Occupy Wall Street's statement

Remove all ads!

By definition, in order to be involved in the OWS protests, you have to be in the United States. If you're not, your petitioning a different government on a different issue. Yes, the financial system in Europe - most notably the PIGS - is a mess right now, but their issues are very different and very distinct from what the OWS movement is protesting.

Even the name - Occupy Wall Street is seemingly referring the financial district in NYC centered on, you know, Wall Street. I imagine that's why the biggest protests are taking place in NYC. I'm sure there are other streets in the world named "Wall Street", but I highly doubt any of them have some of the world's major stock exchanges located on them.

Even if there are hundreds of thousands of people involved in the OWS movement, it's still no where close to the civil rights movement. Hell, we had more people show up on one day for the Million Man March than the entire OWS can gather across the country. (Although it should be pointed out that most estimates of the crowd size in the million man march place the number well short of a million.)

 

I don't see why. If Occupy Canada and such openly claim that they stand with Occupy Wall Street, why wouldn't they be considered part of the same movement?

 

You answered your own question - they don't refer to themselves as Occupy Wall Street. That's the whole point. They "stand with" and are not a "part of" OWS. The laws and financial institutions a distinct for individual nations. For European Nations, not only are the laws different, but they have the umbrella EU as another layer of authority. But the object of their criticism is different.

Saying that they are all part of the same movement is incorrect. That's like saying because there was a revolution that took place in Egypt this year, that they are also part of the Syrian revolution. Just because they have similar objectives doesn't make them one and the same.

 

To an extent, damedog is right. Other countries (such as Canada) have piggy-backed on the OWS protests. But that IMO is part of the problem with the whole thing. As Aldeth points out, different countries have different issues and different laws. For example, a big reason for the OWS protests is corporate greed by US banks. One can debate whether the banking system in the US is a mess (personally I think it is, given that it played a major role in the current global recession, and not much seems to have changed), but it’s fairly safe to say that here in Canada we have one of the best banking systems in the world which has come through the last 3 years relatively unscathed. Yet the Canadian protesters don’t really recognize that fact; instead, they (like OWS) seem to simply be saying “there are things going on that we don’t like, but we can’t quite put our finger on just what exactly that is, and we don’t know how to fix whatever it is that may or may not be wrong”. Now granted, as I alluded to in my previous post, it’s still early, but for now there’s a lack of focus that needs to be addressed if anything worthwhile is going to come out of this.

 

Like i've stated before, this seems to be a frustration with the mechanisms of capitalism and the effects of globalization more than anything else. Canada and Europe aren't exempt from these machinations. I wish I was more well-versed in the politics of other first world countries so I could go into more detail, but alas, my primary focus hasn't been on national politics so much as economics. I will surely do more research into these matters.

 

Well the OWS protests in Finland lasted about a day or so in any significant numbers and died down after that to a few "hippies" camping on city squares. European taxation policy is usually more progressive than in the US (as an example of an exception Estonia has a completely flat income tax) so the protests against income inequality aren't quite as prominent. On the flip side the credit institutions have arguably a greater power in Europe. In Germany the Deutsche Bank is a significant owner in just about every German listed company in the DAX index. This also makes banks very significant lobbyists in Europe and their will is usually quite significantly present in European decision making and particularly with EU directives.

Oh and the European Union actually does not have a constitution. It was voted down by the French and the Dutch back in 2005 if I remember correctly.

 

Bank lobbyists are trying to find ways to discredit the Occupy Wall Street movement: http://upwithchrishayes.msnbc.msn.c...ut-plan-to-undermine-occupy-wall-street-video

Apparently police suppression just isn't enough.

 

Now THAT is funny! Selective memory? All of that can be verified with a search of this board's history. Take the time to do some research....

 

But what are they trying to achieve?????

 

I was thinking something along the lines of "more progressive tax system, stricter control over lobbyists in DC, and possibly shift the focus of political discourse somewhat." Of course, that should come with the standard caveat of "different people have somewhat different opinion, and there are some that are just in it for the fun."

@ Morgoroth - the Lisbon Treaty was proposed as an alternative/modification of the so-called Constitution treaty, so one could make the point about the EU having something like a constitution. That it doesn't actually work like one is another story.

 

Can you give me a hint as to whose posts I should look for? I'm having trouble figuring out who would be upset at being criticized because they were white, middle aged (or older), employed, and paying taxes. I hope it wasn't me, because then I'm getting closer to senility.

 

Pretty much what Shaman said, but I would add "an end to corporate governance and globalization" onto that. What they want is pretty straightforward really, only places like Fox News are still stuck on that "they have no message" thing. Straightforward policy goals aside, what they want is a functioning, fair economy more than anything else.

 

What is "an end to corporate governance and gloablisation"? A statutory ban on McDonalds and Coca-cola? No companies allowed to have more than ten people or make any profit? A return to medieval England?

 

Not sure if you're being sarcastic there but an "End to corporate governance and globalization" is quite simply ending corporate influence in our governing body and an end to corporations shipping jobs overseas to exploit criminally cheap labor in third world countries.

 

Daisuke got to it before me. How would any of those things you mentioned benefit anyone in the least bit?

 

No, it was more about streotyping the demographics of the tea potters, rather than making statements about how they imagine themselves to be. If you believe that only white, middle aged men are employed and pay taxes, then there is not a lot of hope for you.

Interesting info:

http://firstread.msnbc.msn.com/_new...re-popular-than-tea-party?chromedomain=usnews

 

I don't think most would go that far. Sure, maybe some hope for something like that, but they'd be happy enough with reining in some of the corporate influence and outsourcing a bit. From what little I've seen, they aren't expecting some world-shattering changes, just to turn the dial their way somewhat.

 

You're right, they probably wouldn't, but that's at least where the ideals are. I sincerely hope they do take it as far as it can go however.

 

How?

 

The first one is a problem that may never be able to be 100% eradicated, but can most certainly be lowered by a large degree. First, demand and make highly vocalized support for any legislation making this very thing illegal, and don't stop protesting until these things pass. Also, repeal by national referendum the Supreme Court rulings like Citizens United v. Federal Election Commission, which as a consequence of it's ruling adds further to corporate money in politics, specifically campaign advertisements. It also overruled the "millionaire's amendment" that made put a cap on the amount of money a person could donate. I believe John Mcain put it best when he said: 'By the time I became a leading advocate of campaign finance reform, I had come to appreciate that the public's suspicions were not always mistaken. Money does buy access in Washington, and access increases influence that often results in benefiting the few at the expense of the many.' I would go further and say that there should be caps in the hundreds of dollars. A rich persons support shouldn't be any more valid than a lower or middle class persons support should be, but with high caps on contributions that is exactly what happens. Maybe somewhere in the thousands or tens of thousands for businesses and unions, and only because I think it might be too hard a fight to entirely shut out corporations on this.


Those are just clear-cut, easy things to work towards. I, personally, would suggest making obvious conflicts of interest like taking trips from the businesses you are supposed to be regulating and "revolving doors", where you may work in the private sector and then go on to be regulating the industry you used to work for, or taking a job in the part of the private sector you are previously regulating, be made illegal. We put people in jail for smoking pot, but not for undermining the fabric of our democracy.


Second one is a bit more complicated, as you first have to distinguish between real inadvertent consequences of certain economic actions, and what is little more than propaganda from free market fundamentalists with a pro-corporate agenda. I will keep it simple and say something like an end to all possible tax loopholes for American companies that ship more than a certain % of jobs overseas where they are making less than the minimum wage here, or possibly something like tariffs on those imported goods to decrease the incentive to use this open slave-labor. We should also be more skeptical about the real function of the WTO, their policies have only led in this country to a plutocracy that has huge economic dominance, being able to lower the standards of living for the entire country because they are able to undermine the power of labor by exploiting the vulnerable. Not that the plutocracy wasn't there in part before, but this just gives them a whole new level of power. Before I hear the "conspiracy theory" buzzword, I have brought up the leaked Citigroup memo in a previous debate that says something to this effect.

And remember, this is coming from a concerned 19 year old. If we can make these goals happen people with a lot more experience than me may have the political freedom to have a realistic chance of implementing better solutions than mine.

---------- Added 0 hours, 57 minutes and 28 seconds later... ----------

I don't know how I forgot to mention this. The OWS movement should demand to make it absolutely, once and for all, illegal for media to distort facts. Remember the case of Jane Akre, the one where the FCC rules against falsification of news stories doesn't qualify as "a law, rule, or regulation" and thus need not be obeyed.