1495: The Loopdy-Doos

[fluxquanta]

Originally Posted by Abby

Ok I'll stop becuase I'm not allowed an opinion.

We're on a forum, I like getting what I think out there, and hearing people thoughts. You are allowed your opinion, I'm allowed mine.

Isn't that why people like talking on the internet?

Because when I said

Originally Posted by fluxquanta

I don't mean to start anything with anyone

I meant it. Of course you're free to share your opinions, but, and I may be mistaken, I don't want you wasting your efforts if you're trying to convince me of your point of view on the subject. If you just want to state your thoughts, go right ahead.

[Abby]

fluxqunta: I'm glad - I don't like people who go on the internet to start fights... well who does? lol
And no, I'm not very informed about OWS, but I just wanted to know what you thought/why and stuff.
If you have already stated your full view... well... Awesome. Now I know.

MalcolmSmith:
What a great way of putting that! I agree, but the next step is how?
I have no clue... I sort of want to go into politics ( though I'm Canadian, so I can't do anything about the States
Geez, I think anything less than total reform wouldn't change anything, so why not spend time trying to do something?

[Kultcher]

Originally Posted by MalcolmSmith

I think the key here is to concentrate on underlying pathologies rather than on symptoms.

Sadly, you're saying the exact opposite of what everyone else.

The pathology is greed, corruption and lack of accountability.

But when OWS says they want to stop corporate greed, government corruption and restore accountability, people say that they are being too vague.

And you know that the second that anyone starts talking specifics about what bills need to be put through and what policies and decisions need revoked, people will just tune the fuck out and say, "It's too complicated, I don't get it."

[DaveNJ]

Originally Posted by Abby

OK - the Occupy movement does not make sense in the most sensical way. True say.

BUT the Knefels did the most to explain at all why Others are there, and some things that they think. As of that time I pretty much got "99%" out of anything.

The problem is the people in the corporations are controlling the government through money. There are lots of problems that stem off it. I wish their were transcripts of the show so I could give an example. It's been a bit since I've listened to it.

But why can't we use a large group to help tackle several problems, it's not like the government is going to regulate their income so they get less.

No, the Knefels explained their impressions and individual sentiments. They ascribed motivations to a larger entity that I have yet to see demonstrated by that group.

For example: the issue of corporate lobbying. They dislike it, and want corporations to do different things. At the same time, though, these protesters are using goods produced by corporations, and are functioning in the one country in the world that derives the largest benefits from corporate wealth, which they also happen to benefit from.

Using a large group to tackle several problems is very different than a large group getting together and saying "shit's fucked up". That's what OWS is doing.

They're taking themselves out of the realm of criticism by not taking definitive positions. As such, they've opened themselves up to a different type of critique: excess vagueness and a lack of commitment to action.

Seriously, can you explain why the Knefels brought up "Stop and Frisk"?

I have no clue what police frisking policies have to do with Wall Street.

[DaveNJ]

Originally Posted by Kultcher

And you know that the second that anyone starts talking specifics about what bills need to be put through and what policies and decisions need revoked, people will just tune the fuck out and say, "It's too complicated, I don't get it."

I disagree. I think the issue is that they can't create sufficient consensus within the group such that they can put forth significant policy proposals.

There's a big difference between someone who wants to bring back Glass-Steagall and someone who wants to abolish corporate personhood. They disagree. OWS takes an intellectual shortcut by claiming they agree about a broad concept (essentially true, but also pointless), and then saying, "Look how many people are here," as if the fact that they disagree with each other doesn't matter, when it really does.

The other issue is that a lot of folks at OWS are the same people saying "it's too complicated". How many folks at OWS even know what the capital gains tax is?

Getting a bunch of disaffected people together does not make a point. Those people need to advocate for something.

[Abby]

I have no clue about "Stop and Frisk", I had never heard about it until this ep.

Who knows, maybe a little talk about something I don't understand makes me pretty gullible? Probably.

The web site says it "aims to expose how the richest 1% of people are writing the rules of an unfair global economy that is foreclosing on our future."

Aims to expose... I think mission accomplished so far. We're talking about it right?

Although I completely agree - to get anything concrete done, they really do need to sit down and write down some specific gaols. Maybe they can use the S.M.A.R.T. goals outline to get started.

I dont know how to get change, but I think your first step should be to identify a problem, and gather like minded individuals who also need to see change.

What else can they do so far? I like to think I'm semi-intellegent and I have no clues lol

[DaveNJ]

Originally Posted by Abby

I have no clue about "Stop and Frisk", I had never heard about it until this ep.

Who knows, maybe a little talk about something I don't understand makes me pretty gullible? Probably.

The web site says it "aims to expose how the richest 1% of people are writing the rules of an unfair global economy that is foreclosing on our future."

Aims to expose... I think mission accomplished so far. We're talking about it right?

Although I completely agree - to get anything concrete done, they really do need to sit down and write down some specific gaols. Maybe they can use the S.M.A.R.T. goals outline to get started.

I dont know how to get change, but I think your first step should be to identify a problem, and gather like minded individuals who also need to see change.

What else can they do so far? I like to think I'm semi-intellegent and I have no clues lol

So then why are OWS folks bringing up Stop and Frisk? I mean, the Knefels are supposedly the best ambassadors of this group so far, and they talked about it. That suggests a significant lack of focus.

Also, if the website says that they seek to expose the richest people then they have a problem: the richest people are us. The global economy is unfair, but it's unfair in favor of us. I sincerely doubt that many OWS protesters truly want to eliminate the United States' ongoing economic advantage compared to the rest of the world. I mean, we're the rich. Even the relatively poor in the US have a much higher quality of life than most people on the planet.

"Foreclosing on our future" is a nice catchphrase, but it doesn't actually MEAN anything. It's more of the "I'm in favor of good things" style that OWS adopts.

What are we talking about? We're not talking about the rate of the capital gains tax. We're not discussing the collapse of MF Global under Jon Corzine. We're not talking about the Eurozone crisis.

No, we're discussing what it is OWS even means, when even they don't know what it means.

Seriously, what specific problem has OWS in particular identified?

[MalcolmSmith]

Originally Posted by Kultcher

Sadly, you're saying the exact opposite of what everyone else.

The pathology is greed, corruption and lack of accountability.

But when OWS says they want to stop corporate greed, government corruption and restore accountability, people say that they are being too vague.

And you know that the second that anyone starts talking specifics about what bills need to be put through and what policies and decisions need revoked, people will just tune the fuck out and say, "It's too complicated, I don't get it."

I think greed and corruption and lack of accountability are different pathologies.

Greed is an attitude, it's cultural. Over the years, the US has fluctuated in terms of greed. I think our current iteration of greed stems from Reagan providing a superior rationalization with trickle-down economics, i.e., we should be greedy because that generates wealth that trickles down, blah, blah, blah. Reagan made it cool to be greedy. Obama's job there was to try to once again make greed uncool. You can do that with shame, marginalization, stigmatization, etc. You can do it though setting up some new role models, reinforcing some old ones, etc. Or you can do it with a superordinate goal, something like WWII or a space race, something that gets everyone on the same team. On a good team, teammates won't exploit one another. There are lots of things Obama could do to spark a sea change. Although he admired Reagan's ability to do that, he won't. Why not? I think he, like the Clintons, enjoys the trappings of celebrity a little too much to let the party end.

Corruption and lack of accountability is a technical problem. There, you probably have too much money in politics. Where I'm not sure OWS could do much about cultural greed, they could pretty well fix money in politics. There are some simple steps that could get the job done. I think OWS could find support among Republicans, Tea Party Patriots, and Libertarians there, as long as they stay focused. But, I think OWS lacks the wisdom to do so. As individuals, they can't let go of their own specific self-interests long enough to work with others to solve the big ticket item. That's a form of greed that is OWS' hubris. OWS members would have to temporarily let go of, for lack of a better word, selfishness, in order to build the kind of bi-partisan coalition necessary to clobbering money in politics once and for all.

For the most part, these efforts would require some charismatic leadership and that's lacking. Politics aside, we're looking for a Roosevelt, a Lincoln, a Kennedy, or a Reagan, someone who can grab and hold public attention. Obama aspired to do this, but he overexposed himself with beer summits, ice cream cones, and vacations. It's possible that someone like that could rise out of OWS, but they would have to be able to choose and use their words very carefully.

[Kultcher]

Originally Posted by DaveNJ

For example: the issue of corporate lobbying. They dislike it, and want corporations to do different things. At the same time, though, these protesters are using goods produced by corporations, and are functioning in the one country in the world that derives the largest benefits from corporate wealth, which they also happen to benefit from.

There's no connection here. Just because I buy a product from a company doesn't mean I want that company influencing policy decisions from politicians. They made a product, I paid for it, our obligation to each other is over at that point.

Originally Posted by DaveNJ

There's a big difference between someone who wants to bring back Glass-Steagall and someone who wants to abolish corporate personhood. They disagree.

I'm not sure I follow you. As I understand it, the two issues are unrelated in a specific sense, though both ultimately contribute to current situation of corporate (and for Glass-Steagall, specifically bank) excess.

Just because protester A has overturning the Citizens United ruling and protester B has reinstating Glass-Steagall as their respective #1 goals doesn't mean that they disagree. You admitted that the two are broadly related; as such the protesters can still express solidarity with each other even if they all have the exact same list of priorities down to the number.

Originally Posted by Abby

What else can they do so far?

I think this is part of the reason that OWS feels so impotent. There was a time when a group like this could apply pressure to politicians to enact change. But in the current system and situation, many politicians are more likely to listen to the 1 guy giving him a check for $30,000 than the 30,000 people who are protesting in the streets.

It used to be that the threat of losing reelection gave the people some leverage, but because corporations often employ politicians who've supported them once they leave office, that threat is now non-existant - in fact some politicians end up even richer as a result.

So indeed, what can they do?

Originally Posted by MalcolmSmith

Smart stuff.

I like you.

When it comes to leadership, I think the big concern is that a leader is corruptable, while a group is at least somewhat more resilient. We need someone with unimpeachable integrity, and there's really no way to find that person without a bit of trial and error. I don't think the movement can afford for its first leader to be corrupt, so it's a pretty massive risk to take.

That said, I am hoping that some leaders will emerge organically over time. It's important to remember that this movement is very young. It's only been two months. True change could take years.

[Abby]

Originally Posted by DaveNJ

So then why are OWS folks bringing up Stop and Frisk? I mean, the Knefels are supposedly the best ambassadors of this group so far, and they talked about it. That suggests a significant lack of focus.

Also, if the website says that they seek to expose the richest people then they have a problem: the richest people are us. The global economy is unfair, but it's unfair in favor of us. I sincerely doubt that many OWS protesters truly want to eliminate the United States' ongoing economic advantage compared to the rest of the world. I mean, we're the rich. Even the relatively poor in the US have a much higher quality of life than most people on the planet.

"Foreclosing on our future" is a nice catchphrase, but it doesn't actually MEAN anything. It's more of the "I'm in favor of good things" style that OWS adopts.

What are we talking about? We're not talking about the rate of the capital gains tax. We're not discussing the collapse of MF Global under Jon Corzine. We're not talking about the Eurozone crisis.

No, we're discussing what it is OWS even means, when even they don't know what it means.

Seriously, what specific problem has OWS in particular identified?

Are you having the same troubles as OWS?
Identifying a problem, and not bringing forward any means of fixing it.

Not that I think you are wrong - they're just trying to do something, anything!
Can you blame them?

I like to think that there will be good coming from this, as the news that things needs to change spreads. If not, what's the point of trying.

I was in Florida last year, and there is like a line, sorta what Keith and Chemda were talking about in Washington, where things are gorgeous...now everyone's homeless, and all companies are bankrupt. That line needs to get less distinctive.

I dont know how to do it, but I think saying this needs to be done is a great start. And I think enough people believe it that eventually there will be all the things people say there needs to be, cause we say there needs to be.