Occupy Wallstreet

[empath]

Aye, cart before the horse, here.

[Matt]

I just don't see how posting photos of how poor we are is going to help when the statistics already reflect that.

Thing is, the "I am the 99%" portion of the protest is one of the stronger elements, and one of the ones I most adamantly support. It puts faces to those stats, and it tells the stories those stats don't. That's powerful, and that's much less easily dismissed.

It also ties very directly into practical solutions:

-bankers held responsible for the damage they've caused to the economy.

-comprehensive campaign finance reform, to mitigate the extent to which politicians can be bought.

-the revocation of corporate personhood, to put political voice back in the hands of the people.

-stricter regulation of financial institutions, to prevent banks from gambling on people's livelihoods.

-taxation adjusted so the the effective tax rate faced by individuals with the greatest ability to pay is not LOWER than that of the people upon the backs of whom they earn their fortunes.

There's a message there, and there are clear, practically achievable solutions inherent within.

There's just no structure to the protest, and the message is getting diluted and lost.

-m

[JackSlack]

Yeah, I have to agree. "Occupy Wall Street" is a really generic feeling protest angle that doesn't have any iconic traction. "I am the 99%", however, is a brilliant marketing slogan, if nothing else. It has legs.

[theDreamer]

...So it seems to me that guy who wrote the demands had just finished watching Fight Club, and totally thought it was the shit.

Now, don't get me wrong, I like Fight Club, and the message it sends, but, seriously dude?

[Fezzul]

How about... everyone gives all the money in the world to me. And I go around the world to everybody's front door giving a dollar to everyone, and going round the world as many times as it takes until I have no dollars left.

I'm all for prioritized and equitable redistribution of wealth, but until someone has a step-by-step how to guide for me... or at the very least a working napkin, I'm going to have trouble picturing this working.

Again, coathanger.

[sdhonda]

I wonder if anyone has the heart to tell some of these protestors that Steve Jobs is a "1percenter".

[JackSlack]

More fodder for the discussion:

http://www.slate.com/blogs/weigel/2011/10/05/poll_occupy_wall_street_starts_off_with_favorable_ratings.html

I'm with Rasmussen's headline: "Public opinion mixed." What we see is that their slogans are well received, the opinion of them is so far pretty muted (This doesn't surprise me with their confused message) and once again it's splitting along partisan lines.

[TheRocket]

I just don't see how posting photos of how poor we are is going to help when the statistics already reflect that.

Thing is, the "I am the 99%" portion of the protest is one of the stronger elements, and one of the ones I most adamantly support. It puts faces to those stats, and it tells the stories those stats don't. That's powerful, and that's much less easily dismissed.

It also ties very directly into practical solutions:

-bankers held responsible for the damage they've caused to the economy.

-comprehensive campaign finance reform, to mitigate the extent to which politicians can be bought.

-the revocation of corporate personhood, to put political voice back in the hands of the people.

-stricter regulation of financial institutions, to prevent banks from gambling on people's livelihoods.

-taxation adjusted so the the effective tax rate faced by individuals with the greatest ability to pay is not LOWER than that of the people upon the backs of whom they earn their fortunes.

There's a message there, and there are clear, practically achievable solutions inherent within.

There's just no structure to the protest, and the message is getting diluted and lost.

-m

I see what you mean, but I just don't think the "big wigs" are the ones sitting down with a cup of coffee and reading peoples individual stories that they have posted. I don't think it is going to ever reach their targeted audience. I like the concept and the idea of the whole thing, I jsut don't think the photos are actually going to make a difference, much like the protests. In a months time it will be another website hardly visited. I would really love to be proven wrong in this case. I would love for there to be a significant change I could get behind. I do everything I can on a daily basis to change my life into a comfortable one, and if I thought this would help I would do it.

[JackSlack]

I see what you mean, but I just don't think the "big wigs" are the ones sitting down with a cup of coffee and reading peoples individual stories that they have posted. I don't think it is going to ever reach their targeted audience. I like the concept and the idea of the whole thing, I jsut don't think the photos are actually going to make a difference, much like the protests. In a months time it will be another website hardly visited. I would really love to be proven wrong in this case. I would love for there to be a significant change I could get behind. I do everything I can on a daily basis to change my life into a comfortable one, and if I thought this would help I would do it.

True, but they also would not be the target market in a well managed campaign. That would be America itself, the other 99%. The goal should be to raise these issues in the bargaining scenarios, making them popular goals. Educating people to what they mean, why they're good ideas, these would also help. Protests themselves aren't in and of themselves bad; keeping up the anger and energy is usually a good thing since it keeps it visible. (in theory; I've heard mainstream media coverage of the protests is lousy but since I'm not over there I can't say.)

If this is going to work, it needs a more focused aim at voters, it needs money from unions (the only group who can deliver this bit) who will also probably demand more of a guiding role in exchange, and it needs longevity. This has to go on for a year minimum, probably five. It's going to be a long haul, and it doesn't have barely covert corporate support ala the Tea Party. But it's not impossible.

[Matt]

Slack pretty much nailed it.

If this movement centred around the hardships experienced by the 99%, and focused their efforts on winning over the support of the middle class and poor, if they aimed at reaching the 99% rather than the 1%, it could be a force to be reckoned with.

But doing that, particularly in a country as ideologically fractured as the US requires a hell of a lot more focus than the occupy wall st. movement has.

-m

[JackSlack]

But doing that, particularly in a country as ideologically fractured as the US requires a hell of a lot more focus than the occupy wall st. movement has.

So far, anyway. I maintain some hope that as they need the support the unions can give, the unions may have the chance to focus the movement more. This would be a very, very good thing. A resurgence of unionism in America would do a staggering amount of good.

[Matt]

I'm actually very hesitant about that. With union backing it would be likely to do a lot of harm to the credibility of the movement in the eyes of the right wing, similar to how the corporate backing of the tea party helped undermine them in the eyes of the left.

-m

[JackSlack]

And that hurt the Tea Party how? Also, think about how Fox News is treating it already. I doubt it's going to change amongst the Fox News crew much no matter what.

[tak197]

And that hurt the Tea Party how? Also, think about how Fox News is treating it already. I doubt it's going to change amongst the Fox News crew much no matter what.

It didn't, unfortunately. What the Tea Party did was use the money they were given to buy bigger megaphones to scream how bad things are. The only difference is that the Tea Party was organized.

In Canada, is it at least "apparent" that the people are represented fairly accurately, both in political action and election data? Because I feel that is what may be a stumbling block for current American politics.

[Wraith]

I just don't see how posting photos of how poor we are is going to help when the statistics already reflect that.

Thing is, the "I am the 99%" portion of the protest is one of the stronger elements, and one of the ones I most adamantly support. It puts faces to those stats, and it tells the stories those stats don't. That's powerful, and that's much less easily dismissed.

Not really. I have no problem dismissing a photo of someone saying how poor they are and then holding that up as reasoning for the protests, when no one is denying that people are poor.

It also ties very directly into practical solutions:

-bankers held responsible for the damage they've caused to the economy.

Why are we singling out bankers? Why should they be held responsible for what they did, but not Bill Clinton for creating policies that all but forced them to hand out mortgages and loans to people who had little or no hope of paying them off? Or manufacturers who outsourced all those jobs to China? Or stupid as "99%ers" who borrowed ass-loads of money to spend on shit they didn't need?

There's plenty of blame to go around; but unless someone actually broke a LAW, the blame is all in regards to poor judgement. I'm not sure how we're going to hold them responsible in any way except for our own judgement.

-stricter regulation of financial institutions, to prevent banks from gambling on people's livelihoods.

How so?

-taxation adjusted so the the effective tax rate faced by individuals with the greatest ability to pay is not LOWER than that of the people upon the backs of whom they earn their fortunes.

Agreed to an extent. The truth is, however, that part of why rich people pay so little in taxes is that a lot of their income comes from investment income, which is taxed very little.

So why not raise the tax on investment income, right?

Well, that sounds good in theory, but if you look at the stock market over the past few months, it's been going down the toilet. A lot of people have lost a lot of jobs due to massive stock market fluctuation. I'm not so sure that this is the best time to be making it LESS attractive to invest in American business.

[Wraith]

Slack pretty much nailed it.

If this movement centred around the hardships experienced by the 99%, and focused their efforts on winning over the support of the middle class and poor, if they aimed at reaching the 99% rather than the 1%, it could be a force to be reckoned with.

But doing that, particularly in a country as ideologically fractured as the US requires a hell of a lot more focus than the occupy wall st. movement has.

-m

here's the problem: even if they reached all of the 99%...they would still need well-defined set of goals, and a plan of action; otherwise, all you'd have is 99% of the populace agreeing that things suck, which doesn't really help.

[empath]

I just don't see how posting photos of how poor we are is going to help when the statistics already reflect that.

Thing is, the "I am the 99%" portion of the protest is one of the stronger elements, and one of the ones I most adamantly support. It puts faces to those stats, and it tells the stories those stats don't. That's powerful, and that's much less easily dismissed.

It also ties very directly into practical solutions:

-bankers held responsible for the damage they've caused to the economy.

-comprehensive campaign finance reform, to mitigate the extent to which politicians can be bought.

To be perfectly honest, this is the FIRST time I've ever heard ANYTHING linking OWS with pushing for campaign reform.

-the revocation of corporate personhood, to put political voice back in the hands of the people.

*ahem* Nooooo, never heard anyone arguing for that...

-stricter regulation of financial institutions, to prevent banks from gambling on people's livelihoods.

-taxation adjusted so the the effective tax rate faced by individuals with the greatest ability to pay is not LOWER than that of the people upon the backs of whom they earn their fortunes.

There's a message there, and there are clear, practically achievable solutions inherent within.

There's just no structure to the protest, and the message is getting diluted and lost.

-m

This is what it all boils down to - there's no spokespeople taking interviews with the media to convey the message. It's really grating to be railing against corporations for years and having my arguments fall on deaf ears, then see this bunch GET ATTENTION and then basically say nothing when they have the chance.

[Rikadyn]

Eh, if the movement catches momentum, a corporate-political body will co-opt it, support it, and ride it to election victories, then toss it aside like a stinking diaper...

what has come before, will be again and so such...

[sdhonda]

You know what's really amusing? The whole idea of these protests was to recreate what happened in Tahrir square.

You know what happened there? First, out of a city of millions, about 100,000 or so people occupied the square at the best of times. Second, most of the violence against them was done by local police, and, of all people, the tour guide operators. Basicly, the average working class folk were beating the middle and upper class, english speaking and twittering university students. In the end, the military came in to protect them.

Now, why would the military do this? Because they wanted Mubarak (or rather his son) out, and the protests offered a good chance to do it. And so Mubarak and his son leave, and the military dissolves parliament and appoints a junta, with elections to be held... whenever. And chances are, if the elections were really free and fair, an Islamist government would be elected.

Revolutions: They always go as planned!

[Elomin Sha]

SO you're saying, sd, that WestBoro could be voted in if the was a revolution in NY?

[Shinneh]

You don't just show up some place and go "GRAAAA! WE'RE ANGRY! WE WANT STUUUUUF!"

Great, now I want to watch southpark. "Give us some of that internet money!"

[Matt]

Not really. I have no problem dismissing a photo of someone saying how poor they are and then holding that up as reasoning for the protests, when no one is denying that people are poor.

That's you. That's not everybody. As far as marketing is concerned, this:


isn't as powerful as this:

Why are we singling out bankers? Why should they be held responsible for what they did, but not Bill Clinton for creating policies that all but forced them to hand out mortgages and loans to people who had little or no hope of paying them off? Or manufacturers who outsourced all those jobs to China? Or stupid as "99%ers" who borrowed ass-loads of money to spend on shit they didn't need?

There's plenty of blame to go around; but unless someone actually broke a LAW, the blame is all in regards to poor judgement. I'm not sure how we're going to hold them responsible in any way except for our own judgement.

Sure, I'm not actually going to disagree with you here. I was simply trying to turn one of the grievances of the protesters into a clearly defined goal. There are lots of feet at which we can lay blame, The bankers happen to be the ones the protesters are going afte.

How so?

What do you mean, "how so?" Place limits on banks' abilities to take on risk.

Agreed to an extent. The truth is, however, that part of why rich people pay so little in taxes is that a lot of their income comes from investment income, which is taxed very little.

So why not raise the tax on investment income, right?

Well, that sounds good in theory, but if you look at the stock market over the past few months, it's been going down the toilet. A lot of people have lost a lot of jobs due to massive stock market fluctuation. I'm not so sure that this is the best time to be making it LESS attractive to invest in American business.

That's a pretty weak argument.

For one, the rich in America are taxed at a rate that is already low compared to the rest of the world, and they enjoy a quality of life, and opportunities to make more money that are basically unparalelled. So the first question is "where else are they going to go?" and the second one is "how likely is that to happen?". The answers to those questions are "probably nowhere" and "not very".

Additionally, if there's money to be made on investments, investments aren't going to stop. To do so would be to turn your nose up at money. You're not going to NOT invest if your potential for return is only 8 million dollars instead of ten. (at least, not unless there's a way to take better returns on your investment through another avenue.)

Finally, the state of the stock market today is pretty largely irrelevant to the question, because this isn't something that could be fixed overnight, anyhow. This is the kind of change that would likely require some serious rejigging of the tax code, over a period of years, but done carefully, and with the appropriate incentives for domestic investment in place, effective tax rates on the rich could be brought in line the rates paid by the rest of the country without too much risk to investment.

The result of those changes, appropriately managed, could be to get consumer confidence back on track, and some cash in the hands of the poor, creating demand, investment, and jobs.

-m

[King Kool]

Wasn't gonna comment, but it really gets my goat when people bring up the family that is $80,000 in debt and had to sell the kitty into slavery and etc. etc. Whenever anyone (even the Daily Show) brings something like that up, I IMMEDIATELY shut down and put up my quills. Even if it's right (as I think they might be here), it's a call to emotion, and it's a magnification of a single instance. That's almost always a fallacy, and good policy can't always be made by emotion.

Let them be heard, by all means. I just instinctively resist things like that.

[Wraith]

Not really. I have no problem dismissing a photo of someone saying how poor they are and then holding that up as reasoning for the protests, when no one is denying that people are poor.

That's you. That's not everybody. As far as marketing is concerned, this:


isn't as powerful as this:

So what? The only impact it's making is that people are going "wow. That really sucks." But people are doing that ALREADY. We all get that there are a lot of really poor people and that the economy is fucked. Making us "realize it even harder" isn't going to change anything. It's not like the only reason the economy is in the tank is

Why are we singling out bankers? Why should they be held responsible for what they did, but not Bill Clinton for creating policies that all but forced them to hand out mortgages and loans to people who had little or no hope of paying them off? Or manufacturers who outsourced all those jobs to China? Or stupid as "99%ers" who borrowed ass-loads of money to spend on shit they didn't need?

There's plenty of blame to go around; but unless someone actually broke a LAW, the blame is all in regards to poor judgement. I'm not sure how we're going to hold them responsible in any way except for our own judgement.

Sure, I'm not actually going to disagree with you here. I was simply trying to turn one of the grievances of the protesters into a clearly defined goal. There are lots of feet at which we can lay blame, The bankers happen to be the ones the protesters are going afte.

What do you mean, "how so?" Place limits on banks' abilities to take on risk.

Funny, that’s what the republicans said in the 90’s. The democrats said that was a “cold and uncompassionate denial of the American dream” and instead made created a system so that any unqualified idiot could take out three mortgages.

For one, the rich in America are taxed at a rate that is already low compared to the rest of the world, and they enjoy a quality of life, and opportunities to make more money that are basically unparalelled. So the first question is "where else are they going to go?" and the second one is "how likely is that to happen?". The answers to those questions are "probably nowhere" and "not very".

Wrong.

The “where are they going to go” is other, lower risk, better-yielding investments. The “how likely is that to happen” is “it’s already happening.” That’s why I said that making it even LESS attractive to invest in the American stock market is a bad idea. Do you guys learn about The Great Depression up there (and no, I’m not being sarcastic, I have no idea what the rest of the world considers significant parts of American history)? A massive pull-out of investors caused the stock market to crash, and as a result our economy was plunged into the weakest state in our nation’s history, before or since. Granted, the cause of said pullout was a panic, but one of the lessons learned is how tied to the health of our economy our stock market is. If you take away one of the main incentives investing in stocks, people are going to invest in other things.

Additionally, if there's money to be made on investments, investments aren't going to stop. To do so would be to turn your nose up at money. You're not going to NOT invest if your potential for return is only 8 million dollars instead of ten. (at least, not unless there's a way to take better returns on your investment through another avenue.)

There are. The reason people invest is two-fold. Obviously the ROI is important, but the fact that they pay less tax on it is another prominent incentive.

[Matt]

Responding on my iPhone, so no quoteboxes:

1. (per 99%) ...so what? What's the alternative? The statistics on wealth disparity are well known. That knowledge has done very little to actually motivate people to action. In fact, despite the statistics, Americans routinely and dramatically underestimate the extent to which wealth is unequally distributed. Making them realise it harder is probably exactly what needs to happen if the goal is to get enough people off the couch and campaigning for a better way of life. Is it an appeal to emotion? Sure. That's what moat marketing efforts are.

2. You're right, it was fucking crazy to deregulate the banks then, and it's fucking crazy to let it continue now. Get the banks back on the chain. Period.

3. Investment: if they are American citizens, they pay taxes in the states. Regardless of the source of their income. It is Better, obviously, if they invest domestically, but it is not actually required with regards to taxation. If they invest in other markets, or other types of investment, they are still on the hook for their taxes. Tax money which can then be dumped back into the domestic economy by the government. (which, usefully, has the effect of increasing demand, and makes investing in domestic businesses again more attractive)

I already said that taking this kind of action would require a long-term plan, and appropriate incentive management to ensure that it did not stifle investment and destabilise the markets. We're talking changes to the tax code over a five to ten year period. That's not going to cause a sudden abandonment of the stock Market. Particularly as the economy continues to recover, and demand for goods and labour go back up.

4. (ROI) people invest because they stand to make money at it. Regardless of the level of taxation, as long as they stand to make more money investing than they do letting their money sit in the bank, they will invest.

No one says, "I could make 10 million dollars by investing but have to pay 2 million in taxes on that, leaving me with 8 million, or I could earn 5 million with a savings plan and only owe a million on that. I'll save it and take my 4 million, fuck the government!"

The calculation is 8 million > 4 million.



-m