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

....the theme of the demonstration is that corporate power is quashing regular people..

Nevertheless, we should also acknowledge that rampant capitalism made that park possible in the first place.

Quote:

In any case, whether or not you are personally envious, you are mistaken if you think envy does not play a very large role in the success of class warfare strategy.

I think you're absolutely correct - just not in the way that you probably think you are. Envy is a prime component of the class warfare strategy of the wealthy against the rest of us.

I suppose by this you mean that the wealthy somehow induce the poor to envy their status and thus strive for it rather than sieze it as rightfully their own.

Quote:

If you recall, you accused me of being a "economic feudalist," (Whatever the hell that means).

Modern-day capitalism is an economic form of Fedualism; those at the top believe they are at the top through their inherent right to be so, because of qualities and advantages that they have which others (who they style their inferiors) do not. This is how they (you) justify the extreme inequity in pay that we see today; management and executives deserve millions, because they are 'worth it' in a way that the rest of their employees simply are not.

The false nature of this belief is clearly shown by the fact that executive pay bears no real relation to the quality of their performance, and Corporations have fought tooth and nail to prevent their shareholders from being able to control levels of executive pay. The underlying thought that pushes this, is the supposition that failure to pay your executives as well as other companies pay theirs, will lead to all the best people leaving your company. However, reality has shown that this is a false thought, and the effects of it are pernicious to our society in a wide variety of ways.

There is very little that distinguishes this modern-day belief from the classic belief that the Nobility deserves to own and control the vast majority of capital, because of inherent qualities within themselves that make them superior to their fellow man - regardless of their actual performance.

Cycloptichorn

What nonsense.

I suppose Steve Jobs did not possess skills and characteristics that were more valuable to Apple than those of some nice young woman writing code all day.

Even assuming your facile theory constitutes a "modern-day belief" that is actually believed by anyone but you and your Neo-Marxist discussion group that meets Friday afternoons at the local pub, there is a glaring distinction between your "economic feudalism" and classic feudalism: the absence of inheritance.

While a modern Capitalist Baron may, through inheritance, pass on his accumulated wealth to his progeny (minus great wads taken for taxes imposed by the "serfs") he doesn't pass on his status. One would expect that any Baron who subscribed to "economic feudalism" and believed his status and wealth were inherent rights would seek to pass both on to his offspring

In reality, outside of privately owned enterprises this is not a practice that is followed or even advocated.

In any case, the only aspect of feudalism that you are drawing upon for your theory is a consequence of the system, not a fundamental element.

Why is is more likely that the senior executives of a company have achieved their level of status and wealth due to anything other than merit? Are you suggesting that no role in a corporate structure is of greater importance (and therefore greater value) than any other?

You've made a number of broad and unsubstantiated claims for how your theory is clearly proven, but there's nothing really there... there.

You know I don't really believe you envy the wealthy, at least not their money and possessions, but it does bug the hell out of you that they might feel superior to you, and since wealth is one means of demonstrating superiority you resent it to no end.

You know I don't really believe you envy the wealthy, at least not their money and possessions, but it does bug the hell out of you that they might feel superior to you, and since wealth is one means of demonstrating superiority you resent it to no end.

Interesting!

Well, the theme of the demonstration is that corporate power is quashing regular people. So a showdown with the corporate owners of Zuccotti park would be right on message.

The men who crashed the world
The first of a four-part investigation into a world of greed and recklessness that led to financial collapse.

In the first episode of Meltdown, we hear about four men who brought down the global economy: a billionaire mortgage-seller who fooled millions; a high-rolling banker with a fatal weakness; a ferocious Wall Street predator; and the power behind the throne.

The crash of September 2008 brought the largest bankruptcies in world history, pushing more than 30 million people into unemployment and bringing many countries to the edge of insolvency. Wall Street turned back the clock to 1929.

In depth coverage of US financial crisis protests
But how did it all go so wrong?

Lack of government regulation; easy lending in the US housing market meant anyone could qualify for a home loan with no government regulations in place.

Also, London was competing with New York as the banking capital of the world. Gordon Brown, the British finance minister at the time, introduced 'light touch regulation' - giving bankers a free hand in the marketplace.

All this, and with key players making the wrong financial decisions, saw the world's biggest financial collapse.

Meltdown is a four-part investigation that takes a closer look at the people who brought down the financial world. It can be seen on Al Jazeera English from Tuesday, September 20, at the following times GMT: Tuesday: 2000; Wednesday: 1200; Thursday: 0100; Friday: 0600; Saturday: 2000; Sunday: 1200; Monday: 0100; Tuesday: 0600.

http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/meltdown/2011/09/2011914105518615434.html

Maybe she should have thought about this before she took out the loans.

Instead, she could have worked, even part time, she could have applied for grants, she could have done many things to avoid having to take out loans.

Many people who are in graduate school or recently graduated started 4-6 years ago, when the job market was far, far healthier than today. They had much more of an expectation of finding employment to help pay down the debt they've taken on. You should keep that in mind before being critical of their decisions.