Occupy Wall Street protest in New-York

[OmCheeto]

Well I am a student, and also if usa used propaganda so much, and I don't know anything about communism, I don't have the right to judge it. Maybe the fundementals of communism were good, but it got corrupted like capitalism.

Yes. One of the corrupting influences is money. (And money is an underlying current root of power, which my friend from Hyderabad has told me is the ultimate corrupting influence) Our government has been corrupted by it. This should be, IMHO, the crux of the OWS protest.

Many people have complained that the OWS movement is without focus. I personally don't see this as a problem, as most everyone has their own self interests at heart, and all of our interests were determined by our path in life.

So I'll share some of my self interests.

#1:

One nice thing that came about at the Occupy Portland was the voicing of legislation being advocated by one of our representatives. It's a nasty little bill that would take a big chunk out of wall streets gambling. No one I've ever talked to thinks the bill has any chance of leaving the guys desk, so it's more a symbol than anything else. But last year a pair of millionaires from the other side of the country spent $300,000 running ads to have our representative unseated. Fortunately, he won his seat back. But as one of his supporters, it kind of rubbed me the wrong way. Is that how we want to run this country? Having hedge fund managers financially attacking our elected officials?​

#2:

Someone mentioned a few hundred comments back, that the Bush taxes cuts benefited everyone. While true, I'm pretty sure a person making $1 million a year saw a much greater benefit than someone making $30 thousand a year.

By my calculations, it was a tax reduction of $50,300 vs. $559 per year. (2001 vs 2003 tax tables)*
So the person making a million a year could buy herself a new Mercedes, while the person making $30k a year could buy a TV. And the whole time, the nation was/is going broke.​

#2.5

[STRIKE]I would mention the blog that says about 72 American's incomes jumped from $50 million a year two years ago to $500 million a year last year, but I can't verify the facts.[/STRIKE]
That's because it was a lie!
Found it: http://ssa.gov/cgi-bin/netcomp.cgi?year=2009
Oh. This is so sad.
In 2007 there were 151 people making an average of $94 million dollars a year.
By 2009, the numbers had dropped to 72 people making only $84 million dollars a year.
Well, at least the Bush tax cuts gave them each an extra $5.11 million dollars a year.
Yay! A new dingy! ​

*fed_individual_rate_history-20110323.xls(sorry I don't have a direct link. I have the copy locally. I probably downloaded it from the IRS.gov site months ago)

[SIZE="1/2"]ok to delete, as I have my ammo now... :!)[/SIZE]

 

[mheslep]

... capitalism from its beginning in England, expropriation of the land from the agricultural population
[enclosers], child labor,market driven famines, conquest of Americas, disappearance of Native population and slavery. ...

I suggest these woes have been occurring in some form since the beginning of agriculture circa 8000 BCE. Placing them all on the head of the 18th century English is, well, it's just not cricket.

 

[OmCheeto]

So, I ran the numbers on one of the demands: $20/hour guaranteed salary regardless of employment status. By taking the number of tax filers (all returns + married filing jointly) this works out to $6.5T in 2009. By a strange coincidence, the total AGI is almost the same: $6.7T.

So not only would this be a minimum wage, it would be a maximum wage. We would all get this, whether or not we worked. Under such conditions, why work at all? Imagine...a society where nobody at all ever had to work, and we could spend all of our time singing, and dancing, and creating works of literature and art.

Doesn't that sound like paradise? Only an ogre could be against this!

I thought I'd already debunked the "list of demands" back in https://www.physicsforums.com/showpost.php?p=3558226&postcount=429"?

http://occupywallst.org/forum]Admin[/PLAIN] note: This is not an official list of demands. This is a forum post submitted by a single user and hyped by irresponsible news/commentary agencies like Fox News and Mises.org. This content was not published by the OccupyWallSt.org collective, nor was it ever proposed or agreed to on a consensus basis with the NYC General Assembly. There is NO official list of demands.

shouting mine

Though I do agree with your maths. Hence, why I said; "I have to admit, the list is pretty funny."

 

[LaurieAG]

Capitalism didn't "start." Capitalism is the natural state of human trade and commerce. It's not something that was designed, its what happens when you DON'T have a designed economy.

Have you been watching the NY Times market chart of the DOW over the past couple of years?

You would probably notice that the rise/fall of about 3 out of every 5 days trade now is almost entirely determined by the last/first couple of minutes trade if you compare the 5 day chart with the one day chart. On the days that this is not happening (and its not at the beginning and end of the week) the market behaves normally. During market hours the DOW operates as a parallel system where all participants can take part in trades, when the market closes all of the queued trades and overnight done deals are treated serially by the trading systems before the real market starts.

Would anybody claim that this dark side of the market is perfectly ok?

Capitalism did not win the cold war over Communism, corruption did!

 

[WhoWee]

The "movement" claims widespread support.
http://occupywallst.org/

"In the last month, the message of “We are the 99%” has won the hearts and minds of over half of Americans (according to a recent Time survey) and is gaining ground globally, with 1500 protests in 82 countries this past Saturday (October 15)."

It's strange - not a single person has told me in-person they support this movement?

Perhaps this explains the Time survey?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...s-support-behind-occupy-wall-street-movement/

"Nazis and Communists Throw Their Support Behind Occupy Wall Street Movements"

It seems unusual both of these groups would support a single cause though?

 

[WhoWee]

Given the popularity of Congress - maybe this explains the success of the movement?
http://www.politickerny.com/2011/10/10/house-democrats-ask-for-support-of-occupy-wall-street/

"The Democratic Congressional Campaign Committee sent out an email this afternoon asking supporters to sign a petition backing the Occupy Wall Street protests in Lower Manhattan.

“Protestors are assembling in New York and around the country to let billionaires, big oil and big bankers know that we’re not going to let the richest 1% force draconian economic policies and massive cuts to crucial programs on Main Street Americans,” the group, the campaign arm of House Democrats, wrote."

 

[grzz]

Ordinary people are becoming 'slaves' and forced to accept wages that are not sufficient to support a family just because they are threatened that if they ask for better wages then their job is trasferred to another country since in the other country one can find a worse type of 'slavery' since the conditions of work in the other country are very poor and the people there have to accept what they can get.

 

[MarcoD]

Perhaps this explains the Time survey?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...s-support-behind-occupy-wall-street-movement/

"Nazis and Communists Throw Their Support Behind Occupy Wall Street Movements"

It seems unusual both of these groups would support a single cause though?

I think my intellect just crashed. Where's your reset button?

 

[WhoWee]

I think my intellect just crashed. Where's your reset button?

You can't make this stuff up.

 

[FlexGunship]

Perhaps this explains the Time survey?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...s-support-behind-occupy-wall-street-movement/

"Nazis and Communists Throw Their Support Behind Occupy Wall Street Movements"

It seems unusual both of these groups would support a single cause though?

Wow, yeah. I've been reading (but avoiding posting) for a few hundred million posts in this thread. But look at this:

While there is a wide range of political and ideological trends, there is a consensus against corporate greed, getting money out of politics, taxing the rich and putting people before profits.

A big challenge for the CPUSA [Communist Part USA] and left, progressive movements is to link these demonstrations with the labor led all-people’s coalition and help deepen understanding that the path to progress must be through electoral and political action including defeating Republican Tea Party reaction in 2012.

Of primary importance is linking it with the burgeoning fight for jobs and especially passage of the American Jobs Act.

We can also play a role in offering more advanced programmatic ideas like nationalizing the banks and socialism.

To have a positive impact, the CPUSA and YCL [Young Communist League] must be a part of the “Occupy” movement, participating at every level and building greater local support for the actions among labor and progressive forces.

(Source: http://www.cpusa.org/solidarity-with-occupy-wall-street-teleconference-oct-11/ Emphasis mine.)

If that isn't a formal indictment of the movement, then literally nothing will be.

 

[Proton Soup]

Wow, yeah. I've been reading (but avoiding posting) for a few hundred million posts in this thread. But look at this:


(Source: http://www.cpusa.org/solidarity-with-occupy-wall-street-teleconference-oct-11/ Emphasis mine.)

If that isn't a formal indictment of the movement, then literally nothing will be.

what are you talking about? it's just yet another group wanting to latch onto this and gain publicity from it.

 

[FlexGunship]

what are you talking about? it's just yet another group wanting to latch onto this and gain publicity from it.

So, if it's an ugly group, they're just "wanting to latch onto this and gain publicity from it," but if the group is reputable and favorable, then it's an endorsement?

Double-standard.

 

[SixNein]

I know next to nothing about this movement. Is this movement the liberal version of tea party?

Is the crackpot factor as high as with the tea party movement?

 

[Proton Soup]

So, if it's an ugly group, they're just "wanting to latch onto this and gain publicity from it," but if the group is reputable and favorable, then it's an endorsement?

Double-standard.

again, what are you talking about? i didn't say they were ugly. i don't know squat about them. does obama want to latch onto them? is obama ugly? if the republicans want to co-opt the tea party movement, does that make them ugly?

 

[Char. Limit]

The "movement" claims widespread support.
http://occupywallst.org/

"In the last month, the message of “We are the 99%” has won the hearts and minds of over half of Americans (according to a recent Time survey) and is gaining ground globally, with 1500 protests in 82 countries this past Saturday (October 15)."

It's strange - not a single person has told me in-person they support this movement?

I highly doubt that you and TIME magazine run with the same crowd. Highly, highly doubt.

Perhaps this explains the Time survey?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...s-support-behind-occupy-wall-street-movement/

"Nazis and Communists Throw Their Support Behind Occupy Wall Street Movements"

It seems unusual both of these groups would support a single cause though?

No, not really. They both want to gain publicity, and this is the way to do it. Not to mention if they can succeed in subverting the movement for their own cause, they stand to gain a lot of power. This doesn't indict the movement itself.

 

[skippy1729]

The "movement" claims widespread support.
http://occupywallst.org/

"In the last month, the message of “We are the 99%” has won the hearts and minds of over half of Americans (according to a recent Time survey) and is gaining ground globally, with 1500 protests in 82 countries this past Saturday (October 15)."

It's strange - not a single person has told me in-person they support this movement?

Perhaps this explains the Time survey?
http://www.thegatewaypundit.com/201...s-support-behind-occupy-wall-street-movement/

"Nazis and Communists Throw Their Support Behind Occupy Wall Street Movements"

It seems unusual both of these groups would support a single cause though?

I only know two people who support these protests. One is a local 911 truther and the other is my communist step-son living in the People's Republic of Madison.

Regarding the Time survey. It is all a game. Bank bailouts and the toxic influence of money in our political system are widely held beliefs. And government policies do favor SOME rich big businesses (G.E. Solyndra, Fannie, Freddie and, of course the bailouts). I find it natural that 29% of respondents feel that since they agree with some of the issues then they should vote "SOMEWHAT FAVORABLE". Most of them probably should have voted "DON'T KNOW ENOUGH". The phrasing of the question certainly did not include the phrase "and they want to destroy capitalism". The phrasing of the question was biased towards the protests. A neutral question would have been: How do you view the current Occupy Wall Street protests? Who would have guessed that Time is not neutral?

Strange that the nazis and reds support the same protest? Reds hate bankers, nazis hate jew-bankers, both want to recruit naive disaffected young people.

 

[FlexGunship]

No, not really. They both want to gain publicity, and this is the way to do it. Not to mention if they can succeed in subverting the movement for their own cause, they stand to gain a lot of power. This doesn't indict the movement itself.

Is there any group that could align itself ideologically with the Occupy Wall Street movement that would be cause to reconsider? The idea that the supporters of a movement have nothing to do with the movement is... I don't know... hard to believe?

 

[Char. Limit]

Is there any group that could align itself ideologically with the Occupy Wall Street movement that would be cause to reconsider? The idea that the supporters of a movement have nothing to do with the movement is... I don't know... hard to believe?

All right then. Say I go out and say "I support Occupy Wall St! And I also support baby-killing!" Does this mean that the group itself is somehow tarnished by this? Because that's what you're implying.

 

[FlexGunship]

All right then. Say I go out and say "I support Occupy Wall St! And I also support baby-killing!" Does this mean that the group itself is somehow tarnished by this? Because that's what you're implying.

Straw man.

The CPUSA is a national political organization with goals and money to realize them (http://www.cpusa.org). If you're unfamiliar with the organization you should read about it. This group was once ~60,000 members strong and have been round for 90 years. They're not trying to ride the publicity here, their views align with the stated goals of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

If you can find a baby-murdering organization of equal size with such a long history then... I don't even know... your example was absurd.

 

[skippy1729]

All right then. Say I go out and say "I support Occupy Wall St! And I also support baby-killing!" Does this mean that the group itself is somehow tarnished by this? Because that's what you're implying.

Yes, exactly what the media did with their relentless search for racist Tea Party members. Most of these protesters are not communists or anarchists, most of them are just young, spoiled and ignorant.

Skippy

 

[Char. Limit]

Straw man.

The CPUSA is a national political organization with goals and money to realize them (http://www.cpusa.org). If you're unfamiliar with the organization you should read about it. This group was once ~60,000 members strong and have been round for 90 years. They're not trying to ride the publicity here, their views align with the stated goals of the Occupy Wall Street movement.

If you can find a baby-murdering organization of equal size with such a long history then... I don't even know... your example was absurd.

What goals? I've never seen an "official" list of demands. The best you've managed to find is a list by one person, who was then derided by other people!

And as for straw-man, I was trying to make a comparison. You're basically giving the group guilt by association, saying that "Well if the Communist Party supports it, it must be bad!" I was pointing out that anyone can support a group, and that doesn't change the group itself.

 

[Proton Soup]

What goals? I've never seen an "official" list of demands. The best you've managed to find is a list by one person, who was then derided by other people!

And as for straw-man, I was trying to make a comparison. You're basically giving the group guilt by association, saying that "Well if the Communist Party supports it, it must be bad!" I was pointing out that anyone can support a group, and that doesn't change the group itself.

there is no official list. in fact, it's the most oft-used criticism of the movement, their lack of organization and clearly stated goals.

 

[FlexGunship]

What goals? I've never seen an "official" list of demands. The best you've managed to find is a list by one person, who was then derided by other people!

First of all, I haven't provided any list, but I've read several. Secondly, are you honestly suggesting that at this point there's still no purpose to the Occupy Wall Street Movement, or are you saying it's a secret?

You're kind of degrading the importance of the movement when you say it has no goals.

And as for straw-man, I was trying to make a comparison. You're basically giving the group guilt by association, saying that "Well if the Communist Party supports it, it must be bad!" I was pointing out that anyone can support a group, and that doesn't change the group itself.

I provided an except that indicated the CPUSA intended to offer material support to the movement. That's the same relationship that indicts criminals! It's not a glancing blow, it's not lip-service, it's a serious connection. Now if the OWS movement comes out and says: "Uhhhh, no thanks guys" that would be different, but I suspect no such statement will be made.

EDIT: When this is all done, and history looks back on it, it will be viewed exactly the same as the "Canada on Strike" episode of South Park.

 

[FlexGunship]

I got an e-mail indicating that someone likened my reasoning to "reductio ad Hitlerum." That's a fair criticism if Hitler were to lend material support and effort to something. Let's not get off into the bushes, but there's a difference here.

CPUSA existed long before the OWS movement did, can we agree on that? The CPUSA has also had the same goals as the OWS movement (however mysteriously they might someday be revealed to us). Finally, the OWS movement has become so radical that even the CPUSA identifies with them!

That is NOT reductio ad Hitlerum.

If you leave meat out until it goes bad and maggots are growing out of it and then you use the maggots as an indicator of meat quality that IS NOT "reductio ad maggotum." It's a useful metric! Ya' prolly shudint eet da meet!

 

[MarcoD]

If you leave meat out until it goes bad and maggots are growing out of it and then you use the maggots as an indicator of meat quality that IS NOT "reductio ad maggotum." It's a useful metric! Ya' prolly shudint eet da meet!

You just changed an ad Hitlerum to an ad hominem. You can't vote for any party if you "realize" who co-supports it.

[http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Association_fallacy" ]

 

[FlexGunship]

You just changed an ad Hitlerum to an ad hominem.

I didn't attack anyone. Ad hominem means you attacked the debater and not his argument.

 

[MarcoD]

I didn't attack anyone. Ad hominem means you attacked the debater and not his argument.

Well, in essence, you attacked the OWS movement with a "guilty by association" fallacy; one could call that an Ad Hominem. Whatever.

 

[DaveC426913]

I got an e-mail indicating that someone likened my reasoning to "reductio ad Hitlerum." That's a fair criticism if Hitler were to lend material support and effort to something.

That was me, and I deleted it, for the reason you mention.

At first I thought you were mistaken, that this was, as Char.Limit claimed, a case of fallacious guilt by association. But you highlighted the key point: material support. If a group accepts support from an organization (somebody's got to be there to take the money), then they are willingly associating themselves with that organization.

To Char.Limit's claim: "anyone can support a group, and that doesn't change the group itself."

If the group accepts material support (such as money or goods) then it does indeed change the group itself.

-​

Put another way, guilt by association is a fallacious argument if the association only goes one way (organization associates itself with the cause, but cause does not associate itself with the organization).

But when it goes both ways (cause also associates itself, via acceptance of material support, with the organization), it becomes a real association, and a valid argument.

-​

 

[Char. Limit]

That was me, and I deleted it, for the reason you mention.

At first I thought you were mistaken, that this was, as Char.Limit claimed, a case of fallacious guilt by association. But you highlighted the key point: material support. If a group accepts support from an organization (somebody's got to be there to take the money), then they are willingly associating themselves with that organization.

To Char.Limit's claim: "anyone can support a group, and that doesn't change the group itself."

If the group accepts material support (such as money or goods) then it does indeed change the group itself.

We'll just see if the OWS movement accepts it.

 

[Proton Soup]

i remember when Reagan accepted money from the Log Cabin Republicans. his response was that by giving money to his campaign, the LCR were signing on to his agenda, not he to theirs.

 

[WhoWee]

i remember when Reagan accepted money from the Log Cabin Republicans. his response was that by giving money to his campaign, the LCR were signing on to his agenda, not he to theirs.

Yet none of the mainstream media seems to question this - perhaps this is why it's acceptable for the Occupiers to include ultra-left wing radical (yes radical - calling for revolution is radical) fringe groups?

http://nation.foxnews.com/president-obama/2011/08/04/communist-party-endorses-obama-2012

"Communist Party Endorses Obama For 2012"

 

[Evo]

Is there really an OWS "movement"? Isn't this a case of 'rebels without a cause"? it's been repeated here that these people aren't organized, most don't know why they're there other than they saw it online and thought it would be cool since they have nothing else to do.

What I see, IMO, is a bunch of clueless sheeple being led by a media outlet (adbusters in Canada).

There's even a website called occupywallstreet.org that is asking people to help put together a list of demands! "Ok, now that we got people to protest, what do you think we should be protesting?"

 

[jambaugh]

I cannot help but compare the news clips of the "protest" to the "Die Hippie, Die!" episode of South Park: http://www.southparkstudios.com/full-episodes/s09e02-die-hippie-die"

 

[chiro]

Is there really an OWS "movement"? Isn't this a case of 'rebels without a cause"? it's been repeated here that these people aren't organized, most don't know why they're there other than they saw it online and thought it would be cool since they have nothing else to do.

What I see, IMO, is a bunch of clueless sheeple being led by a media outlet (adbusters in Canada).

There's even a website called occupywallstreet.org that is asking people to help put together a list of demands! "Ok, now that we got people to protest, what do you think we should be protesting?"

There is a great deal of truth in what you are saying: it does seem to be rather highly unorganized with no central agreed to list of demands.

However not all people in this protest are just turning up for the hell of it. Some people have some specific ideas and at least make statements to support their argument:

 

[KingNothing]

I support the movement as a whole, but even moreso, I detest some of the overreactions by police forces, politicians, and political media.