Forum Post: Experiment in Dialog
Posted 12 years ago on Dec. 28, 2011, 12:53 a.m. EST by justhefacts
(1275)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
http://www2.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/investment_manager.html
This is an article written by a Financial Manager who works inside the financial system. I'd like to discuss it-and would ask that anyone who replies here actually reads the article. (Which of course doesn't mean that will happen)
Here's why this matters to me...
The author states over and over and over-that it is NOT the entire 1% which are to blame. In his opinion is the only the top 0.5% and even MORE specifically the top .01% who have the power and influence to have caused our economic meltdown. I'm basing my entire argument here on the ASSUMPTION that what he says is true. It might not be.
Based on that number, and for the sake of my argument only, I’m linking to the following statistic. If you want to propose another one I'm all for it. http://www.financialsamurai.com/2011/04/12/how-much-money-do-the-top-income-earners-make-percent/
Using the statistic, that the “top 1% submitted 1,399,606-individual income tax returns with a positive AGI 2010-FOR THE SAKE OF MY ARGUMENT, (not the sake of all truth in general) I used this number to represent the NUMBER of 1% of income earners in the US.
OF that number, 1,399,606…0.5% (the top half of the 1%)=7,000 people and .01% (the top tenth of the 1%) =1400 people. Now hold those numbers for a moment….
If nothing else I ever say matters to any of you I'm fine with that. But I pray that this ONE point does at least to someone here......
The reason I oppose OWS at this juncture in time, and my personal assumption is that others probably feel the same way I do, is because the most consistently heard message coming from OWS is that they want to “take down, punish, attack” the ENTIRE 1% for any number of reasons, excuses, etc. IF THAT IS TRUE...:
In my eyes, this means that in order for me to fully support OWS, I have to be willing to condemn somewhere between 1,398,206 and 1,392,606 who may or may not be guilty…and according to this man-are NOT to blame-(innocent) in order to punish, get back at, destroy, whatever....1400-7000 people??? It is as if OWS is asking me not to GIVE A DAMN about who gets hurt or even ADMIT that the number of people that might "deserve" to be hurt pales in comparison to the number of people who will get innocently hurt in the process. And that number of innocent victims doesn’t include the number of people belonging to the 99% and how whatever OWS chooses to do could affect THEM!
I can’t do that. I DO give a damn about those people. And the "rich" innocent matter just as much to me as the "poor" innocent do. It is the NUMBER ONE REASON why I cannot and will not support OWS at this point. I can’t, or maybe I should say WON’T ever stomach that cost in exchange for an idea that only “might” result in permanent change, or SHOULD result in permanent change. Unless and until OWS can show me a solution that absolutely and positively WILL create the desired benefits while at the same time costing the LEAST amount of innocent suffering, OWS is simply asking way too much of me and every other person who might feel the way I do.
Even if I am the only person on earth that feels this way, MY reason is part of the whole that makes up “ALL the reasons why people could possibly disagree with OWS”, but my gut tells me that I’m not the only one. And it’s taken me three months to find concrete, sharable terms that express those emotions even remotely accurately.
"The author states over and over and over-that it is NOT the entire 1% which are to blame. In his opinion is the only the top 0.5% and even MORE specifically the top .01% who have the power and influence to have caused our economic meltdown. I'm basing my entire argument here on the ASSUMPTION that what he says is true. It might not be."
Of course. 99% is just a slogan to point at the extreme income inequality and instability of the economy. You can measure income inequality using the Gini Coefficient.
Everything else is derived from it: Regulatory capture and corruption, which leads to unnecessary war and financial fraud scheme via deregulation.
A counter-model is Sweden, a very much balanced society. Or Germany with a vibrant and diversified industry. Both nations have flexible voting systems and multipartisan government coalitions and oppositions. A monarchy or working federalism.
No. I believe that "99%" is a slogan designed to pit the majority against a minority while ignoring the fact that the "experts" in social problems not only defined what we're experiencing right now but came up with the BEST ways to solve our problem. Why isn't the following common knowledge to EVERYONE??
http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-doesnt-everyone-know-this/
The US unbalances are known for ages, but unbalances attract more corruption. Now we witness the meltdown and Occupy is the "non-guilty" protest party which would define the future. Not because they would win. They would be the survivors.
Beautiful Post.. It's a message very similar to ones I have harbored but for which I have not found the words to articulate.
Great Job. The poor need the middle class and the rich to unite with them. Because the rich and middle class KNOW how to fight back legally, and have the resources to do so.
..and the people have the Numbers..
But e v e r y o n e must unite and learn from eachother. NO ONES individual rights, liberties, property, or freedoms are safe when any group of people are willing to turn a blind eye to the rights of 'other groups' being trampled. We'll be dictated to separately if we cant live free in unity
This is even BETTER- please read it too!
http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-doesnt-everyone-know-this/
I've read through the article, and most of what the writer is saying confirmed my intuition all along: there's a large number of upper middle class and well-to-do people on whose shoulders this mess squarely does not land, and then there's a fairly small group affiliated with the financial industry that in general has made out like bandits despite the incredibly high social cost of the game they were playing. I bear no animosity toward the former group (in fact if things work out for me I'm well on my way to becoming one of them), but the latter group must be called to account for the collapse.
I support the Occupy movement not because I agree with the more poorly targeted rhetoric on here that seeks to demonize anyone making over $250,000 per year, but because so far they're the only group I've found with enough anger and enough raw manpower to begin to push for change. I don't worry about the content of the more extreme rhetoric I see on here because given the sheer volume of people like you out there I can't see it gaining enough traction to ever be implemented.
I feel like given the current economic climate and the current strength of the ties between the government and private industry (especially Wall Street) the Occupy movement has enormous potential as a catalyst for change (if not the movement itself then one or more of its spinoffs) and it would grieve me greatly to see that potential go to waste. Your complaints are valid, and more often than not when it comes to this specific matter I agree with your position; I just find it easier to offer those criticisms as a concerned supporter (which I am) than a detractor or dissenter.
I say that because if everyone who disagrees with particular pieces of the movement's conduct or rhetoric decides not to support it, then the only ones left inside the movement will be a ragtag group of idiots and radicals and its capacity to push for change will be pretty much neutralized. If however, enough people choose to say "I support Occupy Wall Street" and then suggest rational, practical policy initiatives that are in the spirit of the movement but sans deliberately inflammatory rhetoric, then in time that is what Occupy Wall Street will become. The more reasonable and moderate the movement can become without compromising its principles, the more support it will gain, and instead of fizzling out on the fringe the movement will become a strong positive force in American politics.
I want Occupy Wall Street to become a positive force for the entire 99.9%, and I personally prefer getting on board early and attempting to influence them in that direction over waiting for them to become that before getting involved.
Beautifully worded and for the most part I agree.I'd HUG you if you were here in person just because I hear so much of myself in your words....which I hardly EVER do with OWS.
But the fact remains that at the moment, OWS seems to be more about stirring up anger-being reactionary-than any solid-definable goal. I think it's a GIVEN that most people want the corruption to end. It's kind of a DUH thing for me. I'm almost POSITIVE that everyone outside of those who ARE corrupt feels that way.
But anger is an emotion that drives people away...not welcomes them. Any rational person who has observed a temper tantrum knows that all expressing frustration positively accomplishes IS the expression of that frustration. You can be firm and resolved and powerful and STRONG without being angry. So many negative things are associated with "anger" that I just think it's the LEAST effective reason any good person would want to join a group.
I agree, and there has come a point where I've given up on them as far as policy initiatives are concerned; in terms of actual implementation of change I'm looking more toward the 99% Declaration (and on a personal level toward involvement in the political process through any avenue that presents itself to me). Anger is a bit of a necessary evil; only when we realize that something is wrong do we move to fix it, and often when we find out that something as central to our collective identity as our government and our economy is flawed there is a great deal of anger.
We've already identified a number of basic issues that cross damn near all social, economic, and philosophical lines, in particular the degree of corruption associated with our current system of campaign finance and lobbying. Now that we've identified these issues, it's time to start looking at how exactly we want to go about fixing them, and I really want OWS to get past the "Holy balls, it's broken!" stage and reach the "Alright, how can we rebuild it?" stage. Perhaps I'm holding out more hope than I should, but it would be such a waste if the movement fails to make that jump that I want to try to push for that jump from the inside to the end.
And I, and most likely a great number of people, are watching. If OWS comes up with a valid, effective, and honest solution I can only assume that myself and others like me will join in. For now all we can say is "I feel the same way. I understand. I just cannot "react" in the same way some people do simply BECAUSE I feel the same way or understand".
I'm also willing to do what I can to work as a sounding board or to make suggestions related to that solution. I've exhausted myself here just trying to point out flaws in ideas or help those with the ideas see that the logical end of certain ideas MIGHT be rabbitholes of destruction in other ways. Being "critical" in my thinking, questioning the assumptions of others doesn't make me the enemy. I'm just doing all I can to prevent OWS from becoming or being seen as "the enemy" by everyone else.
It's late where I am again. And I really did spend most of the day trying to put myself and my arguments into something I can just refer back to instead of repeatedly defending myself. Of course...ModestCapitalist will tell you I have to log off now to become my husband...or is it my wife...so I can log back in and down vote his posts and stalk him. But to each his own...:-) Thanks for commenting.
No problem, and have a good night. I don't think that OWS by itself is going to be capable of doing that, although I hoped for a fairly long while that they were going to have the same frightening efficiency in the political sphere that the Tea Party had in 2010. What I'm hoping happens is that the more policy-minded people who have been involved in, support, or merely were influenced by the movement get involved in the Democratic Party from the bottom up, and from there a) force its elected officials to act according to the best interests of their constituents rather than their bank accounts; b) make sure the policies it decides to go to bat for are logically consistent and practically feasible; and c) make sure that it truly goes to bat for those policies, compromising where necessary and reasonable but being enough above reproach that bribery and threats don't work.
What most people who oppose the Tea Party don't realize (I'm not an official member of them and I support them for the same reasons I'm willing to support OWS) is that the Tea Party doesn't need to hold rallies anymore-they've found each other and demonstrated to the public that they are a force to be dealt with. They mistake the Tea Party's "disappearance" as meaning they've disappeared. They haven't.
They made a statement and then went to work. They are still meeting all over the country, and growing etc. But they are WORKING on the problems they brought to light by DOING things that matter, and those things are behind the scenes and within the system. I'm sure it's going to come as a HUGE shock in November next year when the effects of their efforts will most likely be demonstrated. Can only imagine how puzzled the talking heads will be...
OWS has yet to learn that lesson. Public awareness does not =results. Making noise and making a statement doesn't CHANGE anything. Only people who hear the noise and understand the statements can do that. Every hour that an OWS member "wastes" yelling and carrying a sign around-is an hour that would have been better spent doing something physical and real and constructive within the system to change things.
That's my point; we've had our big moment in the sun to demonstrate to the world that we exist and now it's time to do something with that moment. The Tea Party was able to do what it did because of an incredibly disciplined multifaceted approach that involved a fair amount of popular hell-raising in the beginning to let people know that they existed and that they were mad as hell, but they hardly restrained themselves to just that.
These days if you look at where the Tea Party is, it's now in the House of Representatives to a very significant extent, in the Senate to a lesser extent, and in the halls of K Street to a rather disquieting extent. While I don't agree with a fair amount of the policies they're fond of, I have to admire their tactics and I would like to see OWS adopt those tactics.
human suffering is inevitable.
there are millions that are homeless, as a result of banking and investment fraud.
doing nothing is simply unacceptable.
I agree with your position that the innocent should not be punished - yet the innocent are already being punished.
The innocent already have been punished.
Those among the one percent are, without question, influential individuals. Perhaps they cannot decide where their own interests lie. Silence is not a lack of response. It is a response. It is acquiescence.
Who can say what costs may be associated.
Which is why I'm SOOOOOOO outraged about THIS: http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-doesnt-everyone-know-this/
Why did this post end up at the bottom? Was it "voted down" by others?
"No one else cares to discuss this?
Why?"
It wasn't; what happened is that my comment had one upvote and your other comment didn't have any and so our dialogue was placed at the front of the queue ahead of what you wrote.
Ah,....here's and even BETTER description of what the crap we're up against- http://occupywallst.org/forum/why-doesnt-everyone-know-this/
Just finished reading it, processing and replying now.
Can I ask you respond "over there" instead of here? I'm sooooooooooooo tired of chasing myself around....lol!
No one else cares to discuss this?
Why?