Forum Post: The Financial Times GETS IT!!
Posted 13 years ago on Oct. 20, 2011, 4:03 a.m. EST by Krankie
(140)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement
Did anyone see the article called "Why big businesses are bad for business" in the Financial Times (that bastion of crackhead, extreme-left thinking)? IT WAS ADVERTISED ON THE FRONT PAGE! The article says what we all know (but the establishment refuse to acknowledge) - that large corporations are inefficient and exist mainly for the benefit of middle and upper management. That behaving amorally is bad for your community and ultimately bad for the company (of course, that "ultimately" is the problem - if I am making 50M a year by implementing suicidal policies, do you think I give a damn about what happens in 5 years time?). This is NOT a movement of commies and pinkos and druggies as Fox and company would like to paint us - this is a movement of people that WILL say that the emperor has no clothes. But we need to seize on articles like this and show them to anyone that writes us off as a bunch of left-wing cranks. How about if the OWS Web site set up links to articles like this, so we can say to the doubters "hey, what do I know? But why don't you have a look at these articles and see what you think?"? Along with User Map, Donate, and so on, you could have an "Expert opinion" tab... What does anyone else think? Would this help you bring more people on board?
All the bad mouthing and labeling by the corporate media is pure bullshit at always. Just ignore them is my advice to anyone. On the other hand my advice to the occupy movement is hold on to your guns. Don't be diverted from from the original goal by the charades of mass media in America........Remember "the people united will never be defeated" However, the media is working hard to divide us already. Even MSNBC cannot be trusted. Remember NBC is owned by General Electric.
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/09417d98-f969-11e0-8e7e-00144feab49a.html#axzz1bJCdl1Lv
Great Article!
Indeed.
This is a good idea but it would open the door to all kinds of "expert opinion" presented in an official capacity by #OWS, which falls into a category similar to presenting a laundry list of demands. I think #OWS does best to just stimulate public dialogue with the simple demand that we have the right to peacefully assemble in public space to protest growing wealth disparity and the illegitimacy of corporate and banking control of the state.
In fact, I love the idea of a clipping service of good articles, but not through #OWS. Historically, until now, movements have been distracted by a myriad of agendas, all good, perhaps, but divisive in their different directions. I believe the popularity and power of #OWS has been in its non-specifics.
Exactly my point too.
Hi Rohjo, thank you for your input. I was just looking for ways to grow the number of supporters, and I come up against a lot of basically good people that have been hood-winked by the media. I am not an expert in this area, but there ARE experts out there, and I would like to be able to point my friends off at those experts. And I am sure other people are in a similar position. But I don't have the time to find and document articles for my friends to read - I just thought that OWS would be a good central point to maintain such information, and give people like me a URL that I can pass to my friends.
You know, Noam Chomsky once said The Financial Times (UK) was the best source of news because money needs accurate information. A friend, who researches for Institutional Investor, said CEOs overseas knew the unrest in Yemen would occur, months before it actually did. When opposing kleptocracy, know your enemy, I guess.
Offhand, I suggest commondreams.org as a sort of mainstream progressive news and articles resource. Truthdig.com is more progressive, but might also be palatable to newbies. HuffPo is a crap shoot as far as getting truth.
http://overthecoals.blogspot.com/
Job boom plan for America
For the protest to guarantee winning the next election the plan needs to be force the multinationals to buy all their supplies made by American workers. Prevent any imports from China and known slave states from being unloaded. The 13th amendment abolished slavery. Having slave made goods in America is unconstitutional.
Unions should have their own pay scale. Any workers who don't want to join the union will need to negotiate their own pension, their own wages, their own health care.
End all tax deductions or tax credits and use a sales tax to collect taxes so even criminals will pay their taxes. Eliminate the entire IRS which would save $400 billion annually.
To refuse to vote for that platform would be stupid and insane.The privileged keep ripping all the rest of us off and we are morons allowing that to happen. Any person against this plan is sabotaging the OWS protest and needs to be heard. Let's hear any reason to oppose this end globalization screw job.
I'm not sure actually. Let's take the analogy of a restaurant advertising a positive newspaper review, or Zagat's review. That restaurant is then accepting such sources are valid, and authoritative.
By doing so, you are stating such sources are authoritative and experts. What if then they write a piece against OWS? How do you disavow that statement then?
Actually, would that be a bad thing? There are tons of articles against OWS already anyway. And pointing at an article by someone that then writes against OWS proves that we are not only using paid-off hacks.
But, my idea was to point at specific articles, rather than just naming journalists. Anyway, thank you for your thoughts.
Let's say John Smith of the NYTimes writes a positive article/opinion. Just how restaurants "appeal to authority" by posting such an article at their restaurants, OWS doing so would be "appealing to authority" as well.
Now on the surface that's a good thing. Why not highlight some publicity from John Smith of NYTimes.
The problem though is two-fold:
How does OWS decide who they want to accept as authority. Is it just John Smith because he wrote a nice piece? What is John Smith's political view? Does OWS want to be connected with John Smith?
What if someone else of the NYTimes, for that matter, what if John Smith later, writes a not-so-nice piece. How does that relate to OWS, and the fact OWS has already "appealed to authority". Hard to denounce NYTimes and/or John Smith at that point.
I think your idea, at least on the surface, is a good one. I just think there is more to contemplate before it is implemented. Maybe it is a good one, maybe it isn't. I'm not sure.
Hi NYCJames. Maybe I did a bad job of explaining myself. I didn't actually mean to point at articles about OWS. I was more thinking about articles (possibly pre-dating OWS) that espoused the same ideas that OWS is supporting - for example, the huge divide between rich and poor in the US and how destructive that is for a nation, how politicians in the US are now controlled by the people that pay for their campaigns and not by the people that vote for them. I didn't particularly like Jimmy Carter, but he had some very insightful comments about money and politics in the US on a recent interview with the BBC - that is the sort of thing that I had in mind. Does that make any more sense?
There are many serious articles and essays on the subject of the centralization of control and wealth in economics journals and science magazines. For instance, a recent article in Science News explained how researchers using large commercial databases discovered that only 147 multinational corporations control 40% of global wealth. That's out of around 50,000 corporations. Lots of information like that, lone voices shouting out for years about the global oligarchy forming around us.
Sure, but again a similar issue arises. It's like with how all these people are claiming demands. The second OWS makes a demand, or backs any specific legislation, it is going to be jumped on by the media.
I like your idea, don't get me wrong, I am simply saying such an idea should be tread very lightly. There are repercussions. People will treat it as an "appeal to authority" and will try to define OWS with it.
I find that people I know who actually work or have worked on Wall St and people who actually invest - do get it.
You have a good idea, there. Not sure if this website will adapt it but it makes sense. There are a lot of articles online that could be added - from seekingalpha.com, marketwatch, businessinsider...they do get it.
In addition, at least one of the "dirty commie hippies" who organized the occupation from day one, used to be a derivatives trader.
http://culture.wnyc.org/articles/know-your-neighbor/2011/sep/28/occupy-wall-street-protestor/
It's largely the know-nothings who don't get it or who willfully don't want to get it.
http://overthecoals.blogspot.com/
Job boom plan for America
For the protest to guarantee winning the next election the plan needs to be force the multinationals to buy all their supplies made by American workers. Prevent any imports from China and known slave states from being unloaded. The 13th amendment abolished slavery. Having slave made goods in America is unconstitutional.
Unions should have their own pay scale. Any workers who don't want to join the union will need to negotiate their own pension, their own wages, their own health care.
End all tax deductions or tax credits and use a sales tax to collect taxes so even criminals will pay their taxes. Eliminate the entire IRS which would save $400 billion annually.
To refuse to vote for that platform would be stupid and insane.The privileged keep ripping all the rest of us off and we are morons allowing that to happen. Any person against this plan is sabotaging the OWS protest and needs to be heard. Let's hear any reason to oppose this end globalization screw job.
You do realize that tax credits and deductions are a way to allow the federal government to promote things right? Like for example, the solar panel credit helps the government promote green energy.
The IRS plays a service regarding that type of policy, as well as fiscal policy. Should we severely reform it? Absolutely. Eliminate it? I don't think so.
Picking one tiny good thing along with tons of crap is irrational.
End every single credit. Its the privileged who gets their deals. You people are uninformed and self destructive. That's illogical.
Your post is quite ironic.
I am a capitalist, are you?
Logical is ironic for you?
I want this protest to develop a new gov't by election. Being in a trance has nothing to do with intelligence. This gov't chooses its loopholes in return from bribes.
If an idea is good it will work on its own merit.
If I was King I would mandate only hydrogen fuel cells, no more internal combustion engines, period. That would solve the energy problem and it would be extremely competitive. Hydrogen fuel cells don't need an subsidy.
I would finance massive solar and wind deals. That power would generate hydrogen from water and all the power would be free because it was financed by the citizens.
If the climate can be saved, that is the only way to save it. We have no time to fart around. America would be much more competitive without paying exorbitant cost for energy that will poison all of us.
Is that ironic? Help me win this protest. Are you in the park?