Wall Street Protests

[oceanchild]

I know this isn't directly relevant to the thread, but I'm going to keep the sidetrack alive...

You've got a point Julia. But we've come a long way - isn't there some way in this digital age of supercommunication to keep tabs on what's happening back in the district, other than men in suits bearing gifts coming to take the senator to lunch in DC?

Ok, so if I go meet with my congressperson, back home in his district, aren't I lobbying? And then we say, well sure, you can lobby, because you're just YOU. But not those PAID lobbyists. And then before you know it we're in the business of deciding whose opinions people are allowed to listen to. I'm all for disclosure. I'm mostly for campaign finance laws. But I think restricting lobbying mostly boils down to restricting information.

[houseelf]

Reciprocity's commentary is the most tempered point in this thread to date and as such bears repeated: "

It's not just about corporate greed but about the amount of influence we allow them to have in the American political system. You're right, corporations must pursue shareholder value to the greatest extent allowed by law, which is why it seems to get a little twisted when you give corporations nearly unfettered access to influencing policy-making. It's exactly because it is foolish to expect corporations to willingly rein in their pursuit of profit that we must have independent policy-making and regulatory bodies providing oversight.

There is a huge chasm between hating 'evil' corporations/Che Guevarra socialism and seeking change in the Government to ensure that corporations do not cheat and swindle the public. I'm pretty sure no one wants advocates a return to preindustrial America economics, just a fair playing field for everyone. HOnestly, the more vitriolic this thread became, the more I began to look into this issue and see that underneath this fledgling movement, there is merit.

[fluffhead]

(and I'm guessing not much given the nasty condescending tone thus far),

huh.
I thought this was actually a pretty enlightening conversation. I haven't seen people being nasty and condescending.
If you're referring to my "wholesome and idealistic" comment, I was being sincere. Sometimes it's hard to tell.

[reciprocity]

I do find it interesting that some of those who are mourning Steve Jobs see no problem with what he did but hate "evil corporations."He innovated with the goal of making money--people seem to forget that.

Apple has provided amazing innovation while being a corporate bully at the same time...see their patent war with Samsung for one example. Heck--they are the Wal-Mart of the electronics world. I heard today my company sells them materials at a loss and I know when they say jump, we say "how high?"

Nothing is black and white.

As someone who has litigated against Apple in the patent arena, I can say that I'm acutely aware of the IP policies that Apple takes that I might not support in a perfect world. I also don't agree with all of Apple's labor practices or their environmental record.

I can even be aware of the role Jobs directly played in those corporate policies, and other failings he had as a person (see, eg http://gawker.com/5847344/what-every...out-steve-jobs )

I can still appreciate that Steve Jobs has had a tremendous impact on the way we (or, more specifically, I) interact with the world around me, and he was a visionary and losing him to cancer sucks.

[reciprocity]

I don't agree with that assertion, there are a number of ways to effect change that don't involve unplugging from society, or disengaging from corporations entirely.

The idea that you can't take part in a system and still seek to improve a system is not sound. I can still invest in the stock market while maintaining a desire to eliminate the fiction of corporate personhood. I can still buy (and sell) corporate products and even sell my services to a corporation while still maintaining a belief that the degree of influence corporations are permitted to have on the American political system is too high right now.

[scrub-jay]

Oh, but LSW - if you live off the grid you still have to buy your solar panels/hydro-power devices, etc... from corporations or companies who have corporate support. I'm not sure it is possible to fully disengage.

[SoonerTexan]

I can still appreciate that Steve Jobs has had a tremendous impact on the way we (or, more specifically, I) interact with the world around me, and he was a visionary and losing him to cancer sucks.

Oh, I understand. It is just an interesting contrast.

[diggitydot]

Personally, we strive to select how we engage within the system to encourage business practices we support. It isn't an all or nothing, but instead making conscientious choices. If money = power, I choose who to give it to.

[reciprocity]

Personally, we strive to select how we engage within the system to encourage business practices we support. It isn't an all or nothing, but instead making conscientious choices. If money = power, I choose who to give it to.

I'm not saying that isn't a way to try to influence the system, but it's far from the only way to do so.

[diggitydot]

I'm not saying that isn't a way to try to influence the system, but it's far from the only way to do so.

I completely agree. It's just one of the several small ways we try to be responsible consumers. I think we also need better enforcement of existing laws, legislative solutions, and less coziness between industries and their regulators.

[reciprocity]

The following article gives an idea of what these protests have evolved into (since their conception last summer):

http://www.openmarket.org/2011/10/05...-make-demands/

from that link "It doesn’t stand for the whole movement, obviously. Some protesters are focused on different issues than the ones he chose. But it’s reasonable to assume that most of the protesters would agree with most of his demands." Any particular reason why it is reasonable to assume that "most" of the protesters would agree with "most" of his demands? Or is this guy just another straw-man to be propped up so everyone can try to dismiss the real frustration and the positive aims (like the one espoused by your husband of decreasing corruption and collusion between and among corporations and the government) carried by the people involved with and who are in support of OWS.

I'm sure there are people involved in OWS that I could find a way to disagree with. It probably wouldn't even be that hard. Like someone mentioned before, there are anarcho-capitalists as well as militant socialists scattered throughout the ranks. Instead I've tried to find the aspects and arguments that I do agree with and hope that these issues can become part of our national dialogue in the same way that small government and fiscal responsibility became part of the national dialogue after the Tea Party movement began.

There has been a lot of talk about how people should just accept the way the system works and quit whining, but that's not really addressing the issues. I'm a 1%er too, and I watched my mom work nights at a shit job so she could have health insurance for my terminally ill sister and I graduated from a public high school and a state university (where I had a full tuition merit-based scholarship) and took out loans to attend one of the top 10 law schools in the country to get where I am. Just because I beat the odds doesn't mean that I can't have empathy and compassion for the people struggling with the same - or even better - odds than I had. Just because I got by when the deck was stacked against me doesn't mean that I can't hope that future generations can have a deck less stacked against them.

[reciprocity]

Agreed, sorry if I seemed hostile, I think you're right, we are on the same page, I just get my dander up when I see the reports trying to marginalize everyone because some of them are idiots. I didn't like it when the left did it to the Tea Party with race-baiting or "keep your government hands off my medicare" signs, and I don't like it now.

[poky]

There has been a lot of talk about how people should just accept the way the system works and quit whining, but that's not really addressing the issues. I'm a 1%er too, and I watched my mom work nights at a shit job so she could have health insurance for my terminally ill sister and I graduated from a public high school and a state university (where I had a full tuition merit-based scholarship) and took out loans to attend one of the top 10 law schools in the country to get where I am. Just because I beat the odds doesn't mean that I can't have empathy and compassion for the people struggling with the same - or even better - odds than I had. Just because I got by when the deck was stacked against me doesn't mean that I can't hope that future generations can have a deck less stacked against them.

Amen, and ditto (except for the law school bit).

[Cinderella]

To me this is a good conversation going with many points. So many that for now I'm going to touch on the ones that stick out to me and leave the rest to others who may have something more to add.

One theme I see is people seem to feel obliged to point out the appearance of irony with the movement criticizing corporate america while using technology. They associate that if someone is upset with corporate excess then he is supposed to abandon all connection with corporate product. It is true that big corporations do very well making some item such as the Iphone but there are things that big corporations don't do well such as structuring mortgage derivatives. Wouldn't it be more appropriate to strike a balance and use corporations for what works and get them out of doing what doesn't?

The trees are too big and need to come down. They grow slowly as the rest of the forest struggles in the long shadow they cast. The rest of the forest is not dependent upon these great trees, though they are nice to admire and offer some things, but they are really dependent on the natural basic resources. There is little resources for the rest to grow such as water and light because the big trees are taking it all. If the big trees come down then it allows for sunshine and rain to reach the rest of the forests diversity and allows for appropriate growth. To become more comfortable with appropriate destruction of something think about it as you are destroying a carrot to make a delicious soup. Appropriate destruction always proceeds great creativity.

This is America's first internet era movement. There is as much diversity in the complaints and demands as there is diversity in the people supporting the movement. Nearly 1,000 cities across the US are involved now. Yes people are angry and frustrated with the 1% that keeps blocking decisions in government that would help the people.

Don't dismiss a good idea just because of the source. People who are crazy enough to believe they can change the world often do. Such as with the case of Steve Jobs.

[SoonerTexan]

They grow slowly as the rest of the forest struggles in the long shadow they cast. The rest of the forest is not dependent upon these great trees, though they are nice to admire and offer some things, but they are really dependent on the natural basic resources. There is little resources for the rest to grow such as water and light because the big trees are taking it all.

I disagree with some of this. Many (not all) of the "big trees" are big because they are good at what they do. That's how they got there--they were "little trees" at some point. My company recently bought another company. A "big tree" squashed the "little tree." Why? Because the "little tree" sucked at what is was doing and was on the road to going under. If you truly got rid of the "big trees" you'll end up with higher priced (and possibly lower quality, depending on the situation) products & services. I don't think that would go over well.

As far as being dependent on these "big trees"

Do you buy gas?

Do you have a bank account?

Do you buy groceries?

Yes, we are dependent. It is the way our economy is set up. It's why there was a bailout to begin with!

People who are crazy enough to believe they can change the world often do. Such as with the case of Steve Jobs.

Again, I find this ironic as Apple was the perfect example of a "big tree" who squashed competitors...