumping in ...

I agree with all of the above, though I think there's a required piece missing to create the situation we now see. That is the recognition of how the banks are able to re-lend in a "number ways" the money they acquire from Fed: they can buy US treasuries, because $1.6T in treasuries are available annually, and banks have indeed been adding treasuries to the their balance sheets in unprecedented amounts. This kind of lending i) carries no risk as far as the regulators are concerned, and ii) effectively shuts out normal commercial lending. Thus the Federal Reserve and the US Treasury combined are crowding out the private economy of the United States.

You have brought up another important point which is the news that the Federal Reserve is also buying up US debt.

At the moment they can (and are) printing money to buy these products and it looks like they are trying to inflate away the debt (this is a conjecture).

The problem is, every John, Dick, and Harry will feel the consequences of these actions. Also foreigners will (and they are) stop lending money to the US.

After searching I didn't realize that the Federal Reserve bought roughly 80 percent of treasuries which is just mind blowing.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #63
DoggerDan said:
The corporation, as an entity, should have no access whatsoever. A corporation is not a person. There is no such thing as a government of/by/for the people when non-person entities have buku bucks and lobbyists accessing Congress while the People do not. While a corporation may represent people in some respects, that is not, should not, and should never be to the government. People must be given unfettered ability to represent themselves, directly, should they choose to do so. If any individual chooses otherwise, so be it - that's their choice to do so.

It turns out that legally, a corporation is a "person".

One thing I think people reading this thread should know is that corporations used to be based on a charter system. Basically the charter had a period of five years and the corporation had a legal obligation as a result of the charter to benefit society. If they did not give a good enough benefit to society their charter would expire and they would no longer be legally able to be a corporation.

Nowadays this is clearly not the case (both legally and through observation), and perhaps if there was some kind of reform based on ideas from the social contract, this charter based system could be re-introduced and the actual mechanics of the charter system could be based on what used to happen based on the old legal doctrine.
 
  • #64
chiro said:
You have brought up another important point which is the news that the Federal Reserve is also buying up US debt.

At the moment they can (and are) printing money to buy these products and it looks like they are trying to inflate away the debt (this is a conjecture).

The problem is, every John, Dick, and Harry will feel the consequences of these actions. Also foreigners will (and they are) stop lending money to the US.

After searching I didn't realize that the Federal Reserve bought roughly 80 percent of treasuries which is just mind blowing.

...
That's another issue. The Fed's purchase of treasuries has been an attempt at monetary expansion, which may well cause inflation in the future, and in that event the Fed can, if it does its job, raise rates and theoretically stem inflation. Raising interest rates will greatly increase federal interest payments on a very large debt, so that will be politically difficult. My concern however about the 0.0 Fed lending rate is that it is impacting small business lending now.
 
  • #65
DoggerDan said:
So in order to arrive at a solution we're to refrain from offering any opinion? How does that work, exactly? Ouija board?

i think we may be missing each other somehow. i would agree that the corps have more access to the political process than the average citizen. the lobbying, or at least the extent of it, is a problem. I'm just pointing out that they have also co-opted the major media. there is a reason that more people are turning to sources like al-jazeera for news - because our media isn't providing it. our media provides infotainment and promotion. so, we've got this great opportunity now to break free from corporate media giants with the internet. but only so long as we can maintain an unfiltered, unrestricted access to information. most of the people in my generation and older (>40's) are probably lost and will go on feeding on the traditional sources. but it's a huge opportunity for the younger generations to not get caught in that trap. sheep have options now. for now.
 
  • #66
I very rarely come to Politics & World Affairs and have only skimmed this thread.

Anyway, all this unrest resembles, IMO, the beginning of unrest during my college days at The Kansas University.

http://kuinfo.ku.edu/vision/"

[PLAIN]http://media.lawrence.com/img/photos/2004/12/19/protest1___t180.jpg?370a03faaa4bde2115f371a02430eb3e6a451be5[PLAIN]http://media.kansan.com/img/videothumbs/2009/12/03/DraftProtest1965__t180.jpg?370a03faaa4bde2115f371a02430eb3e6a451be5[PLAIN]http://media.lawrence.com/img/photos/2010/04/17/1970_Lawrence_025_t180.JPG?370a03faaa4bde2115f371a02430eb3e6a451be5
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #67
Fascist wannabes is the term that comes to mind the more street videos I see of the "occupiers".
 
  • #68
mheslep said:
Fascist wannabes is the term that comes to mind the more street videos I see of the "occupiers".
:smile: I can tell you were there.
peace-sign-buddy-icon.gif
 
  • #69
I'm glad they're doing it. If I were in NYC I'd be right there too.
 
  • #70
gravenewworld said:
I'm glad they're doing it. If I were in NYC I'd be right there too.

Why?
 
  • #71
mheslep said:
Fascist wannabes is the term that comes to mind the more street videos I see of the "occupiers".

Fascist?
 
  • #72
I would just like to ask a quick question of the supporters of this "protest".

What in your eyes is the difference between a Union with forced membership and dues and a "greedy corporation"?

The reason they gave corporations rights to lobby was to balance Unions rights. Both stay or both go either is fine with me Personally I favor both staying and Right to work laws in every state. As well as dissolving federal level unions for Govt. employees.

State and local is the correct level for employees of the government to negotiate at becaue let's face it a Mail man in LA or NY does not have the same needs or requirments in a contract as one in WY or VT.

Disclaimer: I am a Vet I am on disability 30%. I work 60 hours a week as an engineer in "big oil" My degree is environmental geology. My wife is a music teacher and has her union dues taken out of every pay check for local state and federal teacher unions if she wants to be in them or not.
 
  • #73
Apparently the TEA Party could learn something about image enhancement from the Occupy Wall Street group? my bold
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/occupy-wall-street-declaration-york-protesters/story?id=14656653

"Warren compares Occupy Wall St., at this stage of its life, to the nascent Tea Party, when protesters were seeking a vehicle through which to express frustration with the Obama administration.

What's different here? "The Tea Party seemed to be a movement of older Americans, more conservative, whiter," he says. OWS protesters "are younger, more diverse." They've got a sense of humor and they play better music. Some protesters Monday dressed as zombies so that financial workers could "see us reflecting the metaphor of their actions," according to OWS spokesman Patrick Bruner.

"I was down there yesterday," says Warren, en route to making his second visit to lower Manhattan to observe the goings-on today, "and what surprised me was how festive the atmosphere was. Nobody would describe a Tea Party meeting as festive."

He added: "There's no question, though, that they're angry and frustrated."

Just how frustrated became apparent Sunday, when hundreds of protesters poured onto the roadway of the Brooklyn Bridge, stopping traffic. Some protesters were detained temporarily by police, whom the protesters have accused of using too-aggressive tactics, including pepper spray."


***********

Please label this next comment - IMO - yesterday someone told me Anthony Weiner was the perfect face of this "movement" and they believe he will enter the 2012 race as the OWS Candidate.:smile:

On the other hand - the host (http://www.hollywoodreporter.com/news/erin-burnett-her-new-cnn-242302) of the new CNN show "Erin Burnett OutFront" said the group is looking for the new "messiah" - to replace President Obama.
http://transcripts.cnn.com/TRANSCRIPTS/1110/03/ebo.01.html

"BURNETT: And, Bill, what about this whole idea we were just talking about from the Wall Street protests that there is this kind of need for a messiah or someone to solve all of the problems? Obviously Barack Obama was that guy and it's really hard for anybody to live up to being that person, right? Nobody ever lives up to the hopes and fears of everybody out there. So don't -- do you think that Chris Christie should be worried about the same thing?"
 
Last edited:
  • #74
IMO - this movement has grown because people continue to be frustrated and angry - the reasons are more diverse than the crowd.

However, once this group finds a single voice - the "membership" will need to decide whether they agree with their leaders, the news media will need to decide how to report what that voice says, and politicians will decide whether or not they want to stand with the leaders of the group.

Right now - apparently - every frustration anyone in the group has ever experienced has been thrown at the wall - some will stick and some won't.
 
  • #75
Galteeth said:
Fascist?
Yes. A precise definition of fascism is illusive but I think the "occupiers" can be safely said to have common cause with traditional fascism.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/"
  • Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.
  • Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market...
  • Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
  • Free college education.
  • Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.
  • One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.
  • One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.
  • Racial and gender equal rights amendment.
  • Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.
  • Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.
  • Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, ... And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.
  • Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.
  • Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.


A ~dozen or so of the 25 demands from the 1920 Program of the National-Socialist German Workers Party:
  • We demand land and soil (Colonies) to feed our People and settle our excess population.
  • In view of the tremendous sacrifices in property and blood demanded of the Nation by every war, personal gain from the war must be termed a crime against the Nation. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
  • We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts)
  • We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises.
  • We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.
  • We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class; the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen. We demand the most careful consideration for the owners of small businesses in orders placed by national, state, or community
    authorities.
  • We demand land reform in accordance with our national needs and a law for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes. Abolition of ground rent and prevention of all speculation in land.
  • We demand ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their activities. Persons committing base crimes against the People, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished by death without regard of religion or race.
  • We demand the replacement of Roman Law, which serves a materialistic World Order, by German Law
  • In order to make higher education—and thereby entry into leading positions—available to every able and industrious German, the State must provide a thorough restructuring of our entire public educational system. The courses of study at all educational institutions are to be adjusted to meet the requirements of practical life. Understanding of the concept of the State must be achieved through the schools (teaching of civics) at the earliest age at which it can be grasped. We demand the education at the public expense of specially gifted children of poor parents, without regard to the latter’s position or occupation.
  • The State must raise the level of national health by means of mother-and-child care, the banning of juvenile labor, achievement of physical fitness through legislation for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and maximum support for all organizations providing physical training for young people
http://users.stlcc.edu/rkalfus/PDFs/026.pdf
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #76
mheslep said:
Yes. A precise definition of fascism is illusive but I think the "occupiers" can be safely said to have common cause with traditional fascism.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/"
  • Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.
  • Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market...
  • Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.
  • Free college education.
  • Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.
  • One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.
  • One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.
  • Racial and gender equal rights amendment.
  • Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.
  • Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.
  • Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, ... And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.
  • Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.
  • Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.


A ~dozen or so of the 25 demands from the 1920 Program of the National-Socialist German Workers Party:
  • We demand land and soil (Colonies) to feed our People and settle our excess population.
  • In view of the tremendous sacrifices in property and blood demanded of the Nation by every war, personal gain from the war must be termed a crime against the Nation. We therefore demand the total confiscation of all war profits.
  • We demand the nationalization of all enterprises (already) converted into corporations (trusts)
  • We demand profit-sharing in large enterprises.
  • We demand the large-scale development of old-age pension schemes.
  • We demand the creation and maintenance of a sound middle class; the immediate communalization of the large department stores, which are to be leased at low rates to small tradesmen. We demand the most careful consideration for the owners of small businesses in orders placed by national, state, or community
    authorities.
  • We demand land reform in accordance with our national needs and a law for expropriation without compensation of land for public purposes. Abolition of ground rent and prevention of all speculation in land.
  • We demand ruthless battle against those who harm the common good by their activities. Persons committing base crimes against the People, usurers, profiteers, etc., are to be punished by death without regard of religion or race.
  • We demand the replacement of Roman Law, which serves a materialistic World Order, by German Law
  • In order to make higher education—and thereby entry into leading positions—available to every able and industrious German, the State must provide a thorough restructuring of our entire public educational system. The courses of study at all educational institutions are to be adjusted to meet the requirements of practical life. Understanding of the concept of the State must be achieved through the schools (teaching of civics) at the earliest age at which it can be grasped. We demand the education at the public expense of specially gifted children of poor parents, without regard to the latter’s position or occupation.
  • The State must raise the level of national health by means of mother-and-child care, the banning of juvenile labor, achievement of physical fitness through legislation for compulsory gymnastics and sports, and maximum support for all organizations providing physical training for young people
http://users.stlcc.edu/rkalfus/PDFs/026.pdf
Interesting you bring up the '20s. After hearing the latest news on W.W.S., I did a search for the best economic times in the U.S. and came up with this.

Under Republican President Warren G. Harding, who called for normalcy and an end to high wartime taxes, Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon raised the tariff, cut other taxes, and used the large surplus to reduce the federal debt by about a third from 1920 to 1930. Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover worked to introduce efficiency, by regulating business practices. This period of prosperity, along with the culture of the time, was known as the Roaring Twenties.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_States"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #77
mheslep you do know that is just a list ONE person made on an UNOFFICIAL FORUM for the protest? Seems laughable and VERY misleading to try to use it as their actual list of demands...

and most of the comments on the post seem to be against it
 
  • #78
dlgoff said:
Interesting you bring up the '20s. After hearing the latest news on W.W.S., I did a search for the best economic times in the U.S. and came up with this.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economic_history_of_the_United_States"

re-post
"Under Republican President Warren G. Harding, who called for normalcy and an end to high wartime taxes, Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon raised the tariff, cut other taxes, and used the large surplus to reduce the federal debt by about a third from 1920 to 1930. Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover worked to introduce efficiency, by regulating business practices. This period of prosperity, along with the culture of the time, was known as the Roaring Twenties."

What is your point?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #79
WhoWee said:
re-post
"Under Republican President Warren G. Harding, who called for normalcy and an end to high wartime taxes, Secretary of the Treasury Andrew Mellon raised the tariff, cut other taxes, and used the large surplus to reduce the federal debt by about a third from 1920 to 1930. Secretary of Commerce Herbert Hoover worked to introduce efficiency, by regulating business practices. This period of prosperity, along with the culture of the time, was known as the Roaring Twenties."

What is your point?
Like I said. I very seldom come here, but I thought it was interesting the Harding was a Republican. :biggrin:
 
  • #82
mheslep said:
Yes. A precise definition of fascism is illusive but I think the "occupiers" can be safely said to have common cause with traditional fascism.

You do realize that you cherry picked a set of facts to support your fallacy. The fallacy you used is some variant of Reductio_ad_Hitlerum[/quote]

Anyway, neither the left or right have a monopoly on fascism but I will address each point individually.

http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/"
[*]Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

Small tariffs aren’t a terrible idea anyway, as people should prefer goods from their own country and prices should reflect this. The current situation subsidizes the negative externalities which result from transporting goods over long distances. It also makes any stimulus efforts incredibly difficult. An alternative way to achieve this would be through a negative income tax. Now if everyone didn't fear starvation you might argue that this would kill the incentive to work. However if nations stopped manipulating their currencies world wages would adjust to much more natural levels and this would maintain the incentive to work. I can’t help but believe that a big part of the motivation of free trade is to break organized labor.
[*]Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market...

I have no opinion on this.

[*]Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

This can be solved with a negative income tax.

[*]Free college education.

A better alternative is to make the access to the means of education free. For instance if I can watch a lecture at home on a video there is no need for me to go to a classroom. Harvard has actually proposed that most learning should be done outside the classroom and the purpose of the classroom should be to discuss what is learned.

[*]Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

I don’t think the technology is here yet.

[*]One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

Without looking at it further this is sort of an arbitrary number.

[*]One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.

This seems like sort of a random request.

[*]Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

Isn’t this already protected?

[*]Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

Doesn’t this sort of contradict labor protection?

[*]Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

Not sure if this would be more or less susceptible to abuse.

[*]Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, ... And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

This sounds quite extreme. Surely they all can’t be advocating this.

[*]Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

Interesting proposition.

[*]Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

Not sure the current status of collective bargaining laws.
[/QUOTE]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #83
Hepth said:
mheslep you do know that is just a list ONE person made on an UNOFFICIAL FORUM for the protest? Seems laughable and VERY misleading to try to use it as their actual list of demands...

and most of the comments on the post seem to be against it
There's no official anything in connection with the WS protesters, nor did I say there was. And while anybody can post comments on that website, the on the street interviews I'm seeing seem to be mostly inline with the general idea of the demand list posted there, which is 'we use the force of the state to seize wide swaths of the property of others'
 
  • #84
mheslep said:
There's no official anything in connection with the WS protesters, nor did I say there was. And while anybody can post comments on that website, the on the street interviews I'm seeing seem to be mostly inline with the general idea of the demand list posted there, which is 'we use the force of the state to seize wide swaths of the property of others'

Given the absence of any other organized, detailed, or specific list of demands - it appears the one you posted is about as good as it gets (at this point).
 
  • #85
WhoWee said:
Why?
Maybe because I'm sick and tired of my parent's generation pissing away my generation's future. The current recession has his people in my age bracket disproportionately harder. I'm sick of seeing our administrations and almost every single important government institution that is supposed to be regulating Wall Street being run by the cronies and henchman of groups like Goldman Sachs. We only live under a veil of democracy. The people that are really behind the show pulling all of the strings continue to get away with murder while millions of us struggle just to pay our bills and keep roofs over our head. It's time to get pissed off.

Our grandparents didn't let Wall Street get away with what they did after the stock market crash, I don't know why we continue to tolerate it.Firms like Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, etc. represent a far, far greater threat to our democracy and way of life than 'terrorists' 6,000 miles away.
 
  • #86
WhoWee said:
Given the absence of any other organized, detailed, or specific list of demands - it appears the one you posted is about as good as it gets (at this point).

Prior to the post you are referring to I posted an interview of what some protesters would like to see:
https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3535527&postcount=58

Why do you think this list of demands is better?
 
  • #87
gravenewworld said:
Our grandparents didn't let Wall Street get away with what they did after the stock market crash, I don't know why we continue to tolerate it.


Firms like Bank of America, Goldman Sachs, etc. represent a far, far greater threat to our democracy and way of life than 'terrorists' 6,000 miles away.

Care to explain?
 
  • #88
  • #89
WhoWee said:
Care to explain?

This is what our grandparents did about Wall St. malfeasance:

http://www.triplepundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/glass-steagall-act.jpg And it is this kind of manipulation within our government that is killing our democracy as well as our pocketbooks:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/152438-cftc-the-key-to-market-manipulationWhat's the point of even having a government if it is just loaded up with insiders for big banks, like Goldman Sachs, that end up giving banks exemptions from the rules or even writing the rules to benefit them? This isn't a democracy any more, it's an absolute farce. The letter in that article is absolutely damning. It's time to get mad and take it to the streets. The Baby Boomers continue to decimate the prospects for my generation, why should I sit here and take it?
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #90
gravenewworld said:
This is what our grandparents did about Wall St. malfeasance:

http://www.triplepundit.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/05/glass-steagall-act.jpg


And it is this kind of manipulation within our government that is killing our democracy as well as our pocketbooks:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/152438-cftc-the-key-to-market-manipulation


What's the point of even having a government if it is just loaded up with insiders for big banks, like Goldman Sachs, that end up giving banks exemptions from the rules or even writing the rules to benefit them? This isn't a democracy any more, it's an absolute farce. The letter in that article is absolutely damning. It's time to get mad and take it to the streets. The Baby Boomers continue to decimate the prospects for my generation, why should I sit here and take it?

I understand your sentiment and I wrote about it previously. (see attached document). I'm not happy with the attached document though because I know in their heart they did what they thought was best and the whole creating of the label: The "Me Generation", is their way of rationalization their decisions. They bought into the market because they thought it was wrong for their parents to run up the nations debt to finance their retirement so instead they bought into a system which created apparent wealth though the rapid expansion of credit (A.K.A debt). What they failed to see is all debt is an obligation to the future.

The simple fact is that the next generation will always have to support the generation of their parents and their will often be a struggle for how much each generation should get out of it. They will in the end get hit by the crisis to because the wealth the thought they saved was an illusion and consequently they will lose most of their savings. They will be faced with the prospect of retiring in a nation which exported most of it's jobs to the third world. The baby boomers are just starting to retire now and things will turn quickly for the next generation even if it means the next generation is further behind then they wanted to be at this stage in their life.
 

Attachments

Last edited by a moderator:
  • #91
WhoWee said:
It's written down.

The video calls for revolution - do you agree?

Did you watch the whole video? Is your whole debate strategy to cherry pick words and twist them to attack a position? That's a lot like trolling.

Revolution simply means substantial change.

For instance, "The Industrial Revolution"

[PLAIN]http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/307817_10150295547107735_672262734_8281653_200917647_n.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #92
John Creighto said:
Did you watch the whole video? Is your whole debate strategy to cherry pick words and twist them to attack a position? That's a lot like trolling.

Revolution simply means substantial change.

For instance, "The Industrial Revolution"

[PLAIN]http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/307817_10150295547107735_672262734_8281653_200917647_n.jpg[/QUOTE]

Your video bounces from person to person capturing ramblings. One person said they want revolution (do you agree?), one person said they wanted just 1 banker to be arrested (do you agree?), one person said they wanted change (do you agree?) - maybe you should make a transcript from your video clips of the things you do agree with - until that happens, you and everyone else in the "movement" will be free to cherry-pick - won't you?

To accuse me of trolling is ridiculous - my point was the list posted earlier is the only one I've seen in print. If the "movement" wants to use a video of this type to be the voice - then perhaps everyone should be heard - rather than cherry-picking people from the crowd - as is the video is the opinion of the person that edited the video - nothing more.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #93
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #94
John Creighto said:
Interesting link. It will take my a while to grasp it though. I'm fuzzy on how the market manipulation is suppose to work.

The mechanism isn't what's the most important thing to take away from that link, the most important thing to take away from that link is that we actually have written proof of firms like Goldman Sachs asking for exemptions from hedging rules AND the fact that they were able to hide it from most of the government for over 15 years! It's really not surprising that the CFTC routinely granted exemptions from hedging rules to firms over the past 20 years when you see who has been running it (ex-Goldman Sachs employees, former Chicago Mercantile Exchange head hanchos, and other friends of Wall St.). It's blatant corruption of our entire system, and it is costing us all dearly through higher prices for things ranging from oil to the very food we put on our tables. And when it back fires, we the tax payers are then forced to bail them out. It's a ridiculous system, and a fraud of a 'government' that is completely poisoned and infested with special interest groups.

The scariest part is the fact that Congress itself had no idea about all of the exemptions the CFTC was granting to these firms. The letters only came to light until Congress FINALLY investigated (in either 2008 or 2009 I forget) what was going on at the CFTC (too late, after the 2008 meltdown, after the dot.com bubble, and after record oil prices/crash).

If Congress has no idea what is going on within the government and just how much huge banking firms are able to rig our system by infiltrating almost every single important regulatory agency (that is supposed to be monitoring them) with their lapdogs, what does that make big banks? I'll tell you what...it makes them more powerful than our so called elected government. It's time to take it to the streets. If our government won't protect us, then who will? We the people will.
 
  • #95
gravenewworld said:
The mechanism isn't what's the most important thing to take away from that link, the most important thing to take away from that link is that we actually have written proof of firms like Goldman Sachs asking for exemptions from hedging rules AND the fact that they were able to hide it from most of the government for over 15 years! It's really not surprising that the CFTC routinely granted exemptions from hedging rules to firms over the past 20 years when you see who has been running it (ex-Goldman Sachs employees, former Chicago Mercantile Exchange head hanchos, and other friends of Wall St.). It's blatant corruption of our entire system, and it is costing us all dearly through higher prices for things ranging from oil to the very food we put on our tables. And when it back fires, we the tax payers are then forced to bail them out. It's a ridiculous system, and a fraud of a 'government' that is completely poisoned and infested with special interest groups.

The scariest part is the fact that Congress itself had no idea about all of the exemptions the CFTC was granting to these firms. The letters only came to light until Congress FINALLY investigated (in either 2008 or 2009 I forget) what was going on at the CFTC (too late, after the 2008 meltdown, after the dot.com bubble, and after record oil prices/crash).

If Congress has no idea what is going on within the government and just how much huge banking firms are able to rig our system by infiltrating almost every single important regulatory agency (that is supposed to be monitoring them) with their lapdogs, what does that make big banks? I'll tell you what...it makes them more powerful than our so called elected government. It's time to take it to the streets. If our government won't protect us, then who will? We the people will.

Sounds like a conspiracy theory?

Have you read this?
http://2010.newsweek.com/top-10/history-altering-decisions/clinton-signs-securities-legislation.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #96
John Creighto said:
Did you watch the whole video? Is your whole debate strategy to cherry pick words and twist them to attack a position? That's a lot like trolling.

Revolution simply means substantial change.

For instance, "The Industrial Revolution"

[PLAIN]http://a5.sphotos.ak.fbcdn.net/hphotos-ak-ash4/307817_10150295547107735_672262734_8281653_200917647_n.jpg[/QUOTE]

yeah, that's used a lot in the Ron Paul material

http://www.ronpaul.com/category/ron-paul-revolution/
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #97
WhoWee said:
Sounds like a conspiracy theory?

Have you read this?
http://2010.newsweek.com/top-10/history-altering-decisions/clinton-signs-securities-legislation.html
Conspiracy theory?

http://sanders.senate.gov/newsroom/news/?id=e802998a-8ee2-4808-9649-0d9730b75ea4

"This report clearly shows that in the summer of 2008 when gas prices spiked to more than $4 a gallon, Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley, and other speculators on Wall Street dominated the crude oil futures market causing tremendous damage to the entire economy," Sanders said. "The CFTC has kept this information hidden from the American public for nearly three years. That is an outrage.
DId you even look at the link and the letter?Also, who was running the CFTC in the 90s? That would have been Wendy Gramm, who during her tenure there deregulated/laxed the rules with regards to energy trading. Where did she end up going after her tenure? To a company that now lives in infamy--Enron. Of course, she was there when Enron was making filthy amounts of cash trading in energy after the markets for utilities in CA were deregulated (which eventually caused massive rolling blackouts and huge surges in prices).

Wendy Gramm's hubby, Phil Gramm, also pretty much single handedly killed Glass Steagall to deregulate the markets for banks and let them run away with speculative trading and gambling on derivatives. Where did Phil Gramm end up? How convenient, he ended up leaving Congress to go work for a big bank that needed billions in a tax payer bailout after deregulating everything.

And that's just 2 examples. Politics will always be corrupt, but it has gotten way out of hand over the past 20 years and it is time to put it to a stop. The middle class can crumble no further. Almost every single important regulatory agency is polluted with conflicts of interest. It's why there STILL has hardly been any legislation to regulate the derivatives market. It's why there STILL hasn't been a single banker thrown in jail for tanking the world economy in 2008. It's why we STILL will have the same problems in the future and will face financial bubble after bubble.

BTW I don't know why you are specifically mentioning Clinton. In no way at all do I think he is some saint. He made huge mistakes as well, such as signing the CFMA.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
  • #98
gravenewworld said:
The mechanism isn't what's the most important thing to take away from that link, the most important thing to take away from that link is that we actually have written proof of firms like Goldman Sachs asking for exemptions from hedging rules AND the fact that they were able to hide it from most of the government for over 15 years! It's really not surprising that the CFTC routinely granted exemptions from hedging rules to firms over the past 20 years when you see who has been running it (ex-Goldman Sachs employees, former Chicago Mercantile Exchange head hanchos, and other friends of Wall St.). It's blatant corruption of our entire system, and it is costing us all dearly through higher prices for things ranging from oil to the very food we put on our tables. And when it back fires, we the tax payers are then forced to bail them out. It's a ridiculous system, and a fraud of a 'government' that is completely poisoned and infested with special interest groups.

The scariest part is the fact that Congress itself had no idea about all of the exemptions the CFTC was granting to these firms. The letters only came to light until Congress FINALLY investigated (in either 2008 or 2009 I forget) what was going on at the CFTC (too late, after the 2008 meltdown, after the dot.com bubble, and after record oil prices/crash).

If Congress has no idea what is going on within the government and just how much huge banking firms are able to rig our system by infiltrating almost every single important regulatory agency (that is supposed to be monitoring them) with their lapdogs, what does that make big banks? I'll tell you what...it makes them more powerful than our so called elected government. It's time to take it to the streets. If our government won't protect us, then who will? We the people will.

What you have said is important and I won't deny that.

However having said this, people should learn that they do have a level of power within themselves to effect change without having to protest.

First of all they can stop supporting the corporations by not buying their products and get other people to do so. If one person stops buying coca cola, it's an inconvenience. If a million people suddenly stop buying it, it's a clear message. The fact is corporations need people to buy their products and services. The good part about real capitalism is that it works both ways: people that make stuff that other people want get rich, and people that don't sell anything go out of business. Use that knowledge to your advantage.

Also I know that what is happening right now with banks and corporations is largely "anti-capitalist" since they are getting an unfair advantage from the government, but I will talk about that below. With this said I still encourage what I have said above as a supplementary part of the solution.

One idea I have heard form Max Keiser that seems very effective is to look at ways to attack a companies stock price through some kind of informational campaign.

The other way to stop supporting the current banking system is to minimize your debt. Cut up your credit cards, don't get a 300,000 or half a million dollar mortgage on a standard or low wage, and don't buy crap you don't need.

These banks function because of debt, and they are leveraged at mind boggling levels. If people stopped borrowing, then all of that leveraged money would not exist, and banks wouldn't have the kind of power they have now. You minimize your debt, you put the power back in your hands, and if/when it catches on, you send a message to the system that it is time to change. When you take out a loan, a lot of the stuff on the balance sheet is created out of thin air. If you reduce this activity, you severely cripple the system, since it depends on this ability, which is why it needs debt.

These banking institutions are leveraged so much, that it is easier nowadays to do a bank-run or to bring down these institutions in a much easier fashion.

Like other people have said in this thread we need a revolution, but we need it on more than one level. One level is what I've described in my post. Another level is what other posters have described.

It requires a level of social change that is unprecedented. For most people, we can not imagine living without credit cards, mortgages, car loans, and student loans. It also requires people to take an active interest in what their government is doing, and if it is acting in the interests of the people. It requires people to (more) responsible, and to take an interest in their fellow being. It also requires that many of the social structures that we have to organize society in many important areas need to be reviewed and changed.

Finally, this also is a time to realize that no one person, or selective group will be able to accomplish this. For something that is going to be effective especially in the long term, we need everyone's output in one form or another. The experiment of letting the few lead the masses has failed every time in history, and it has not surprisingly failed again. The whole idea of having many sovereign groups versus a global superstate makes sense from this point of view.

It's an exciting time in the history of human civilization, but it is important for us, especially in this age of technology, that we mature socially as well as in other ways.
 
  • #99
Galteeth said:
Fascist?

I see mhelsp's qualifier as reasonably accurate. Are you seeing something different?
 
  • #100
gravenewworld said:
It's time to take it to the streets. If our government won't protect us, then who will? We the people will.

What does this mean?
 

Similar threads

Back
Top