I suppose by now most of you have some awareness of this ongoing event.

One component of this action is that it's directed not at DC but at its perceived handlers. They aren't going to Obama, but rather his bosses. The message is highly fragmented, this confuses the media, but it's essentially asking people to change their fundamental orientation.

I'd argue that the population is controlled by a divide and conquer strategy, left/right, conservative/liberal, Republican/Democrat, a false dichotomy. This movement began with nothing more than an idea that we ought to view ourselves as the 99% vs the 1%. For instance the large majority of Americans want the wars over with, but the political parties disregard this and turn the matter into a shouting match as to whether we spend 800 billion and invade two new countries or spend 1 trillion and invade three new countries. The majority of Americans support a Medicare for all type healthcare, yet no such option was forwarded, instead a plan that served the interests of insurers, hospitals, and big pharma was put in place.

I imagine that Americans will have a nearly impossible time getting over the false political divide that keeps them from having representatives that are accountable to their constituents, the Constitution, and the law in general. It's a tall order, but I don't think Tea Partiers and progressives need to agree on a platform other than that those in power will answer to the People and be held strictly accountable to the law.

The banks should have been seized when they failed, those were the rules. Instead they were saved, their toxic assets purchased, and their bonuses increased.

And while I know knuckle-draggers love seeing students and hippies getting beat and sprayed, could they possibly set that aside for a moment and accept that maybe none of us are being served well by our government.

There are an awful lot of similarities to the tea party demonstrations. The difference being that this group seems even more diffuse and unfocussed about what they want. Tea Partiers at least seem focussed on limited government, even if they contradict this with their general, though not complete, support for social security and medicare.
It does provide Obama a platform for his battles with the right wing though. If he takes on republicans on taxing the rich for job creation it will serve to increase his support for those sympathetic with the Occupyers.
This is pretty much similar to what happened in the 1870's . The last time income and wealth disparity reached the same proportions as it has reached in the US today...

Neal;

The banks should have been seized when they failed, those were the rules. Instead they were saved, their toxic assets purchased, and their bonuses increased.

No matter what logic is used, the fact that compensation for bankers wasn't seriously affected by their failures is the most glaring representation of malfeasance and weak governance.
Any capitalist understands that when you screw up, you are supossed to suffer consequences.
Pointedly this remains as the opposition to the next round of banking standards by large American Banks. They strongly oppose capitlization rules that some countries already follow and which , if they had been followed would have mitigated the damage in 2007/8.
What was startling, was the fact that if executive compensation of the banks was at the same levels as 1998, and that money instead put towards capital reserves - the new Basel standards would have been met. If there is any deserved narrow focus for occupy Wall Street, its this small group.

The ailing Citi and Bank of America Corp., along with Goldman Sachs, Morgan Stanley Co. and Dimon’s JP Morgan Chase, have collectively set aside a staggering $65.7 billion to cover 2011 compensation and benefits. In a year in which U.S. banks continue to impede an economic recovery by hoarding cash rather than lending, that sum is an eight per cent increase over 2010.
Average U.S. compensation in finance is about 70 per cent higher than other industries. Erasing that gap, which didn’t exist three decades ago (neither, and not coincidentally, did serial bank collapses) would cut the banks’ operating expenses 20 per cent. That alone would enable them to meet the new 10 per cent capital reserves requirement without impairing profits or trying to make customers pay for the increased margin of safety.

source: http://www.thestar.com/business/article ... orst-enemy

I think the reality is finally sinking in for many people that they are looking at a lower standard of living for the forseeable future and nothing is being done to help them. Here we are fighting these clearly unnecessary wars and spending massive amounts of money on them, Republicans are eager to seize this opportunity to reduce spending on our safety net, and any talk of increasing taxes on people who are continuing to make massive amounts of money with little contribution to society is attacked by Republicans as socialism. The inequitable division of wealth in a society creates social upheaval. In this case inequitable does not mean that some people are making a lot of money and that money should be divided equally; it simply means wealth going to people who clearly do not deserve it. If you run your bank into the ground and then are able to give huge bonuses to yourself, clearly the system is broken. There is simply no good reason why Wall street traders make far money than their predecessors did and upper-level executives make far more money than their predecessors did while at the same time the income of ordinary workers has stayed flat while they have become far more productive. It's manifestly unfair and it has nothing to do with penalizing those who achieve. You simply have a certain segment of society that is manipulating things to reward themselves handsomely. We can reform this broken system without preventing the next Steve Jobs from coming up with something brilliant. i have no problem with an entrereneur creating something brilliant that benefits us all and being rewarded handsomely. I'm sorry I don't see why a hedge fund manager who moves money around should geta billion dollars for it. If you create something that changes everyone's lives for the better like Steve Jobs, I could care less if you get 50 billion dollars for it.

At times like these it is a good idea if you're doing really well to not oppose an increase in taxes if you're wealthy. At times like these it is a good idea to make moderate concessions so that you don't have to deal with more extreme solutions at a later time.. Fo rall of the attempts of Republicans to rewrite history, it was Teddy Roosevelt and FDR who crafted moderate responses when wealth became too concentrated. But it is very unclear that there is any way to come up with some moderate solutions with Republicans refusing to agree to any concessions that would cause the rich or big business having to pay more in taxes or hire workers or do something to get us of this economic mess that we are in.

When times are tough those who are not hurting need to help those who are.

Anybody been there yet? Not necessarily to protest, but even just to check it out? I've got to make it down there one of these days. Maybe bring the kids so they can learn something.

Please, go investigate, take pictures, and report back.

I'll be in town the week of the 24th, George, if you'd like to join me for a field trip.

Cool. I sent you an email with contact info.

http://swampland.time.com/full-results- ... time-poll/

The first polls of public reaction to occupy Wall Street seem to indicate that its a more mainstream movement then the Tea Party... That is that the views associated with the "moement" are sympatico to the majority of Americans...

Machiavelli wrote:I'll be in town the week of the 24th, George, if you'd like to join me for a field trip.

Assuming that they haven't been cleared by then. I believe there was an intention to remove them this morning, but for some reason that has been postponed.

I think that if geojanes and Machiavelli do get to see the protests, it would be very interesting. I'm sure you both have slightly different impressions of the motivations behind OWS and their methods, and it would be great to get some eye-witness reports.

Given that the media had ignored them for some time before it became embarrassing not to, and so it seems that the only reports are either from OWS and their sympathisers (very pro-) or from a reluctant and grudging press, having some 'independent' Redscape roving reporters on the scene would be illuminating.

I did see this comment about the type of action that OWS are taking, What to think about Occupy Wall St. I have to say that I tend to be wary of the idea that if we (by which I mean we on the left, generally) just get a bunch of people together in one place with some signs and slogans and do 'stuff' we will somehow change things. The point is that sometimes that works, but it tends to be in the context of a lot more going on.

dan

I have to say that I tend to be wary of the idea that if we (by which I mean we on the left, generally) just get a bunch of people together in one place with some signs and slogans and do 'stuff' we will somehow change things. The point is that sometimes that works, but it tends to be in the context of a lot more going on.

Don't you get the impression that in the US particularly, political leaders tend to follow. That is, that the public mood starts to move fairly significantly and political leaders then leap out, andf try to get ahead (surf) the movement?
In the way that the Tea Party started as a grass roots movement but has been co-opted by Dick Armey and others ...but it still paved the way for politicians to label themselves and participate in elections.In the way that opposition to Viet Nam started with "hippies" but grew to middle America (as the sacrifices of the war grew) . And then politicians adopted the cause...

In the same way, OWS seems to be encouraging leftisits and moderates to solidify around issues and policies that politicans have paid lip service towards but havn't addressed. Because the necessity for corporate money for politicking made some issues too difficult. Perhaps the leftist crowds will encourage stronger support for these positions. (I'm thinking of single payer health care, tax reform, financial industry regulation enhancements...)
Of all the politicans perhaps Elizabeth Warren best illustrates a OWS type? Populist from the left with a common sense no nonsense approach?

I'm perfectly prepared for this to be co-opted by the Democrats, but yet there's a tinge of hope that at least a few more Americans are withdrawing their consent from the government. The problem with voting is that's there's an implied consent with the consequences of losing. I think as was argued by Thoreau in 'Resistance to Civil Government' that citizens have a moral obligation to resist the immoral actions of the government. Why should the ruling elite be able to carry on with wars when they no longer have the consent of the public for those wars? They do it because they have been allowed to, because the public has been so apathetic.

In the end #OWS changes the conversation. Take Ron Paul, people still think he's as unelectable as ever, but end the Fed, audit the Federal Reserve, are mainstream ideas now. While co-opted by others, it's quite clear it was the long mocked efforts of Ron Paul that led to the current environment where the Federal Reserve is front and central in political dialogue.

Wikileaks, Anonymous, Al Jezeera, etc. have also changed the public debate. You can see this reflected in the response to the Iranian assassination 'plot'. While their was the typical government/media roll out of the story, there was a push back this time that was impossible a few years ago.

In the end #OWS changes the conversation.

From what to what? I doubt that the mechanisms of the Fed are udnerstood by enough people, or misunderstood by enough people, to ever be an election issue. Or a matter for much discussion.
But executive compensation, bank bailouts and income disparity are pretty easy and graphic issues...
I suspect what it does is emphasize how the crash started, remind everyone who's most to blame, what the imnplications are and who suffered and/or prospered as a result.
When we've discussed income disparities on this board more conservative posters have pooh poohed the idea that income disparity was going to cause civil unreast. They would point to the idea that Americans aspire to be one of the 1% and beleive it is possible to get there. And yet here we are....
Perhaps the realization that the cards are stacked against that for almost everyone is a reason why OWS has resonated and gained support.
For those of you who've bothered to read the polls linked above, basic concepts about fairness are part of the resonance of the protests.
What that means politically is that the next Federal election is likely to be "class warfare". With republican primary candidates generally agin the tighter financial regulatory controls that were resurrected following the Wall Street Crash, and standing against progressive taxation... The line should be drawn quite clearly...
Obama can't co-opt the "movement" but he can surf the mood. He's been disappointing to a lot of people but when it comes down to us or them in 2012 ... he'll be on the right side of the class warfare.
There was a headline somewhere today that showed that Romney was pulling in far money from Wall Street than Obama. Obama should be copying those headlines and distributing them widely..

rickyp wrote:What that means politically is that the next Federal election is likely to be "class warfare"

Of course historically, when you look at these kinds of protests in U.S. history, they tend to lead to Republican Presidents.

Do you have data on that, Russell?