Paying dues

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

Ok not to hog bandwidth but I wanted to drop this here for commentary (which this community has the most awesome commentators even when they disagree!)

The question du jour seems "what does OWS hope to accomplish? What are their specific goals, solutions, problem identification, etc".

I put forth that this, and the Tea Party movement is this generation's "come to Jesus" moment. Too many decades our people have been told to:

Get a job. Go to Work. Get married. Have children. Follow fashion. Act normal. Walk on the pavement. Watch TV. OBEY THE LAW. Save for your old age.

They left out the "Pursue Happiness" part, unless it supports 'an industry'.

Andrew Young, Hosea Williams, Vincent Fort, Jesse Jackson. At one time, these young people were scared, unorganized, mocked, beaten and jailed, yet determined to do something. Another one of them, A guy named King, spent his time under the baton of The Man. These people paid dues; they were jailed, beaten and often killed, not for their skin color. It was for 'stepping out of line' and 'trying to change things'.

These 'hippies' don't go away when they are chased off at the threat of an ass whupping. They are American citizens, and by their gods, they have a right to shit on anything they think deserves shat upon, flag, rag or car, as long as they accept responsibility for their action.

So, Rick, get to the fucking point: what has OSW accomplished? I think it has created the next generation of 'radical' leadership. These people are going to mend their bruises, foment their outrage over YouTube documented atrocities, organize on a social and professional level, and they are going to spark some change. They may even start a new political party.

Someone is going to step forward out of this and assume the mantle of a Dr. King; a galvanizing individual, armed with the right people, doing the right things.

Unless change is enacted at the business end of a gun, it is slow, and incremental. Protesters are mocked, then beaten and jailed. Then, one day, a closet populist like LBJ will sweep in, and change will come.

In the end, citizens will rise up and right the wrongs, once they are clearly identified. But first, the truly motivated are going to leave these camps and take this thing to the next level.

Comments

[chessdev.livejournal.com]

So, if I'm understanding you correctly -- it's not what OWS itself accomplishes, so much as it's a catalyst to begin formation of the next generation of social change.

If I'm understanding you correctly - that's an interesting thought. Of course, we wont know for another 10-20 years if you're right.


Personally, I think the more identifiable effect of OWS is that we now have a generation of kids, nation-wide, who are not only learning to be socially aware -- but are learning from the previous generation (previous protestors, their parents, people from other countries, etc).

For many years American politics has been deemed "apathetic" when it comes to voting; For good or for bad, I think the days of apathy are starting to fade for the foreseeable future.

[meus-ovatio.livejournal.com]

Apathy is a luxury of the comfortable.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

Indeed

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

Or of the completely desperate.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

A galvanized youth in an election year is definitely nothing to sneeze at. If we have somebody other than old people show up to vote maybe we can replace our bought Congress and/or spur some real progressive candidates to run and think they actually have a shot.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

I've been making that very exact comment since 1974, LOL.

Funny how things work like that :-/

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

They're likely not people who declared bankruptcy from medical bills and then ironically became against healthcare reform.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

If we can't trust 20 year old binge drinkers, then how can we trust you then?

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I will take that into account in your future endeavours to tell people what to do.

[foreverbeach.livejournal.com]

If the bought Congress is replaced by the youth, then the replacement Congress will be a bought Congress beholden to the youth who have their own demands -- demands like "free college" and such as opposed to demands like "let me opt out of social security, medicare, and medicaid and keep that tax money in my own pocket."

The point to grasp here is that, by design, all democratic governments are bought and paid for -- that is, in fact, their very purpose: to reward constituencies with goodies paid for by other people's money, and in so doing, buy reelection. The system is set-up to benefit the wealthy and the favored classes at the expense of everyone else. People who talk about "reforming" democracy and such are clueless buffoons. Democracy has ALWAYS worked this way, from day 1 in Greece to modern day Western democracies and India. People who think it can work any other way are ignorant of human nature and how human beings respond to incentives/disincentives.

Come on, people, we've had the state with us in one form or another for something like what, 6000 years now? And we still haven't gotten it "to work", for every definition of work which doesn't mean "benefit the rich and favored classes at the expense of everyone else." What's that tell you. If people keep jumping off a cliff trying to fly and splat on the ground, for 6000 years, a scientist is likely to come forward and explain the basics of flight. The problem here is that those of us who explain human nature and the inherent, systemic impossibility of good government get laughed at and called names. Government is a superstition no different than any other religion. We can't seem to get rid of that one yet, either. Maybe it's gonna take another 6000 years.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

Hey, if all we get out of it is free college then it's worth it.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

No, that is not how my statement logically follows.

Although I'll play along and a qualifier of 'all else being equal'.

[kylinrouge.livejournal.com]

I don't know, how do all these other countries who have free college pay for it? Why do we seem to be constantly incapable of doing all these things that other countries with much lower Gini Coefficients and GDP per capita seem to accomplish with ease?

I see no reason why the richest country in the world can't accomplish things that other countries with a dwarfed economy can do with no problem.

A slight increase in tax and everyone has free college. It's not a complicated concept and it's not hard to implement.

For the record

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

I have paid into it for over 50 years. (and being self employed for about 30 of those years I've paid both halfs)

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

Yes that was my point but I disagree with the time estimate.

Internet speeds things up, and the Civil Right's Movement did not galvanize until the late 50's. By '65, they had the Civil Rights Act.

When you blow on a house of cards, it does not take long for it to fall.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

King had balls and a basic radicalism that had an organized, well-thought out plan. None of this applies to the OWS movement, which like the Tea Party screams irrational slogans really loudly and has no coherent ideas expressed as yet whatsoever, and the only coherent ideas the Tea Party has is garbled racial fear of Muslims and hatred of gays, both with heavy overtones of the theocratic-movement. Should OWS succeed it will cease to be anything meaningful in a radical sense, should it stay as it is now it's simply screaming in frustration like the early Tea Party with nothing beyond "I'm mad as Hell and I'm not going to take it anymore."

Too, change out of the barrel of a gun is rapid and breathtaking....then the Thermidor that always follows that means the revolution turns things into a new boss replacing the old boss. This is what people who quote Chairman Mao overlooked, and the only way the change accelerates is if your Lenin gets replaced by someone like Stalin, who is equally committed to revolution and even more fanatical to the point that the end is the only thing worth achieving, the means to do so are irrelevant.

In any event OWS also would have no more chance overthrowing the USA in an armed revolt than the Red Dawn fappers who think they have a chance to do so with shotguns and booze do. If they really want a revolution, they can try all they want, and then the Abrams and Hellfire missiles destroy them just as they would the other.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Marshall McLuhan proposed that media themselves, not the content they carry, should be the focus of study. It is popularly quoted as "the medium is the message".

That the Tea Party (or Occupy) are still protesting tells us everything we need to know. The specifics of what they're shouting isn't important. It doesn't matter how effective these protests are. What matters is the protests. What matters is that people are still angry.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

The "who, why, where, and when" are simply details. WHAT has all the really important information.

Is it a protest? Or is it a riot?

If the protest turns into a riot, as they sometimes do, all the other questions follow.

Who are the protesters? Who are the rioters? Who started it? Why? Where? When?

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

There have been more posts here about the Occupy movement, then we ever had about the Tea Party. Although there is some agreement that both are angry about some/many of the same things.

Nobody seems to argue that these protesters don't have a right to be angry. Although many of the comments have been that these protesters would be better off doing different things with that anger, er, quantify that anger by voting better, hiring their own lobbyists, running for elected positions, raising money to feed the poor, etc.

What they are saying between the lines is these people shouldn't be protesting. They shouldn't be camping outside. They shouldn't be marching. They shouldn't be shouting. And they certainly shouldn't be littering or especially defecating on American cop cars and flags. They should be doing something more constructive then simply wasteful and stupid protesting.

The medium of protesting is at stake here! Everyone agrees they have the (God-given) right to protest. Only they shouldn't be protesting. Because shitting in public is rude. Because it obstructs traffic. Because it ties up too many public resources. Because it's dangerous and a nuisance.

They shouldn't be protesting because it's stupid. Protesting solves nothing. Because it's time well wasted. Because there are better ways to effect change.

Because protesters don't obey all the rules. They havn't obtained all the permits and permissions. Because they block public access and public traffic. Because they break noise by-laws. Because they break curfews in parks. Because we have laws in place meant to hinder public protests.

I don't care which side you're on. Left or right. Black or white. The medium is the message here.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

Well, actually I'm kind of pleased with how my comments formulated in my mind. It's only because arguments from badlydrawnjeff have been so circular that I've had to give some thought into what he's been saying. His arguments are not unique. I seen underlankers, and others here, hell, even some conservative talk radio hosts and newspaper columnists are echoing similar sentiments.

I'm going to turn this thread into a post now.

[allhatnocattle.livejournal.com]

I hope my post remains as interesting to you

[htpcl.livejournal.com]

And your post didn't disappoint!

simple steps

[oportet.livejournal.com]

1) Make them aware
2) Make them care, make them pay

Step 1 has been covered - you could argue it's just being re-covered now, I doubt any of those with all the money never noticed they had it and most didn't. Maybe OWS it really trying to make the 99% aware of what the 1% is already aware of.

Step 2 is the problem.

I'm not the 1%, but let's pretend I am, let's pretend I have 600 million stashed away. The saddest, most pathetic sob story, might get a shrug and a 'sorry' out of me. Just cross 'making them care' out, that ain't happening.

Make them pay. This is what it all comes down too. It'd be hard to take a piece of what they've made up to this point, without crossing over into illegal territory - so we have to look to the future.

Bank Transfer Day really is the best chance right now. It sounds good in theory, but so did those Gas Boycott Day chain letters Aunt Susie sent you every other day for a year.

Re: simple steps

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Bank Transfer Day has something going for it that Gas Boycott Day never had: a chance in hell.

Gas Boycott Day was like Boycott Your Heroin Pusher Day. Once the need to drive kicks in like the shakes or DTs, any thought of protest gets forgotten.

Transfer Day, by contrast, doesn't change anything about your life for the worse. A credit union credit card? 6% or so, no teasers. A major bank card? Well over 9%, into double digits if you miss a payment or fail to cross yourself properly on Tuesdays. Credit unions have checking accounts, savings accounts; it's like they're real banks and everything.

No sacrifice at all, unlike Gas Boycotting. And real money leaves the big banks, affecting their fractional reserves. I like that.

Re: simple steps

[oportet.livejournal.com]

True, but if 10% hold 90% of the wealth - then this boycott is for the 90% who holds 10%. The absolute best you can hope for is hitting 10% of their holdings. Take out people who already use small banks, take out people who just aren't going to participate - a great turnouts going to hit them for 3, 5% at best.

No doubt it'll hurt, will it hurt enough?

Re: simple steps

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

That depends upon how desperate the banks are for depositor reserves to back existing failing loans. Money is vanishing from our economy at record rates; if banks don't have the reserves to cover these losses, they get to disappear themselves.

Bank of America is looking especially desperate right now (thanks to all that crap John Thune unloaded on them), so it might actually do something there.

Re: simple steps

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

Remember, that's kinda the point. Breaking the reserve thresh-hold will toss at least one of these tossers into the toss pot. At this point, I'm all for crashing the system if it means exposing the excesses and legal crimes, rather than cover the whole mess under yet another TARP.

Let's also remember that this reserve is falling despite QE inputs, despite the banks earning interest on money they are not lending into circulation (http://www.angrybearblog.com/2011/10/about-that-er-monetary-expansion.html), which leads to a whole 'nother graph of the silly:



Every penny over zero is money the banks are getting gratis from the Fed for not, again not letting money escape from their vaults. It might be time to let another Lehman Bros. fall. I'm betting on BoA. Closure couldn't happen to a nicer pile of douches.

Re: simple steps

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

The interest they earn on these reserves is incredibly minimal. Buying bonds would likely pay more.

For me, that's beside the point. Banks shouldn't have the option of sitting on their money to make more. They are the engine of money creation through lending. For them to not issue loans is antithetical; to create interest money (a power the Fed has) and therefore an incentive to continue not issuing loans is monetary blasphemy.

One may as well pay workers to sit home not because they're genuinely sick but just because they don't feel like working. And you know, that might be the problem, a complete and total lack of suitable creditors. If, as you say:

Remember, since 2007/8 the Fed has been trying specifically to PREVENT a large excess reserve situation.

Then allowing reserve interest payments since 2008 means the credit market is indeed frozen, or at least turning to cold molasses. The fact that the regulation authorizing interest on reserves was passed in 2006 (originally slated for 2011, but bumped up to late 2008 due to the crisis) means that this lending slowdown to a sludgy crawl was anticipated.

Which jives with a couple of things I've been mulling lately. . . . Hrrrmmm. . .

Re: simple steps

[peristaltor.livejournal.com]

I did a little reading myself. The legislation was introduced in 2006. I'm curious about the background reason for the move, though, enough that I just finished an LJ entry wondering just that.

Do you have some links to the debate preceding the legislation?

[foreverbeach.livejournal.com]

"A populist like LBJ." LOL!!!

The guy who forced the poor and middle class' kids at gunpoint to go fight, get maimed, and in too many cases, die in order to enrich himself and his buddies, like those at Brown & Root is a populist.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Vietnam was definitely his Achilles heel.

[foreverbeach.livejournal.com]

And murdering JFK wasn't a good start for him.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Ok, now that's crazy talk.

[foreverbeach.livejournal.com]

Seriously? You don't think LBJ was behind that? OMFG.

[telemann.livejournal.com]

Nope. He wasn't.

[foreverbeach.livejournal.com]

You're wrong.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Honestly, Kennedy had a terminal illness and was very much more conservative in all the wrong ways than he's remembered as being. He benefited greatly from the martyrdom factor, nothing in his career prior to Dallas justifies any of his press beyond the martyrdom.

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

Well, he was certainly better than the damnyankee aristocrat who got elected on fearmongering and being hard-line on communism and who wound up nearly blowing the planet up over Cuba.

[rick-day.livejournal.com]

OK I am old enough to remember what happened here. All that war stuff was actually brought about by JFK. LBJ felt he had to appease the war complex while he got his populist agenda through Congress. remember this was a scant few years since the CMC.

Communism was still 'considered' a 'threat', even though the Vietnamese should have united in the late 50's (look how relatively well they have done post war).

I suggest the Robert Caro trilogy on LBJ starting with "Path to Power" (book 1). It will clearly show that Sam Johnson (Lyndon's father) raised a mentor to the Populist movement, was the last populist president we have had. Technically, the next most populist was Nixon, but that is another revelation for another thread :)

Johnson's "Great Society". Google it.