Occupy Cerb

[Guest J****I***s******le]

The people who work on Wall Street aren't their target audience; the idea is to signal the population as a whole that "something is very wrong with this country". Wall Street is just a symbolic location.

 

haha....the official name of this protest is OCCUPY WALL STREET. And if you read the news my dear...the largest group of protesters is infact, aiming their protests directly at Wall Street...

[nodv2 100]

George carlin says it best for me.

 

 

Holds up for us as well in canada.

Need to get informed and vocal.

[eagertopleaze 2366]

Can someone please explain to me what the Canadian protesters are protesting against??? What is it they don't like in Canada? I don't know much about it, sorry...

[JuliasUndies 7288]

haha....the official name of this protest is OCCUPY WALL STREET. And if you read the news my dear...the largest group of protesters is infact, aiming their protests directly at Wall Street...

 

It's true, the disgruntled audience of America and the world watched while the 700 Billion dollar bail out failed to make any difference starting a commotion among the people...upset about many issues. I'd be less than happy living in U.S of A, struggling to make ends meet paying down my dept..and the Government throws 700 billion dollars away. I could have used that money!! That's $2,295 estimated cost per American of 305 million Americans, or $4,635 per working American.

The butterfly affect applies to the market worldwide, but it started at Wallstreet. :)

[eagertopleaze 2366]

I am just wondering what is wrong with big houses full of luxurious items? What is wrong with people spending the money they earn?

 

What is wrong with CEO's of private companies making big salaries? They earn the money!

 

I am curious, do the First Nations communities with no potable water pay income tax? HST?

 

 

Fabulous thread and it should lead to some spirited debates and differing points of view. Looking forward to it.

 

No system is perfect and it wasn't that long ago that a great many in world celebrated the tearing down of the Berlin wall as the symbolic of the end "communism" as we knew it. I used " " around the world communism as it certainly wasn't the system of Karl Marx. It's not only CEO's of multinationals that can be perceived as greedy. One can take a ride through most suburbs in most NA cities and see how greed or want has ballooned to unsustainable and unrealistic proportions. 2-3,000 and more sq foot houses with 2-3 car garages and all of them filled to max with newest and best disposable items. On one hand I could rage against untold consumerism but I don't. Most households require two incomes to feed the need.. I just chose to live my life differently. I live in an 865 sq foot house which is smaller than most apartments. No kids. We grow food that sustains us for 5 or so months of the year. There is one car, it is a Lexus but it's a 1997 Lexus purchased when it was 8 years old. The household income is well in excess of 6 figures and I could easily afford to live that life style. I chose not to simply because I don't want to be bound to something I don't want to do.

 

To me it comes down to personal choices and personal responsibility.

 

I see no point in the occupy protests. If they are really serious...they'd go occupy the first nations communities that continue not to have access to potable water.

 

Peace

MG

[JuliasUndies 7288]

I am just wondering what is wrong with big houses full of luxurious items? What is wrong with people spending the money they earn?

 

What is wrong with CEO's of private companies making big salaries? They earn the money!

 

I am curious, do the First Nations communities with no potable water pay income tax? HST?

 

There is nothing wrong with earning a decent wage, buying luxurious items and such.

Some of the people with luxurious items are the one's making decisions, poor decisions taking from people without or with little or struggling and they suffer no consequences for their actions and bad judgement, keep all their luxuries intact while more and more people loose their house and such. It's just not right.

[loopie 15358]

I am just wondering what is wrong with big houses full of luxurious items? What is wrong with people spending the money they earn?

 

What is wrong with CEO's of private companies making big salaries? They earn the money!

 

The question is whether they really did earn all that money. CEOs and boards of directors usually set their own salaries and award themselves bonuses. If a CEO puts in policies that increase profits by $100 million dollars, he can justifiably pay himself $50 million dollars and claim he's worth it. But if his company loses money, is he really worth that much? And that was a big problem with the bailouts. Companies and moneylenders were going bankrupt, but the CEOs still felt they were worth millions of dollars. The captains were not going down with their ships. These companies would come to the government and ask for money, which comes from taxpayers, and use it to reward themselves for screwing up their companies.

 

If a political leader decided to raise taxes to give himself a $100 million dollar bonus, we would call him corrupt and throw him out of office, but what's the difference between that versus a CEO from a bank wanting $100 million dollars for his mansion and getting the taxpayers to buy it for him in the form a bailout which he then pockets as a bonus or a severance package?

 

The buck does have to stop somewhere and it's the government's job to act in the interests of the population at large.

[MightyPen 67414]

haha....the official name of this protest is OCCUPY WALL STREET. And if you read the news my dear...the largest group of protesters is infact, aiming their protests directly at Wall Street...

Not "at". "In". Wall Street is the prime location. The reckless depravities conducted there are the subject. But the intended audience for the message itself is everyone else. Nobody thinks Wall Street will listen to mere people, let alone change in direct response to the protests. The pattern of action and the eventual use of authority is hopefully:

 

protests -> populace -> government -> Wall Street

 

We'll see whether any of those arrows actually work. Some of the responses here are showing the hurdles faced by even the first one. The most troublesome is that last one; I'm not sure it's even possible for government to really act against the financial sector in the U.S. today. If that's true, and if it ever becomes clear to enough people, the results could -- should -- be more disastrous and much messier than just a financial crisis.

[JuliasUndies 7288]

Nobody thinks Wall Street will listen to mere people, let alone change in direct response to the protests. .

 

I am so feeling you on that one, so true!

[omehgosh 736]

Admittedly, I don't really know much about politics or economy or finance, but I still have my opinion - lol - don't we all?!?

 

I think I remember once reading something from some famous person - Malthus or Adams or someone like that - basically, a kind of prediction that the "system" would fail at a certain point - population or some other reason.

 

Anyhow, ignorant as I may be, I'm of that same opinion. Things will change eventually - because they have to.

 

I'm not impressed with the "occupy" movement at all (for many reasons), but I do believe their fight is a good one - and a fight that most of us will end up joining sooner or later.

 

Eventually we're all going to have to face the reality that we can't have everything we want (not even close!) and go back to being happy with getting what we NEED (when we can)... I don't think we'll have any choice really - big business, the rich, the middle-class - ALL of us.

 

It started at the bottom but it's working it's way up... In the meanwhile, I guess all of us zombified consumers can try to shake ourselves out if it and affect change sooner than later - stop buying stuff we don't need, don't accept poor service and ridiculous prices, quit being so lazy, don't be such a sucker for the marketing schemes...

 

Couple of quick examples...

 

Blockbuster - we all slid right in to video on demand - at a HIGHER price - we put the video rental places out of business - now we're complaining about cost again.

 

E-books that cost YOU as much as the printed version but make the seller a WHOLE LOT MORE profit - how much longer for the book store?

 

Cell phones - they're expensive, the rates are ridiculous, they gouge us at every corner... but we all still have cell phones (myself included).

 

Don't give them your postal code or phone number at the retail stores - that's for their marketing - you're not getting a discount because you're giving them free information enabling them to market themselves better. If they tell you they need it for you to be able to make a return or exchange - don't believe them.

 

Give up on the Facebook craziness - do you have any idea how much money is being made off of you via Facebook and Twitter. Everyone's monitoring the data collected from social media - yes, we're making them even better at taking our money!

 

Okay, so most will think the last two are total paranoia (they're not, I assure you) but anyone with a little common sense can see the reality of the first few.

 

We're all to blame, and whether we like it or not, we're all going to have to change. That's my 2 cents (well, okay 3 or 4... maybe 5... lol)

[Guest s******ecan****]

I think the OWS is fabulous. The oft hurled criticism that the lack a coherent message or have no leaders is missing the point. This is a moment when the tide is changing. For 30 years in the USA there has been a concerted relentless assualt on the social programs that were put into place between the 1930's and the 1970's.

 

OWS does not yet have a solution, many are not in agreement of what should be done etc but they all have in common the idea that the current system is not fair and is not working and they want change.

 

They have succeeded in changing the conversation and drawing attention to the huge change in social and economic inequality in the US over the last 30 years.

 

We in Canada have not gone down that road to the same extent. We have sensibly kept a balance.

 

Its important to note many of the OWS supporters do not want to repeal capitalism. They are simply asking for the rules to be applied fairly. They have no issue with the wealthy buying yachts...what they object to is the wealthy buying politicians.

 

In the US it is a fact that 50% of congress members are millionaires, and they spend a huge amount of their time raising money for their political campaigns by speaking with and listening to wealthy contributors. Is it really surprising then that the "monied interests" get their way time and again when it comes to legislation.

 

Fortunately here our system is not so skewered, but we must remain vigilant to ensure we do not allow money to dominate political discourse.

 

The recent decision by the PC's to end the Gov't subsidy to political parties has a nice ring to it. But remember if political parties need to begin devoting more of their time and efforts on fundraising they will inevitably become "dependent" and unduly influenced by those with the money.

 

Capitalism is fantastic, but like anything moderation is the key, rules must be fair, rules must be enforced. Our goal should always be to maintain a stable society with a strong middle class. Neither extreme of overwhelming state control or completely unfettered capitalism can provide that stability.

 

In the US they are living through a moment when the pendulum begins to swing back the other way. The OWS movement is the bellweather of that moment....it is a mass "aha moment" more of an expression of desire and intent than anything else.

 

Change is slow and policy changes even slower. However we can be sure that the way things have been in the US for the last 30 years (endless tax cuts, rogue foreign policy, illconsiderd deregulation, and unbrideled consumerism) are all coming to an end.

[eagertopleaze 2366]

I have no problem with CEO's of private companies making millions of $$$. If they can get away with it, great. It's just like pro athletes making $10M a year, I have no problemn with it, because someone is willing to pay them.

 

And you can't get mad at or blame CEOs if they get government bailouts. Get mad at the government for giving in.

 

If I own a company and pay myself $100M per year, and need and get a government bailout, then good for me.

 

Private companies have every right to do what they want and pay whatever salaries they want.

 

It is up to government to stop bailing people out.

 

We have major issues in our country with government pensions that will eventually bankrupt us. A government employee working for 30 years and retiring at the agte of 60 has contributed enough into the pension fund for about 15 years of retirement... So who pays the rest when this person lives to 95???

 

Forget about private companies and focus on government. They are the ones we elect, they are the ones who agree to bailouts.

 

Stop hating the peole who work in the private sector and make money!!!

 

 

The question is whether they really did earn all that money. CEOs and boards of directors usually set their own salaries and award themselves bonuses. If a CEO puts in policies that increase profits by $100 million dollars, he can justifiably pay himself $50 million dollars and claim he's worth it. But if his company loses money, is he really worth that much? And that was a big problem with the bailouts. Companies and moneylenders were going bankrupt, but the CEOs still felt they were worth millions of dollars. The captains were not going down with their ships. These companies would come to the government and ask for money, which comes from taxpayers, and use it to reward themselves for screwing up their companies.

 

If a political leader decided to raise taxes to give himself a $100 million dollar bonus, we would call him corrupt and throw him out of office, but what's the difference between that versus a CEO from a bank wanting $100 million dollars for his mansion and getting the taxpayers to buy it for him in the form a bailout which he then pockets as a bonus or a severance package?

 

The buck does have to stop somewhere and it's the government's job to act in the interests of the population at large.

 

Additional Comments:

Why are more and more people losing their houses?

Because they live beyong their means?

Because they are too far in debt?

Because they live off the system?

 

I am just curious why you think people are losing their houses?

 

There is nothing wrong with earning a decent wage, buying luxurious items and such.

Some of the people with luxurious items are the one's making decisions, poor decisions taking from people without or with little or struggling and they suffer no consequences for their actions and bad judgement, keep all their luxuries intact while more and more people loose their house and such. It's just not right.

[Guest s******ecan****]

 

Private companies have every right to do what they want and pay whatever salaries they want.

 

It is up to government to stop bailing people out.

 

 

Clearly private companies don't have every right to do what they want.

 

That is where regulation comes in, thus meat processing companies don't have the right to knowingly sell tainted meat, insurance companies can't take your premiums with no intention of honouring your claims, car companies have to actually provide you with a vehicle when you pay for it etc etc.

 

The argument most of the OWS supporters make is that the current system rewards and protects the cheaters. No single industry contributes as much in campaign funds as the financial services industry in the US. As well the cabinets of the last 3 administrations (Clinton, Bush II, Obama) have been dominated by ex Wall St. executives. There is no parallel in Canada, it really is a uniquley American problem.

 

In the US the financial services industry was deregulated to the point where the market essentially became a giant casino and eventually the entire system blew up.

 

Faced with financial armageddon in the fall of 2008 the Bush administration was convinced that the government needed to act to save the banks (ie the "too big to fail" concept). Of course the solution was inevitable given the inroads that wall street had made in Washington these past 3 decades. The current bankers asked for money, the former bankers advised the President that they should get it or else all would be lost. Decisions where made in a panic and with the benefit of hindsight many now see the errors.

 

OWS supporters have been left wondering why the banks were bailed out instead of homeowners.The banks where the irresponsible entities who created the crisis and where then insulated from its effects. No one was held accountable for a massive swindle unprescedented in history.

 

OWS supporters are mad at government, of course they're mad at the bankers too seing as how they're the ones that got them into the mess.

 

Its been proven countless times that unregulated markets will always lead to excessive greed and eventual fraud, followed swiftly by collapse.

 

The majority of OWS supporters and sympathizers want a change in the system, not a revolution.

[loopie 15358]

I have no problem with CEO's of private companies making millions of $$$. If they can get away with it, great. It's just like pro athletes making $10M a year, I have no problemn with it, because someone is willing to pay them.

 

And you can't get mad at or blame CEOs if they get government bailouts. Get mad at the government for giving in.

 

If I own a company and pay myself $100M per year, and need and get a government bailout, then good for me.

 

Private companies have every right to do what they want and pay whatever salaries they want.

 

It is up to government to stop bailing people out.

 

I agree with most of your rant. I think most of these protestors are hoping to appeal to politicians more than businessmen. You're correct that the government agrees to these bailouts and so they are the ones responsible for that action and not the businesses that ask for the money. And I agree that we should focus most of our social pressure on the government to not bailout companies and moneylenders.

 

However, there's also nothing wrong with shaming people who exploit a system. And surely you must have some sense of right and wrong beyond the idea that if you get away with something, that makes it the right thing to do.

 

 

Additional Comments:

Why are more and more people losing their houses?

Because they live beyong their means?

Because they are too far in debt?

Because they live off the system?

 

I am just curious why you think people are losing their houses?

 

I think responsibility goes both ways. When people accept loans, they should be responsible and realistic about their ability to pay it back. A lot of people were not realistic about this when they agreed to huge loans.

 

But I also think predatory lending is wrong and has gone too far. The rules of lending and credit obviously need to be more restrictive.

 

 

 

So in conclusion: we're all in this together, the politicians, the business world, regular citizens and activists.

[Lowdark 5613]

I think we can break down the situation into a number of bullet points.

 

In the U.S., the elite 1% do not pay they're fair share of taxes. In fact, it recently came to light that the U.S. spends upwards of 30 billion a year on subsidies and rebates to existing millionnaires. Any and all attempts to reform the tax code have been thwarted by forces owned by the those benefitting from it's inadequacies.

 

No Accountability. The financial meltdown had a lot to do with unethical and illegal behaviour by a number of powerful individuals who knew what they were doing but didn't care. And many got away with it (some with million dollar bonuses courtesy of government bailouts) while tens of thousands of hard working people with mortgages and families to feed lost their jobs and livelihoods. This doesn't just apply to the financial sector-who will ever be held accountable for the invasion of Iraq on a lie? Who will tell the parents of the soldiers who lost their lives that they died honourably chasing the economic interests of a handful, disguised as someting else? Who here in Canada was ever truly held responsible for the sponsorhip scandal? It doesn't matter whose in power, the list goes on and on.

 

We have long embraced the idea of seperating Church and State (although anyone paying attention to the Republican nomination process knows that's a myth); what the protests are looking for (I think) is the seperation of money and state. Wall Steet essentially owns the White House, and whenever the bankers and money lenders control the most powerful civilization on the planet like an obedient puppet, that can't be good. Will it change? Can it? Not as long as politicans are corporate America's hired help and citizens wield no true power.

[Guest ma***sf***x]

http://memebase.com/2011/11/27/internet-memes-occupy-wait-what/