Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: I don't really get it

Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 4, 2011, 8:52 a.m. EST by ChickenMonkey (17) from Hoboken, NJ
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

hat is supposed to replace Wall Street? Or, asked in another way, what needs to occur in order for this protest movement to be satisfied?

What would the world look like if OccupyWallStreet gets it's way?

From the outside, it looks like this group has unintelligent and misplaced angst, with no serious purpose, plan, or issue to rally around. Please prove me wrong.

54 Comments

54 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 2 points by ChickenMonkey (17) from Hoboken, NJ 13 years ago

Along the same lines, if the problem is with equity trading (by that I mean stocks, forgive me if my terminology is inaccurate), then why is banning money from politics necessary?

Shouldn't the movement then become more focused, arguing for all people to boycott buying stocks? Certainly, participation in what wall street does is not mandatory. You could even boycott banks, credit cards, and savings accounts, if this is what you have a problem with.

Of course, this would likely have deleterious effects on the ability of business to raise and secure capital, but this would be something that could be argued to either be worth the risk or not significant for some reason (I don't know what reason that would be; I'm inclined to believe that it doesn't exist)

[-] 2 points by ChickenMonkey (17) from Hoboken, NJ 13 years ago

(*What is supposed to replace Wall Street); sorry, typo missed the W

[-] 1 points by MetroEco (12) from Philadelphia, PA 13 years ago
[-] 1 points by ldugdale (1) 13 years ago

I believe that the only way things are going to change is to limit the power of politicians who take their cues from the 1% and are part of the 1%.

Right now, politicians (mostly white men) can stay in the House or Senate their entire adult life if they continue to be re-elected. I am an advocate of LIMITED terms for the members of the House and Senate, not unlimited which is what we have now. At present, to get this done, members have to pass an act limiting their terms which they will NOT do or the majority of states have to pass laws through their individual legislatures supporting a constitutional convention to change this and one other item in the constitution (must be items, plural).

My question is…would OccupyWallStreet be willing to take this issue on??

fyi...most of the banks donate gobs of $$ to politicians including President Obama..Goldman Sachs was his 2nd largest donor (as an organization) in the 2008 Presidential campaign, donating $1,013,091.

[-] 1 points by ChickenMonkey (17) from Hoboken, NJ 13 years ago

Interesting proposal. I think we may need more like this.

[-] 1 points by ChickenMonkey (17) from Hoboken, NJ 13 years ago

The movement appears unintelligent. This means that the will of the people involved in the movement are unintelligent or that they are ineffective at presenting their ideas. Perhaps they are blinded by their contempt for perceived greed that they neglect providing stronger support to their arguments, relying only on emotionally charged one-liners.

It is important not to gloss over the fact that some institutions on Walls Street provide important services to the economy. You can't simply call them a parasite and say they need to be eliminated. IMHO, when you are proposing large changes to an existing system, it is your obligation to show what those changes are, and why they will preserve what is good about what you are changing and how they will eliminate the bad.

Please realize that I'm trying to give constructive criticism. I think that if you are able to address these issues it would actually make your argument stronger. Then I would be able to say you have an intelligent argument / movement.

[-] 1 points by success (19) 13 years ago

There are really two parts to the movement in my view:

[-] 1 points by Toddtjs (187) 13 years ago

That's it in a nut shell

[-] 1 points by success (19) 13 years ago

We really need to find a way to spread the word on this.

[-] 1 points by Toddtjs (187) 13 years ago

What do you propose

[-] 1 points by success (19) 13 years ago

If this list somehow went viral, the comments that are currently up to over 200 could get to 2,000. Many of these comments are very helpful in the effort to hone the list. I don't know how to get it to go viral though. There's no up / down vote on actual forum posts and no way then to sort by most popular. That would help. Absent that, I guess we just have to forward to people.

[-] 1 points by Toddtjs (187) 13 years ago

Send the list to a dozen media sites. Msn, CNN, USA. Ect...

[-] 1 points by success (19) 13 years ago

My thought was share it among supporters first so they could collectively help edit, add, delete. Next step would be to read it at General Assembly at the park and note that over 2,000 people have commented and made suggestions so it's built from the bottom up. First though we need to get it to more people on this forum.

[-] 1 points by IntelligentAmerican (10) 13 years ago

Building collective communities nearly destroyed colonial Massachusetts. Why would it work now?

[-] 1 points by MyHeartSpits (448) 13 years ago

It remains to be seen what will replace Wall St. Whatever is the will of the people, that will replace it. Calling the movement unintelligent is calling the will of the people unintelligent. The general assembly strives to find consensus by bringing every minority belief or objection into the fold of the majority. Everyone has a voice - everyone has power. That is why it appears so haphazard and unfocused from the outside. Viewed from the inside, it's a beautiful thing. I urge you to go to Wall St. and see for yourself. Maybe you have some ideas about what should replace Wall St. when it falls.

[-] 1 points by dantes44 (431) from Alexandria, VA 13 years ago

"by bringing every minority belief or objection into the fold of the majority. "

I support NAMBLA and feel they should be a tax exempt organization. Do I qualify?

[-] 1 points by MyHeartSpits (448) 13 years ago

Ha. Not sure what we can do for you there. You'd need 10% or more of the GA to agree with you in order to get support for your agenda.

[-] 1 points by dantes44 (431) from Alexandria, VA 13 years ago

Of course I was kidding. But when someone says........

actually MyHeartSpits, my apologies. I thought you were stating that you WILL bring every belief into the fold. Totally missed the consensus part.

Too early...no coffee....:-)

[-] 1 points by IntelligentAmerican (10) 13 years ago

So you want to get rid of the financial capital of the world, and then after it's gone, think about what should replace it?

You do realize this would plunge the economy so far down, the 99% would suffer, and the 1% would just be annoyed.

[-] 1 points by MyHeartSpits (448) 13 years ago

They're suffering now. They're impoverished now. They're crying out for change now, and the rich still get richer.

[-] 1 points by IntelligentAmerican (10) 13 years ago

Where's their suffering? Show me.

[-] 1 points by MyHeartSpits (448) 13 years ago

A ridiculous request. They are everywhere.

[-] 1 points by IntelligentAmerican (10) 13 years ago

Everywhere? Then how I have never seen anyone suffering in America? I have seen some better off financially than others, but by no means anyone Suffering.

[-] 1 points by ChickenMonkey (17) from Hoboken, NJ 13 years ago

IntelligentAmerican is right, you've exposed your dogmatic adherence to the idea that 99% of americans are improverished / suffering by refusing to provide evidence.

MyHeartSpits, Providing evidence for a claim is never ridiculous, it should be necessary in the realm of politics and economics.

So let's walk through this. First, you need to define impoverished and suffering. Then, you need to provide evidence/data/numbers that supports the claim.

I challenge you to do this. My bet is that you will be able to either 1) Find a reasonable definition of impoverished but not find the evidence to support the claim or 2) Find evidence to support your claim only by adopting an absurd definition.

Please resist the temptation to respond with an emotional outburst or dismissive answer. If you can legitimately answer the above, you will have crafted a much stronger argument.

To anticipate any criticism that my comments are arrogant / condescending / pedantic, I'd like to remind you that such criticism does not render my advice invalid and does nothing to strengthen your own argument and claims.

[-] 1 points by MyHeartSpits (448) 13 years ago

Challenge not accepted. I suggest that if you do not see that people are suffering, you are not paying attention. It is not my job, nor my responsibility to be your eyes.

[-] 1 points by pariscommune (205) 13 years ago

why not show some... people losing their homes, their jobs, relying on food stamps, cant afford medication, being in dept after education, beggars on the streets, tent cities and people living in the subway eating leftover food from walmart.. theres milions and milions of them. shouldnt be too much time to show some evidence. of course it will only turn out in the systemic puppets blaming them for whatever.. but bringing the proof is always a good idea.

[-] 1 points by ChickenMonkey (17) from Hoboken, NJ 13 years ago

How would you describe what it is that wall street does? I mean, "Wall street" encompasses a wide range of financial institutions. Do you mean the stock market itself?

How will the money be removed from politics? It is possible to bar money from being spent towards money?

[-] 1 points by IntelligentAmerican (10) 13 years ago

Toddtjs, what the heck does that mean? The 99%? Why not the 98%? Are the top 1% evil, but the bottom half of the top 2% benevolent?

You think you can just eliminate money in the political system? Just like that?

Nightfalcon, tell me this. Has Wall Street produced immensely rich people? If Wall Street produces NOTHING why would it EXIST?

[-] 1 points by Toddtjs (187) 13 years ago

I do believe you can eliminate money in the political system just like that. If that is the will of just about every voting person in the country then it will get done. Do you know anyone who agrees with corporate lobbying and corporate contributions? I don't. We must petition the government to ban all contributions and if they don't agree then we throw them out of office. All ya got to do is vote!

[-] 1 points by IntelligentAmerican (10) 13 years ago

Do you think you can get the will of every voting person in the country? 99% of the country to support your movement? Not that many people supported the Civil Rights movement. You think you will be more successful than Martin Luther King. Jr?

[-] 1 points by Toddtjs (187) 13 years ago

Did you just say not that many people supported civil rights movement? Well your absolutely right. But ain't it funny how it turned out. A black president!

[-] 1 points by IntelligentAmerican (10) 13 years ago

Which was 50+ years later, and who won with 52.9% of the popular vote.

Only half the country supported him. You want 99% of the country to support you. So you're going to be more popular than Obama, and Martin Luther King Jr?

[-] 1 points by Toddtjs (187) 13 years ago

You don't need 99% of the country really. Just about 3-4 % will do for change. People are not leaders they are followers. Look at Sarah Palin- she makes no sense what so ever and people flock to see her. So all you got to do is make it all sound good and people will just follow and agree with you.

[-] 1 points by IntelligentAmerican (10) 13 years ago

So you're saying this We Are the 99% should actually be We Just Need 3-4%?

[-] 0 points by HostVersusParasite (6) 13 years ago

The top 1% of earners pay 80% of all federal taxes. I'd say they are paying WAY more than their fair share. Too many leaches in this country. I think we should discontinue all welfare, food stamps, subsidized housing, etc. No more handouts or bailouts to individuals or corporations. Here's a wild idea: Let's bring back personal accountability!

[-] 0 points by HostVersusParasite (6) 13 years ago

A country full of parasites won't last long if it kills its hosts.

[-] 0 points by kestrel (274) 13 years ago

Since there will always be a top 1% (by definition!) I think they will be satisfied when the protesters are the top 1%, that ought to do it. The OWS movement is the anti-tea party movement, which means they want high taxes and the government to own everything.

[-] 1 points by IntelligentAmerican (10) 13 years ago

The protesters are now the top 1%? What does that mean? You're going to kill off 98% of the population?

[-] 1 points by kestrel (274) 13 years ago

You miss understood... I just mean it is funny how people are always wanting what the top 1% has.

[-] 0 points by Nightfalcon (11) 13 years ago

You need to understand that wall street produces NOTHING. They are a parasite on the people. people need to put humanity first and not the profit motive.

[-] 1 points by dantes44 (431) from Alexandria, VA 13 years ago

Where does the capital for new businesses/startups come from? How do corporations fund new R&D?

[-] 1 points by MetroEco (12) from Philadelphia, PA 13 years ago

Labor: the New Gold Standard http://paulglover.org/1107.html

[-] 1 points by Nightfalcon (11) 13 years ago

Money does not equal these things though. These things are based upon resources and our ability to use them. Money is no longer in the equation in a truly free society. You need to go to The Venus Project.

[-] 1 points by dantes44 (431) from Alexandria, VA 13 years ago

So Bill Gates etc.... will just innovate by the good of their heart? The computer you're using now, do you think that would be around if someone wasn't getting compensated for their hard work in innovation/programming/manufacturing?

[-] 1 points by Nightfalcon (11) 13 years ago

to get to this point in time a monetary system has worked well. But now it is an obsolete system. It severely needs to progress to a new point. mechanization will eventually wipe out almost all need for human labor so we will actually be freed up to invent things and solve more problems that way. Having someone build a create just so they make money is why we see such cheap goods being made today that don't last very long. without profit motive you design things to last and to be upgraded instead of tossed aside and wasted.

[-] 1 points by dantes44 (431) from Alexandria, VA 13 years ago

What do you see in the future then? A barter system? (Which would be awesome if all could participate) But what about those that have no skills or rather refuse to buy into the system?

[-] 1 points by Nightfalcon (11) 13 years ago

We wont really need a barter system either though. We have the ability to produce everything we need in abundance so being able to meet are needs would not be that hard. Well what do we do with those people now?

[-] 1 points by dantes44 (431) from Alexandria, VA 13 years ago

With no skills, train them. Refuse, let them fend for themselves outside of the established society. If they don't want to buy in and go it alone, fine. And without a barter system or monetary system how would people be compensated for their labor.

[-] 1 points by Nightfalcon (11) 13 years ago

i think you would be better off reading the Venus projects FAQ. But, in this system the resources are given to those who need them. You aren't "compensated for working" if you will. Rather wouldn't you want to work or try to improve the system or fix things or do SOMETHING? i think the capitalist way breeds laziness. i think in a society like this you would get bored at being lazy and want to do SOMETHING of value for the society and for people.

[-] 1 points by ChickenMonkey (17) from Hoboken, NJ 13 years ago

That is incredibly naive. If people wanted to do something of value for society, they could do so already in the current system! At least the current system provides more incentive for people to work harder then they might otherwise be inclined.

You are essentially basing the whole system on the idea that people will contribute, and contribute to an adequate level, even if they don't have to. That is doomed to fail, and the only alternative would be forced labor.

How does a system that rewards hard work and drive by allowing people to generate and keep more wealth than others breed laziness? That comment doesn't make much sense either.

Finally there is the record of history. This sort of marxist economic system has been tried before. It's almost irrelevant if the central planner is a politburo or a computer system, the end result of removing the incentive to work will be the same.

[-] 1 points by Nightfalcon (11) 13 years ago

This system has never been tried before. And if we continue with any of these outdated forms of government and economy then humanity is simply doomed to fail.

[-] 0 points by Toddtjs (187) 13 years ago

You got to read the demands. It's quite simple. Eliminate the money in our political system and return government to the 99%.

[-] 1 points by success (19) 13 years ago

That's the problem. They haven't seen the list. There are really two parts to the movement in my view: the long term goal of building a collective community (awesome) and the short term goal of getting the corporate foot off the neck of Americans by taking action like this. https://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-please-help-editadd-so-th/

[-] 1 points by IntelligentAmerican (10) 13 years ago

How is communism (awesome?)