Welcome login | signup
Language en es fr
OccupyForum

Forum Post: Two more amendments to OWS Vision Statement:

Posted 3 years ago on Nov. 24, 2011, 12:29 p.m. EST by Elipsis (6)
This content is user submitted and not an official statement

For the constitution: 1) Make it illegal for government to borrow money from ANY financial institution: a) every sovereign NATION CAN PRINT ITS OWN MONEY DEBT FREE and spend it into infrastructure improvements, govt programs, etc. The FED is not a government institution and most central banks of nations accross the globe are not government institutions (the names are meant to make the average person think they are government institutions). A sovereign nation does not need a Central Bank to print its money and borrow it with interest 2) Ban fractional lending across the board: a) fractional lending is: for every dollar depsited into the bank, the bank is allowed to lend out 9 or 10 (in recent cases 300) times that amount. Over time, this creates an inbalance in the value of currency (bubble and inflation).

Please watch these two documentaries found on YouTube or Google Videos: 1) "The Money Makers" by Bill Still (3.5 hrs long, but best info) 2) "The Secret of Oz" by Bill Still (1.9 hrs long)

And if you want to support a leader for OWS, support Bill Still as a presidential candidate in the US. If the US can break away from the plutocracy, the world may be saved from financial slavery. This is what the US fore-father fought for, but it seems the money lenders have us on the ropes...

Elipsis

27 Comments

27 Comments


Read the Rules
[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

fractional lending results in a debtors economy

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 3 years ago

You nailed it. Here's my good start to achieving that: http://occupywallst.org/forum/howtodoits-proposal-on-how-to-accomplish-the-march/

[-] 1 points by Elipsis (6) 3 years ago

Thanks, and a great post yourself. The system has been eroded by lobbyists for so long that it no longer represents a system "By the People and for the People" that the US fore-fathers fought for. If they saw how twisted and corrupt with power their country has become they would be appalled. My suggestions are a piece of the puzzle, but look at what we can achieve together! These are all great ideas. How we actually turn them into action?

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 3 years ago

To further answer your question, since the OWS was founded on the principles that is for ALL of us, you have to vote for the March for G-S Act to get it done! Happy Thanksgiving. Turkey time. Let's roast those turkeys whom we voted into office who now look more after special interest groups than what's best for America!

It's coming together, keep the faith, we will win by education! And for the lobbyist, I know you are doing your job, and I respect that; but first (hopefully) YOU Love this Country! After all, the Shattering of our Wall Street Regulations in 1999/2000, are both now conclusively linked by many Scholar's to the Collapse of our Financial System. God Bless America!

Cheers

[-] 1 points by Howtodoit (1232) 3 years ago

I think they are already starting to listen. Tuesday I sent this http://occupywallst.org/forum/howtodoits-proposal-on-how-to-accomplish-the-march/ to the White House, Boehner, Cantor, Gingrich, Pelosi, Bachman,and a few other GOP/Democrats in Congress, and guess what, got this back from an DC insider who didn't know I did this:

"I find it a bit odd that even Newt and Cantor are now saying it's right to Reinstate the G-S Act today"

That's what I call the power of twitter, find me here: @howtodoit1

[-] 1 points by OccupyNan (5) 3 years ago

Should there be a political campaign plea in this post?

[-] 1 points by pastimes66 (3) 3 years ago

actually I am convinced there is only one way to eliminate these grave evils, namely through the establishment of a socialist economy,

accompanied by an educational system which would be oriented toward social goals. In such an economy, the means of production

are owned by society itself and are utilized in a planned fashion. A planned economy, which adjusts production to the needs of the

community, would distribute the work to be done among all those able to work and would guarantee a livelihood to every man,

woman, and child. The education of the individual, in addition to promoting his own innate abilities, would attempt to develop in him a

sense of responsibility for his fellow men in place of the glorification of power and success in our present society. This are not my words but Einstaines

[-] 1 points by justathought4u (9) 3 years ago

For the love of money is a root of all kinds of evil..Whoever loves money never has enough; whoever loves wealth is never satisfied with their income. This too is meaningless.“No one can serve two masters. Either you will hate the one and love the other, or you will be devoted to the one and despise the other. You cannot serve both God and money. It is my opinion that we were designed to "serve" or have "purpose".

As Dylan said in song "But you’re gonna have to serve somebody, yes indeed You’re gonna have to serve somebody Well, it may be the devil or it may be the Lord But you’re gonna have to serve somebody" Agape

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

Such specifics don't strike me as an appropriate part of a vision statement. Vision statements I have seen tend to be much more general. And what's the matter with the Declaration of the Occupation? Isn't that functionally, a vision statement?

[-] 1 points by Elipsis (6) 3 years ago
[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

Your reference is to a Michael Moore article, not to any official NY GAC statement (the governing body of OWS) and in fact the NY GAC and OWS very specifically eschews super stars. Look in a mirror. We are all leaders. Solidarity forever!

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 3 years ago

I object to referring to the NYCGA as the governing body. As a dedicated patriotic group of volunteers,I think they should publicly renounce any such authority and proceed with forming GA's in each congressional district to be represented by two elected reps. Yes, elected. Collectively they should be known as the National General Assembly. One more thing, please remove the banner at top where it says "This content is user submitted and not an official statement" Every statement here is officially from the 99%. Thank you

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

You can't conjure up GAs out of nothing. There is either sufficient movement in a given region that will give rise to a GA or there isn't. The fact is, while there is tremendous enthusiasm in some areas for OWS, in many (probably most) regions, which is to say most CDs, there isn't. I would venture to say there are some CDs that have barely given any thought to OWS and other where they overwhelming public sentiment is quite hostile.

While the NYC GA is the governing body of OWS, virtually every occupation has a GA. Indeed the typical pattern is that a GA preceeds an occupation and organizes an occupation. In many areas GAs have developed that have not yet organized occupations, though in most instances that is their primary goal.

Beyond the NYC GA the fact is that most GAs have both heard of the 99% Declaration and considered it. All of them universally have rejected it for the authoritarian document, fundamentally contrary to the values and ethos of OWS that it is.

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 3 years ago

So GA's are deciding for the 99% instead of the other way around is that right? Funny, most of the feedback i'm getting show strong support for the idea, but since i'm not official it doesn't matter is that right? Speaking of authoritarian documents, whatever that means in the context of OWS, have you read todays news from the demands working group? http://www.nycga.net/groups/demands/forum/topic/time-to-occupy-congress-with-strategic-demands-a-ten-point-proposal/

Could you provide any verifiable sources for your claim that "all of them reject it"

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

No, GAs are deciding for themselves. They strongly urge the 99% who are not in GAs to organize one or attend on close to them. We argue that right now, GAs seem to be the best and most democratic decision making bodies that we have been able to come up with, but we also acknowledge that this is not written in stone and that if anyone has a better decision making mechanism that should be considered.

The Demands Working Group happens to be the natural habitat of the more moderate elements in OWS. It has had an extremely difficult time even agreeing among itself, much less be able to convince a skeptical GA of anything. I suspect that it's latest meandering document is simply an attempt to throw everything together, to put everybody's favorite demand in one big document, but I am certain that it has as little chance of being approved by the GA as did any of the Demand Working Group's previous efforts.

In terms of any GAs that might have accepted the 99% Declaration, i think that if any GA did accept the Declaration that would be a very big deal to the organizer of the effort and he would no doubt advertise it widely. I am not aware that this has been done. As for the larger GAs, I think if any of them endorsed the Declaration that would be national news. I do know that it is up for consideration, though most of the people I have talked to there (including it's supporters0 think it will have little chance of passing at the Philly GA. It is conceivable that the Declaration may have been endorsed by some small GA in some small town, though i haven't heard of any and I wouldn't deny that event if I heard that it had in fact occurred.

[-] 1 points by AFarewellToKings (1486) 3 years ago

Given the weakness of this reply when I questioned the bold assertions of the original comment you made, I have to conclude that the 99% Declaration is fundamentally contrary to YOUR values and ethos. Please study the Declaration more carefully and I welcome your arguments against it.

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

I'[m not sur what's weak about my reply. I have been to GAs at four different occupations, including NYC. As bodies, they are all hostile to the document. Questioning individuals at the occupations, they all seemed to share this hostility though some who were less familiar with it were merely indifferent. A few people who also tended to be less familiar with the document, its origins and its implications tended to be somewhat enthusiastic about it, but this was a tiny minority in every occupation I have been to and it tended to be people who were not very engaged in either the occupation or its associated GA. There are at this point hundreds of occupations and GAs around the nation. While it is certainly concievable that some GA somewhere has in fact endorsed the document I feel certain that those who are promulgating it would be so ecstatic about that that they certainly wouldn't keep it a secret.

I have read the Declaration over and over again many times and I will acknowledge that on first reading, and even after a second and third reading, I was fairly enthusiastic about it, though at no point was I without criticism of the document. It is only after reading the document several times, after having had numerous very unpleasant interactions with its author and talking to other OWSers about the document that I came to be critical of it and begin to see just how antithetical to OWS values it is.

There is only one phrase in it that I find really repugnant, but it is some repugnant that it calls the whole document into question. There are other parts of the document that I just find goofy, though not especially antithetical to OWS values, and still others that I'm personally uncomfortable with, but which others in the movement might not find all that troublesome.

I raised all of this several times with the author of the document. Every time I raised these issues, my concerns were never addressed, though a few days later the list was shut down and shortly later a new list set up. I am not suggesting that the lists were shut down because of anything that I said or did. But the fact is there were numerous other criticisms on these lists, none of which were ever directly addressed by the author. At this point, since OWSers are not for the most part trolls or kibbitzers I suspect there may be very few criticism found on Declaration lists because those with citicisms have simply gotten tired of not having their concerns addressed.

All that said, the clause which concerns me most is the one that says delegates are to be "United States citizens 18 years of age or older." Now, there are no exclusions of anybody at any GA. I know of many minors and noncitizens who have played key roles in OWS. To exclude them from any gathering in any capacity does seem to be, not just contrary to my values, but contrary to the values of the movement as they have practically manifested themselves. At the occupations I have been to everybody is an equal and I mean everybody. Your age, gender or race doesn't matter. Neither does your citizenship or your level of education. Or your mental health. Or your wealth or lack thereof. Or your domicile or lack thereof. Or whether you have a drug problem. Or whether you have a PhD or are illiterate. Everyone is welcome at every encampment I have been to and everyone is treated as an equal. And everyone may contribute whatever they want or nothing as they see fit.

This is not to say that encampments have not had difficulty integrating the homeless and other rejects from our society into the community of the occupation. But as a basic value they have always tried and we continue to try and to learn how to build a genuinely democratic society from the community level on up. We cannot do that if anybody is excluded for any reason.

The most goofy part of the document to me is the notion of having delegates from every CD when there are not even GAs in most CDs, let alone occupations. How in the world are delegates to be chosen in CDs where there is clearly little or no interest in OWS?

[-] 1 points by Elipsis (6) 3 years ago

After the statement on the link above, there is a link to discuss OWS and it points to this site. I simply answered it...

If you watch those two documentaries in my initial post you will find who your 1% is and how they have taken over. My suggestions are simply to cut them off from the power the US gave them in 1913 on December 24...

[-] 1 points by RedJazz43 (2757) 3 years ago

"Official" 99% Declaration sites go up and down at the whim of its initator, depending on whether or not he likes what is being said their.

On several occasions I have raised my objections to the 99% Declaration and they have never been answered. Typically, shortly after I raise those objections the site goes down and a few hours or a few days go by and a new 99% site goes up. I repeat my objections and the same pattern repeats itself.

My objections are sincere. That is, if my objections and those of many other OWS activists were sincerely addressed then it is conceivable that the 99% Declaration might be reformulated to the point of being acceptable to some or all, or nearly all existing GAs.

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 3 years ago

without fractional lending, you could not get credit of any kind. just because you smash you thumb with a hammer, doesn't mean throw out the hammer. just stop hitting your thumb.

[-] 1 points by Elipsis (6) 3 years ago

@ richardkentgates: Do you agree though that fractional lending leads to bubbles and eventually inflation?

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 3 years ago

the term bubble is completely misused. bubbles are created by the systematic pumping of a particular industry. investors set their sights on an industry, buy up all the stocks, supper inflate the industry. when it levels out, they drop it and move on to the next. this is what creates bubbles. investment firms. nothing more, nothing less. by shoving national equity downward leaving firms with less capital, would leave them with less ability to create such bubbles. in essence, investment firms are the ones pushing your thumb under the hammer.

[-] 1 points by Seer (10) 3 years ago

While I agree with the misuse of the term "bubble" I disagree with the idea that Fractional Lending is necessary in the first place, a debt based economy is doomed to eventual failure, and inflation is the only sort of growth that can stall the inevitable, stall, not eliminate. All we need to do is see the various economic collapses and ongoing collapses going on in the world today. Our current debt crisis is being accelerated by the stagnant economy, as unemployment rises,and the inflation does not, we see a sharp bell curve in the national debt. It's like using a credit card to pay the other credit cards, hoping that your gonna get a raise. Each month that passes without the raise means the more your going to eventually pay, compounded monthly. a little over a dozen years ago, we saw the debt go from billions to trillions, now we are at, what? 13 trillion and counting?

The fat lady is singing folks...

Perhaps after the economic system finally concludes, (fails) the next system can be based on true value, instead of an artificial value based on debt creation... But that would eliminate a great deal of power from the Federal reserve, and as such, I'd expect them to fight it's demise as long and as viciously as possible.

My advice, tear up the plastic. Start living within your means, and deny them the control that that little rectangle of plastic really means...

[-] 1 points by richardkentgates (3269) from Fort Walton Beach, FL 3 years ago

i should be controlled but no credit means big ideas never see reality. if you get a contract to install cabinets. biggest job you have ever had. you will not be payed until you are done, you may get small checks to cover certain things, or the contractor may not supply this. forego the work? or get a loan to cover the materials and other cost and pay the loan back? yes, you could say, just give the contract to a bigger company that doesn't need a loan. then how do you have start-ups and/or growth?

[-] 1 points by Seer (10) 3 years ago

A business borrowing for the business' growth is one thing...

Using credit to pump gas or buy a coffee is pure unadulterated stupid...

I understand the reason for business, but for the individual, or for a sovereign nation... How sovereign is a nation that owes more to other countries than it can ever afford to pay back. How free are you when you'll be paying credit bills for the next ten years.

If you use a credit card, buy 4 coffees, and sell them at a profit to recoup your investment, sure, but it's a risk, of course.

Financial responsibility starts with us, individually, because lets face it, the powers that be have set a pretty shit example for decades...

My opinions of course, but I'm a lead by example, not by proxy type of person.

[-] 1 points by MattLHolck (16833) from San Diego, CA 3 years ago

credit used to have a real function in that one could buy big priced items with out having to carry large amounts of cash

that function become redundant we people started carrying bank cards

so the credit card establishment have invented games to keep costumers

I'm guessing looser lending laws were passed to keep the archaic credit card system afloat

[-] 1 points by Elipsis (6) 3 years ago

The life cycle of a money bubble: 1) Saver deposits their savings, say 10 dollars, in the bank 2) Bank, through fractional lending, can now lend out 100 dollars 3) Borrower borrows the 100 dollars and buys something for 10 dollars from a grocer 4) Grocer takes the 10 dollars and puts into the bank until he needs it 5) Bank can now lend out an additional 100 dollars. At this time the bank has an accumulated 20 (10 of which was fed from the first lending) dollar deposit but can lend out 200 dollars. And I haven't even started calculating interest yet... 6) The process repeats over an over and with compounding interest the bank has insane amount of lending power but not enough assets to cover the lent out money. In case of a "bank run" they are wiped out because they can never cover the costs since subsequent bank deposits (from the initial) are based on lent out money. Remind you of an any banks and financial institutions that failed?

Please watch this video for further details: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Dc3sKwwAaCU&feature=related

[Removed]