The "Occupy" Movement

[Edward Campbell]

I understand the sentiment - particularly in the context of the origins of the movement in the US. Billions of dollars were handed to the financial industry to save them  from their own incompetence, essentially socializing their massive losses. Granted, most of the funds doled out under TARP are being paid back, but the overall cost to the economy was nevertheless huge. Pensions eroded, massive budget deficits in some jurisdictions because of the knock on economic effects,  Who's going to pay for that? What kind of moral hazard problem has been created there? The bailouts were undertaken and mostly tolerated with the thought that there'd be some sort of regulation or restructuring of the system to prevent anything like it from happening again.

I'll aggree there is some mobility of wealth - but that doesn't change the fact that the growth of income disparity has never been good for societies, and it's not unreasonable to expect some anger that there's bailouts for Wall Street but not for Main Street. I'll also agree that many of "Main Street" made their own bad decisions - but that's the whole thing - no calvalry came for them. Sadly there's a lot of strawman arguments about them though.

There is not just some mobility of wealth, there is HUGE mobility of wealth and capital.

It is true that it is not moving to the idle middle class - the ones camping out in public parks to give us all a display of their self centred greed and ignorance.

Let me repeat: there is too much income inequality in America and Europe - but that inequality does NOT include the middle class which continues to get better and better off relative to the lower classes, especially the really poor. The troublesome gap is between the top 2 or 3% and the "working poor."

But the poor and parts of the middle class are "fighting back" in the most effective possible way - go look in the science classrooms and labs at your local university. Look at the faces.

Texas Academy of Maths and Science
Every year the top 100 (maths & science) scholars in 10th grade
are invited to the University of North Texas for a two year programme
that sees 90%+ of the kids go to the top 10% of US universities
with a year plus of credits already under their belts

Look in the BComm classrooms, too. You will see the same thing. Immigrant kids, minority (which too often equals poor) kids, foreign students ... fewer and fewer of the middle class, blond haired, blue eyed boys who were in the mainstream 40 years ago.

That's "mobility of capital" in action.

I'm only unhappy with the idea that there is in some way justifiable "anger that there's bailouts for Wall Street but not for Main Street" because it's simply not true.

 

[kstart]

A show of Occupy respect in Halifax. . .

Occupy Toronto takes to the streets again

http://www.cbc.ca/news/canada/toronto/story/2011/10/16/occupy-canada-sunday.html

Police, protesters observe Halifax ceremony
On Sunday morning, RCMP and Halifax police gathered on the Grand Parade — where about 40 protesters have set up their camp — for an annual ceremony honouring peace officers killed in the line of duty.
Before the service, Sgt. Kevin McNeil said police were prepared to gather outside the square, but in the end there was plenty of room for both groups.
"When we came in this morning, one of the young gentlemen down here, he offered to clean up some of the chalk markings that had been around where the actual monument is, so that was a good gesture,” McNeil told CBC News.
 

  :yellow:

 

[a_majoor]

Since both the TEA Party movement and OWS are notionally against the same thing: Crony Capitalism, why have they come to opposite conclusions and taken opposite tracks? The TEA Party movement is doing the heavy lifting of getting engaged in the political process and ejecting politicians who can't or won't respond to their concerns. They are also working on a political and ultimatly social program to reduce the power of the State and divest the State of many of the tools and abilities that allow, encourage and enhance the growth of corruption and Crony Capitalism. (The Libertarianism as a social movement is part of this, as people discover they don't need the State in so many aspects of their lives as they do can do things faster, better and more cheaply by themselves and in cooperation with like minded individuals).

The OWS movement is advocating the opposite; demanding huge increases in State intervention in the economy and our lives in order to achieve some sort of "equality" and "justice", although it is mathematically impossible to give them their "living wage", cancell their debts and give them all their other freebies even if the wealth of all the "rich" (no matter how low you set the bar) was siezed and turned over to them. And of course, siezing the wealth only ensures there will be no wealth produced tomorrow...(perhaps you remember Democrats musing about seizing American IRA's and replacing them with some sort of Government annuity? The seizure of the IRA's would net $2 trillion dollars; enough to cover a single year's deficit by the Obama administration with a small amount left over.)

The real danger, besides ad hominem and strawman arguments that ignore or deflect evidence of what is being said and done by the OWS people, is the crowds will eventually develop a deep sense of frustration. They have no real arguments, but politicians seeking to gain their support will fire up the "class war" rhetoric (you know, the idea that you should "spread the wealth" or that "after a point you have made enough money"); the productive 53% or so of the population will not express sympathy or support for a movement that seeks to seize their wealth, and frustrtion will mount until there is violence. After that, who knows?

http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/our-idiot-brother-the-tea-party’s-relationship-to-occupy-wall-street/?print=1

Our Idiot Brother: The Tea Party’s Relationship to Occupy Wall Street
Posted By Walter Hudson On October 17, 2011 @ 9:56 am In Opinion,Politics | 73 Comments

[1]
I'm here for Occupy Basement.

We are products of our choices more than our environment. Perhaps nothing demonstrates this more than the stark difference between siblings [2]. Two children born and raised in the same home by the same parents, taken to the same church, and taught in the same schools can nevertheless lead remarkably different lives. One may strive to achieve while the other slacks. One may obey the law while the other breaks it. One may take responsibility while the other places blame.

As Occupy Wall Street demonstrations carry on throughout the country, many commentators have made comparisons to the Tea Party [3]. While there are far more contrasts between the two, there is nevertheless a relationship worth noting. In effect, Occupy Wall Street is the Tea Party’s younger, misguided sibling.

Tea Partiers and Occupiers are born of the same environment. Ideology does not affect reality. Whether you are a constitutional conservative or a rabble-rousing Marxist, we have all seen the American economy implode. We have all seen the housing bubble burst and the subsequent bailouts of banks and favored corporations. Likewise, we have all been privy to the gridlock in Washington, to the debates over the debt ceiling, government stimuli, and how to best recover from recession.

However, these events have been viewed from decisively different perspectives, producing wildly different protests. The consensus such as it is [4] among Occupiers is that bankers, corporations, and the wealthy are to blame for the nation’s wrecked economy. The Tea Party recognizes that government is the chief actor. It’s not as though Goldman Sachs or Chrysler can tax Americans. Only government can do that. Only government can bail out private interests with public funds.

By failing to recognize the government’s role in the bailouts, Occupiers find themselves in the paradoxical position of advocating precisely what they claim to protest. Occupiers typically call for some form of wealth redistribution. They call for taxing the wealthy to provide for everyone else. What they don’t seem to realize is that the bailouts they claim to be against were precisely that! By definition, a government bailout is the seizure and redistribution of wealth to insulate bad actors from malinvestment. In that way, bailing out Wall Street is fundamentally no different than bailing out student loans (one of the Occupiers’ demands [5]). One cannot be against the bailouts and for socialism, as they are one and the same.

  [6]

Occupiers clearly can’t see this forest from their surrounding trees. They see a wholly manufactured distinction between Wall Street and Main Street, as if borrowers and government had nothing to do with the housing and financial crises.

Government insisted upon sub-prime mortgages [7], mandated them, and backed them with the full faith and credit of the United States. Borrowers took money because they could without applying due diligence to determine whether they should. The motive of the scheme was explicit, to regard home ownership as a basic human right. That plainly socialist objective is precisely the kind which Occupiers champion. Bankers were both coerced and incentivized to lend irresponsibly. When the resulting bubble burst, the bailouts did precisely what Occupiers are asking for, plunder wealth for the least deserving.

Occupiers appear to be instinctively aware that their wealth has been among that plundered. But they blame the banks for being bailed out instead of the government which did the bailing. They are protesting the same socialism as the Tea Party, only unwittingly and while advocating more socialism. Like a drunk treating a hangover with another drink, these folks are as self-destructive as they are aloof to their real problem.

[8]
Stuff for the people! To hell with people that make stuff!

Renowned investment advisor and economic commentator Peter Schiff summarizes [9]:

What are they upset about? They are upset about the bailouts, the bailouts of the banks, corporate welfare. But that’s not capitalism. Maybe it’s crony capitalism or corporatism or statism or socialism or fascism. There are a lot of ‘isms that you can label this. But the one ‘ism that doesn’t apply is capitalism, because under capitalism the banks would have failed. They wouldn’t have been bailed out. There would be no corporate welfare. In fact, if we had capitalism, there really wouldn’t have been a housing bubble. If we had capitalism, there wouldn’t have been a financial crisis. So the protesters would have nothing to protest….

What they want reads like the ten planks of the Communist Manifesto. Clearly, [their demands are] more government, more socialism. But what is driving the protests is what they’re demanding….The Occupy Wall Street movement is really arguing for more capitalism whether they know it or not.

This is what makes the Occupiers idiot brothers of the Tea Party. Both movements are driven by the same impulse, but toward different ends by a completely different understanding.

The older, wiser Tea Party saw the score from the start. The now famous rant [10] by Rick Santelli on the floor of the Chicago Stock Exchange kicked off the movement with a succinct complaint.

How many of you people want to pay for your neighbor’s mortgage…? Raise their hand. [Boos.] President Obama are you listening?…

Do Occupiers want to pay for their neighbor’s mortgage? Clearly not. Otherwise, they wouldn’t object to the bailouts. So what’s the divide? How does one start from the same basic objection and reach the polar opposite prescription?

The answer is a lack of maturity. Occupiers don’t seem to understand how finance works. The term “bank” is a pejorative among their ranks, as if finance is an inherent evil. They never quite grasped their fathers’ crotchety axiom that money doesn’t grow on trees. They certainly refuse to acknowledge that the rich aren’t rich enough to provide everything for everyone.

[11]
"I want to own my own catering company. I want to start my own cafe. I want to start my own non-profit...What's stopping me? My own lack of unmotivation." - actual quote from real Occupier

Occupiers see themselves as other-than-rich. Such is the sentiment underlying “I am the 99%.” When they talk about taxing the wealthy to provide for the people, the “wealthy” is some other guy and the “people” are them. However, in practice, socialism cannot function by eating just the rich. It eats anybody who earns anything until nothing is left.

The bailouts, the stimuli — it’s all cannibalism. Occupiers don’t realize they are on the menu. They do not understand that wealth is accumulated production, and that their demands require taxing their own production before it accumulates. They do not understand that they are chewing their own arm.

This is why the Occupiers cannot come up with a coherent message. They first need a coherent thought. To that end, this Tea Partier offers his services [12]. To the extent Occupiers are born of the same distaste for socialism as Tea Partiers, the old and wise may be able to mentor the young and dumb. Like any such familial reconciliation, success starts with the choice.

Article printed from Pajamas Media: http://pajamasmedia.com

URL to article: http://pajamasmedia.com/blog/our-idiot-brother-the-tea-party%e2%80%99s-relationship-to-occupy-wall-street/

URLs in this post:

[1] Image: http://pajamasmedia.com/files/2011/10/our-idiot-brother-800.jpg
[2] stark difference between siblings: http://www.npr.org/2010/11/18/131424595/siblings-share-genes-but-rarely-personalities
[3] comparisons to the Tea Party: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-partisan/post/occupy-wall-street-vs-tea-party/2011/10/13/gIQA3YrViL_blog.html
[4] such as it is: http://www.theblaze.com/stories/occupy-sacramento-protesters-cant-agree-on-why-theyre-there-and-get-angry-with-reporter/
[5] one of the Occupiers’ demands: http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/campus-overload/post/at-occupy-wall-street-protests-student-loan-frustration/2011/10/10/gIQAV5CHaL_blog.html
[6] Image: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uTbz1kQdfzI
[7] insisted upon sub-prime mortgages: http://www.aynrand.org/site/News2?page=NewsArticle&id=24013
[8] Image: http://pajamasmedia.com/files/2011/10/Our_Idiot_Brother_21-1024x550.jpg
[9] summarizes: http://youtu.be/7iJvtQpyx1A
[10] now famous rant: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zp-Jw-5Kx8k
[11] Image: http://pajamasmedia.com/files/2011/10/our-idiot-brother03-290x290.jpg
[12] offers his services: mailto:chair@northstartpp.com

 

[a_majoor]

And more from the mouths of the OWS people, this time from the WSJ:

ttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052970204479504576637082965745362.html?mod=rss_opinion_main

Polling the Occupy Wall Street Crowd
In interviews, protesters show that they are leftists out of step with most American voters. Yet Democrats are embracing them anyway.
By DOUGLAS SCHOEN

President Obama and the Democratic leadership are making a critical error in embracing the Occupy Wall Street movement—and it may cost them the 2012 election.

Last week, senior White House adviser David Plouffe said that "the protests you're seeing are the same conversations people are having in living rooms and kitchens all across America. . . . People are frustrated by an economy that does not reward hard work and responsibility, where Wall Street and Main Street don't seem to play by the same set of rules." Nancy Pelosi and others have echoed the message.

Yet the Occupy Wall Street movement reflects values that are dangerously out of touch with the broad mass of the American people—and particularly with swing voters who are largely independent and have been trending away from the president since the debate over health-care reform.

The protesters have a distinct ideology and are bound by a deep commitment to radical left-wing policies. On Oct. 10 and 11, Arielle Alter Confino, a senior researcher at my polling firm, interviewed nearly 200 protesters in New York's Zuccotti Park. Our findings probably represent the first systematic random sample of Occupy Wall Street opinion.

Our research shows clearly that the movement doesn't represent unemployed America and is not ideologically diverse. Rather, it comprises an unrepresentative segment of the electorate that believes in radical redistribution of wealth, civil disobedience and, in some instances, violence. Half (52%) have participated in a political movement before, virtually all (98%) say they would support civil disobedience to achieve their goals, and nearly one-third (31%) would support violence to advance their agenda.

The vast majority of demonstrators are actually employed, and the proportion of protesters unemployed (15%) is within single digits of the national unemployment rate (9.1%).

An overwhelming majority of demonstrators supported Barack Obama in 2008. Now 51% disapprove of the president while 44% approve, and only 48% say they will vote to re-elect him in 2012, while at least a quarter won't vote.

Fewer than one in three (32%) call themselves Democrats, while roughly the same proportion (33%) say they aren't represented by any political party.

James Taranto on President Obama's Wall Street ties and protesters' disenchantment with the Democratic party.

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.

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.

In 1970, aligning too closely with the antiwar movement hurt Democrats in the midterm election, when many middle-class and working-class Americans ended up supporting hawkish candidates who condemned student disruptions. While that 1970 election should have been a sweep against the first-term Nixon administration, it was instead one of only four midterm elections since 1938 when the president's party didn't lose seats.

With the Democratic Party on the defensive throughout the 1970 campaign, liberal Democrats were only able to win on Election Day by distancing themselves from the student protest movement. So Adlai Stevenson III pinned an American flag to his lapel, appointed Chicago Seven prosecutor Thomas Foran chairman of his Citizen's Committee, and emphasized "law and order"—a tactic then employed by Ted Kennedy, who denounced the student protesters as "campus commandos" who must be repudiated, "especially by those who may share their goals."

Today, having abandoned any effort to work with the congressional super committee to craft a bipartisan agreement on deficit reduction, President Obama has thrown in with those who support his desire to tax oil companies and the rich, rather than appeal to independent and self-described moderate swing voters who want smaller government and lower taxes, not additional stimulus or interference in the private sector.

Rather than embracing huge new spending programs and tax increases, plus increasingly radical and potentially violent activists, the Democrats should instead build a bridge to the much more numerous independents and moderates in the center by opposing bailouts and broad-based tax increases.

Put simply, Democrats need to say they are with voters in the middle who want cooperation, conciliation and lower taxes. And they should work particularly hard to contrast their rhetoric with the extremes advocated by the Occupy Wall Street crowd.

Mr. Schoen, who served as a pollster for President Bill Clinton, is author of "Hopelessly Divided: The New Crisis in American Politics and What It Means for 2012 and Beyond," forthcoming from Rowman and Littlefield.

 

[Rifleman62]

I wonder if the OWS people watch the NFL, MBA, MLB, NHL, and what do they think of the players. Possibly, it should be OSS (Occupy Sports Stadiums)?

 

[turtlerace79]

In today's Calgary Herald there was another article describing the antics of some of these aimless protesters with their vague agenda, but journalist Licia Corbella  includes some statisitcs that point out how different the Occupy "Insert Canadian city here" with how the Occupy Wall Street American protests are.

For example, "About 4.4 million Canadians who filed taxes in 2009 each paid less than $100 in income taxes. In the same year, 173,000 Canadians - which is about the size of two Red Deers- paid $28 Billion in tax, or $164,000 on average per filer,"... "According to the Canada Revenue Agency's Income Statistics for 2009, only 0.7 per cent of Canadians earned more than $250,000 per year but paid 19.7 per cent of the income tax tab."

These are  not stats that suggest we have a 99% vs 1% society growing here up north. I concede that it is often hard for a low-income earner to achieve the breaks that people of means might enjoy, but that doesn't mean it is impossible. I am growing tired of these narrow-minded people copying signs that they don't exactly understand simply because they saw someone using it on Wall Street. We have issues in Canada just like every country, but we cannot just start protesting because someone suggested that we should. Canada does a pretty good job of distributing the wealth, better than the U.S. anyway, and how I know this is because roughly 8 blocks from where these Calgary protesters gather, there is a hospital that they can walk into sans identification and get their health needs taken care of.

This article mentions the contibutions and anniversary of the "Famous 5"  women that protested back in 1929 to capture what they perceived as a real injustice: women being delcared "persons". It seems almost an insult to these strong-willed and inspired women to have their anniversary overshadowed by a bunch of unintelligent campers with pretty nice tents.

http://www.calgaryherald.com/news/flurry+inaction+Occupy+Calgary/5571556/story.html

 

[larry Strong]

What has the west done wrong for people/........... (insert expletive of choice) to 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...."

Asked by someone who has busted his body at physically demanding jobs for 40 years.

 

[OldSolduer]

If the "campers" truly wanted change, they would give up their iPhones, laptops, etc and live like poor folk.....

 

[GAP]

What has the west done wrong for people/........... (insert expletive of choice) to 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...."

oh....you mean Greece.....

 

[Redeye]

If the "campers" truly wanted change, they would give up their iPhones, laptops, etc and live like poor folk.....

Why? What does that have to do with anything?

 

[Redeye]

One of the best commentaries I've seen yet - thanks to Calvin:

 

[OldSolduer]

Why? What does that have to do with anything?

Don't you see? They, by using these devices, are supporting the capitalist rich running dogs are they not? They should ditch these devices in favor of snail mail  in support of the poor hard working proletariat!!

:stirpot:

 

[Rifleman62]

Quote from: Jim Seggie on Today at 10:12:24

   

If the "campers" truly wanted change, they would give up their iPhones, laptops, etc and live like poor folk.....

Redeye:

Why? What does that have to do with anything?

Well it would stop posts here from some who are in the "camps".

 

[RangerRay]

This is awesome...

http://alexgtsakumis.com/2011/10/19/occupy-vancouver-driven-by-the-usual-suspects-pro-drugs-anti-war-conspiracy-theorist-global-warming-louts/

...

Are there nice folks, too, genuinely concerned about the out-of-sync world? Yes, of course but they’re a minority. And do you know what they’re accomplishing by buttressing the efforts of the nutters behind this whole thing? Nothing, nada, zilch, zippo, zero, forget it.

At first glance, there sure is some organizing going on: Open drug deals, open drug consumption (including marijuana, meth and cocaine–one girl did a line in front of me right off the lip of the fountain) in full view of the police, who are powerless to do anything without supportive courts (so said two senior members of the VPD). It’s EVERYWHERE. And the legalization idiots are in full regalia, replete with ‘Free Marc Emery’ t-shirts (a popular item and theme with the crazies) and unwashed, matted down, stinky hair, dirty nails and add the complexion of concrete…geezus, the last people to save the world will be this lot.

Yet the buttoned-down socialist set tell us that these are the people who will free the world from the evil clutches of unbridled capitalism...

Much more on the link!  Not to be missed!

And this is equally as funny/sad...

http://www.sunnewsnetwork.ca/video/1225187712001

 

[Fishbone Jones]

One of the best commentaries I've seen yet - thanks to Calvin:

He forgot Big Union in there 

 

[Strike]

Sent this to a friend of mine who's working at the Occupy Toronto site (works for G&M but is VERY socialist...kinda funny):

http://failbook.failblog.org/2011/10/18/funny-facebook-fails-ows-youre-doing-it-wrong/

Her reply?  Guess who's serving free coffee down there.  Yes, she's sees the irony.  She may be socialist, but she's certainly not stupid.  ;D

 

[OldSolduer]

Sent this to a friend of mine who's working at the Occupy Toronto site (works for G&M but is VERY socialist...kinda funny):

http://failbook.failblog.org/2011/10/18/funny-facebook-fails-ows-youre-doing-it-wrong/

Her reply?  Guess who's serving free coffee down there.  Yes, she's sees the irony.  She may be socialist, but she's certainly not stupid.  ;D

Let me guess.....Starbucks? That capitalist running dog corporation? ;D  Of course I say thees with theek Russian accent, no? >

 

[Jarnhamar]

This whole thing can be summed up (In Strike's link) by the protesters going to starbucks before going out to protest mega corporations.
"But it's tasty!"  yup, one large cup of ironic hold the integrity.  idiots.

 

[a_majoor]

What has the west done wrong for people/........... (insert expletive of choice) to 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...."

 

[cupper]

He forgot Big Union in there 

You missed the part about the soul employee DEMANDING high wages. ;D