Wall Street Branding.

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

I had a thought today about Wall Street, which was inspired by memory of arguments with my ex-wife. It goes something like this.

Just because nastiness can't be proven doesn't mean that it won't be noted.

If a house-builder sold a bunch of houses, and almost all of those houses burned down due to some design flaw, just because that builder might get away with denial and disinformation, doesn't mean that those affected don't know what happened. They might not have a day in court, but they certainly aren't going to buy from that builder again, and they'll likely spread the word to others.

Branding. We know that it's a powerful phenomenon.

Same deal with Wall Street.

Very very few people really understand the details of how Wall Street works. It's an incredibly complicated machine. However, an increasing number of of people are tuned in to how Wall Street is somewhere around the roots of the whole collapse, not just in the US, but globally.

Wall Street was selling derivative products to banks and investors all over the world, and it's quite clear that in many cases they knew very well what was likely to happen to them (they would explode).

Does it matter that nobody on Wall Street has been punished for their part in selling burning houses to people? Well, yes, that would be great if it happened, and might restore some credibility and "brand" to Wall Street; but the banks and politicians act as if they can just ignore the problem, and by pretending that they haven't been caught all will be like they aren't actually guilty.

To act this way is utter foolishness, though. The people know better, and the Wall Street Brand has turned to crap. The problem for WS is that they are very dependent on people buying their brand, and I suspect that many are quaking at where the future is going to take them.

What's particularly powerful is that the Wall Street brand is looked down on by both the left, and the Tea Party. Tea Party leaders are doing what they can to suggest that their supporters are against the occupy WS groups, but just because they say it doesn't make it true, and you can bet that there are alot of individuals in the Tea Party movement that really do support the occupation.

Comments

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

the tea party opposed the bailouts of the financial institutions. they do not support the OWS remedies of higher taxes and bigger government.

[devil-ad-vocate.livejournal.com]

I wasn't aware that the OWS had decided on a platform of ideas.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

if they have no ideas, whats the point?

HUR HUR

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

http://occupywallst.org/forum/detailed-list-of-demands-overview-of-tactics-for-d/

Here's the closest they've gotten.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

http://occupywallst.org/forum/detailed-list-of-demands-overview-of-tactics-for-d/

Funny how when some folks want to push a strawman of what OWS wants/believes, it's super clear cut and direct, but otherwise, it's confused and fuzzy. I guess if you can pretend the POTUS is both a communist and a nazi, you can believe anything.

Re: Here's the closest they've gotten.

[badlydrawnjeff.livejournal.com]

This is a forum post. We could link 50 different ones, none of which will be "owned" by the OWS itself.

"bailouts of the financial institutions"

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

Look at that! Common ground already. And on the core issue.


" OWS remedies of higher taxes and bigger government."

1. Only higher taxes for those that not only can most afford it, but are directly responsible for putting the policies in place that caused the collapse and who benefitted from same. But please keep pretending the proposed 3% tax increase effects everyone but the top 1%.

2. Show us where bigger government is being demanded. Show your work.

Re: "bailouts of the financial institutions"

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

1. sorry, but you can't tax only the people responsible for the policies that led to the economic malaise. no, not all wealthy people are to blame for our problems. that is just scapegoating.

2. OWS is not for more government regulation? more social programs?

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

We used to be told that there were pissed off Democrats and Independents in the Tea Party, that it was non-partisan "American People."

If you are right, then the Tea Party is now just run of the mill Republicans.

Really, I think at the beginning there were some independents and lefties rallying with the Tea Party, and now I pretty much expect that the majority of them are gone. It's the tea Party's loss. Once people figure out that the Tea Party isn't a broad movement, and is actually only a subsection of the Republican Party, then the Tea Party will lose their influence.

[whoasksfinds.livejournal.com]

tea = taxed enough already

it largely a group of people that want the government to stop spending so much damn money. i.e. bailing out failing corporations, subsidizing failing companies, govt stimulus spending, etc.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The Tea Party also wants theocracy and reviving sodomy laws while expelling all Muslims and Latinos....

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

If Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich are able to rally around certain points of common interest, I see no reason why several others of like minds to those men would also.

It's a fair assumption to say overlap exists.

Just as the Tea Party got quickly co-opted by neocons, I see something similar happening on the left, however.

It's fun watching the pundits try to bend and twist over this. One man's grassroots organization is another man's astroturf, and vice-versa.

[squidb0i.livejournal.com]

+1

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I should say at this point that a lot of Democrat talking points about the jobs bill are things I have long supported, like closing loopholes (but I'd do it by reducing all IRS paperwork to five or less sheets making loopholes largely impossible through transparent simplicity, rather than try to 'fix' what we have now by further Rube Goldberging the code).

The question is of course is always, what else is going into the bill, and would they really limit themselves to just closing loopholes? Experience suggests that I should not expect this, and I should probably never bet on it.

[jerseycajun.livejournal.com]

I meant "would not also.

Gotta watch my grammar.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

At a certain level the types attracted to these mass movements will have more in common than not. Mobs shouting overly simple solutions to complex matters will resemble each other more than more civilized politics no matter what their root is.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Good point, and it makes sense that many Tea Party supporters would support the reasons behind Occupy Wall Str. It's just that they're so entrenched in their partisanship that they'd rather not speak about it because they might be singled out by the rest. Which is sad, because actually both TP and OWS could achieve a lot more together than separately. If they wanted to.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

They're pretty different, despite their shared anger at Wall Steet.

As more than a few observers have noted, the Occupy Wall Street chant, “We Are the 99 Percent” — a shot across the bow of the wealthiest 1 percent of the country, which includes the financial predators and confidence gamers who crashed the global economy with impunity — seems synonymous with the Tea Party’s “Take Back America” ethos.

Those similarities, though, mask profound differences. The two movements both loathe the elite, but their goals, and the passions that drive them forward, could not be more at odds.

The Tea Party, for all its apparent populism, revolves around a vision of power and how to attain it. Tea Partiers tend to be white, male, Republican, graying, married and comfortable; the political system once worked for them, and they think it can be made to do so again. They revile government, but they adore hierarchy and order. Not for them the tents and untucked shirts, the tattoos, piercings and dreadlocks that are eye candy for lazy journalists. (“Am I dressed too nice so the media doesn’t interview me?” read one Occupy Wall Street demonstrator’s sign.)

In contrast, what should we make of Occupy Wall Street? The movement is, of course, nascent, and growing: on Oct. 5, it picked up thousands of marching supporters of all ages, many from unions, professions and universities, and crowded Foley Square. Its equivalents rallied in 50 cities. Deep anger at grotesque inequities extends far beyond this one encampment; after all, a few handfuls of young activists do not have a monopoly on the fight against plutocracy. Revulsion in the face of a perverse economy is felt by many respectable people: unemployed, not yet unemployed, shakily employed and plain disgusted. A month from now, this movement, still busy being born, could look quite different.

More here. (http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/opinion/sunday/occupy-wall-street-and-the-tea-party.html?ref=sunday)

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

I saw something on a news source about how NOBODY knows where this is going. That's just the nature of movements.

The journalist who was talking about this was discussing how in 1989 prominent members of the Eat German opposition movement thought that maybe in a years time, there'd be open borders and east and west germans could travel back and forth freely.

Within a month the Berlin wall wasn't even up anymore.

So those folks even within the movement can't always tell you where it's going.

This is going to be very interesting to see how it unfolds. The big test will be the winter, of course (if the po-po don't try and evict them before then)

[telemann.livejournal.com]

[enders-shadow.livejournal.com]

where's robin hood when you need him?

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Something looks familiar in this year...

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

The way I look at it, Occupy Wall Street indicates the Tea Party pattern is spreading and repeating itself. I don't like it when I disagree with it, and I like it even less where I might agree more than disagree with it. Democracy is not supposed to be decided by whose mob shouts louder than whose.

[ytterbius.livejournal.com]

Certainly if WS actually collapses, then we're in trouble. However, if WS decides it's in their best interest to put some of these people to work in order to shut them up, then that would be a good thing.

WS needs to rebuild its brand.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Wall Street won't decide that, though. They have no willingness to change the current system, the stock market does well more often than not no matter what unemployment figures look like. Hence again, two versions of the loud noise but no idea faction now.