Occupy Wall Street? Nutbars.

[Shiny Side Up]

This isnt just happenstance nor do I think they interviewed more than a few dozen people, at the high end, to find these people.

In all probability you're right, but that being said, its not too hard to survey a crowd of people and pick out the ones who are more likely to give you responses that you want. Especially if you're hunting for someone at the far end of the spectrum. Its like OFD's cartoon above, the artist has carefully selected who is going to be his "representative" Occupier and who is going to be his "representative" Tea Partier. I especially loved the detail where the artist assumes either of the archetypes would be reading the books they hold. (interestingly enough, Marx and Smith made a lot of very similar observations and deductions within their works, but unfortunately to the unread they both just get their names used as labels for communism and capitalism respectively) Both groups in an odd way have more in common than they think and if we really got down to it, its only because each has been demonized by their respective anti-media groups that we're having this discussion now.

I certainly am not going to go find out as, clearly unlike them, I have to work, so I guess we will never know.

Keep your head down citizen77. Ignorance is Strength.

[cdnpilot77]

I certainly am not going to go find out as, clearly unlike them, I have to work, so I guess we will never know.

Keep your head down citizen77. Ignorance is Strength.

[The Old Fogducker]

Ragbag ... I posted that interview several weeks ago, and know it well. I agree with O'Leary's take on things.

Should the banks have been bailed out? Frankly, who knows? I don't have a degree and experience in international finance, and I doubt a significant percentage of AvCanadians do either.

Its darned unlikely any of the protestors obtained any training in finance and are now unemployed looking for work and are in the crowd screaming at CEOs. My initial reaction was to let them fail, have the depositors and shareholders lose their money, say "Gee, that's too bad Bunky, my heart pumps purple piss for you," and then have things sort itself out in the marketplace. Works fine unless you were a depositor.

The vast majority of the demonstrators don't have a clue what they are protesting, except they are pissed, and think that by sleeping in a park and having a sing-along they will accomplish something that will make their lot in life better.

They won't.

OFD

[Rockie]

I've actually walked through the occupy wall street protest twice now, and each time I was impressed with not only the behavior but the level of organization without seeming to have organizers. They are a diverse group of people who came together to protest against corporate greed monopolizing unsustainable levels of national wealth and a government that caters to that very same greed rather than the people who elected it. I listened in on many quiet but intelligent discussions on what people thought was wrong and how they thought it should be fixed.

While it seems unfocused because of the people Foggy loves to hate, the underlying message is the same from virtually everybody there. Society is increasingly working very well for the wealthiest few who are getting much wealthier, and not so well for the other 95% who are getting poorer as a result of all the money flowing up, not down. It is unsustainable which these people instinctively know even if they aren't very good at stating it.

As winter approaches the protests will naturally fade away, but it would be a mistake to think the problem has disappeared because the protest is a symptom of the real problem that government would be wise not to ignore. Contrary to the characterization people like Foggy like to stick on them, the increasingly poorer 95% of the people comprise normal working people too who might not be at Zucotti Park but are equally dissatisfied. Hundreds of billions of their tax dollars are being spent propping up financial shysters who turn around and use whatever money they don't put straight into their own pocket lobbying the government to ensure they can continue to commit fraud and economic suicide. That pisses me off too even though I'm not American because the entire world is threatened by their actions that nobody in power seems to have the will or the gonads to stop.

They don't want your money Foggy. In fact they would happily tell you in particular to keep your money and go f*** yourself with it. They want a society that gives them an equal opportunity to support themselves and increase their own standard of living free from fraudulent exploitation by a financial industry and a bought and paid for government.

Sounds pretty reasonable to me.

[Shiny Side Up]

My initial reaction was to let them fail, have the depositors and shareholders lose their money, say "Gee, that's too bad Bunky, my heart pumps purple piss for you," and then have things sort itself out in the marketplace. Works fine unless you were a depositor.

You can bet if it was the depositors that got screwed by their banks failing, they'd be out demonstrating too. As it is the solution screwed the tax payer instead. What do you suppose the ration is of tax payer to depositors? You also conviniently forget that the bailout also allowed the persons responsible for the fall to keep their jobs.

The vast majority of the demonstrators don't have a clue what they are protesting, except they are pissed, and think that by sleeping in a park and having a sing-along they will accomplish something that will make their lot in life better.

They are doing what we expect law abiding citizens to do to make their point heard. What would you propose they do? Currently thogh the system is ignoring them, so we shouldn't be suprised when it turns from peaceful protest to armed revolution. You'd think the human race would figure out this cycle by now.

[floatplanepilot]

[Siddley Hawker]

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/archive/2011/10/30

[niss]

http://www.doonesbury.com/strip/archive/2011/10/30

[Nark]

[The Old Fogducker]

Gee whiz guys .... with video links like those, pretty soon you're going to be labelled a nut case by Rockie as well.

I'm a regular viewer to PJTV ... very enlightening.

[Shiny Side Up]

I will admit Mr. Whittle there does a good job of trying to deflect from the real issue. A standard tactic of trying to make the middle class resent the poor class. I especially like his "statistics" of the "poor" but gives no definition of what constitutes "poor". The little bit about how we should thank those corporations since they do all the nasty work is really rich, he is correct that some out there need to be more thankful, but he attempts to misdirect where that should go. We should be thankful for the farmers, the roughnecks, the steelworkers. Especially because those are the people taking the brunt of the abuse from the corporations - something he blithely ignores - or the fact that some of the now "poor" are working for those corporations or were working for them.

The best though is how he parrots that standard mantra that if you just keep your head down and work hard all will be right. The world will stay as it is I guess if there are enough that will continue to heed his and other's like him's words.

[Rockie]

Gee whiz guys .... with video links like those, pretty soon you're going to be labelled a nut case by Rockie as well.

I'm a regular viewer to PJTV ... very enlightening.

I haven't labelled anybody a nutcase in this debate Foggy, you must be thinking of yourself. Go back to page one and check the title of the thread and who started it.

Mr. Whittle sure is a calm, logical, smooth talking snake oil salesman isn't he? Flashing graphs with statistics from...actually where do they come from? Hmmm.

But it does distract from the issue which is the growing income gap between the top 1% and the bottom 80%. It distracts from the fact that the lower 50% income has actually gone down in the last 30 years in real dollars...20 year old refrigerator or not. It conveniently omits the fraud committed on a massive scale that taxpayers (the middle income ones that actually pay tax) had to go hundreds of billions of dollars further into debt to save the economy from. It omits the fact that those same fraudsters are still doing it despite understandable public desire that they stop. It omits the fact that these champions of capitalism are only capitalist when it comes to profit, but for them socialism is a great thing when it comes to covering their losses.

Hypocrites.

But don't worry, according to Mr. Whittle having a refrigerator despite being below the poverty line means you really aren't that bad off.

[Spokes]

Clearly it's not hard to find a whackjob in any massive protest. OFD, do you not believe the actions of the big banks in the US which led to the 2008 collapse were wrong? Do you think the American taxpayers should be left holding the bag?

Here's an interview with one of the protestors. If you can tune in until the end of the interview you'll find he quite eloquently describes what many of the protestors are rallying against.

http://www.cbc.ca/video/#/News/TV_Shows ... 2149202610

I am hesitant to wade into the, but I do have a couple questions. May some of you here can help me out. I am trying to see both sides of this, but it seems clear that both sides are arguing a case fro differing point of views. Anyhow- the questions

1. While the actions of the big banks certainly look inexcusable, wasn't it at it's heart Mortgage loans made to people who could not afford them at the heart of the who melt down?

2. Again, not excusing banks here, but shouldn't people who know they can't afford a mortgage for an overly expensive house not have signed for them? Sure, there is the argument that the smart banker said they could afford it, but really a 140% mortgage on a $300k + house. Perhaps some of these people should have paid better attention in math class in school.

3. I have heard talk about people loosing their houses. This of course is an awful thing, but in a large percentage of people ar these not houses they probably would not have gotten in the first place, had it not been for the very system that caused them to loose the house? (kinda wordy but I hope you know what I mean).

4. I thought that the biggest of these banks payed back the bailout money they got. Am I mistaken?

I am not trying to start a big thing here, just asking. I seem to see a lot of people on the news protesting about things that do not have anything to do with bankers. In some cases in the news I see protesters holding up signed, presumable what they are protesting about, that are describe something that I know just is not true. So what? You win go home?

[Rockie]

This is a classic example of normalization of deviation.

Banks are contantly hammering that it's ok to be that much in debt. Credit card companies will encourage anybody with a heart beat to get one because debt is good. You can get credit at bestbuy and furniture stores where you don't even have to pay anything for the first year. There are legal payday loan businesses on every street corner selling their instant money but omitting the loan shark rates in their advertising. It's become normal because financial institutions and manufacturers made it that way in order to sell their product.

Yes, people should have a limited debt tolerance. But you could argue that they're paying for their lack of wisdom now and for many years into the future, and they know it. The other side is fixing the system so the worst abuses are no longer permitted and that's a big part of why people are pissed off. The government answers to big money, not the voters.

[Spokes]

This is a classic example of normalization of deviation.

Banks are contantly hammering that it's ok to be that much in debt. Credit card companies will encourage anybody with a heart beat to get one because debt is good. You can get credit at bestbuy and furniture stores where you don't even have to pay anything for the first year. There are legal payday loan businesses on every street corner selling their instant money but omitting the loan shark rates in their advertising. It's become normal because financial institutions and manufacturers made it that way in order to sell their product.

Yes, people should have a limited debt tolerance. But you could argue that they're paying for their lack of wisdom now and for many years into the future, and they know it. The other side is fixing the system so the worst abuses are no longer permitted and that's a big part of why people are pissed off. The government answers to big money, not the voters.

I'm afraid I do not understand the term 'Normalization of Deviation'.

Advertising for offering loans is not the same as "hammering in that its ok". Funny you brought that up, I had a similar conversation a few days ago, and one of the points to come up was that one of the reasons people are protesting is that it is too hard to get a loan. Go figure.

I'm not sure I understand the logic of the second statement. It seems like you are saying that a big part of people being pissed off is that it was too easy to get a loan, and now they have to pay for it. I don't think that is what you mean though, so please clarify.

Two points. On the banking side of the argument, it seems that people just have not educated themselves enough to know that they really can't afford that beautiful 3000 sq ft house at 350k+ and fit a 140% loan. Just because a loan is offered, does not mean you have to take it. That does not excuse banks from offering loans that they knew that folks could not pay back however. Seems like there is a lot of blame to go around.

Secondly, what is the protest about anyway? I have not gotten the same answer even twice, no matter how many people I ask. many people have some ideas what they think it is, but it seems to me that mostly people see what they want to see. Some see a bunch of layabouts jealous of others wealth. Others see virtuous young victims who's only crime is to be taken advantage of 'by the man' for too long. I suspect its a bit of both.

Still, any answers to the questions?

[Mig29]

Solution to Euro debt

[Mig29]

The reason why people are trying to "Occupy Wall Stree(s)" around the world explained in under 3 minutes Well....actually when you think about it's not really funny....

[Shiny Side Up]

I'm afraid I do not understand the term 'Normalization of Deviation'.

Very simple: Once what may be considered a "deviation" in practices happens often enough it becomes the norm, the previous normal condition is now a deviation. In terms of this discussion where selling such risky mortages and loans in the past would have been fairly rare, it happened so much that said sales became common.

Advertising for offering loans is not the same as "hammering in that its ok". Funny you brought that up, I had a similar conversation a few days ago, and one of the points to come up was that one of the reasons people are protesting is that it is too hard to get a loan. Go figure.

Well in this case things have now went to the far extreme. Since the bubble burst, the banks are loathe to be caught in the same practice so soon. Sins of the father and all that. Since the folks have been screwed on one loan in now makes it harder to get another. O'Leary frequently uses the therm "radioactive" to describe such a borrower. In the eyes of the banks - and people like Foggy - the blame for the lending problem has fallen square on their shoulders. As per the advertising for offering loans, it certainly could stand some better regulation - something these banks are fighting hard against. A good majority of the "mortgage advisers" I've spoken to are little more than sales people, and that's only been dealing with Canadian banks, I'd hate to have seen what it was like south of the border. The combination of poor regulation combined with an uneducated borrowing base was a recipie for disaster. It was like the equivilent of selling crack in a schoolyard but imagine if there was no adults around or cops.

I'm not sure I understand the logic of the second statement. It seems like you are saying that a big part of people being pissed off is that it was too easy to get a loan, and now they have to pay for it. I don't think that is what you mean though, so please clarify.

Again the problem was the poor regulations surrounding the loan process. From what I've seen in some persons I know's predicaments ( a few friends I know south of the border are now both working three jobs to keep their house) a loan shark would have given them a fairer sale. Again like crack in the schoolyard, but gloss over that the price is going to go up for the next hit, or that when you can't pay Vinny is going to rough you up.

Two points. On the banking side of the argument, it seems that people just have not educated themselves enough to know that they really can't afford that beautiful 3000 sq ft house at 350k+ and fit a 140% loan. Just because a loan is offered, does not mean you have to take it. That does not excuse banks from offering loans that they knew that folks could not pay back however. Seems like there is a lot of blame to go around.

Sure there is, but when you hear that the bank profited by you defaulting on your loan - and in fact bet against you - something is rotten in the state of Denmark.

Secondly, what is the protest about anyway? I have not gotten the same answer even twice, no matter how many people I ask. many people have some ideas what they think it is, but it seems to me that mostly people see what they want to see. Some see a bunch of layabouts jealous of others wealth. Others see virtuous young victims who's only crime is to be taken advantage of 'by the man' for too long. I suspect its a bit of both.

In the end does it matter that the protest doesn't have a some direct goals or one specific one? The French Revolution, The American Revolution, The October Revolution, The Mexican Revolution, The Iranian Revolution, etc. All had a variety of reasons and goals, and sometimes comprised of various different groups. In the end what is desired is change from the current system and people want to see their governments at the very least making an attempt. While the results of revolutions are not always the same, in general the causes are similar. When the majority has had enough of putting up with the excesses of a minority that holds power.

[Nark]

For all the college grads at these things, many seem to have forgotten about English 101.

Figure out who your audience is. (I'm sure sociology is the same).

Wall Street and big business isn't going to change because smelly people are holding up signs. They are going to change when those smelly hippy's stop buying iPhones, or Xboxes. But that is too much of an inconvenience to them so holding up a sign will have to do.

As Shiny side up mentioned other revolutions, I don't think any of them just held up signs at a rally.


When Obama rescinds the Posse Comitatus Act, I'll be there with a bow tie on.

[Shiny Side Up]

As Shiny side up mentioned other revolutions, I don't think any of them just held up signs at a rally.

Oh sure they did, people just largely forgot about it when they stopped just holding up signs and moved on to more effective (and usually violent) means of enacting change. In many cases those in power have helped speed up the transition.

Petrograd circa 1905


These people seem relatively peaceful in a demonstration in Tehran in 1978

[. ._]

When Obama rescinds the Posse Comitatus Act, I'll be there with a bow tie on.

For those who don't feel like googling:

https://secure.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/ ... itatus_Act

And for those who support Marines:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GpwYGp4a ... re=related

http://www.youtube.com/user/TheAlexJone ... aaTGsGdp4c

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dEgymHDUYVQ

[Shiny Side Up]

[Nark]

As Shiny side up mentioned other revolutions, I don't think any of them just held up signs at a rally.
When Obama rescinds the Posse Comitatus Act, I'll be there with a bow tie on.

I like quoting myself, makes me feel prolific.

Shiny, my point is that each one of your examples of revolution was in fact, an armed one. This was the segue Posse Comitatus.
Which leads me to ISTP's linked video. I especially like the Alex Jones link, where the Marine was allowed to speak his mind, and was free to leave.
The greatest thing about this country is the ability to assemble and speak your mind. Do it peacefully and respectfully and I don't have a problem.
And the other link where they interviewed the two Marines; a real Marine will always correct you.


Which reminds me of of an exercise I participated in while in the Republic of Korea (aka South Korea). We taught the local police force riot control techniques.

[Rockie]

Secondly, what is the protest about anyway? I have not gotten the same answer even twice, no matter how many people I ask. many people have some ideas what they think it is, but it seems to me that mostly people see what they want to see. Some see a bunch of layabouts jealous of others wealth. Others see virtuous young victims who's only crime is to be taken advantage of 'by the man' for too long. I suspect its a bit of both.

Still, any answers to the questions?

One of the most interesting things about walking through the protest area in New York is the sheer diversity of people from all walks of life (well, maybe not the billionaires although some are there in spirit). Everyone there has a different story, and while individual answers may very according to their particular circumstance it all boils down to all the national wealth moving up and none of it moving down. Society isn't working very well for the vast majority and those people think the government that they elected to represent them should actually work for them, not corporate billionaires.

It isn't just a "buyer beware" situation regarding bad debt and getting sucked into financial risks that people can neither understand or afford. They elect a government to protect them from snake oil salesmen regardless of how nicely dressed they are. Despite having to save the economy with hundreds of billions of their dollars the government still is not looking after their interests to ensure it won't happen again.

I get that message loud and clear from watching the protests and I submit those that don't really aren't listening.

[Spokes]

Secondly, what is the protest about anyway? I have not gotten the same answer even twice, no matter how many people I ask. many people have some ideas what they think it is, but it seems to me that mostly people see what they want to see. Some see a bunch of layabouts jealous of others wealth. Others see virtuous young victims who's only crime is to be taken advantage of 'by the man' for too long. I suspect its a bit of both.

Still, any answers to the questions?

One of the most interesting things about walking through the protest area in New York is the sheer diversity of people from all walks of life (well, maybe not the billionaires although some are there in spirit). Everyone there has a different story, and while individual answers may very according to their particular circumstance it all boils down to all the national wealth moving up and none of it moving down. Society isn't working very well for the vast majority and those people think the government that they elected to represent them should actually work for them, not corporate billionaires.

It isn't just a "buyer beware" situation regarding bad debt and getting sucked into financial risks that people can neither understand or afford. They elect a government to protect them from snake oil salesmen regardless of how nicely dressed they are. Despite having to save the economy with hundreds of billions of their dollars the government still is not looking after their interests to ensure it won't happen again.

I get that message loud and clear from watching the protests and I submit those that don't really aren't listening.

First off, Shinny Side Up, thanks that helps some.

I do strongly feel that if th people who took these bank loans had spent some time to educate them selves, they would not be in this fix. If all of them had, none would be in this fix. Of course same could be said about the banks.

I don't get the feel from the protests- in Canada anyhow that they have much to do with the 2008 situation. I think Rockie has hit it on the head with the suggestion that they are not happy about the whole rich are getting richer - poor poorer etc. I think with the whole protest movement we have to separate USA and Canada. The states have a whole different set of problems created by those toxic mortgages creating the large empty neighbourhoods.

In Canada Things are much different. The vast majority of the so called 99% are doing just fine. There do not seem to be large areas of Canadian cities with empty houses. Everyone seems to have a car or two from what I can see. iPhone4s sold millions in the first days. In short things could be a lot worse. I have repeatedly heard of the 'inequitable distribution of wealth' from Canadian protesters. I would submit that wealth is t be earned, not distributed. Perhaps a bit more energy into education and job hunting. Canada has a very extensive 'safety net'.

Rockie, regarding your last statement- is it possible that you are seeing what you want to see?

I am not trying to be confrontational, but honestly we have it pretty good here in Canada. I am still not seeing what these protesters want beyond: punish rich bankers and we want more stuff.