Wall Street Protests

[Lamplighter]

Some people have a sense of humor; some don't.

Posted in Out & About blog
by Jake Malooley on Oct 5, 2011 at 7:42pm

Chicago Mercantile Exchange protects identity of "WE ARE THE 1%" sign maker

[Lamplighter]

Chicago is arresting people... not a police riot,
but here's a sign that's really scary for older Chicagans...
/

[Stormieweather]

Companies making more money (profits) does not necessarily translate to more jobs. Corporations, particularly the BIG ones, are recording record-breaking profits. But there are a ways to make profits, besides selling more of your product. You can cut costs - employ less people, work them harder, pay them less, give them fewer benefits, export jobs overseas, take advantage of overseas tax havens, raise prices and get laws created in your favor (such as environmental deregulation). The simple fact remains that jobs will not be created in sufficient quantities until consumers have adequate funds to buy the products/services, thereby creating a demand for expansion, resulting in jobs.

The argument that if the 1% get richer, then so do the 99% is not exactly accurate, particularly in the last decade. The top 20% do (not by much!), but the other 80% are flat-lined or declining. Check the graphs in the attached, "Winners Take All" really demonstrates the situation. Inequality

[DanaC]

That's an awesome sign.

Been watching the coverage of the occupations going on around the world. The one at St Paul's Cathedral in London looks great. There's a little (ok not so little) part of me really wishes i was down there. There's a much bigger part of me is grateful I am in fact at home, cosy and warm in my little cottage with readily accessible bathroom facilities :p

I wish them the best. Because they're doing this for me and us, not just themselves. They are engaged in a worthy struggle. They are exercising agency. Good on them.

The relatively low levels of violence and disorder associated with these occupation demos is staggering really. Demonstrations in London almost *always* descend into riot. Certainly from my own experience, I've never been on one that didnt.

The scenes from the occupation look fun. They remind me of Glastonbury. There was a time I'd have been there like a shot :p

[Happy Monkey]

Originally Posted by DanaC

Been watching the coverage of the occupations going on around the world. The one at St Paul's Cathedral in London looks great. There's a little (ok not so little) part of me really wishes i was down there. There's a much bigger part of me is grateful I am in fact at home, cosy and warm in my little cottage with readily accessible bathroom facilities :p

...

The relatively low levels of violence and disorder associated with these occupation demos is staggering really. Demonstrations in London almost *always* descend into riot. Certainly from my own experience, I've never been on one that didnt.

Wait, so the ones you go to always descend into riot, and haven't gone to this one, and it hasn't descended into riot?

Time for an experiment...

[DanaC]

*grins*

Oh yeah...

[tw]

Originally Posted by DanaC

I wish them the best. Because they're doing this for me and us, not just themselves. They are engaged in a worthy struggle. They are exercising agency. Good on them.

For well over a decade, defined was this major problem that has only became worse when Cheney said, "Reagan proved that deficits don't matter." I could not understand why so many did not see what is finally obvious to many. For the last decade, an average American worker has seen his incoming falling. That only happened twice in the history of America. Warnings of this problem, a pending economic calamity, and the history that predicted it were defined even in The Cellar. And still so many remained silent. Even when Enron, LTCM, the California Energy crisis, etc all proved who are some of America’s greatest enemies.

Both times in history, welfare for the rich resulted in America’s worst recessions. In part, because the rich do not create jobs, innovation, new products, new markets, and economic advancement. Only those who aspire to be rich do that. Both times in history, 1% reaped massive wealth while Americans saw their incomes diminish. Finally, some have complained. It was long overdue.

At what point does history prove the obvious. 85% of all problems are directly traceable to top management. Especially those who are paid the most money, bonuses, stock options, and other 'rewards'. Why do more successful companies pay their top people less money? Because the real source of that success reaps increased incomes. Many are finally learning that business school concepts and their student have created massive income disparity and economic stagnation.

Not like this was new to a Cellar dweller. And still some remain in denial by blaming the rest of us.

[Spexxvet]

[Aliantha]

Just a quick note.

On the news last night I saw that people are starting to protest in Melbourne in a similar although possibly more aggressive manner in that they're holding up traffic and stuff, but basically, they're protesting about the big banks and industry.

[DanaC]

A view of Occupy London:

http://uk.news.yahoo.com/comment/tal...090450453.html

If that sounds oddly civilised for an anti-capitalist demo, then you should see the waste disposal centre, with separate bins for bottles, paper and rubbish. Or the kitchen, running entirely on donated supplies and volunteer cooks. Or the media centre, with running generators, work spaces and an embryonic video editing suite. The men and women in London's financial district aren't protesting. They're laying down roots.

"We've got church blessing," Giles tells me. He points to beautiful, morbid old St Paul's behind him, which offers us some respite from the wind. "In this building Rev Giles Fraser, who controls this square, has given us his blessing. This is a private square." He waves his hand across the scene, taking in a collection of around 40 tents and 200 activists all busily engaged in activities, from cooking to litter clearance to prolonged debates on the merits of the Tobin tax. "He's asked the police to go. If there are problems then we'll be thrown off. Our aim is to stay here peacefully. It might look like rag-tag operation but there's quite a lot of stuff going on here. We've got a ton of working groups gathered to get this message out clearly. We're encouraging people to come join us without being seen as a bunch of camping hippies."

Whichever way you look at it, it's impressive. I talk to Diaphel, who is running the media centre. Inside the tent, a handful of men are typing away on laptops while others charge their phones. All the wires lead to a generator outside with several cans of fuel beside it. They have another generator coming. He seems confident they can keep the power running indefinitely at the current rate of donation.

"A lot of people are donating," he explains. "People walk by and ask what we need. One person is donating pizza on a regular basis from Enfield. One person in a suit and tie just got a job with a power company. He's getting us some solar panels. The guy that got us the petrol was from a local pub. An unemployed architect is advising us on organising the accommodation."

Next to the media hub, a collection of tents serves as a health centre. Inside, an activist is getting some rest with a couple of volunteer first aiders. Bridget, a respectable middle-aged woman who you'd trust with your house keys, is a registered nurse and a practising midwife. She's running things while the doctor, who just pulled a two-day shift, goes home and gets some rest.

As we talk, a middle-aged man with a copy of the Telegraph pulls a bemused look as he surveys the scene. I ask him what he makes of it. "I'm surprised it hasn't happened before," he says instantly. "Been rather slow to come about."

Across the US, Europe and Australia similar camps are being set up, with a strangely neutral response from the press and the cautious sympathy of passers-by. Of course, something this diverse has no concrete aims. It is not in a position to write out a manifesto yet, beyond an opposition to bank bailouts and public sector spending cuts. But this is how popular movements begin, with generalised discontent. Sometimes they fizzle out. Sometimes they build to something bigger, especially when their anger is focused and resonates with the public. In London, the process requires protesters to maintain the camps as a focal point for the movement, as Zuccotti Park is for Occupy Wall Street. At the current rate of organisation, that seems entirely credible.

Let's just dismiss them as fools and we needn't give their constructive anger another thought.

[Trilby]

God damn fools.

[DanaC]

Ha!

[classicman]

Originally Posted by Stormieweather

Companies making more money (profits) does not necessarily translate to more jobs. Corporations, particularly the BIG ones, are recording record-breaking profits. But there are a ways to make profits, besides selling more of your product. You can cut costs - employ less people, work them harder, pay them less, give them fewer benefits, export jobs overseas, take advantage of overseas tax havens, raise prices and get laws created in your favor (such as environmental deregulation). The simple fact remains that jobs will not be created in sufficient quantities until consumers have adequate funds to buy the products/services, thereby creating a demand for expansion, resulting in jobs.

The argument that if the 1% get richer, then so do the 99% is not exactly accurate, particularly in the last decade. The top 20% do (not by much!), but the other 80% are flat-lined or declining. Check the graphs in the attached, "Winners Take All" really demonstrates the situation.

Excellent post Stormie. worth a reread.

[henry quirk]

What the **'occupants' don't get: the 'rich' don't care.

Even if Jehovah Himself schlepped down from Heaven Above and singled out each and every billionaire and -- with His Booming God Voice -- designated these billionaires and bankers and whatnot as 'EVIL' and deserving of Hellfire and Eternal Torment: these folks would not care.

If I were one of these folks, one of these awful bankers, billionaires, etc., already, I woulda done everything (legal AND illegal) to preserve my wealth.

Are these folks (the billionaires, the bankers, the magnates, the unscrupulous 'rich') wrong (for making the money the way each did, in such vast quantities, to be used in such idiosyncratic ways)?

Does it matter?

To paraphrase a line from 'Army of Darkness': 'Good. Bad. I'm the guy with the money (read 'power')'.

Oh, yeah: there are the pussies like Warren Buffet who make a big show of how much he or she ***'cares', but most billionaires, by definition, are mercenary sorts who will not oblige citizen or government.

And, if by some wild chance, the 'occupants' get their way and the 'rich' are restricted to, say, ****100 million (with every dollar above that going to those in government) then those rich folks will downsize. They will close plants, terminate divisions, fire the asses of huge numbers of folks, and make damned sure they never rise above 99 million in accumulated wealth.

My point: the 'occupants' will not 'win' 'cause the rich 'won' a long, long, time ago.






*entirely possible all this was covered up-thread...11 pages is a lot to read through...*shrug*

**even if these folks are coherent in message, agenda, and organization (and they aren't!), they're cannon fodder...front-liners meant solely for bloodletting and sacrifice...they are NOT revolutionaries or game-changers...just pieces on someone else's chess board.

***such horseshit...all this sympathy for the '99%' is transparent self-interest, as in: 'If I give some (sympathy, money, etc.) today, maybe I'll get to keep the rest for myself tomorrow'.

****in accumulated wealth or income or in whatever it is they're gonna be penalized in.

[infinite monkey]

We treat all sorts of illness in this society. Physical illnesses, addictions, mental illnesses. The obvious reasoning is that illness and addiction is bad for society.

There's only so much money you can spend. At some point, the WHOLE point is having more money and making more money.

That's addiction. It's bad for society as a whole. We can dress it up as ambition, but what we're seeing is so far from ambition you can't even see ambition anymore. It's a sickness. Get ALL the money. As MUCH money as we can. At the expense of ANYONE or ANYTHING.

Why, if we care so much about smokers and overeaters and sex addicts and alcoholics and gambling addicts and shoplifters and shopaholics, do we not try to make these sick fuckers better?

Billboards! Betty Afford Money Addiction Clinic! A patch! Pills! Densensitization Therapy! Aversion Therapy!

Because even this extreme unhealthy greed is dressed up like so much pretty ambition, and because it carries so much power, it will never be recognized as such. They just keep saying "I got mine you get YOURS" without knowing they've left very little to "get."

Even normal folks with a normal like of money and a decent life won't have any left to get...not at this rate.

So I'm in favor of involuntary commitment.