Occupy

Nov 15, 2011 19:11

The Occupy movement are apparently angry. I’m not entirely sure why. After all they’re living rent free in a public space near you.

That’s your public space, paid for with your tax/rate Dollars/Euros/Pounds etc. In most cases they’re using the public facilities again provided by your hard earned dosh, or in the ultimate irony they’re abusing their ( Read more... )

occuply squatters sea monkeys tents park

Leave a comment

miss_diverse November 15 2011, 07:13:53 UTC
I support them. I think the big banks/corpoorations need to see how many people are disgusted by the squandering of their mortgage payments / tax dollars / retirement funds.

Most Occupiers I know of have jobs and homes etc, and are keeping up their responsibilities while Occupying.

Their rights are granted by the institutions they protest against? What??? If banks and treasury departments are the ones granting rights, we are truly stuffed.

They don't WANT to abandon the system, they want to CHANGE the system. To a system where hard work is rewarded, not the ability to gamble with other people's money.

Sometimes teenagers have good reasons to be angry, too. Just because they're teenagers doesn't make them wrong.

Reply

alloy_ November 15 2011, 09:34:20 UTC
The people who borrowed against inflated equity values to support unsustainable lifestyles are just as culpable as the "Evil corporations inc."

Evil corporations didn't manufacture the GFC in a vacuum, it was a long time coming and well forewarned.

Ultimately the rights one enjoys are defined by the wealth of the economy in which one lives.

Occupy clearly doesn't understand the system they want to change including the natural consequences of behavior which has led to this situation.

Teenagers are not right in the head. This is a biological fact called hormones.

Reply

elvisvf101 November 15 2011, 11:37:48 UTC
The people who borrowed against inflated equity values to support unsustainable lifestyles are just as culpable as the "Evil corporations inc."

I don't dispute that irresponsible borrowers screwed up here, but to say that their level of culpability is anywhere NEAR that of the financial system seems ludicrous. A consumer can make the dumb decision to take out an ARM on their house under the hope that they can sell their home within 2-5 years at a profit, with every intention of walking away if no one buys.

To say they are anywhere NEAR as culpable as the banks who decided they could buy and sell these mortgages in convenient packages AND take out insurance against their risky bets and NOT think it could all blow up in their face strikes me as absurd.

I'm all for people taking the blame they deserve, but the level of blame to be laid at the feet of consumers here relative to that of the banks is so small, it's basically negligible.

Ultimately the rights one enjoys are defined by the wealth of the economy in which one lives.I ( ... )

Reply

alloy_ November 16 2011, 07:26:58 UTC
I'm all for people taking the blame they deserve, but the level of blame to be laid at the feet of consumers here relative to that of the banks is so small, it's basically negligible.

I disagree, the GFC came on the back of a decade long orgy of consumer spending. The banks didn't service this demand in a vacuum. They did in some parts of the world service this demand recklessly, especially in countries with lax bank regulation.

Supply and demand two sides to the equation.

But if we're just to accept this as fact, we basically surrender to everything Occupy is attempting to protest.

Frankly I don't think Occupy understands what they're protesting against. (when they even produce a coherent message). Most of these people are protesting simply for the sake of protesting.

Occupy encompasses virtually every relevant demographicI wasn't referring to specific demographic, I was referring to the selfish attitude, disregard for the rights of others and abdication of responsibility ( ... )

Reply

elvisvf101 November 16 2011, 09:05:37 UTC
the GFC came on the back of a decade long orgy of consumer spending. The banks didn't service this demand in a vacuum. Entirely true. But I think we disagree on the implications of that. The banks were able to CREATE some of the demand. They weren't simply responding to it ( ... )

Reply

alloy_ November 16 2011, 12:40:16 UTC
Dave Berg (Of MAD Magazine) put it succinctly [b]"I Want"[/b ( ... )

Reply


Leave a comment

Up