Occupy Wall Street protest in New-York

[mheslep]

The way I see it, there should be perpetual protesting. I'm only half kidding. ...

There is perpetual protest in the US. Most of it does not permanently take over the common spaces, unlike the overnight stays ongoing in NY now.

 

[John Creighto]

Former Clinton pollster Douglas Schoen has polled the OWS crowd; what he found is published http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html".

This is probably the closest to a summary paragraph,

[/i]"What binds a large majority of the protesters together—regardless of age, socioeconomic status or education—is a deep commitment to left-wing policies: opposition to free-market capitalism and support for radical redistribution of wealth, intense regulation of the private sector, and protectionist policies to keep American jobs from going overseas.

"[/i]

but I recommend people read the whole article. Lots of numbers there.

I’ll assume the polling wasn’t manipulated (which can be done easy enough), there is nothing in the poll results that support the above "summary". Consequently this is purely an opinion piece and shouldn’t be presented as factual evidence to support your claim.

From skimming the article I saw no poll question asking them if they are against free markets or for "intense regulation", clearly they weren't asked if they wanted to "radically redistribute wealth", and calling tax changes a radical redistribution of wealth is a political statement.

Doesn’t it say in the forum guidelines that if you are stating an opinion you have to state it as an opinion not as if it were a fact? Here are the only poll questions I saw with regards to policy:

"Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost. By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody, with only 36% in favor. And by a close margin, protesters are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary (49%) or unnecessary (51%).

"

The other poll questions reflected their philosophy on organizing political change and what political groups they supported. Now I don’t doubt there is a large left wing leaning in the crowd and perhaps this could cause some loss of focus. Here is what I think they should be asking for:

http://www.calgarysun.com/2011/10/14/slogans-and-demands-wont-change-world

 

[Evo]

Doesn’t it say in the forum guidelines that if you are stating an opinion you have to state it as an opinion not as if it were a fact?

A poll is opinions, it doesn't need to be re-stated as such.

 

[John Creighto]

A poll is opinions, it doesn't need to be re-stated as such.

In my opinion the summary given didn’t accurately reflect the content of the poll. Clearly if we want to accurately reflect the content of a poll we can do better than using subjective/political words.

 

[mheslep]

In my opinion the summary given didn’t accurately reflect the content of the poll. ...

You do not know the entire content of the poll, and are mistaking this summary of the poll by the pollster, which pollsters frequently make, with the poll results.

 

[DaveC426913]

You do not know the entire content of the poll, and are mistaking this summary of the poll by the pollster, which pollsters frequently make, with the poll results.

John Creighto is making no mistake. It is Vanadium's post that contains the summary - a summary that may not be valid. If there's a deficiency here, it is Vanadium inadequately making his case. John merely calls attention to this.

 

[mheslep]

John Creighto is making no mistake. It is Vanadium's post that contains the summary - a summary that may not be valid. If there's a deficiency here, it is Vanadium inadequately making his case. John merely calls attention to this.

No, that's simply not what has been written above. Creighton claims knowledge of a poll he does not have;

...didn’t accurately reflect the content of the poll.

Vanadium makes no case, only draws attention to the summary of a pollster.

 

[Proton Soup]

Brzezinski: publish their names

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/#44928287

 

[Evo]

Brzezinski: publish their names

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/3036789/#44928287

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heared. Publish a shame list of wealthy people and how much they give to charity to try to embarrass them into giving more? That them buying luxury items is wrong? Do the people in that tv video understand that they are the scumbag rich in the opinion of poor people?

 

[Proton Soup]

That is the stupidest thing I've ever heared. Publish a shame list of wealthy people and how much they give to charity to try to embarrass them into giving more? That them buying luxury items is wrong? Do the people in that tv video understand that they are the scumbag rich in the opinion of poor people?

that's not quite what he is saying. he talks quite a bit about the way they make their money, which is not to produce anything of value, but through speculation. and given Brzezinski's past (building the afghan army that was to be the USSR's "Vietnam"), i somehow don't think giving money to charity is what he's after here. it's a bit more of a 'shine the light on the cockroaches' approach to root out corruption and put accountability back in the system. but... given that it is Brzezinski, it might be prudent to wonder what else he is up to.

 

[Vanadium 50]

If there's a deficiency here, it is Vanadium inadequately making his case.

I'm not making any case at all. I'm drawing attention to someone who does this for a living and has asked the protestors what they think. I foolishly thought that people would prefer this to wild guesses.

 

[DaveC426913]

I'm not making any case at all. I'm drawing attention to someone who does this for a living and has asked the protestors what they think. I foolishly thought that people would prefer this to wild guesses.

Withdrawn. I read your post too fast. I didn't catch the bottom where you actually said "...but I recommend people read the whole article."

 

[CAC1001]

The US dollar is a fiat currency. It is no longer backed by gold, and the only thing it is backed by is faith.

What do you think gold is backed by? Gold is a worthless metal. Yes, in terms of actual uses, it has wide uses for industry, but it exists in too small a quantity to be valuable in that sense. And humans have been valuing it long before modern industry came about. Gold has a unique aspect to it in that it lasts a loooong time as a metal. If all of humanity disappeared off of this Earth, and millions of years from now, after all trace of humanity is gone, the gold in say the Federal Reserve gold vault would still be there. But I mean otherwise, gold is a worthless material. It is just a shiny metal that has value because humans say it does.

I'd say it's gold that is thus backed by faith. The U.S. dollar, on the other hand, is backed by the strength and resiliency of the U.S. economy, which IMO is far more real and tangible than the value of gold.

 

[CAC1001]

You should note that many empires based on this model, including the well known Roman Empire collapsed. Why do you think it will be different this time around?

The Roman Empire didn't collapse due to bad monetary policy. By itself, the question of what exactly caused the collapse of the Roman Empire is itself very complex. Also remember that when they say the "Roman Empire collapsed," they mean the Western half of the empire. The Eastern half, which became known as the Byzantine Empire, lasted longer than the Western half had, going all the way up to 1453, when Constantinople was captured by the Ottoman Empire.

 

[John Creighto]

[/i]Originally Posted by chiro View Post

The US dollar is a fiat currency. It is no longer backed by gold, and the only thing it is backed by is faith.[/i]
I'd say it's gold that is thus backed by faith. The U.S. dollar, on the other hand, is backed by the strength and resiliency of the U.S. economy, which IMO is far more real and tangible than the value of gold.

Saying it is backed by the strength and resilience of the U.S. economy is meaningless. When the federal reserve injects base money (called M0) into the economy it does so in exchange for an asset. This was done so that in the event the government dissolves the Federal reserve the amount each person would own of it's holdings would be related to the proportion of the total US dollars they hold.

Thus the value of money should be loosely tied to the holdings of the federal reserve. However, the primary asset which the federal reserve holds is debt which is due payable in dollars. Consequently in the event the Federal Reserve was dissolved a law would than need to be made to establish what unit of value that would be acceptable for repayment of those debts. This of course would work in the US but I don't know how it would be applied to debts owed by people in foreign countries.

Another way to dissolve the federal reserve would be to slowly change the repayment terms of assets it accepts as holdings so all debt assets held by the federal reserve are owed in another unit of value other then dollars. Once this occurs than the basis for the value of a dollar would be less circular.

As a final note, well the primary mechanism of injecting money into the economy is though an exchange of a debt type asset another alternative is something like a negative income tax. There needs to be a balance between debt levels and demand levels to keep debt sustainable. When the federal reserve has excess profits these are given to the treasury. If the federal reserved charged a higher interest one would expect greater profits which would mean greater profits for the government and hence the people.

Well, low interest rates create investment it is often creates an over investment and results into quick an expansion in credit relative to demand. Investment can occur though other means than loans such as savings, re-invested profits, partnerships and directly investing in a company.

 

[ParticleGrl]

Former Clinton pollster Douglas Schoen has polled the OWS crowd; what he found is published http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html".

I thought this was interesting

Sixty-five percent say that government has a moral responsibility to guarantee all citizens access to affordable health care, a college education, and a secure retirement—no matter the cost. By a large margin (77%-22%), they support raising taxes on the wealthiest Americans, but 58% oppose raising taxes for everybody, with only 36% in favor. And by a close margin, protesters are divided on whether the bank bailouts were necessary (49%) or unnecessary (51%).

Thus Occupy Wall Street is a group of engaged progressives who are disillusioned with the capitalist system and have a distinct activist orientation. Among the general public, by contrast, 41% of Americans self-identify as conservative, 36% as moderate, and only 21% as liberal. That's why the Obama-Pelosi embrace of the movement could prove catastrophic for their party.

He starts describing lots positions, and then uses only a single area (whether they identify as conservative, moderate or liberal) to pigeon hole the protestors by looking at the one area the crowd differs from most of America.

In reality, much of the time, most Americans poll as in-favor of universal health care (see http://voices.washingtonpost.com/ezra-klein/2010/11/americans_favor_universal_heal.html) most Americans favor raising taxes on the rich, and not on the poor see (http://capitalgainsandgames.com/blog/bruce-bartlett/2292/americans-support-higher-taxes-really), etc.

In short- the opinions of the Occupy people seem pretty consistent with those of America as a whole, not dangerous leftist radicals. I'm even willing to bet most people are divided on bank bailouts, but I can't find a poll.

 

[ThomasT]

that's not quite what he is saying. he talks quite a bit about the way they make their money, which is not to produce anything of value, but through speculation. and given Brzezinski's past (building the afghan army that was to be the USSR's "Vietnam"), i somehow don't think giving money to charity is what he's after here. it's a bit more of a 'shine the light on the cockroaches' approach to root out corruption and put accountability back in the system. but... given that it is Brzezinski, it might be prudent to wonder what else he is up to.

I got the sense that he was just calling it like he saw it. It was interesting to hear his views.

 

[chiro]

What do you think gold is backed by? Gold is a worthless metal. Yes, in terms of actual uses, it has wide uses for industry, but it exists in too small a quantity to be valuable in that sense. And humans have been valuing it long before modern industry came about. Gold has a unique aspect to it in that it lasts a loooong time as a metal. If all of humanity disappeared off of this Earth, and millions of years from now, after all trace of humanity is gone, the gold in say the Federal Reserve gold vault would still be there. But I mean otherwise, gold is a worthless material. It is just a shiny metal that has value because humans say it does.

I'd say it's gold that is thus backed by faith. The U.S. dollar, on the other hand, is backed by the strength and resiliency of the U.S. economy, which IMO is far more real and tangible than the value of gold.

One of the reasons people use gold is based on the idea that it is hard to counterfeit. For something to be money it must have certain properties and the counterfeit property is one of them (an important part none the less).

Historically there have lots of different forms of money. What separates gold from paper money is that with paper, you can just turn on the printing press and generate as much as you want. Similarly since more than 95% of the dollars are in a computer, it's easy to just create a data entry in some database to create money.

This is why things like gold and silver are considered money. Gold and silver have industrial uses like in electronics and other applications, but that is not why gold was considered money. In an environment where the money system goes to crap, bartering is usually the system that comes in.

Yes gold is in a sense a "religion" just like the fiat system, but the crucial counterfeiting property is why gold and silver is used.

 

[mheslep]

CAC is correct. Counterfeiting is secondary. People have universal faith in the value gold, and have for what must be all of human history. It's pretty and it's mostly inert. So what? So are many polymers. The current price of ~$1600/oz is backed up by faith and tradition; it has no relation to actual industrial demand.

 

[chiro]

Counterfeiting is secondary. People have universal faith in the value gold, and have for what must be all of human history. It's pretty and it's mostly inert. So what? So are many polymers. The current price of ~$1600/oz is backed up by faith and tradition; it has no relation to actual industrial demand.

Counterfeiting is a big deal! Anyone that prints paper or digital money is engaged in counterfeiting. The only difference between Joe Schmoe doing it and a central bank doing it is simply legislation.

I didn't say it had to do with industrial demand. If you read the second paragraph, you'll see that I mentioned industrial application but went on to say that this was not related to why gold was money.

Money has the property that people have to accept it and that is where the faith comes in. This isn't about just gold if it is used as money, but any form of money. But part of that faith is the faith that its worth be stable: you get money today and it should be worth the same thing tomorrow or in the future.

Also you should know that gold has been subject to counterfeit, where coins have been diluted with some other substance. The key thing is that this is noticeable. You can get some accurate scales and detect that kind of counterfeiting easily.

The best way though to counterfeit gold is to use tungsten, but it takes a lot of effort to do this.

Again the whole point of using something like gold as money in one respect has to do with counterfeiting, and it is not the only thing that has been used in this way. Every form of money is backed up with faith, because if there wasn't any faith no one would use it!

 

[DoggerDan]

Withdrawn. I read your post too fast. I didn't catch the bottom where you actually said "...but I recommend people read the whole article."

Lol, ironic! You're a big man, DaveC. Honest. Thumbs up!

 

[mheslep]

NY Magazine asked the OWS crowd some economics/current affairs questions.

Q: What does the government spend more on? Health care and pensions, education, or the military?
A: 94% say the military.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/occupy_wall_street_quiz.html
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/HistoricalTables%5B1%5D.pdf

 

[LaurieAG]

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.

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

.
About as formal as you can get .

Since the Tea Party doesn't care that 'No taxation without representation' implies 'no representation without taxation' the people behind them must be spinning up a storm in a teacup, a very small storm in a very poor facsimile of a tea cup that doesn't hold much tea, or water for that matter.

BTW, wasn't the WSJ purchased by News Corp?

 

[DoggerDan]

Since the Tea Party doesn't care that 'No taxation without representation' implies 'no representation without taxation'...

I've heard this mindless twist before, almost always among the TP haters. Comments like "storm in a teacup" are similarly ridiculous.

I'm still not a tea-partier, so good luck. If you'd attacked a Dem with this lack of reasoning, I'd be giving you the same send-off.

Seriously, though - why do people spin the issues to these extremes? Come on, folks! You can do better.

 

[WhoWee]

Doug Schoen made this analysis after the 2010 elections.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052748704405704576064282100893372.html

"In the November midterm elections, the Democratic Party lost its congressional majority. The far graver threat to the party, though, is that its base is made up disproportionately of public-employee unions, liberals, trial lawyers and other special-interest groups.

A key reason for the Democrats' extraordinary defeat in the midterms is that the party lost critical support from independent swing voters. In large part, as polls consistently show, this is because of the party's big-government programs such as health-care reform, the bailouts, and the stimulus packages.

If the Democrats want to be competitive in 2012, they must move decisively back to the center. And unless they're able to break the stranglehold that government-employee unions have on the party on policy, as well as in financial and political support, it will be virtually impossible for Democrats to restore fiscal health to states like New York and California.

Working-class families are fleeing the Democratic Party en masse, a trend that is likely to continue if their own economic situation remains weak in the face of ever-higher taxes, deficits and debt. These working-class voters see that public employees are continuing to receive more generous benefits and enjoy greater job security than they are. Support for the Democratic Party is now well below 40% with working-class voters who are unionized, and as low as 33% with whites who are not college educated."

I think union involvement in these protests will backfire. The UAW is a direct beneficiary of Government bailouts of big business - their presence is ridiculous.

 

[ginru]

Unions may have a bad image now but hasn't the organized unification of underclass workers been the most effective countermeasure to the self-interest of the wealthy? Perhaps the domestic unions' influence has been circumvented by the global market and cheap overseas workers, but it seems eventually there will need to emerge a more globalized union of workers that can overcome the limitations of people simply appealing to national governments for help.

It would be interesting if the protests could constructively lead to this but what will likely happen is the underclass remaining fractured and played against each other (libs vs. cons, American worker vs. Chinese worker, TP vs. OWS, etc.) and only the elitist group will continue to profit from that division.

 

[Bacle2]

If these people really (and I mean really) want to protest against the system, then the first thing they should do is to stop supporting it in any way that they can and live their lives by their deeds.

The first thing they should do is get out of debt. The debt is the one thing that is screwing themselves and their country. If they want to lead by example they need to get out of debt, and stay out of debt.

The truth is that debt is one of the greatest control mechanisms that exist today and the scariest thing about it is that it is a "willful" form of enslavement. You consciously sign the dotted line and have made an agreement that is legally binding. Tyrants used to just march their armies into the territories to capture the enemies, but now all they have to do is get the opponent to sign a contract that with a good enough sized debt, will enslave them in a way that no forceful army could.

So if there are protestors reading and you want to do something about the system, get out of debt and encourage your friends and family to do the same.

There are too many disincentives to saving: an interest rate of way less than 1%--way below inflation--and, on top of that, you are taxed on your interest earnings. And then, if you have a Roth IRA, there are , too, penalties for removing money. So, what does one do in order to save, put money under the mattress?

 

[Bacle2]

NY Magazine asked the OWS crowd some economics/current affairs questions.

Q: What does the government spend more on? Health care and pensions, education, or the military?
A: 94% say the military.
http://nymag.com/daily/intel/2011/10/occupy_wall_street_quiz.html
http://www.cbo.gov/ftpdocs/120xx/doc12039/HistoricalTables%5B1%5D.pdf

So, what's your point? Is it impossible to be well-informed about what's going on without knowing that the military is not #1 in expenses? The point remains that a chunk that's way-too-large by many reasonable measures is spent on the military. Now, show me a list of 20 common-knowledge questions were a large chunk of the protesters are significantly off, and you have a valid point (if I understand the point you're trying to make).

 

[mheslep]

So, what's your point? Is it impossible to be well-informed about what's going on without knowing that the military is not #1 in expenses? The point remains that a chunk that's way-too-large by many reasonable measures is spent on the military. Now, show me a list of 20 common-knowledge questions were a large chunk of the protesters are significantly off, and you have a valid point (if I understand the point you're trying to make).

They were significantly off on the NY Mag questions. When a common (most?) demand seems to be free college, healthcare, etc, then yes knowing where most of the spending goes already is required in my view to be considered well informed.

 

[Bacle2]

Sorry, mhslep, I jumped the gun and did not read carefully. Still, do you have good reason to believe the poll is fair; random rep. sample of both the protesters and of relevant questions?

I grant you your point, but I think it is still there are the technical issues of representability and selection of protesters.

 

[LaurieAG]

Seriously, though - why do people spin the issues to these extremes? Come on, folks! You can do better.

Oh, I forgot, corporations pay people to lobby politicians to pay more tax, right.

 

[OmCheeto]

Oh, I forgot, corporations pay people to lobby politicians to pay more tax, right.

They do!?



I ran across this article yesterday via my Philanthropy Today feed:

http://cityroom.blogs.nytimes.com/2011/10/17/he-made-it-on-wall-st-and-used-it-to-help-start-the-protests/"
October 17, 2011, 2:05 pm

Robert S. Halper, a retired Wall Street trader, spends time each day in Zuccotti Park talking to protesters about politics and their thoughts on reforming the banking system.

But Mr. Halper, a 52-year-old Brooklyn native, never reveals two facts about himself: he is a former vice chairman of the New York Mercantile Exchange and the largest single donor to the nonprofit magazine that ignited the Occupy Wall Street movement.

...

He readily admits to being a member of the so-called One Percent — the top slice of American earners, who have been vilified by the protesters. “The fact that I made a lot of money, things just worked out for me,” he said. “There’s some issues where we’re all in it together.”

Mr. Halper said his conversations with protesters had made him think a lot about what should be done. “If there’s pain, it should be shared,” he said. “The people who have money — they should pay something more, whether that’s in taxes or somewhere else.”

Is there anyone left who hasn't weighed in on the protests:

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/20/world-bank-head-robert-zo_n_1021506.html"
...
He said there remains in the world a feeling "that the U.S. is a special place," but financial and political problems are causing people in developing nations to ask, "Will the U.S. get its act together?"

"It's not only important for the U.S. – it's important for the rest of the world," Zoellick said.
...

I hope he doesn't mean 'short bus' special.

 

[WhoWee]

There hasn't been much news coverage of the alleged rape - by an Occupier in Cleveland - has there?.
http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-504083_162-20122659-504083.html

"Protester allegedly raped at 'Occupy Cleveland'"

 

[Bacle2]

WhoWee:

A month of protests by thousands of people throughout the country without any confirmed incident, and you choose to post an allegation? Doesn't make you seem very impartial in my book. It makes it seem like your digging for dirt.

 

[WhoWee]

WhoWee:

A month of protests by thousands of people throughout the country without any confirmed incident, and you choose to post an allegation? Doesn't make you seem very impartial in my book. It makes it seem like your digging for dirt.

I'll ask the question again - there hasn't been much news coverage of the alleged rape - by an Occupier in Cleveland - has there?

A month? The Occupy Cleveland event started on October 6 - the alleged rape happened 9 days later. About 65 people are participating.

http://www.cleveland.com/business/index.ssf/2011/10/occupy_cleveland_intends_to_br.html

"The Cleveland group began its protest Oct. 6 at Willard Park, near City Hall. It moved to Public Square a few days later."

Where is the outrage over this violent act?