Forum Post: OWS - half liberals, half libertarians
Posted 12 years ago on Oct. 17, 2011, 8:53 a.m. EST by EndTheFedNow
(692)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
This from one of the founders of this movement:
David DeGraw – one of the primary Wall Street protest organizers – just sent me the following email:
Top MoveOn leaders / executives are all over national television speaking for the movement. fully appreciate the help and support of MoveOn, but the MSM is clearly using them as the spokespeople for OWS. This is an blatant attempt to fracture the 99% into a Democratic Party organization. The leadership of MoveON are Democratic Party operatives. they are divide and conquer pawns. For years they ignored Wall Street protests to keep complete focus on the Republicans, in favor of Goldman's Obama and Wall Street's Democratic leadership.
If anyone at Move On or Daily Kos would like to have a public debate about these comments, we invite it.
Please help us stop this divide and conquer attempt.
DeGraw - who is wholly non-partisan [like the writers at Washington's Blog] - tells me that about half of the protesters are liberals, but the other half are libertarians (and see this.)
http://www.readersupportednews.org/news-section2/318-66/7898-focus-ows-organizers-blast-moveon
And they have a LOT in common, as libertarians are social liberals (live and let live, MYOB).
So, to the trolls, party hacks, and all of those who are working overtime to divide us - It's not working and it never will.
Libertarians are for conservative economics and that's all that matters here. So, no.
libertarians are fiscal conservatives that support free markets and capitalism. this is not what the current system represents, which is a system of crony capitalism and rigged, unfair markets.
There are no free markets, as Ha-Joon Chang has said.
i agree in practicality a true free market is few and far between. but i advocate more free markets and intelligently regulated markets. we are far from that.
We have a criminally unregulated market, that's the trouble. We need state intervention like in Europe.
unregulated? LOL
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Financial_regulation#Authority_by_country
Regulation is affected by the law of diminishing returns. Look it up if you don't understand what this means. A person with integrity doesn't need regulation or laws to do the right thing. A person with no integrity will just find another way around your regulation or laws. Please, for the love of anything deserving any respect, learn something before you just repeat what you've heard.
You want to be like Europe? Do you have any idea what is going on over there?
Great post. Thanks for the link. Not to put anybody down, but only to make the point that education is really the life blood of a healthy society. If this movement does nothing else, it should recognize that. I mean, the problems being aired here are long standing. I am afraid if peace and prosperity return, the people will go back to sleep.
I've said frequently that the one tangible benefit is that people are talking.
Did you know that Patents and Copyrights are also regulations? Do you want us to get rid of them as well?
China has huge regulations and they are eating our lunch.
Prosperity in parts of Europe are awe inspiring. Find a passport and you will see, instead of getting all your information from Cato and Heritage.
I am undecided on the patents and copyrights.
The question is WHY is china eating our lunch? Because they have regulations? Or is it because their economy is based on the positive production of value, and they're actually CREATING VALUE by making lots of stuff and shipping it all over the world????? Ripping up roads and building the same road doesn't create value. Serving food in a restaurant doesn't create value. Though, there is plenty of room for these if your economy is creating value otherwise, but the backbone of an economy is taking something useless (such as a tree) and turning it into something useful (a piece of lumber). This adds value to the total resources. Printing money doesn't give you any more resources. Regulating business doesn't give you any more resources. The health of the economy is how much value you're creating. Basic economics, homie.
Which parts?
We regulate corporations, not business. Corporations are totalitarian tyrannies. The government is like an umpire, calling balls and strikes. Every sports fan, no matter how right wing wants the umpire to call the right plays.
So everyone should go into business but not become a corporation, so that way when somebody sues the business for even the most arbitrary accident, the owners personal assets are on the line and they lose everything they own, not just the business assets? Do you even understand the principle behind corporations? The problem isn't corporations, the problem is greedy people and what power does to people. Giving the government more power doesn't solve this, because the government does the same thing the corporations do, only worse.
Excepting that nothing you say makes any sense, I completely agree with you.
Not my fault you don't understand the basics of the enlightenment tradition.
Adam Smith, Thomas Jefferson, Abe Lincoln, hardly radicals, warned about the power of "monied encorporations."
Smith said that markets only work if there is "perfect liberty." We hardly have that now.
The markets are totally rigged. There's tons of regulations on the books. Most are there to protect the big banks and corporations from competition. Rules and regulations that make it very expensive for small companies to to get started but to the big corporations with their compliance departments it just another cost of doing business. Besides, who do you think writes all those laws anyway? Congress doesn't write laws anymore, its the lobbyists for the the big corp's.
Amen. The vast majority of OWSers just can't seem to understand this. They keep yelling and demanding that the gov do something about this - and they are IN ON IT!! All "regulations" are FOR the well connected and AGAINST the small businesses and main streeters. SO FRUSTRATING!!!
not also that all regulators are subject to regulatory capture... there were regulations that should have dampened the housing bubble, yet they were largely ignored. to play off the watchmen, who regulates the regulators :)?
That's why this job will take many years.
It isn't just a matter of time, dude.
well, depends on which interventions for me.
Here's one: on banks--break down the big banks into smaller banks.
simply following capitalism would have done this - it is a system of profit and loss, and they should have been allowed to fail. if you look at the s&l crisis here or the norwegian banking crisis, even "socialist" europe dismantled their banks as we did with the s&l, and didn't bail them out like we did in the "capitalist" US. they underwent controlled failures, had their assets auctioned off, and criminals went to jail.
Oh, right. We have the fed and they have the ECB. The IMF owns Greece and Ireland. It's a catastrophe. Europe is where the oligarchs came from and they still have total control.
How are they unfair? They developed through the invisible hand. :p
I agree. :-) Further, the fact that markets naturally corrupt governments is somehow an indictment of governments, but not markets.
Free markets corrupt governments
Thanks for the naive quote of the century. Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Socialism requires giving more power to government. The very nature of the act is corrupting.
Nice editing of my statement. Typical.
Socialism, again.
Power is a balance between the people (body politic, aka state) and the market (commercial interests, corporations, agents of wealth). Lessening the one necessarily increases the other. At this point in our history, the market wields near absolute power, so therefore..?
Is that why we are regulating cow farts, and sending any manufacturing job that pollutes to China where they don't give a shit?
Assuming all those regulations were actually in the interest of the American people rather than the interests of people who profit from trading in carbon credits, one would have to say the power was in the hands of the people, no?
Granted, companies like AT&T who lobby to become a monopoly through mergers, and companies like Goldman, BofA, Wells, and others who consolidated their fiefdoms with government money fit your description and are an abomination, which Obama should have addressed. Why hasn't he?
P.S. Kudos on editing your post to remove the word "Free" from in front of markets. I left it in my quote of your post to keep you honest. And you say I twist things around.
Points for the double spin. Inserting "free" then claiming I'd removed it. I don't reference mythical beasts unless I'm specifically discussing mythology (i.e. Austrian economics, libertarianism).
Were you ever going to get around to addressing why Obama hasn't done anything about the post TARP mass bank consolidation? I appreciate that Holder has sued to block the AT&T merger, but Dodd/Frank was a far cry from breaking up "Too Big to Fail" companies who expanded on corporate welfare.
It seems that this would be a particular sore spot to guys like yourself, yet it gets glossed over time and again. One would almost think any sin is forgivable if it keeps the evil Republicans out of office.
When have I ever defended Obama or the congressional Dems to you? You assume I'm a Democratic partisan and Obama supporter because you're a Republican partisan and Romney supporter.
He and they have not done nearly enough. They've sold out the ideals of liberalism - real liberalism - that I hold dear. The compromise with the mad capitalists and the mad socialists that carried us through that American century your side is so fond of. I love Eisenhower nearly as much as FDR and Kennedy, FWIW - I can even stand Nixon..
If O was my guy, I wouldn't be here arguing with you, but out there getting him re-elected.
And here I thought O started this whole circus to get re-elected. Apparently some of the participants are not aware of that fact.
Striking to see Kennedy's name in that list of revered presidents. Certain aspects of his presidency strike me as far right of any Democrat around today, and more than a few Republicans.
I also don''t recall pushing Romney or the Republicans in any post on this forum, though I'm sure that won't end your accusations. Here is the simple truth of the matter.
We have a complete ass-hat in office right now. I don't like him, you don't like him, nobody really likes him. Does it matter that he is a Democrat, or that the person running against him will be a Republican? He is a monumental fuck up by any measure.
I point out his failures on a regular basis, not for partisan purposes, as you allege, but for the same reason there are people standing in Zuccotti park right now. When our leadership has failed us, we are obligated to speak out.
You claim you are not a partisan hack, but the truth is, you will support this failed muppet because you would rather have his ass sitting in the office than someone with an (R) next to his name. I wish there were a credible someone running without an (R) next to their name, but thats not how the thing works. So you are left with a choice. Accept the hated deadbeat you know for partisan reasons, or gamble on real change.
Quit being so cynical and find the most acceptable choice among your unacceptable choices. Obama has already proven he is a failure. At least with someone new, there is an outside chance they won't suck.
Honestly, because I'll be voting the opposite of every trickle-down, small-government, nativist, anti-environmental, anti-science douchebag voting for Romney. I won't be associated with the blatant immorality. Would rather have the less blatant variety that can almost be confused with incompetent morality. Cynical, perhaps. I think it's principled in my own pathetic way. When all hope is lost, go down fighting. See you on the battlefield.
Double spin, or what most people call truth.
Sophistry at its finest. I take it back, you're pretty good at your profession.
I appreciate the compliment, but I cant take credit. To borrow a phrase, the truth speaks for itself.
Your post reminds me of one of my favorite quotes.
the thing about life is, it gets weird. People are always telling ya about truth. Everybody always knows what the truth is, like it was toilet paper or somethin', and they got a supply in the closet. But what you learn, as you get older, is there ain't no truth. All there is is bullshit, pardon my vulgarity here. Layers of it. One layer of bullshit on top of another. And what you do in life like when you get older is, you pick the layer of bullshit that you prefer and that's your bullshit.
If ever a worldview defined a man...
Amen.
Right on
Logic isn't popular in these parts.
it's the government that makes it possible. if a corporation is running outside of the law, it's a problem. if a corporation is operating within the law, or trying to create a law to give it a special advantage, yes i don't like that. but i don't tell myself it's not going to happen, or there is anything i can do about it as a citizen.
but what about government? i can vote, and government is accountable to me. corporations can try to get favors all the want - but it is my responsibility to elect a good politician, and his to do things in my interest and not in that of the corporations.
i'm not claiming corporations don't try and do unfair things. i am claiming the majority of success in this area is made possible by government. and to patriots comment, the government creating this advantage no longer has anything to do with an invisible hand.
"i can vote, and government is accountable to me."
This is the lynchpin of my anti-(fundamentalist)-libertarian position. The market is unaccountable. Consumer power is vastly overrated.
"i don't tell myself it's not going to happen, or there is anything i can do about it as a citizen."
We agree, and our tool to do something about it - if we get off our asses? Government.
"i am claiming the majority of success in this area is made possible by government"
I agree that government makes government corruption possible. Less government, though, will make it unnecessary not because unethical business isn't taking place that should be regulated, but simply because nobody's trying to regulate it.
So, government aids in corruption, we agree. Government by vigilant citizens, less so.
for some reason, i cannot reply to your post below. is there some limit on child replies or something? although i think i've seen them deeper than this.
i think these are all valid points, and especially so in the environmental area that i know you have high concerns over. there is a movement for conscious capitalism that is helping to straddle some of these concerns that hopefully grows larger as well. with the power of the internet consumers can also now be aware of these things more than ever before should they choose to look.
Yeah, I had to reply to myself in one of the posts below the corn subsidies discussion - where I said I respect your opinion - be sure to look for it. There's a thread depth limitation....
I've enjoyed our conversations. :-)
the government is accountable to making (or not) special advantages for businesses.
but how is the market not held accountable to the consumer? if i'm really wronged, i can sue. if i don't like something, i can choose not to buy it. boycotts have been made and companies have changed policy. if they don't respond to what consumers want, they lose market share or go out of business.
politicians need to compete for my votes and are accountable for not setting up a business to cheat.
businesses must compete for my dollars and are accountable to meeting my demands as a consumer.
"but how is the market not held accountable to the consumer?"
a.) A small subset of consumers can drive an entire industry - i.e. redwood lumber.
b.) People think more long-term and ethically when they vote than they do when they shop. Consumption is a function of either bare necessity or hedonistic desire. Our active role in democracy can bring up more noble ideals like duty, that generally reflect our values better.
"if i'm really wronged, i can sue"
If you can prove property damage or harm or infringement of liberties, and assuming you're in the same jurisdiction as the perpetrator. Also without a system of regulations and laws addressing specific "harms" there's too much reliance on interpretation, opinion, and bias on a case-by-case basis.
"businesses must compete for my dollars and are accountable to meeting my demands as a consumer."
Not necessarily, see point (a) above, and also consider that labor and the environment can be exploited in one locale that is entirely seperated, geographically or otherwise, from the consumer market.
Also see my note below about respecting your views, I really do, and I see where you're coming from. I think an ethical, informed consumer is a very good thing, and I don't see it as a binary choice. I just don't accept consumption as the sole measure of societal values nor their sole enforcer.
You should post more. This forum needs a lot more down-to-earth type of thinking.
Thanks. I know plenty of others who wish I would STFU. :)
did an invisible hand create corn subsidies but not onion subsidies? did an invisible hand pick ethanol to be made out of corn rather than the 10 other crops that grow better?
did an invisible hand choose a monetary policy that made money too cheap, too long, to fuel a huge housing bubble? or was that the clumsy fist of government and central planning?
what invisible hand?
subsidies are for things SOCIETY thinks benefits them or is not being manufactured in quantities enough. Taxes are for goods that Society thinks harms them like smoking. It is an interference that government feels society benefits the most from. It hardly makes it unfair.
so, you think there wouldn't be enough corn if we didn't subsidize it?
so, even though (every) other crop is better for ethanol (which has even argued to be net negative on energy production) - it was a good choice because it betters society (somehow) not because it was a benefit to those already receiving corn subsidies?
taxes are made to raise revenue. it is a poor tool for managing people's habits, for which the government has no business anyway.
what about the tanning taxes that was projected to bring in so much money but ended up just pissing off snooki and pulling in revenue well under estimates? do we want to budget off stupid ideas like that?
and what about all that cheap high fructose corn syrup that we subsidized? my tax dollars went to pay for that. but when i go buy twizzlers or pop, now the government wants to punish me for buying sugary unhealthy foods. so to punish me for buying the cheap soda, now they are going to tax me again? so i had tax money taken to make it cheap, now tax money to make it expensive?
isn't you dictating my choices via subsidy and taxation slapping the hand out of the way?
what invisible hand?
Again incorrect. The invisible hand works even in a regulated market. It doesn't have to be a pure market to work. When the invisible hand works it will allocate resources to those who need it/uses it optimally. Therefore making markets fair. If you don't get it you shouldn't continue to waste my time.
a well regulated market is one that corrects information asymmetries or does something to root out unfair advantages and create a level playing field. you are advocating far more intervention in markets to the point where the choice is made or is simply anything but fair. if you think corn subsidies are an example of an invisible hand, or my EMR example is an example of one failing to adopt EMRs, you're nuts. the corn one is an obvious agg (and now finance) intervention, and the EMR one quite obviously creates an unequal playing field/non-choice. the invisible hand didn't hurt the adoption rate of EMRs - the government fist did. just as in russia the invisible hand didn't lead to the shortage of items (that people were free to buy or sell!) the government fist of stating prices and who performs what jobs did.
I think he means subsidies as they might be (if ever needed) had we a functioning democracy. The corrupt system we have now produces corrupt subsidies and regulations.
i could potentially get on board with that - good or bad i was trying to point out that it wasn't the invisible hand that created them as he suggests. and unfortunately most seem bad.
Seems like you and I could bridge this gap, my friend. Maybe not entirely, but I really do respect your opinions.
There's nothing unfair about it. The entire industry gets to benefit from it. It only becomes unfair if you are in say Mexico and you have to choose between mexican corn without subsidy or american corn with subsidy. But, here in the US there's nothing that points you to one product from another. One corn from another American producer against another is indistinguishable. There isn't a substitute for corn so say you are deciding between corn or a head of lettuce. There's nothing pointing you to the corn over lettuce it's just preferences. The price difference is insignificant. But in a foreign country it would be. Here, there's not unfair about it.
except that the money i was taxed for corn could have gone towards something else, like roads. it was an opportunity cost to put it into corn.
and then when i go to the grocery store and need to buy vegetables, i may buy corn or maybe beans. the price was altered and i'm not longer making a choice in a fair market.
and again, neither libertarians or socialists, pretty opposed economic guys, support subsidies on corn which you are defending.
basically i think you don't understand corn subsidies, nor what a free market actually is. so i'm going to finish watching captain america and making spaghetti now.
and then when i go to buy candy i choose between a chocolate bar and a twizzler, and because the twizzler has flour it's not subject to the candy punishment tax that the chocolate is. so another choice that is not in a fair environment for my competing candy money.
and there is a substitute for corn, which is very energy and water intensive to turn into ethanol - better alternatives are sugar, algae, switchgrass and hemp - just to name some.
you choosing not to buy or sell this or that is the invisible hand.
We have so much corn we export it and plenty of countries buy it. We keep it a low price because of that. We grow corn because we eat it but ethenol is a good byproduct. Sure there's better alternatives but since there's plenty of demand for it as a food and we can use it for ethenol why not subsidize it?
Taxes are used as a punishment to steer people away from some goods because we collective called for things like cigarettes or gasoline (use public transportation). And yes the government has a right to tell us what to like and not like in that LIMITED sense. The truth is things like cigarettes are addicting so taking money out of their pockets to make them stop is worth it. The people can do stupid things without realizing how stupid it is.
Tanning beds have proven to cause cancer. I think you should be saluting your government. Who cares what Snooki thinks she's just a real life "oompa Loompa."
That's a fair market with your health considerations and our national output considerations on display. How many people would have health insurance without the federal subsidies?
lol no. you don't get it. you've changed things - there is no more free market then, there is no invisible hand. by your definition, russia was a free market. they had a bunch of guys do math all day to say how much a price of cheese is - and of course you could choose to buy it or not! so totally a free market!?
what about EMR electronic medical records - we know they save time and money. why haven't most medical practices implemented these? wouldn't a free market adopt them - as all other companies have been moving towards a paperless trend since the 80s? well, the government has for decades required them to have all these documents on paper. and rather than maintaining (and synching) two systems, most stuck with the one that they were mandated. by your definition, they were free to choose one (mandated) system or keep two systems! the free market kept them from adopting EMR. but isn't the real reason, the government got in the way of their choices, and pushed the free hand away?
simply put --- if you are manipulating my choices, they are no longer free! ----
we have so much corn so that's why we use it for ethanol? maybe we have so much corn because the government subsidizes it? ethanol is not a byproduct of corn. they don't take the cob you throw away into the garbage and make ethanol out of it. go look up ethanol on wikipedia and you will find corn is one step above meteorites in how good it is for making ethanol.
free market libertarians don't support corn subsidies. marxist socialists don't support corn subsidies.
you should look more into this system you are defending. which has nothing to do with an invisible hand.
Possibly, but it is ancient; over a hundred years old. Things do evolved!
I've said it before, and I'll say it again: One of the main pillars of Conservative propaganda is that both parties are the same. Nothing they say is further from the truth. It is an insidious lie intended to demoralize progressives, and discourage them from voting. Do not fall for this canard, because if both parties are the same, there is no hope for change, and therefore no reason to vote. The truth is that there is a difference between the parties. A stark difference! One party works for the rich, the other party works for all Americans. One party takes money from the needy to feed the greedy, and the other party takes money from the greedy to feed the needy. One party has plans and policies to create jobs, and the other party has a long list of lame excuses for not doing anything. Liberals want to change things. Conservatives want things to stay the same. There is a difference. One party wants to tax the rich, and the other party wants to tax the poor. One party wants to destroy Unions, and the other party wants to support them. One party supports the Occupation of Wall Street, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to rebuild America, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to provide health care for all, and the other party doesn’t. One party wants to regulate Wall Street, and the other party doesn’t. One Party wants to end the wars; the other party wants them to go on forever. There is a difference. One party is Myopic, and the other party is Far Sighted. One party wants to help the Middle Class, and the other party is at war with the Middle Class. One party wants to fire Teachers, and the other party wants to hire them. One party wants to create more jobs in America, and the other party wants to create more jobs in Asia. There is a difference. One party wants to protect pensions, and the other party wants to loot them. One party has a heart, and the other party has Ann Coulter. One party protects the right bear Arms, and the other party protects the right of freedom of assembly. One party believes that the only role for the Government is to provide for the common defense, and the other party believes that the Government should also promote the general Welfare. There is a difference, and anybody that tells you there is no difference between the parties is simply not conversant with reality. In addition, anyone that blames the Democrats for the current state of affairs has no understanding of who controls the Government. One Party has the Presidency, and the other party has the Majority in the House, controls the Senate, has a majority on the Supreme Court, and is responsible for current economic policy. So, if you’re angry, and you want to start a real fight, I submit that we should start a real fight with the Conservatives! America has a Two Party System. One party is clearly on your side, the other party thinks you’re and Anti-American mob. At some point in time you’re going to have to pick one. Choose wisely, your future is at stake
Because that 14 trillion debt is working out so well for you, eh?
lol
Return to the constitution. It benefits everyone and it mandates a sound money supply, not outsourced to a private corporation (the Fed).
The most common error in your delusion is that the Fed is either government or private when it is in between the two. The Fed is an independent institution with the government. And yes we need it.
14 trillion was accumulated over the entire history of the US but when you're in a recession the keynesian and here's a shocker also Neoclassical response is spend more to kick start demand. And yes it's right. I don't know where the libertarians get the balls to think they know economics better than economists who live and breath it.
Because the libertarians support the economic principals of the founders.
I know what the Fed is and it's not part of the government. It has the authority of government but it is a private institution. And, no, we don't need to pay a corporation fees and interest to create our currency when we can do so, interest free. The creation of the Fed was unconstitutional and it was the privatization of America's money supply..
Those principles are a couple centuries old now. The economies of today are a whole new monster and need to be dealt with accordingly.
Recent history shows that when in a recession, the correct move is to spend. That's what works. You can't argue with the data.
yes, just look at japan and their 2 lost decades.
One time payments are in fact stimulative they form a temporary bridge so the markets can correct itself. The housing market wasn't because of monetary policy but rather federal policy to make home ownership cheap. A noble cause that backfired. Don't blame the Fed for that.
the housing bubble would have been impossible without a source of money easier than a private market would allow it. the fed provided this with their easy monetary policy. this is undeniable even among fed lovers, they acknowledge the mistaken policy. even if we ignore this and go for your federal policy (which really the fed just accommodated) - it is still a failure of a central planning idea, is it not?
i consider infrastructure stimulative. widen my highway - i get to work quicker. i don't stop. i use less fuel. i have more time to do productive work, or consumer services, or enjoy a higher quality of life at home. businesses enjoy an even better system for moving product and managing inventory. an actual stimulus.
if i am to believe mainstream keynesianism (despite contribution and blindness to that last bit of unpleasantness) - hiring unemployed mike to dig a hole and unemployed joe to fill it in is considered stimulus. sorry, that does nothing to stimulate real organic demand for lasting market jobs. so you put some money in their hands so they can buy a big mac and maybe 1 more person gets hired at mcdonald's - so what.
i do agree that a stimulus is needed. however if it's not an infrastructure one, i consider it a waste of money. all our last one did was add a bunch of debt and kick the can down the road. apparently until about today.
well, if you want to be optimistic, we are around 3 years in to our first decade. Only 17 more years to go.
except japan is still stuck in a rut...
Yes, I can. There is nothing outdated about the constitution or the principals upon which it was founded. Keynesian economics go us where we are today.
you do understand that A) that the founder's economic principles were primitive at best? and B) The Fed has been ruled constitutional by the Supreme Court?
You also understand that Keynesian economics is what stopped the bleeding from making the recession into a depression? Also that the Keynesian stimulus created or saved 1.3-3.3 million jobs in the first quarter of 2011 and 1 to 2.9 million in the second quarter of 2011 according to the CBO?
For below replies: The common misconception with Keynes is that he advocated running on deficit across business cycles. He was for deficit spending in the bust phase of a cycle to more quickly return to the boom, THEN, paying down the debt and even saving for the next bust. Reaganomics in the 80s is how we've started running deficits across cycles. The correct Keynesian policies would not have included deficit spending for military and tax cuts. Keynes should not be blamed.
you also understand that keynesian economics pursued a monetary policy that made money too easy and for too long, that allowed the bubble to be created that crashed into this big bust and loss of jobs? also that the keynesian stimulus did nothing to stimulate, but merely kicked the can down the road because no structural systemic problems were fixed, and one time spends on painting schools are not stimulative?
Complete BS.
In any event, if you are a committed Democrat/progressive or Republican/neocon (all anti constitution and Keynesian), that's your choice. You guys got us into this mess and it's up to those of us who know it to get us out. OWS is non partisan, as am I, so there's not much point in debating it.
I'm all for libertarian tenets outside of economic policy.
In that sense, "corporations" only exist because the government recognizes them. They have no natural rights. Either regulate the shit out of them, or dissolve them altogether. There is no halfway.
Yep, industry needs to be tightly regulated and watched.
I find it hilarious that people are actually saying the banking industry needs less regulation. People involved with OWS even. That's like saying "I'd prefer it if the banks had a more efficient means of railing my ass."
I'd like to see them completely abolished.
OWS was really born out of a general awakening to the realization that there has been corruption and apathy for corruption in our government and great hardship in America resulting from that, and in that realization, no matter what our precious political differences were, we are all united by this common problem. This is an anti-corruption movement that hopefully will drown out and make irrelevant prior topics of discourse, until the remedies are in place. We all have an urgent problem that cannot wait to be fixed. America cannot afford the apathy that Washington can.
Well said.
The people, united, will never be defeated. The elite have kept us divided with their two party paradigm that has not served us, but HAS served them - very, very nicely. It's time to kick it (and them) to the curb.
Libertarians want to shrink the government down to nothing, just the way conservatives do. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But in this global economy, this fragile planet, and this greed-soaked atmosphere, we can't afford to have small government. As Bill Maher says, '"We don't want small government, we want better government." Good government is powerful enough to change the face of society; help the poor and elderly, clean up the planet, force the banks to act responsibly, take away tax loop holes. Individual protest movements can't accomplish that alone, but what they can do is put pressure on government to act the way the people need government to act, instead of just responding to special interests. This is one of the reasons OWS is so, so important.
Liberal and Conservative mean different things to different people. I care less about how wealthy the 1% get Rich because I know there bad actors in top 1% and how bottom 99% want more without thinking about better off they are than in 1960. Always be Rich and Poor people and money cannot buy happiness. Stealing all day from the top 1 to 3 business will not solve economic and social problems
What about fraudsters getting home loan after home loan without verification of income or the federal government turning a blind to Freddie and Fannie not enforcing the regulations they are required by law to enforce. Also, what about the SEC web surfing for porn when the markets had problems. Government can incompetent as much as private sector is like Enrons, World Com, Bear Sterns. Private companies like Lehman were more looking for the short term instead of putting aside when things tanked out.
I am Corporatist in the mold of Charles De Gaulle where the government takes small stakes in all sectors of the economy as a means to regulate them, and to keep Union Power in check. Want industries like Defense and Aviation, Agriculture subsidized as a means to provide national security and goods and services to provide for export. Finally, healthcare industry should be nationalized as a way to control costs and outcome it makes more accountable if government runs it rather than shareholder.
Don't be fooled I don't believe the poor in America are starving on the street and some are poor because they are too lazy to work 40 hours, and rather buy newest ipod rather put money aside for a rainy day.
It's naive to say let the banks just fail. It affects too much of the economy. Breaking down the banks is the right thing.
Half liberals and half libertarians? Depends what you mean by liberals and by libertarians! For example, by "libertarians" do yiou mean opponents of the state but supporters of the capitalist market? Or do you include social anarchists who oppose all centralized bureaucratic oppressive institutions, including the state and capitalist corporations?
Like "liberals", libertarians have wide disagreements and cannot be pigeon-holed. I think the essential core of anyone who self defines as libertarian would be the absolute belief in individual liberty (as a birthright) that doesn't step on the rights of someone else. No force to conform, no controlling the lives of others. Beyond that, they argue like crazy and like cats, they can't be herded, lol.
Conservatives should be for #OWS too. No right thinking conservative really thinks a free market economy can work without regulation, or that monopolies are fine. And I expect most would also support campaign financing reform. The scale of the things that need fixing is large enough that I think there is a lot of space for common ground for all political leanings. As long as you do away with the distracting partisan chicanery. You don't have to commonly identify on all things, only the core issues. You have differences. That's fine. You can all talk about those when the basic economic and political structures are functional.
Yup and it will go a LONG toward ending the two party stranglehold and hate fest - all engineered by elites to keep us fighting amongst ourselves while they laugh at us and keep consolidating their power and wealth.
Ethics should be a non-partisan issue.
Agreed.
divided we fall
The libertarian party started in 1971. The protests are mostly progressive.
50/50 libertarian/liberal is not progressive. Some of the concerns fit into the progressive agenda as well as the libertarian. We DO have concerns in common.
Thank you
http://occupywallst.org/forum/the-occupy-wallstreet-movement-needs-specifics/ "Experience hath shewn, that even under the best forms of government those entrusted with power have, in time, and by slow operations, perverted it into tyranny."--Thomas Jefferson WE need to fight this, and the only way is to come together, political ideologies aside. We should all except that there is an evil, and for now, political affiliation means nothing.
I swear there is not one Jefferson quote or writing that doesn't always keep me in awe of him.
There are (much) higher principals than politics!
Libertarian Socialism needs to be talked about. It combines the two into a natural alliance, not a piece-mealed coalition of social-conservatives and neo-liberalists economists of the Republican party 1) Worker-led industry. This takes the 'rights' of a shareholder and gives them to the worker, so the employees vote to ensure the direction of the company and share in the secured profits. No worker will vote to send their job overseas because of the bottom line. 2) Community-led government. This reduces the unjustified authority of the federal govt. and allows local govts. to increase their legislative powers, leaving the federal govt as an enforcer of the rules and not a maker of the rules. To obtain these goals of Libertarian Socialism we need to increase the number of national representatives to the same or similar levels of 1789 (50,000 citizens per representative, today there are 500,000 citizens per representative) to dilute the centrally accumulated authority of a select few Congressman/women and their staffers to ensure party diversity, hold elected representatives more accountable and give their constituents more access to their platforms, while implementing a fair and progressive tax system to eliminate inherited and accumulated wealth and promote the social contract of the enlightenment that calls for health care and access to education for all...
Like it or not, the OWS movement has more in common with the Democratic Party than people like David DeGraw would like to believe. Blasting the Democratic Party for having " ignored Wall Street protests" when in fact they were blocked by the GOP and the conservative blue dog Democrats is intellectual laziness.
http://www.obamaftw.com/blog/tea-party/occupy-wall-street-ows-vs-the-tea-party-a-brief-comparison
Wrong, and you will not make this your Democratic Party/MoveOn recruiting ground. Divide and conquer is what has been used to keep the people fighting with each while the elites hijack our wealth and our governments. Your two party paradigm is a dinosaur and it's about t become extinct. The sooner the better.
We must all hang together, or assuredly we shall all hang separately.
I am not trying to make this a Democratic Party/MoveOn recruiting ground.so much as shedding light on the fact that ending the Fed (and other mantras espoused by Ron Paul cult followers) is not the solution and only serves as a red herring to the real problems.
http://www.obamaftw.com/blog/tea-party/occupy-wall-street-ows-vs-the-tea-party-a-brief-comparison
You have no clue what you're talking about. The Fed is unconstitutional. It's creation was the privatization of our money supply - a money supply that had belonged to the American people before a corrupt congress gave it to a private corporation. It is the mechanism by which a transfer of wealth occurs from the people of America to the hands of the wealthy, many of whom who aren't even American.
If you think that Ron Paul supporters are a "cult", then you think that supporters of our constitution are also a cult. So be it. I think that people who don't support their own rights are brain dead sheep :-)
Right on. I am so tired of hearing about how the only thing wrong with the left is that the right got in their way. Both the left and right accept donations from the 1% and the way they vote shows that. Our first goal should be to wake people up so that they can see what we have in common.
http://reason.com/blog/2011/09/28/ralph-nader-hearts-ron-paul-ha
:-)
If I had to pick one enemy to focus on it would be the FED. This has nothing to do with Ron Paul. People need to research the history of the FED and they will quickly understand that this is problem number one.
Indeed it is not about Ron Paul. It's about the constitution and the Fed is unconstitutional (not to mention destroying us and eating out our substance!).
Then we need some public statements regarding this. So far, it seems like the movement is sliding further and further left. It's to the point where I feel disillusioned and am willing to withdraw my support.
Libertarians want to shrink the government down to nothing, just the way conservatives do. Please correct me if I'm wrong. But in this global economy, this fragile planet, and this greed-soaked atmosphere, we can't afford to have small government. As Bill Maher says, '"We don't want small government, we want better government." Good government is powerful enough to change the face of society; help the poor and elderly, clean up the planet, force the banks to act responsibly, take away tax loop holes. Individual protest movements can't accomplish that alone, but what they can do is put pressure on government to act the way the people need government to act, instead of just responding to special interests. This is one of the reasons OWS is so, so important.
Power corrupts and absolute power corrupts absolutely. Big, centralized, govt is ALWAYS corrupt. The only way for humans to control govt is to keep it local. It's also what our founders intended. Hence, the 9th and 10th amendments and the extremely limited powers given to the federal govt. Our govt has become downright demonic and you can't fix that. It was never intended to be the behemoth that it is for the very reason that the founders KNEW and WARNED it would become a rotting, stinking, cesspool of perversion and abuse of power.
Lobbyists...
Top 10 Heavy Hitters:
ActBlue..... $55,745,059
AT&T Inc..... $47,571,779
American Fedn of State, County & Municipal Employees.... $46,167,658
National Assn of Realtors..... $40,718,176
Service Employees International Union......$37,634,367
National Education Assn.......$37,051,378
Goldman Sachs........ $35,790,579
American Assn for Justice.......$34,715,804
Intl Brotherhood of Electrical Workers......... $34,292,471
Laborers Union........ $31,876,950
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/index.php
http://www.opensecrets.org/orgs/list.php?order=A
http://www.opensecrets.org/industries/mems.php
http://www.opensecrets.org/earmarks/index.php
How sickening is that? Easy to see why Obama funneled all that stimulus money to his union cronies.
all pacifist
What/who are Matt?
google matt holck?
this is a non-violent movement
I agree the movement is non violent. If anyone sees any agents provocateurs, call them out!
I'm very happy to see this. Have emails been sent to more than just "readersupportednews", a site I had never heard of?
That's just the link to the article.
The left/right paradigm is a lie they use to divide us. Their worst fear is that we will find out what we have in common. The OWS movement is doing just that. Keep it up!
Right on! The establishment depends upon us seeing only differences. Well, the people are waking up to their gamez and a new paradigm is coming.
i really doubt 50% are libertarians. If that was true, OWS would move to in front of the FED and change their slogan. Captain Midnight is a Libertarian and Id hope he and others can educate the OWS crowd on what a Libertarian is
There is a lot of disagreement among libertarians, you know. There is no one definition.
I agree that focusing on Wall St is missing the mark. The abuses of Wall St and banks are but symptoms. The problem is with government who created the Fed and greases the skids for the criminal fleecing of the American people.
YES. There needs to be more of this talk. This will surely ruffle the feathers. More public statements to this effect will garner more support.
I think what was most shocking to me were the comments from the MoveOn people about how OWS would be nothing without them! So arrogant and so WRONG.
It's a new paradigm, baby, and left/right isn't part of it.
Agreed. MoveOn.org's actions (described above) should be denounced from every rooftop. We should be using signs that say, "We are the People Party, NOT the Democratic Party", or "Moveon.Org doesn't speak for us!". Then the media will start covering that and MoveOn.org will be called out.
We need to do that AND the media won't report it. It doesn't serve their divide and conquer agenda. That's okay, though, because we aren't their sheep :-) The MSM is nothing more than the propaganda department of the elite. They should be prosecuted for the lies they've peddled on behalf of their puppet masters. From now on, they do NOT control the narrative!
I don't think so - not this time. They didn't report on the OWS for almost two weeks and when they did it was full of mockery and derision. We got their attention the first time, we can do it again.
Lets not forget they don't control the populace as much as they once did - alternative media and the internet are playing an increasingly large role in getting the word out. Look at Egypt - they cut off all Internet, and had only TV saying there was nothing going on, yet tens of thousands showed up anyway and toppled a dictator.
Democrat teevee will claim they own us and Republican teevee will agree. That's why we can't let it bother us. They are quickly becoming irrelevant because of the internet. Lets help speed up their extinction ;-)
Us socialists never get any love. T.T
Libertarians have valid points but so to concepts like social security and single payer health care. Its about balance, not any extreme
Anything can be worked out among people committed to working together. That's why we have to tell the trolls and party hacks to go to hell when they try to divide us. We can do this and the left/right paradigm Democrats and Republicans don't want us to succeed because their parties are part of the 1%.
Hear hear. Now if we could only get conservatives in the mix we can be the 99%.
Waking anyone up is always a pita though.
There are going to be those on the left and right - those committed to the two party stranglehold that is ruining this country - who refuse to join us. We can't worry about them and they don't make up the bulk of the country, anyway. Lots of them are trolling around here, spreading the hate, lol.
As opposed to the Ron Paul cult members trolling around?
http://www.obamaftw.com/blog/ron-paul/ron-paul-2012-ron-paul-economy http://www.obamaftw.com/blog/the-federal-reserve/blame-game-end-the-fed-gold-standard
So what issues do you have with either ending the Fed or a commodity currency?
Lets discuss this like civilized people and not throw ad hominem attacks around.
I agree, however you have people on this very site that think the "Tea Party" represents Libertarians...that is laughable.
Well, you're asserting something you may not know much about. Do you know where the tea party was hatched, what their issues were and who planned it? I do and it wasn't a GOP project. In fact, Fox News attacked it - before they jumped on the bandwagon and infiltrated/hijacked it. The point is that the original people are still very active. Some within local tea parties (not the corporate sponsored ones) and some won't go near them.
I wasn't talking about the origins of the Tea Party. I am WELL aware where they came from, but it doesn't matter now. The tea party has been co-opted by they Neo Cons, just like OWS will be co-opted by the progressives.
The message of both will be run into the ground.
Tell me where you think the tea party came from.
Hope you're wrong about OWS being hijacked. I know organizations are trying to but they don't have to succeed. With a base that's 50/50 liberals and libertarians, we stand a very good chance of preventing any hijacking.
Tea Party was originally started by libertarians on the market-ticker forums. The moderator Stephanie something started pumping out videos etc. There are also some claims that Ron Paul started the movement after the TARP fiasco.Guess it all depends on who you ask. The issue was, it was started by libertarians and co-opted by Neo Cons
I hope I am wrong too, but what I have seen recently leads me to believe I am right.
The tea parties were started at The Ron Paul Forums. Karl Denninger joined in and gave support. One Ron Paul supporter created a website called "Tea Party '07" to take pledges for an online fund raiser, for Ron Paul, on the anniversary of the Boston Tea Party. On the same day, there were Ron Paul rallies all over the country, many reenacting the Boston Tea Party. On that day, we raised 6.2 million dollars, online, in 24 hours. It broke all records for raising money for a candidate. Not one cent came from special interests. The issues of the tea party rallies were ending the wars, ending the Fed, abolishing the PATRIOT Act, abolishing the IRS, repealing free trade trade agreements like NAFTA, etc. Fox News attacked us and Glenn Beck called us terrorists, lol, but the Repukes took notice because they wanted to harness that energy, just as the Demons want to harness OWS. The thing is, Ron Paul supporters despise the Reukes so the GOP couldn't hijack them. Instead, they created groups like Tea Party Patriots, Tea Party Express, and Freedom Works - all neocon Repuke productions. Remember, though, even though they rebranded the neocons as "tea parties", they never absorbed the people who hated their guts - the Paulites. We're still here and we support and are part of OWS :-) United we stand!
I am with you. I hate the "Tea Party" as it stands now and I am with OWS. But I am starting to see the Mantra of "tax the rich, tax the rich" throughout this site as well as the news coverage. Its becoming more and more prevalent.
This liberal/libertarian coming together is scaring the shit out of both parties. All I can say is that they better be scared.
I'm a Ron Paul supporter. I am part of the 99% and for anyone to say this isn't about a candidate and I should stop printing his name on here when his ideals best describes my issues with what is going on in America right now, is like you saying to me, we don't want to hear your opinion or views since you feel so strongly about a certain candidate and this isn't about what you think. I think we should all have a say. I support those of you who believe Ron Paul isn't a good choice and respect your opinions. Lets debate the issues we all face. I don't agree with all the Anti-Israel post that have been made but I don't go tell them that this isn't what OWS or the 99% are about. If you go around telling people what this is about and what it isn't about then this isn't about the 99%. I agree most of what the OP says here. However are the "trolls, party hacks" not part of the 99%. I wished I could better explain in words what I am trying to say here. I am a libertarian but I will listen and respect everyone's ideals even those of you who think I am wrong and I should stop posting stuff about Ron Paul. I will also disagree and debate you but never call you stupid or tell you to stop posting what you believe or think.
I'm a Ron Paul supporter, as well, and I agree with negative posts about Israel. I say this just to point out that Ron Paul supporters are not in agreement on everything.
Of course, you should speak about Dr Paul or anything else you feel is relevant. That's not trolling or spamming. The trolls and spammers work this board to divide us, claiming this movement belongs only to liberals or Marxists, or whatever. There are also party hacks like the MoveOn people who want OWS absorbed into the party. The point of my posting this is to point out that there are Ron Paul supporters, Kucinich supporters, anarchists, libertarians, progressives and the just plain fed up in this movement and nobody owns it. As the organizer in the article has said, we will not be hijacked. We have to come together on the things we agree on and later work, genuinely, to help each other resolve our differences.