Occupy
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... )
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... )
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 demographic
I wasn't referring to specific demographic, I was referring to the selfish attitude, disregard for the rights of others and abdication of responsibility.
For the record the Occupy Auckland people are professional protestors who live in state provided housing, receive weekly benefits and free healthcare.
Reply
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.
The home mortgage is supposed to be a device by which a consumer is extended credit. The banks decided it could be a tradeable asset, and as such, actively encouraged the extension of unwise mortgages to increase the supply of mortgages available for them to package into their collateralized debt obligations. This is pretty well documented as the source of the sub-prime lending crisis.
I recognize your desire to categorize this as a supply and demand issue, which presumes we're dealing with a truly free market. The concentrated power the banks hold pretty much destroy any illusion of perfect competition. Perfection may be an ideal, but the banking system is so far from the ideal, again, I don't see how we can even begin to rationally apply the laws of supply and demand.
For the record the Occupy Auckland people are professional protestors who live in state provided housing, receive weekly benefits and free healthcare.
This is unfortunate, again, because of the situation in the US. The movement DOES certainly attract some professional protesters (again, the nature of public protest), but the media, which is supported by the global financial system, and actively encouraged by the dogmatically capitalist right wing, wants to discredit the entire movement and continue with business as usual by focusing on professional protesters. It's a gigantic load of hipocracy as the same right wing was more than happy to ignore the professional nature of the Tea Party movement and characterized that movement as truly grass-roots, and the media is more than happy to cover them as speaking for the average person. That's fine, because the movement does represent some truly held viewpoints. But they're so quick to try and discredit Occupy, one wonders if the money isn't doing the talking.
Reply
The sub-prime crisis has it's origins in the fall of the Iron Curtain.
Post fall Western institutions went East to exploit new markets. The normalization of formerly command economies meant a sustained period of super profits. Eventually these profits normalized and in an effort to maintain them corporations began to assume greater and greater risk profiles....until it all came tumbling down.
Effectively the US postponed a down turn in the economic cycle for 15 or so years.
The guilty party is unregulated capitalism. Moderate banking regulation wouldn't have prevented a recession (That was long overdue) but it would have stemmed the excesses. Banks in regulated environments survived the Sub prime disaster relatively unscathed.
I haven't paid attention to the international media, except superficially, however I have a number of issues with occupy.
1. It's not a global campaign, to suggest it is and to try and legitimize it by saying so is farcical. It's viral, it's copycat but it isn't global for the simply reason conditions in countries vary.
2. It's not a groundswell campaign. If I'm wrong, and if it is, then Occupy should in a few months time occupy the White House. That would change things.
3. The right to protest shouldn't supercede the rights of other citizens in perpetuity. At some point it stops being a protest and simply becomes an alternate abuse of privilege.
Reply
Leave a comment