Two weeks into Occupy Wall Street protests, movement is at a crossroads

@Robert Gentel,

This is your response to a cartoon I posted - up to that point I hadn't even offered an opinion
http://able2know.org/topic/178110-9#post-4758717

As you'd replied to me I felt I had to respond.

Robert Gentel wrote:

This was a very collective failure

I'm not arguing, but I am divvying up responsibility. I understand your desire to avoid scapegoating - but as purely intellectual exercise 'the sector', as I referred to it several times, does bear greater responsibility than individuals who were caught out. IMHO.

What that translates to in terms of actuality? I guess we'll see. Not much I'm thinking from this distance.

I've tended to agree with Thomas - but it's not like the two of you are diametrically opposed - you just seem to be taking an apologist stance re: the financial sector - I imagine because you fear a national blood rush to the head targeting bankers rather addressing the issues, and fair enough.

I'm approaching it more as a philosophical question - which fortunately I can do from this side of the planet in our current economic situation.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

I've long theorized that you have been moving steadily towards his political tone

When it comes to writing, I am a sucker for clarity, even though it has the side effect of affronting people sometimes. Most of the writers I cherish have that quality, whatever their politics, and the list of my A2K avatars reflects that: Milton Friedman, Paul Krugman, Antonin Scalia, Richard Dawkins, Douglas Adams. So if I'm sounding more and more like Paul Krugman, I'm probably just getting better at writing the way I always meant to write. (Let me take this chance to plug Bryan Garner's book Legal Writing in Plain English, which has been a great help in that regard.)

Robert Gentel wrote:

I know you've always been a big fan of his, but it's not my imagination that your politics has been changing since you moved stateside is it?

Relative to American politicians, definitely. But I perceive it more as a change in them than as a change in me. I have always been a Utilitarian who deferred to economics-101 models on how to bring about the greatest happiness for the greatest number. Since 2007, the financial crisis has brought home the importance of the macro half of the econ-101 curriculum, and the relevance of Keynesian models within it. In recognizing this, I have moved to the left relative to American politicians, who more or less carried on as if there had been no liquidity trap.

But that modest move to the left is nothing compared to the Republicans' move to the right. When I joined A2K in 2003, with Milton Friedman as my avatar, he was firmly established as the patron-saint of the Republican Party's economic philosophy. Today they have practically cast him aside as a spendthrift lefty, demonizing things like quantitative easing, the Earned Income Tax Credit, and other policies Friedman had endorsed. I think their views have drifted much farther than mine.

0 Replies

@hawkeye10,

hawkeye10 wrote:

failures art wrote:

As I said, you cant remove every single politician, the source of the problem and those who benefit from a rigged system will remain. Directing attention to our financial elites, is IMO correct.

A
R
T

No, the politicians are our agents, the fault for the systems getting away from the best interests of the majority belongs to our agents. When you go buy a house and you realize latter that you massively overpaid do you blame the sales agent? They never claimed to be looking out for you, it was your agent who was supposed to be doing that.

First off, sorry about the typo, and thank you for being able to see and respond to it. It should have read that "you can remove every single politician."

That said, we disagree about where focus should be. Yes, our Representatives are our agents, but as long as we allow corporate influence, the system is built to reward those who represent corporations--even if that undermines our interests. I am all for voting and using my voice, but I think addressing the source is important. Get money out of politics.

How much money did it take for Clinton to win in '92? How much for Obama in '08? For such an increase, what have we got for it? It's not like the additional money has made for a more educated electorate. Hell, the advent of social media probably makes the challenge of getting a message out to people cheaper. We don't need crazy expensive elections with PACs, SuperPACs, corporate personhood, etc etc etc.

Let's address this, and then politics can grind away in a meaningful way.

A
R
T

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

I don't, I think income inequality has gotten out of hand.

But I also think that there is a willingness to pass the buck upwards.

I bought a house in 2004 and SO many of my peers were telling me I should do an adjustable-rate mortgage, so awesome, etc., etc. College-educated, smart people. I'm not dumb but money is not really my thing -- still, I figured out that an ARM was a bad idea. And I didn't do it. And I bought a house at a really bad time, and I'm fine.

Many of my peers are up **** creek for going with the ARMs. I have a hard time blaming anyone but them for that. They had the same info and the same education I did, but had a different attitude.

1 Reply

@sozobe,

sozobe wrote:

I don't, I think income inequality has gotten out of hand.

But I also think that there is a willingness to pass the buck upwards.

I bought a house in 2004 and SO many of my peers were telling me I should do an adjustable-rate mortgage, so awesome, etc., etc. College-educated, smart people. I'm not dumb but money is not really my thing -- still, I figured out that an ARM was a bad idea. And I didn't do it. And I bought a house at a really bad time, and I'm fine.

Many of my peers are up **** creek for going with the ARMs. I have a hard time blaming anyone but them for that. They had the same info and the same education I did, but had a different attitude.

Sure. But the housing crisis is really only a tiny subset of the larger dysfunction of our financial system, which has shifted from it's original purpose of efficiently allocating capital into a system of efficiently TRANSFERRING capital from the poor to the rich.

The fact that ARM's were even available for so many who clearly could not afford them is a sign of this. The lending system had become predatory and parasitic in nature; instead of helping ordinary folks realize their dream, the system became a way to sign up as many rubes as possible. And the whole thing was fueled by an aversion to regulation and - as Sully's correspondent I linked to above pointed out - by a group who reflexively panics and attacks anyone who points out that the system is rigged.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

But the thing in ARMs can be useful for certain situations - we had re-financed with an ARM as we planned on moving selling within the time frame of the ARM - it saved us huge.

The thing is - people also need to take personal responsibility for their own decisions. We are adults - do your research and make smart decisions - most things are a bit of a gamble, but if you make an educated well thought out decision - in many cases it can work better for you. And if you are at all unsure - then don't do it.

I know one young lady at one of these OWS things was complaining about owing $125k in student loans. Well that was your decision to take out $125k in student loans - not mine. I can see complaining about the high cost of education, but you need to take responsibility for your own actions - for example my friend stopped going to college mid-way through because of the cost - got a full time job and finished going at night - with work paying for it. Or go to a less expensive school.

1 Reply

@Linkat,

Linkat wrote:

But the thing in ARMs can be useful for certain situations - we had re-financed with an ARM as we planned on moving selling within the time frame of the ARM - it saved us huge.

The thing is - people also need to take personal responsibility for their own decisions. We are adults - do your research and make smart decisions - most things are a bit of a gamble, but if you make an educated well thought out decision - in many cases it can work better for you. And if you are at all unsure - then don't do it.

I know one young lady at one of these OWS things was complaining about owing $125k in student loans. Well that was your decision to take out $125k in student loans - not mine. I can see complaining about the high cost of education, but you need to take responsibility for your own actions - for example my friend stopped going to college mid-way through because of the cost - got a full time job and finished going at night - with work paying for it. Or go to a less expensive school.

I don't disagree with the need for personal responsibility. But once again, these are only small subsets of the system, which in itself is flawed - and intentionally works to bring about these results.

After all, is it not the job of the loan or mortgage officer and bank to tell you that you can't afford certain loans? That practice was abandoned completely, because the banks and investment houses thought they have found a way around the risk involved with lending people money they couldn't afford to pay back. The banks used to be cautious about lending, not just b/c it could screw the person in the house, but because it would screw them too. But, they took advantage of a loophole in regulations (and an administration who was uninterested in actually regulating anything at all) to maximize their greed and profits, at the expense of all of us.

Capitalism cannot survive a prolonged period of being hijacked by a group of wealthy people, unafraid to buy politicians and manipulate elections, who are determined to increase their piece of the pie (which is happened) while demonizing everyone else in the country (which has also happened). History is quite clear on what happens when economic disparity grows too large. America has done a pretty good job in the past steering clear of this, but the problems have really grown over the last three decades and can no longer be ignored.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Thomas,

Except, of course, for the minor distinction that the signers of the Declaration of Independence were all well respected men of position and influence who would never have been considered dilettantes, were putting themselves at personal risk for their principles, and who had the wherewithal to actually make good on their declaration.

1 Reply

A question to consider: How would the Occupiers in parks across the USA be treated if they were brandishing guns and talking about 2nd Amendment solutions?

A
R
T

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

The thing is you need reprecussions on both sides. Like you said whose responsbility is it to decide you cannot afford. It seems dumb on either side to engage in a mortgage if the person cannot afford it. If there are reprecussions for both, then these types of loans are less likely to be made. Both need to take responsibility.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Not to mention the politicians who sought to enhace their own careers and personal power by creating the conditions that led to a crisis.

0 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Except, of course, for the minor distinction that the signers of the Declaration of Independence were all well respected men of position and influence who would never have been considered dilettantes, were putting themselves at personal risk for their principles, and who had the wherewithal to actually make good on their declaration.

Well, the OWS people have already seen the inside of a jail, and have already been clubbed and maced by the police. This is more than the Signers can say for themselves, so there's personal risk for you. As to the wherewithal to actually make good, we don't know yet if OWS has it---but neither would a 1776 Tory have known it about the Signers. The answer to this question can only emerge in retrospect. And as to the social status of the authors: how is that possibly relevant to the content of their text?

2 Replies

@Linkat,

Linkat wrote:

The thing is you need reprecussions on both sides. Like you said whose responsbility is it to decide you cannot afford. It seems dumb on either side to engage in a mortgage if the person cannot afford it. If there are reprecussions for both, then these types of loans are less likely to be made. Both need to take responsibility.

Uh, we've seen tremendous repercussions for ALL private Americans - other than the rich, that is - as the mortgage market imploded. Even those of us who don't own a house and never had ANY transactions with ANY of the industries involved have been negatively effected by the recession.

And the industry and people which caused it has seen practically zero repercussions whatsoever. The men and women who engineered the collapse of our economy profited tremendously and have done nothing but grow richer over the last several years.

You've just figured out OWS. Repercussions. It's time for some repercussions.

And it's time to forget any of that 'let's look forward' bullshit. We should be looking backward and aggressively attacking and prosecuting the vultures who created the issue. We should be breaking up the banks immediately into smaller entities which then can be allowed to fail. We should be heavily regulating the CDS market (which still isn't happening!). We should be limiting the amount Corporations can spend on political elections. We should be passing legislation that makes Corporate personhood a thing of the past.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Finn dAbuzz wrote:
Except, of course, for the minor distinction that the signers of the Declaration of Independence were all well respected men of position and influence who would never have been considered dilettantes, were putting themselves at personal risk for their principles, and who had the wherewithal to actually make good on their declaration.

Well, the OWS people have already seen the inside of a jail, and have already been clubbed and maced by the police. This is more than the Signers can say for themselves, so there's personal risk for you. As to the wherewithal to actually make good, we don't know yet if OWS has it---but neither would a 1776 Tory have known it about the Signers. The answer to this question can only emerge in retrospect. And as to the social status of the authors: how is that possibly relevant to the content of their text?

Well, Finn is one of the 'Economic Feudalists' I spoke about above. The founding fathers are people he considers to be in his class, the protestors are not. Therefore the founders are to be respected, and the protestors denigrated.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

I don't know that Finn is an "economic feudalist". If he ever talked about his socioeconomic status, I haven't read the posts where he did it. But independent of that, there's no need to get personal about this.

2 Replies

@Thomas,

I think that Cycloptichorn maybe correct and I do not think he is being hateful just sharing an observation!

If we are wrong I am sure that he can correct us!

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

And it's time to forget any of that 'let's look forward' bullshit. We should be looking backward and aggressively attacking and prosecuting the vultures who created the issue. We should be breaking up the banks immediately into smaller entities which then can be allowed to fail.

Prosecute them for what? It's not the job of the financial industry to perserve economic stability, it is to make money. They serve their own interests much like anyone else in the capitalist system has the right to and it's the job of the government to regulate the system to prevent harm to the common good, not theirs. You don't just get to throw people in jail that you don't like, so what are you advocating that they be prosecuted for?

What you are doing is not very dissimilar from advocating a bill of attainder, which is proscribed by the American Constitution for good reason.

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

After all, is it not the job of the loan or mortgage officer and bank to tell you that you can't afford certain loans?

No, that is your job and nobody else's. Their job is to decide whether their bank can afford to loan you money and they evaluate your ability to do so only in that context (to protect them, not to protect you). It is not their job, or their responsibility to tell you how to lead a fiscally sane life.

6 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

they evaluate your ability to do so

If they were able to do that we would not be in half the mess we are in,
and the many investors that paid them to do their job would not have taken such a big loss!

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

<APPLAUSE!!!>

0 Replies

Two weeks into Occupy Wall Street protests, movement is at a crossroads

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know