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

You can't forget, though, that these tycoons have means of controlling the elected officials. So in theory, scaring them into giving up that game could be just as effective, if not more effective than trying to persuade government officials themselves.

Of course letting the government directly know that we as people won't stand for them being puppets to the "players" could work as well.

Basically what I'm trying to say is I can see the motivation behind both sides of the argument of who is really at fault and who's door we should be breaking down. Haha.

This is why the system, the rules of the game, goes unchanged (and as I predict, will continue to) despite all the hot air. Because it's being wasted for dramatic license and good theater.

This message should have been directed at Obama, not "the rich".

I think the left should actually vote Republican to show the Democrats they aren't bluffing and that they can't just play lip service to these ideals. You'd rather try spooking the rich into this happening.

Phelan said he’s worried about “social unrest.”

“My taxes are going up,” he said. “Everybody hates me. I have two friends who bought land in New Zealand. They’re trying to convince me to go.”

Ant the flaw in your argument is that your observation above is based on supposition, not fact, and very likely isn't true.

I asked you once and I'll ask you again. If you think that they should have known, then why is it that your favorite economical minds had no idea as well?

Okay, this is exactly what I mean when I say that you have a basic misunderstanding of the dynamics of this situation.

What exactly do you think Obama COULD or WILL do, if anger is directed his way? Nothing.

He can do nothing to remedy the situation. He has zero ability to enact any of the changes that either you or I are calling for.

Last night I was thinking that they should try to draft a bill, and convince a representative to... (bear with me now, it's from left-field) represent them. And if their representatives do not support them (not with some slogans, but I had this idea that they could use their votes!) I think they should try something positively ballsy like not actually voting for them anyway, with the incessant excuse that it could actually be worse (that is a completely myopic outlook).

Only Congress can do that, and it's been pretty clear for a long time now that this simply isn't going to happen outside of a massive public outcry for it to happen. And not towards Congress, but towards those who are currently buying off Congress - the extremely wealthy people who run our financial system.

The Republicans will block each and every single thing he tries to do to remedy the situation. They have effectively prevented the one weak piece of legislation that was passed (Dodd-Frank) from having any effect. Big banks have spent almost 2 billion dollars lobbying against every element of that bill that they can, and they have gotten their GOP and DEM allies in the Senate to prevent the bill from having any real effects at all.

I shouldn't have to point out to you that our current government dynamic prevents anything from happening on a legislative level without major pressure being applied to those who are fighting to block the other side. And it's appropriate to do so.

Quote:

I think the left should actually vote Republican to show the Democrats they aren't bluffing and that they can't just play lip service to these ideals. You'd rather try spooking the rich into this happening.

I think this is an absolutely foolish plan, one that would lead to an incredible number of bad things happening to our country, and it's hard for me to even believe you put any thought into it whatsoever before proposing it. What would be far, far more appropriate would be to apply merciless and unrelenting pressure towards the Dems who are currently allied with big banks, while pressuring the private individuals who run those banks as well.

This is exactly what I am hoping to see over the next several years - strong and explicit societal condemnation for those who place the acquisition of personal wealth above all other societal concerns, and who would continue to blame the gov't for the greed of their own industry.

I think such a moral position is toxic to our society and we will all be better off in a future where the acquisition of wealth is looked on more with disdain than it is envy.

You're absolutely right that I would rather attack the source of the problem than the symptom of the problem... you get much, much better results that way. But, we'll have to wait and see.

My bet is on the vapidity of the movement, and not the role that this kind of protest plays.

I disagree with the premise of your question. While it is true that my favorite economic minds---including Paul Krugman---failed to predict the specifics of this banking crisis, they did have a correct general idea of what causes banking crises, and what policies help prevent them.

To make sure this isn't wishful thinking on my part, I just checked Krugman's first popular book, The Age of Diminished Expectations (1st ed. 1990 / 3rd ed. 1997). Its description of the Savings-and-Loans scandal, on pages 157--165, discusses bank runs, their potential to cause recessions, and banking regulations that can prevent crises like it. He's saying pretty much the same things in that book as he d0es in his recent Op-Eds on the Great Recession.

It’s hard to believe now, but not long ago economists were congratulating themselves over the success of their field. Those successes — or so they believed — were both theoretical and practical, leading to a golden era for the profession. On the theoretical side, they thought that they had resolved their internal disputes. Thus, in a 2008 paper titled “The State of Macro” (that is, macroeconomics, the study of big-picture issues like recessions), Olivier Blanchard of M.I.T., now the chief economist at the International Monetary Fund, declared that “the state of macro is good.” The battles of yesteryear, he said, were over, and there had been a “broad convergence of vision.” And in the real world, economists believed they had things under control: the “central problem of depression-prevention has been solved,” declared Robert Lucas of the University of Chicago in his 2003 presidential address to the American Economic Association.

Last year, everything came apart.

Few economists saw our current crisis coming, but this predictive failure was the least of the field’s problems. More important was the profession’s blindness to the very possibility of catastrophic failures in a market economy. During the golden years, financial economists came to believe that markets were inherently stable — indeed, that stocks and other assets were always priced just right. There was nothing in the prevailing models suggesting the possibility of the kind of collapse that happened last year. Meanwhile, macroeconomists were divided in their views. But the main division was between those who insisted that free-market economies never go astray and those who believed that economies may stray now and then but that any major deviations from the path of prosperity could and would be corrected by the all-powerful Fed. Neither side was prepared to cope with an economy that went off the rails despite the Fed’s best efforts.

I remind you once again that we're not in court. You're not owed that level of evidence in order for my argument to be a perfectly valid one. So, your demand is immaterial, and really just a dodge.

Thank you Thomas, but Cyclo is just one of those low bred scoundrels who twisted by cramping envy, strikes out at his betters.

That the economic and financial world was blindsided by this on a more fundamental way than just predicting this particular crisis is a premise that I really think is more than adequately borne out by the available evidence.

I don't know of a single economist of repute that is saying otherwise, and your favorite one is no exception.

I don't know why people assume that others who are happy with their lives would be envious of people that happen to have more money. Why is that? Do you honestly believe that I'm envious of you, or anyone else?

What I am angry about, isn't that others have more, it's that I have to deal with the fallout of their incessant attempts to garner more at the expense of all other considerations.