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

@reasoning logic,

Quote:

Thank you for sharing. That is one hell of a video!

You're welcome, RL. I'm glad that you enjoyed it.

0 Replies

@reasoning logic,

Show the ENTIRE video!!!

WHY was that person being punched?
What did they do?

When any video is this poorly edited, it becomes meaningless.

1 Reply

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

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.

Or maybe you should change careers to make big bucks as a psychic. You're making an awful lot of confident proclamations based on one photograph.

1 Reply

@Thomas,

Thomas wrote:

Or maybe you should change careers to make big bucks as a psychic.

How do you know he isn't? Twisted Evil

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

It looks like the cop made a mistake from his expression!

I do not even know if it is real there is this other video out there that has a man with the same color shirt and long hair! I hope that it was not mistaken identity.

I think that they are using to much force. I know it sounds sick but it is times like this where I would like to see the mob rise up against the officer.

0 Replies

@mysteryman,

mysteryman wrote:

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.

I doubt she gave much thought to being able to pay back the loans when she took them out, but how many kids in her place; at that time would have?

I can't see faulting her for taking out a loan for college tuition if her parents could not afford to pay for it. In fact I think it reflects mature decision making.

I just don't get what he specific beef is.

Did the institution that gave her the loans guarantee she would graduate and get a job that would enable her to pay it back? Did they not tell her that she would have to one day pay them back the money they loaned to her?

Did the school from which she bought her education with the money obtained through the loans guarantee she would get a job that would enable her to pay them off? Was it ever implied that a degree from that particular school would result in a waiving of her debt?

What promises were made that were not kept?

In what way was she misled?

Her hackneyed sign isn't even amusing, so what is its purpose?

I think it's safe to assume that she blames someone for her predicament, but whom? Since the photo is associated with the OWS movement should we assume she is blaming Wall Street?

Since no lender and no school would ever guarantee a student, upon graduation, a job (let alone a high paying one) how has she been scammed?

She's saddled with debt and can't find a job that pays well. That actually does suck.

I have sympathy for her, and if she was my daughter I would very likely help her out financially, but what the heck does this have to do with capitalism, and Wall Street, and regulation and injustice?

Are we supposed to look at this photo and experience outrage over a system that can allow for a scenario to exist wherein a young woman with outstanding college loans is unable to find a well paying job?

I know it must be because my heart has been scored by greed or my humanity surrendered to the cold Lords of Capital who keep me enthralled with their scraps, but...I don't get it.

2 Replies

@Finn dAbuzz,

I knew a fellow that couldn't pay back a small loan because his horse didn't win. This guy didn't even have the excuse of being unemployed; he simply couldn't make the connection between borrowing to place a bet, and repaying the loan from anything except the proceeds of the bet.

Not relevant to OWS, except for showing a certain attitude.

1 Reply

@roger,

Roger wrote;

Quote:

Not relevant to OWS, except for showing a certain attitude.

If it's not relevant, Roger, then what was your point of posting it here?

Outsourcing jobs, including those in the mainstay of US manufacturing, the auto industry, is crippling the country, and creating a new(er) poverty class.

Sure there are those amongst us who could be trained for fifty years without hope of securing employment, but these people have qualifications now that are irrelevent simply because of the capitalistic trend of outsourcing just about every aspect of the consumer manufacture, consumer support, and consumer complaint.

Do you agree with outsourcing, or disagree?

2 Replies

@Builder,

Your Brazilian model seems to be working. Do you feel you are doing something better? It might turn out the difference is more than greedy capitalism.

1 Reply

@roger,

Hmmmm, Brazilian model? What the ???

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2011-10-15/anti-wall-st-protests-in-australia/3573134

Do I personally feel that I am doing something better? I tried capitalism. Was an employer of seven for about four years.

Never felt above or below my employees. In fact at times, they earnt more than me, which was okay, because they were doing the bulk of the work.

0 Replies

@Builder,

Builder wrote:

Roger wrote;

Quote:
Not relevant to OWS, except for showing a certain attitude.

If it's not relevant, Roger, then what was your point of posting it here?

Outsourcing jobs, including those in the mainstay of US manufacturing, the auto industry, is crippling the country, and creating a new(er) poverty class.

Sure there are those amongst us who could be trained for fifty years without hope of securing employment, but these people have qualifications now that are irrelevent simply because of the capitalistic trend of outsourcing just about every aspect of the consumer manufacture, consumer support, and consumer complaint.

Do you agree with outsourcing, or disagree?

I take exception with Roger as well. I think it was relevant to OWS.

But I would rather address outsourcing.

I'm fascinated by the apparent dilemma globalization presents to the Left.

By "the Left" I mean a broader constituency than Trade Unions, which, irrespective of ideological contradictions, are duty bound to at least attempt to preserve the jobs of their members. If I'm a 16 year member of the IT Call Center Union, have three kids and a mortgage, I sure as hell want my union to fight against outsourcing my job to India. If it could mean that my employer won't be able to cut its expenses enough to stay in business, I'll take that chance. It won't happen overnight and I'll have time to look for a new job while still being able to feed my kids and pay the bills.

If my union is successful and my company rejects outsourcing, I, along with my fellow Call Center employees, am obviously happy. Assuming the union was able to cut the deal with management by providing it with an alternative means to cut expenses, my boss, his board and the company shareholders are all happy too. Of course not everyone involved in this scenario is going to be happy.

The company in India which has now lost an important contract with my company is facing revenue problems and may have to lay off some employees or hold off on new hires. It seems that company just inherited the economic challenges facing American companies.

Let's modify the scenario a bit and assume my union was not able to provide expense savings to replace those which outsourcing would have produced, but through threats of striking was still able to coerce my employer to scrap the project.

Now, I'm still happy...for the time being as the cloud of future lay-off remains, my boss and his stakeholders are not happy and neither is the Indian company that lost the contract.

Presumably, the OWS protestors are not, in the main, trade protectionists or labor union organizers. From what I've seen and heard, many strongly reject the notion that life should be viewed solely through economic lens, and they're all for taking on all sorts of problems (e.g. environmental) other than unemployment and student loans. Therefore, I assume they are not immune to the plight of the Indian workers.

If outsourcing was totally banned tomorrow, there would be hundreds of thousands, if not millions of jobs lost outside the United States. Whether or not all of those jobs could be occupied by currently unemployed Americans is another story, but let's assume they can, and what's more, like in the original (highly unlikely) scenario alternative cost savings are developed by US companies and so the outsourcing ban has only minor impact on profitability.

What happens to the developing nations that have accelerated their development due, in very large measure, to outsourcing from the US and the West? Which if any of these apply:

1) Rough luck for them, but our people come first.

2) They'll still get foreign aid from us.

3) The fight continues, and when we're done with capitalism in the US, we'll lead to revolution through the rest of the world.

1 Reply

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
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.

The unadulterated irony here speaks for itself.

Well, with the big difference being that I don't believe she should get out from owing the loans, or that she took out those loans out of avarice and greed - the way that those who crashed our financial system did. I was merely pointing out that her loans made more sense in a different environment, and that we really have no idea what else she has done to afford her education.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Finn dAbuzz wrote:

Did the institution that gave her the loans guarantee she would graduate and get a job that would enable her to pay it back?

not sure how it is in the U.S., but there are some colleges/trade schools currently being sued in Canada as they did (in large print) promise jobs on graduation (with a number of small print qualifiers).

A few have already had to change their advertising, and apparently some reimbursements of tuition were made in exchange for dropping of lawsuits.

I'm onboard with the truth in advertising requirement, not as sure of the reimbursement piece - though if it prevented development of a class-action, it was probably a decent investment.

1 Reply

@Finn dAbuzz,

Hear hear. It's disgustingly hypocritical that they can say that just because of the wealth discrepancy between them and the rich in their countries there is an immoral situation happening, but at the same time want to begrudge even poorer people the ability to compete in the global market place when they suffer from an even greater wealth gap.

The notion that that corporations are "outsourcing" jobs as a bad thing is untoward selfishness. What is happening is that billions of people (in places like China and India) are joining the global marketplace of labor. And these people (people in the first world), probably close to the richest 1% on earth, are begrudging the fact that now they have to compete with hungry driven poor people for jobs, instead of have them shut out of the labor marketplace. And they want to shut out their ability to compete instead, preserving their wealth discrepancy and keeping the billions from rising out of poverty.

They seek to promote their own welfare over that of others by complaining that they get to compete on a leveler playing field. All this hand wringing about the poor in America is just hypocritical, because when you ask a Cycloptichorn about this issue he'll openly say that he "doesn't give a ****" about the world's poor. Just the American poor.

But then he'll excoriate the rich in America for not taking a more sympathetic outlook to the frustrations of the lower classes in America, and call them "greedy". If they are greedy on the national scale then Cycloptichorn is greedy on the global scale and he has already told us he "doesn't give a ****" about the world's poor.

0 Replies

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

Well, with the big difference being that I don't believe she should get out from owing the loans, or that she took out those loans out of avarice and greed - the way that those who crashed our financial system did.

Neither do I. But my point is that prior to the collapse what was and what was not seen as a relatively safe financial policy was not the same as it is afterwards, that hindsight does make those decisions more easily seem foolish.

It seems positively foolish now that AIG stated they really didn't think it was at all likely that they would lose even $1 on their speculation. But that has the benefit of hindsight, back then it simply was not clear that there was an impeding systemic risk to them and if they took a bearish outlook it would have been a bet with its own risks (being dramatically wrong when you are betting against the market can be as devastating as the other way).

After the fact all this uncertainty is gone and the arm-chair quarterbacks have at it. But they now have the certainty that hindsight affords them.

Quote:

I was merely pointing out that her loans made more sense in a different environment, and that we really have no idea what else she has done to afford her education.

And I, in turn, am only pointing out that the financial industry's loans made more sense in a different environment too, only this and nothing more. That self-interest and financial mistakes are perfectly understandable to you unless the person is rich, then it's "greed" and "avarice".

1 Reply

@ehBeth,

I'm not aware of similar situations here, although I'm sure they could exist in isolation (more with trade schools than colleges).

I am familiar with a case of about $100 million in fraud which involved an agent for an insurance company selling trade school tuition insurance and "arranging" with the student and the school to have the student immediately default on the loan after the first payment of premium. Funny, but there weren't many government regulators interested in assuring that such a scheme never happen again. There were states attorneys galore who wanted to get in on prosecuting the the crooks once the investigation was completed and the case made.

In any case, if the woman in question received a guarantee (explicit or implicit) of a job upon graduation then she would have a valid cause of action, and to the extent that the "problem" extended beyond the one woman, it would be swiftly dealt with in much the same manner as it was in Canada.

She, however, would be better off consulting a lawyer than marching on Wall Street with cardboard signs.

0 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Quote:

Neither do I. But my point is that prior to the collapse what was and what was not seen as a relatively safe financial policy was not the same as it is afterwards, that hindsight does make those decisions more easily seem foolish.

I don't think that what the banks were doing was seen as a 'relatively safe' financial policy, in any way. Not even by themselves.

Quote:

It seems positively foolish now that AIG stated they really didn't think it was at all likely that they would lose even $1 on their speculation. But that has the benefit of hindsight

Um, no. AIG was a house of cards from the very beginning and the people who ran it knew it. The business was set up using a circular insurance model, where the different state-based sub-companies that made up AIG all insured each other. The model was crazy and unsustainable - it could not survive even a modest shock, let alone a big one - and there's plenty of internal emails that were released that showed many people inside the company being aware of this; but it was ignored in the name of profits.

Quote:

And I, in turn, am only pointing out that the financial industry's loans made more sense in a different environment too, only this and nothing more.

I don't accept your first sentence as being true. I believe that the activities that were being undertaken by the financial industry never made sense - from a stability standpoint. They were incredibly risky and everyone knew it. However, they made perfect sense, if the goal was to make as much profit as possible, as fast as possible, with no concern for the future of the company. And that's exactly what ended up happening - a maximization of profits and risk in the short term, incredible destruction in the long-term.

Cycloptichorn

1 Reply

@Cycloptichorn,

Cycloptichorn wrote:

I don't accept your first sentence as being true.

I know, I'm just pointing out that you talk about how obvious this all is when you criticize the bankers, but when it comes to those who took loans you say their loans made more sense in the market they were in. I think there's a discrepancy in the degree to which you allow hindsight to contextualize the past decisions.

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I don't accept your first sentence as being true.

I know, I'm just pointing out that you talk about how obvious this all is when you criticize the bankers, but when it comes to those who took loans you say their loans made more sense in the market they were in. I think there's a discrepancy in the degree to which you allow hindsight to contextualize the past decisions.

There's a large difference here, in that banks and investment houses have a wide variety of options available for making money. They were not forced to take ever-increasing risks in order to continue their business. For many who attend college, however, there is no other option than to take loans out.

I think BOTH groups should be held responsible for their decisions, regardless of the motivations or logic that lead to their earlier decisions. The girl who took out loans should pay them back, and the bankers investors who took giant risks in the name of profits should be held responsible for the destruction that has been brought about by their doing so - something which certainly hasn't happened.

To re-focus on the overall point of the thread,

The protestors should begin to winnow their concerns down to something very easy to understand and repeat: Privatized profits and Socialized losses cannot continue to exist. It benefits society in no way for such a situation to exist - only a tiny segment of people benefit from this. In order to keep this from happening in the future, the structure of the banking and investment system in our country must be changed, so that businesses who fail, fail - without destroying our markets and country in the process.

As for the personal, anti-wealthy attitude that many of them seem caught up on, those concerns should be narrowed as well; removal of the foolish rules which allow the wealthiest to pay almost nothing in taxes whatsoever. This would affect only a handful of people, but restore a sense of fairness to an essentially screwed tax system.

Cycloptichorn

2 Replies

@Robert Gentel,

Robert Gentel wrote:

Cycloptichorn wrote:
I don't accept your first sentence as being true.

I know, I'm just pointing out that you talk about how obvious this all is when you criticize the bankers, but when it comes to those who took loans you say their loans made more sense in the market they were in. I think there's a discrepancy in the degree to which you allow hindsight to contextualize the past decisions.

so does this mean the the students are responsible when schools go bad? Are prisoners responsible when prisons are poorly run? Are kids responsible when the are raised poorly?

3 Replies

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

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know