Agreed. I live in a solidly Republican district in a generally Republican state, and some of the students at the university here put together an Occupy "rally", of which there were maybe 20 participants. The way they talked about it after the fact - "We made people notice!", "We were DOING something by being there!" - sounded like those Woodstock-goers of old who cling to this idea that discussion alone equates to a social movement.
If Occupiers had presented themselves in any cohesive way I believe we would have seen a stronger response. The decentralized organization "structure" was their own undoing, and it seemed as though they were trying to build a movement on public sympathy. Obviously they failed the first go around, and I doubt "Occupy2" will receive half as much attention as it's predecessor. That ship has sailed.
I agree; legal means to amend current destabilizing banking practices are pretty thin strategies. By your logic, then, the Occupy movement, however short-lived, might have been the only thing to do. At least the press started to pay attention to the real problems for a while. That's something.
Why, though, would you suggest focusing attention away from the problem (Wall Street) and on to a mere symptom of the problem (a government in the financial thrall of Wall Street)?
Why, though, would you suggest focusing attention away from the problem (Wall Street) and on to a mere symptom of the problem (a government in the financial thrall of Wall Street)?
I see it the other way around. I'm not taking Wall Street's side, but they're just taking advantage of the system that's in place.
Sure, it's shitty for a CEO to lay off thousands and give himself a $200 million dollar bonus, but shitty doesn't always equal illegal.
Persuading the Government to change the rules is a longshot, but I think the longershot would be expecting people holding posters to generate enough pity out of Wall Street for it to change it's ways voluntarily.
It appears you and I have a fundamental disagreement as to what Wall Street has done - and is doing - to deserve reform.
I'm not taking Wall Street's side, but they're just taking advantage of the system that's in place.
Here we have to note a chicken-and-egg scenario. The "system" to which you refer is a system of law. It was fairly stable up until the early '80s, when incremental changes chipped away at the post-Great Depression firewall that prevented many of the excesses that directly led to our financial problems today. The final blow was repeal of the Glass-Steaggall Act's separation of banking by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of '99.
As John Adams, the second president of the United States, expressed it in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, "All the perplexities, confusions and distresses in America arise not from defects in the Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, as much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation."
I hate to sound like a broken record - but if there is no threat, no action that financially hurts who they are protesting against, there is no point.
Raising awareness isn't a valid goal anymore, if it ever was one.
Reply
If Occupiers had presented themselves in any cohesive way I believe we would have seen a stronger response. The decentralized organization "structure" was their own undoing, and it seemed as though they were trying to build a movement on public sympathy. Obviously they failed the first go around, and I doubt "Occupy2" will receive half as much attention as it's predecessor. That ship has sailed.
Reply
Reply
Legally? Not a thing. That leaves giving up, getting dirty, or refocusing attention away from Wall Street and on the Government instead.
Reply
Why, though, would you suggest focusing attention away from the problem (Wall Street) and on to a mere symptom of the problem (a government in the financial thrall of Wall Street)?
Reply
I see it the other way around. I'm not taking Wall Street's side, but they're just taking advantage of the system that's in place.
Sure, it's shitty for a CEO to lay off thousands and give himself a $200 million dollar bonus, but shitty doesn't always equal illegal.
Persuading the Government to change the rules is a longshot, but I think the longershot would be expecting people holding posters to generate enough pity out of Wall Street for it to change it's ways voluntarily.
Reply
I'm not taking Wall Street's side, but they're just taking advantage of the system that's in place.
Here we have to note a chicken-and-egg scenario. The "system" to which you refer is a system of law. It was fairly stable up until the early '80s, when incremental changes chipped away at the post-Great Depression firewall that prevented many of the excesses that directly led to our financial problems today. The final blow was repeal of the Glass-Steaggall Act's separation of banking by the Gramm-Leach-Bliley Act of '99.
As John Adams, the second president of the United States, expressed it in a letter to Thomas Jefferson, "All the perplexities, confusions and distresses in America arise not from defects in the Constitution or Confederation, not from want of honor or virtue, as much as from downright ignorance of the nature of coin, credit and circulation."
Reply
Leave a comment