Occupy Wall Street: What do you think?

[Satellite TV]

OWS is about claiming their right to a free lunch nothing more.

[BigJohn]

4. Given that it is the left that is bereft (rhymes, doesn´t it?) of traditional morality and Christianity, I saw an even closer tie to the moral and intellectual incoherence of the movement and Nietzsche´s views.

It is far from given. You have done nothing to prove that at all.

[fred smith]

fred: Liberalism, socialism, whatever you want to call it has a clearly defined set of principles.

Okay, can you give me those clearly defined set of principles right here right now?

Some overlap with Christianity (but so do various other belief systems), some do not.

Wow. You have really managed to get that incoherence down to a T.

Liberalism is not about trying to be Christian without Christ.

Depends on what you mean by liberalism but this is how most of the social democratic parties of the left (liberal in this sense) started out.

That's massively overstating the role of Christianity in modern leftist politics. Leftist politics has evolved, just as you claim Christianity has.

Again, I am not trying to define modern leftist politics. I am talking about taking Christ out of Christian system and PART of this process can be seen in the leftist mindset. Now stop wandering-wondering off and pay attention.

Secondly, just because the average OWS participant is not an intellectual scholar of liberalism, socialism, whatever you want to call it, so what? The average Christian knows very little about the Bible and is not a scholar of Christianity.

Your focus on the individual is touching. So in that case, the Christian would go to his priest or pastor for advice. Who does your leftist liberal OWS protester go to for advice? clarification? and given their beliefs and attitude would they even be willing to subject themselves to a hierarchical, er, authority?

In both cases, the average person has a vague notion of what the belief system advocates. This is probably true for any belief system. Yet you want to claim that this represents moral incoherence in one group, but not the other.

See above.

Also, there's a difference in kind between the questions "is murder okay?" and "how much tax is the right amount?" That's a large part of why the OWS movement are having trouble working out policies. They want the 1% to pay more tax.

I disagree that they are clear on whether murder is okay. Let us for fun thrown in the whole capital punishment, abortion, war, justified killings and see where the left articulates its stance on murder. Want to try?

Also, if the OWS protesters do not understand that getting the 1% to pay more is going to do nothing about the deficit then, er, ipso facto, the OWS protesters are by their very nature intellectually incoherent and again you studiously refuse to answer why these smart protesters are not in Washington. Why are they at Wall Street when all the policies and actions that took place were initiated by federal government authorities? Answer that please... You have evaded this from the very beginning.

This is not in dispute, despite what you may claim about no one knowing what they want.

The fact that we are disputing this apprarently means that it is in dispute. So, you are now of the opinion that everyone knows that the OWS movement is about getting the 1% to pay more. Is that your final answer? It certainly took you a LONG time to answer this question if this was so apparent why did not you just say so pages and pages ago when the question was first raised? What took YOU so long to answer this question with this response? Eh?

Every time any one of them has been shown in the media, he or she has said that.

You are joking of course. EVERY time. Gee. You might have a HARD time explaining then the union involvement (it was about collective bargaining) or the many other fringe (are they fringe?) elements that were down there for one reason or another. I have quoted a number of sources here on what the movement is and was about. This is the first that I have heard that EVERY time the response has been the same. Strange then the number of headlines in all the publications with different responses than the one that you have provided eh?

The problem lies in working out the particulars of an answer that is considerably more complex than a simple yes or no answer.

That is the best parody yet of the though processes behind this movement. Kudos for your finely honed sense of irony.

Likewise, the OWS protestors are annoyed at the fact that many of those on Wall Street were able to make their profits private whilst making their losses public, and a whole lot of sub-points to that.

So... if that is their view, then why are they protesting at Wall Street? The decisions regarding that were made in Washington. So? Are you going to take 15 pages before you figure out the correct response to this oft-posed question, too?

That the average person doesn't quite know how to address this issue has less to do with a morally incoherent position and more to do with the fact that the regulatory codes in the U.S. have thousands and thousands of pages and the average protestor does not have highly specialised knowledge in the required fields.

So they are incoherent because there are thousands of pages of regulatory code? or are you saying they are not incoherent but just do not know what to do about their um angst? regarding an issue that they do not understand because of so much code? so this is not incoherent because they feel that they want to do something about something that they cannot define in ways that they are not quite sure will work and then you want to say this is not incoherent? Any fool can figure out where the policies are being created and that is Washington so AGAIN why are they protesting at Wall Street?

Again, so what? This can be claimed about most belief systems we have as humans.

And here you get a first prize championship trophy for a most incoherent, incomprehensible statement. I believe that my wife is cheating, do I need to go to another city to find some random person or persons to challenge? because I cannot figure out where my wife is or because I blame a random stranger in another city for somehow being to blame. I do not know that but I feel that it might be true? or the Tea Party believes and buttresses its view that government has spent increasingly large sums of money on education, welfare, entitlements and that this has not led to an improvement in any measurable standard so it organizes to protest more government. So it focuses on two areas: getting government to spend less and get out of certain segments of the economy and or society. Would you say the Tea Party had a difficult time defining its objectives? I would not. And it went to Washington not New York to protest OR it went to areas where government was present not to McDonalds to complain about the price of a happy meal.

It is you who has an axe to grind here by ignoring these kinds of points that have already been mentioned by plenty of other posters already.

Well, since you ONLY JUST made the point that the OWS movement is about getting the 1% to pay more, it is hard to say is it not that I have an axe to grind by ignoring points that you have not even made until just now.

I don't even agree with them a lot of the time, but to claim that OWS doesn't even know what it's about is ridiculous.

You do not agree with them a lot of the time. Regarding what? You finally got around to saying that the movement is about getting the 1% to pay more. That is the statement that you have made now regarding what it is this movement stands for and you stated here that this is clear to all that every time these people have been interviewed this is the ONE stance that came up. Are you now sure or are you going to go back and refer to redistributive economics or social justice? or are they no longer relative now that you have determined that the ONE stance is getting the 1% to pay more or are the earlier two mere manifestations of the overall spirit of that stance?

So how can you disagree with them a lot of them time when there is only one principle? Either you agree or you disagree that the 1% need to pay more. What else is there? Are there other stances? or are we having a disagreement about homoousinism vs. homoiousinism or in which case, would you state that your earlier statements regarding there being one response EVERY time is incorrect or incorrectly interpreted or stated incorrectly by yourself no less or are you being incoherent here because you believe that there are other stated aims? or they all part of the one overall arching aim of getting the 1% to pay more and if there are other aims, what are they? or are they, too, just manifestations of getting the 1% to pay more. Finally, IF that is your FINAL stance, why would they be protesting at Wall Street? to shame the companies into paying more tax? after all, the tax policies are set in Washington, but the protesters know that right? because they are coherent, intellectually and morally... so again, why are they not in Washington but in New York... one wonders...

I think that we are finally achieving your true but hidden aim which is to engage in the aretaics of eudaemonics to advance agnoiology... clearly that must be the case and I applaud your devious devilsh demonic sense of irony in doing so.

[fred smith]

fred smith wrote:
4. Given that it is the left that is bereft (rhymes, doesn´t it?) of traditional morality and Christianity, I saw an even closer tie to the moral and intellectual incoherence of the movement and Nietzsche´s views.

It is far from given. You have done nothing to prove that at all.

I had an imaginary friend once. I believe that I called him Bob though I cannot remember. It was rather a long time ago. I think that his name was Bob but I cannot be sure. Of course, I do recall with clarity that I had this imaginary friend and I imagine that his name was Bob but I cannot be sure. It could have been Tom but that might have been another imaginary friend that I imagine that I had but cannot be sure. I am sure however that I did have ONE imaginary friend and I am not quite sure whether his name was Bob and there may have been another, perhaps, Tom? Or that could have beent the name of the imaginary friend that I DID have and I am sure about that (except the name of course) and then the other one that I am not sure about might have had a different name though I cannot be sure about that. My teacher used to get angry with me when I would talk to Bob or was it Tom? during class... She demanded, or perhaps, asked me to? I cannot really remember you see as a child one might view an adult asking one as a demand while as an adult one may look at the question as merely asking for information. It appears to have something to do with power and authority in the relationship, I think, though I cannot be sure though I imagine that this might be the way a child of 9 would have viewed the matter though now that I am much older, I see things differently though I can imagine how I felt and even imagine that I recall feeling that way as a child though I cannot be absolutely 100 percent sure. So, when my teacher asked me to prove Bob (or was it Toms) existence, I was perplexed you see (well maybe you dont) because Bob (or perhaps Tom) was a reality to me and though the teacher could not see it I was sure in my beliefs except of course regarding the name and so I tried and tried (or at least I thought that I did) but the teacher would not see or imagine my reality and I am sensing (though I cannot be sure) that this may be a problem for others with the same mindset (of a nine-year-old) though I cannot be sure but I think that I am. So, when it came to proving to her that my friend (Bob or possibly Tom) existed, I thought that I would ask Bob, perhaps Tom? to tell the teacher that he existed but he could not you see because I imagine that it was because he was imaginary though I cannot be quite sure that this was the case because he existed in my reality so there you have it. Morally, my reality would ensure that I was kind to Bob though he or Tom did not really exist but the sense of my understanding of being moral and feeling good about it was that I sense that Bob or perhaps Tom really liked me and this gave me a sense of achievement even though neither existed. I still felt the reassurance of their presence and even bought them gifts. I spent a lot of time picking out those gifts to get just the one that Bob (again I cannot be sure) that I knew that he would love (though I might have been confusing him with Tom) and I would wrap them up in just the color that Bob liked (problem if it were really Tom though...) and then I would organize a special event and invite all of Bobs (Toms) friends to the party though of course they were imaginary as well... but pérhaps given that Bob was imaginary not to him or was it Tom? So you SEE that to imagine is to create is to feel is to identify is to know is to understand that imaginary can be real and that is really cool, dont you think?

[bob]

Oh alright, for pete's sake.

They are protesting at wall street because they "know" that it is wall street that corrupts the democratic process.

Don't you feel silly now?

And no, I am not likely to respond to whatever response I get here, not that it isn't totally stimulating and all that but because I literally have a broken back from working, and typing isn't exactly the best thing for it.

From the point of view of your demented little universe that will seem ironic for a moment probably.

[fred smith]

Right on! It's about time the people stood up for themselves! 40 votes or 48%
I think the protesters have some good points. 10 votes or 12%
I have mixed feelings about it. 6 votes or 7%
I think it's a waste of time. 9 votes or 11%
What a bunch of stupid lefty dorks! 13 votes or 15%

I could not help but imagine taking the percentages above and changing the titles slightly. I think that the number would still match up amazingly well to the answer to the question.



English teacher at a kindergarten: 40 votes or 48%
English teacher at a buxiban: 10 votes or 12%
Management or supervisor at an English language kindergarten or buxiban: 6 votes or 7%
English-language editor: 9 votes or 11%
Expatriate management at a multinational, lawyer, professional: 13 votes or 15%

[fred smith]

Oh alright, for pete's sake.

Sure that you dont want to use for Christs sake instead? to join in the spirit of the discussion?

They are protesting at wall street because they "know" that it is wall street that corrupts the democratic process.

Hmmm. At least that is the first response that I have had regarding why they are protesting at Wall Street.

Don't you feel silly now?

Silly? because it took the supporters or sympathizers of this movement 46 pages to suggest what it is that they are protesting and one on page 46 to tell us finally why they are protesting at Wall Street? Not silly but somewhat incoherent might be a better term...

And no, I am not likely to respond to whatever response I get here, not that it isn't totally stimulating and all that but because I have literally a broken back from working, and typing isn't exactly the best thing for it.

Working at an English-language warehouse now? I may have to change the subject headings in the vote of my last post...

From the point of view of your demented little universe that will seem ironic for a moment probably.

Not ironic but silly. Thanks for the suggestion on how I might feel about this though. I feel that my feelings about this subject are ironically very silly but at least they are not incoherent, eh?

[fred smith]

All right. We have three reasons from Guy in Taiwan though it could be only one depending on the EVERYmans response or it could be a Trinitarian interpretation of the three manifestations of one spirit of protest... they are as follows:

1. Redistributive economics
2. Social justice
3. (and this time I really mean it!) Getting the 1% to pay more in taxes

We also have a vote from Bob that is more thorough in its explanation of WHY the protesters are at Wall Street as follows:

Wall Street has a corrupting influence.

So, after 46 pages, we have these two or perhaps four responses regarding what the Occupy Wall Street movement stands for and finally one explanation of why there are at Wall Street. Anyone want to add to the reasons why they are protesting and confirm that Bobs view for why they are at Wall Street is the correct and universely accepted ONE reason?

I will wait while you talk among yourselves...

[fred smith]

Anyway, now that we finally have people on paper with their interpretations of the demands of the Occupy Wall Street movement, lets look at what others are saying. Lets read on below:

From the Huffington Post:

Since the emergence of the Occupy Wall Street (OWS) movement a great deal of attention has been focused on establishing what this movement wants. To understand and get at this movement's demands, we asked the following open-ended question of respondents at three Occupy locations:

Question: "If you could enact ONE policy to address America's problems today, what would it be?"

To date we have asked this at the Occupy locations in New York (100 respondents - October 22-23), Boston (95 respondents - October 23) and Washington, D.C. (38 respondents - October 30). The responses to this question were recorded verbatim. As these interviews are part of an ongoing project to generate data on various Occupy locations, we present a summary of the key policies articulated thus far with the caveat that these results should be viewed as preliminary and suggestive rather than conclusive and representative of the entire Occupy movement.

A Note on Classification: To best capture respondents' vocabulary we have reproduced below the words they used to identify the "ONE policy" they would enact. We have grouped the key policies under general categories. In a number of cases respondents used different words to describe a similar policy, to the extent possible we have also reproduced the different ways in which they referred to a similar policy.

I. Policies to reduce/eliminate corporate influence in politics

Eliminate corporate personhood / End corporate personhood / Policy to separate corporations and people / Overturn Citizens United versus Federal Election Commission (2008 Supreme Court decision) / Repeal the decision that dollars equal free speech

Campaign finance reform / Election finance reform / Election Change / Campaign laws / Public financing of elections / Complete reform of elections

Get corporate money out of elections / Get dollars out of politics / End corporate support of politicians / Money in politics

II. Policies to reform the tax structure

Progressive taxes / Raise taxes on the rich / More taxes above a certain income level / Tax wealthy / Tax the upper classes more / Tax the rich / Raise taxes on income above US $200k / Tax higher incomes

Increase taxes on corporations / Make corporations pay their fair share of taxes / Taxing financial transactions

Reduce taxes / Decrease taxes / Tax relief

Eliminate tax loopholes / End tax loopholes

Tax reform / Change the tax code

Fair taxation

Tax code that favors the middle class

III. Policies to create jobs

Jobs / Create more jobs / Program for full employment / Real jobs program / Universal jobs program / Move from unproductive job sectors / Organized discussion on jobs / Get American back to work / Putting people to work / Job plan / Obama's Job Plan.

IV. Policies related to healthcare

Universal healthcare / Healthcare / Healthcare policy

Single-payer healthcare / Single-payer

Nationalize healthcare

Affordable healthcare

More sustainable healthcare

V. Policies related to the environment and energy

Eliminate use of coal

Decrease dependence on oil

Carbon free dividend system

Green technology

VI. Anti-war policies

End wars / Stop the wars / Abolish war policy / End wars entirely / End United States' incursion in Iraq and Afghanistan

Stop sending soldiers / Bring half of our soldiers home by Christmas

VII. Policies to reform education

Education reform / Improve education / Serious overhaul of education

Debt forgiveness for student loans

VIII. Miscellaneous policies related to political economy

Jobs against outsourcing, make outsourcing illegal, make outsourcing costly, jobs staying in the US.

More equality / More equal distribution of wealth

End capitalism / Get rid of capitalism / Abolish capitalism,

Reinstate the Glass-Stegall Act / Re-regulate the financial system / Re-regulate the banking sector

Forgive loans and debts / Debt relief for individuals

Keynesian spending / FDR style New Deal

Invest heavily in public works / Public works / Build infrastructure

Employee's free choice act

IX. Don't Know:

Close to one fifth of all the respondents interviewed responded "Don't Know."

So what does the OWS Movement want? Our preliminary results suggest that the Occupy Wall Street movement has an array of political demands that are not very different from mainstream Americans. One things is for certain, there is a need for more data-driven analysis and less speculation with regard to the demands of this movement, especially as it continues to evolve.

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/ali-hayat ... 89079.html

So out of 233 respondents, we get 9 major categories of responses with 10 to 15 different responses for each category so roughly 90 to 135 different answers among only 233 people with 20 percent saying they dont know why they are there. Okay...

From the official organizers, these demands...

Occupy Wall Street (OWS) is an ongoing series of demonstrations initiated by the Canadian activist group Adbusters which began September 17, 2011 in Zuccotti Park, located in New York City's Wall Street financial district. The protests are against social and economic inequality, high unemployment, greed, as well as corruption, and the undue influence of corporations—particularly from the financial services sector—on government. The protesters' slogan We are the 99% refers to the growing difference in wealth in the U.S. between the wealthiest 1% and the rest of the population.

And then this is the stated reason for being at Wall Street:

The protesters targeted Wall Street because of the part it played in the economic crisis of 2008 which started the Great Recession. They say that Wall Street's risky lending practices of mortgage-backed securities which ultimately proved to be worthless caused the crisis, and that the government bailout breached a sense of propriety. The protesters say that Wall Street recklessly and blatantly abused the credit default swap market, and that the instability of that market must have been known beforehand. They say that the guilty parties should be prosecuted.[22]

But I am not along in being confused regarding the aims... and if the aims are clear as stated below then what the hell are most of the people who responded to the Huffington Post questionnaire doing at the protests. Either the protest movement lacks coherence OR most of the protesters there do. Which is it?

Some journalists have criticized the protests saying it is hard to discern a unified aim for the movement, while other commentators have said that although the movement is not in complete agreement on its message and goals, it does have a message which is fairly coherent. Douglas Rushkoff, writing for CNN, said that even though the protesters are not ready to articulate an exact array of problems or how to solve them. 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...They mean to show that there is an inappropriate and correctable disconnect between the abundance America produces and the scarcity its markets manufacture.[23]

So, we KNOW that the movement is about Wall Street getting richer while the rest of us are finding conditions tougher and tougher. Okay...

To continue...

The protesters want, in part, more and better jobs, more equal distribution of income, bank reform, and a reduction of the influence of corporations on politics.[23][24] Adbusters co-founder Kalle Lasn has compared the protests to the Situationists and the Protests of 1968 movements.[25][22] and addresses critics saying that while no one person can speak for the movement, he believes that the goal of the protests is economic justice, specifically, a "transaction tax" on international financial speculation, the reinstatement of the Glass-Stegall Act and the revocation of corporate personhood.[7]

Sure. How does that match up with the responses given to the Huffington Post... from the looks of it very few responded with the Glass-Stegall Act, perhaps, from the looks of it two or three out of 233 respondents...

The General Assembly, the governing body of the OWS movement, has adopted a “Declaration of the Occupation of New York City,” which includes a list of grievances against corporations, and to many protesters a general statement is enough.

A general statement that says what exactly?

However, saying, "‘Power concedes nothing without a demand' " others within the movement have favored a fairly concrete set of national policy proposals.[26]

yes, and if we refer back to the Huffington Post, we get quite a list of specifics...

One group has written an unofficial document, "The 99 Percent Declaration”, that calls for a national general assembly of representatives from all 435 congressional districts to gather on July 4, 2012, to assemble a list of grievances and solutions.[

To ASSEMBLE a list of grievances and solutions... that would indicate that such a comprehensive list and idea for solutions does not yet exist... er... so ...

OWS protesters that prefer a looser, more localized set of goals have also written a document, the Liberty Square Blueprint,[30] a wiki page edited by some 250 occupiers and still undergoing changes.

Localized goals so not Glass Steagal Act and comprehensive financial reform? Still undergoing changes... so it is not final and not yet decided on what it is protesting and what action should be taken? Compare and contrast this with the very clear two demands of the Tea Party movement and the very specific action taken.

Written as a wiki the wording changes, however, an early version read:

If the wording changes then can we say what the final demands of this movement are? do we go with the official organizers or the responses given by the respondents to Huffington Post? Again, either the protesters do not know what the protest is about or the protest is all over the place. There are two choices here. If we take Occupy Wall Street organizers as being coherent about what the protest is about then most of the protesters are there for the wrong reasons leading to the comment that we could make that the protesters are incoherent. Which is it?

And just in case anyone had any doubts about the incoherence of this movement, this is the final statement quoted regarding its demands... worthy of many of our posters on this forum I would say!

"Demands cannot reflect inevitable success. Demands imply condition, and we will never stop. Demands cannot reflect the time scale that we are working with."[27]

Earlier, I referred to the Guardian, and it took is quoted here:

The Guardian interviewed OWS and found three main demands: get the money out of politics; reinstate the Glass-Steagall act; and draft laws against the little-known loophole that currently allows members of Congress to pass legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations in which they themselves are investors. [31]

I scoffed, questioning how the Guardian could determine this and lo and behold taking the respondents to Huffington, this clearly is a false and guided response. I challenge anyone on this forum to tell me how many of these protesters they think are aware of legislation affecting Delaware-based corporations as described above! Poppycock!

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

[BigJohn]

Moderator's note: This thread is getting a bit long, and is becoming a bit too focused on an intense and an increasingly heated debate between only a few participants. I am going to lock it. There will be a new thread called "Occupy Wall Street: What do you think? (Part 2) POLL" for further inputs. Thanks, JOHN