Occupy Wall Street - What's their goal?

[TheAnimus]

I've seen it mostly on the likes of BoingBoing but I still don't understand, what are they trying to do?

Sure there are some issues with the FED, but a lot of these, like the cartoon linked here recently don't really describe the real issues, instead they talk about some of the symptoms, one straying head first in to conspiracy theory territory. Personally I like the idea of not having the polititions directly run the FED, but hey this is going dangerously off topic, because from what I can garner, none of the protesters are talking about this.

So what are they wanting?

What are their demands?

Is it just a festival without live music?

Also why is this awesome hatted girl arrested:
http://boingboing.net/2011/10/02/occ...-old-girl.html
(Loving the blog post by Joel, The creator)

[Betty_Swallocks]

As far as I can see they are simply drawing attention to the inequities in a system where the top 1% of people in the country own 50% of the assets.

Good on them. It's about bloody time people stood up and said it. If there was one going on that I could get to I'd be there too.

[kalniel]

As far as I can see they are simply drawing attention to the inequities in a system where the top 1% of people in the country own 50% of the assets.

Is that because the top 1% paid for that 50% of the assets?

[aidanjt]

Is that because the top 1% paid for that 50% of the assets?

Using capital they've nefariously manipulated from the other 99%, that's the problem.

[billythewiz]

If there was one going on that I could get to I'd be there too.

There's one planned for London. Patternoster Square on 15th October.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/f...-Exchange.html

Last year I walked past The Bank of England the day after the protests there. There were two pieces of graffiti that I really remember (right next to each other) ....

"Return fiscal sovereignty to the people", and
"Money is for loozers" !

I still don't know what either of then mean

[TheAnimus]

Using capital they've nefariously manipulated from the other 99%, that's the problem.

True, and democracy has massive flaws but I wouldn't riot against it. There are many issues with our current financial system, but these people aren't really helping discuss it, instead they are behaving like children, as many of them are I suppose, without a real purpose but to show their unhappiness. I don't get that....

[BobF64]

Using capital they've nefariously manipulated from the other 99%, that's the problem.

But they have also directly allowed the 99% to have the things they bought on credit that, under any sort of sane system, they would never ever have afforded.

The people complaining and protesting probably dont quite appreciate and understand how things work, although they are at least right in that the system isnt fair, but then, life isnt fair either.

[directhex]

True, and democracy has massive flaws but I wouldn't riot against it. There are many issues with our current financial system, but these people aren't really helping discuss it, instead they are behaving like children, as many of them are I suppose, without a real purpose but to show their unhappiness. I don't get that....

I'd hardly call it a riot.

As for protest - why not? The US government works on a system where every dollar is counted, not every citizen. Democracy doesn't work when you can buy your own laws and **** everyone else.

[aidanjt]

There are many issues with our current financial system, but these people aren't really helping discuss it

How can you discuss it when the political and financial leadership are in bed together and are desperate to re-establish the system as was before the recession without any public input whatsoever, or even as much as being privy to what's being discussed behind closed doors? That's the point of the protests, for people to say enough is enough, is the first step in effecting change.

instead they are behaving like children, as many of them are I suppose, without a real purpose but to show their unhappiness. I don't get that....

Perhaps, because that's the only purpose those without any prospects have. It's hardly childish to exercise your democratic right to protest against a grave injustice, which hasn't as much as been investigated.

[aidanjt]

But they have also directly allowed the 99% to have the things they bought on credit

So not only do the 99% have to surrender their capital, but they need the permission of the top 1% to do anything as well? That's just stupid. You wouldn't accept it from government, so why should you have to accept it from the private financial system which you have no say over its management?

that, under any sort of sane system, they would never ever have afforded.

Why not? If you borrow P, you have to pay back P+I. If you can't afford P, then how in the name of God do you afford P+I? P didn't exist before you borrowed it, but you still have to pay that in real capital cash, and I, too. So they're giving you nothing more than a permission slip to buy/invest in whatever you want to do with P, and you have to pay them back real capital. And, with continuous credit money being injected into the market as if it were sound money, the market inflates to exploit the additional money, which eats into the capital of savers, an effective wealth transfer from poor to rich. Again, coercing them to choose credit over savings.

And it's not as if people no longer want stuff when the credit stops flowing. People still want and need things, and producers still have them to trade. It's simply the financial system seizing up like the dysfunctional mess it is. And we really don't need those kinds of barriers getting in between transactions.

It's a golden cash cow, a capital pipeline syphoning off real productive cash from the poor and middle classes, and dumping it into the laps of the rich, having provided ZERO production value, not even the tiniest amount, negative production value, in fact. The entire financial system is a private, world wide, wealth transfer bureaucracy for the wealthiest families to gain tax-level income without the risk of rebellion, war, invasion, or limitations of kingdom borders they had to put up with as Lords and Monarchs. But it costs society a stupendous amount of money to maintain, and frequently implodes, massively accelerating wealth transfer away from debtors, right when they're most in need of a break.

As David Mitchell put it regarding the recession, "there's no actual stuff, nothing's caught fire, or exploded or sunk or anything, it's just a load of ****** bankers having made stupid bets with each other while drunk, I mean, no bad thing has happened, it's not like all the pigs in South America suddenly died of blight. It's just a load of people juggling with numbers which didn't exist, and it all got out of hand because they're arseholes, we've known they're arseholes for ages".

Our entire understanding of economics is in dire need of a rewrite. Doing away with all that 18th century self-serving claptrap paraded as 'enlightenment', alone, would do wonders to the state of our economy.

The people complaining and protesting probably dont quite appreciate and understand how things work

It's a bit presumptuous to make an assertion on the level of knowledge of every protester on the sole basis that they're a protester. For all you know, every single one of them could be Ph.Ds of economics. Unlikely, perhaps, but not impossible.

although they are at least right in that the system isnt fair, but then, life isnt fair either.

Life is unfair because the system is unfair. Hence, the protests.

[TeePee]

<However apt or funny, please don't post images with that kind of language. We do have rules on that, you know, and it applies to images posted as well as language in posts. Thank you.

Saracen.>

[aidanjt]

[big wall of doodles]

Something tells me the doodler wouldn't feel the least bit sorry for them if they were strapped into a chair and had their fingernails extracted with a rusty set of pliers.

[BobF64]

Something tells me the doodler wouldn't feel the least bit sorry for them if they were strapped into a chair and had their fingernails extracted with a rusty set of pliers.

But either way, those images and "complaints" demonstrate something.

They show the same as those holding placards on Wall St, they want something for nothing.

Of course, we all want something for nothing, youd be a fool to turn down free stuff.

Back when students were protesting in the UK about the fee increases, they were almost all shouting and waving about how "university education was their right", its not, its a privilege, and like all privileges not everyone can have them.

True its not always fair that some people always get them due to their circumstances, but for those that dont, you have to make your own choice.

It also doesnt help that people feel the need to go, but that is the governments fault, not bankers.

[directhex]

“If you’re not careful, the media will have you hating the people who are being oppressed and loving the people who are doing the oppressing” - Malcolm X

The very very very very simple version of the protesters' problem is that there was a recession as a result of bat**** insane banking practices (sub-prime mortgages != securities). Billionaires got taxpayer money to make themselves feel better in the form of "bailouts". Meanwhile, the super-wealthy ("top 1%) have done EXTREMELY well out of it and vastly increased their wealth over the last few years, and everyone else has found themselves struggling to even get a McDonalds job, with average standard of living and quality of life dropping significantly year-on-year compared to 30 years ago. Governments insist on repeatedly disproven so-called voodoo economics, where you give all the moneys to the richest people and hope that they piss their money down the ladder enough that everyone gets some - and it in no way reflects the reality of things.

Wouldn't you be angry if by the time you finished a degree, you had nothing but debt - and all your job prospects vanished when the super-wealthy decided to hoard all their taxpayer money?

Not to mention the regressive tax regime where the McDonalds burger flipper pays a higher percentage of their income to the state - money which is then spent on bailouts and subsidies for megacorps - than the hedge-fund manager.

The armchair economists in this thread would benefit from watching http://english.aljazeera.net/programmes/meltdown/

[directhex]

They show the same as those holding placards on Wall St, they want something for nothing.

The biggest businesses get something for nothing. Take oil companies as an example - they post billions in profits every quarter, yet get direct government subsidy paid for by every low-wage taxpayer in the US. How is that fair? How come those who don't need it get handouts, but those who do need it don't?

[TheAnimus]

How can you discuss it when the political and financial leadership are in bed together and are desperate to re-establish the system as was before the recession without any public input whatsoever, or even as much as being privy to what's being discussed behind closed doors? That's the point of the protests, for people to say enough is enough, is the first step in effecting change.

But they are not doing that with their limelight, they are not suggesting changes to the system.

I've seen some down the with the FED plackards and the like, but honestly having a seperate bank from state is a very good idea in my book, and the plackard fails to make me think otherwise.

I can't help but think as such its kinda shutting the door after the horse has bolted!

One of the biggest single problems was the greenspan puts, but at the time they were hailed as some myrical. Its more a case of how do we repear the system, make it less volatile, more robust. The problem is most of those protesting have no idea about how it works, the every day tasks it solves.

Even something like HFT (computer trading at low latency) is a debatable matter, we know it sometimes has 'woopsies' like the famous plunge last year, but on the whole it might help flatten out even the more liquid markets, reduce volatile swings etc. In otherwords it might be a good thing, it might just make the trends more volatile.....

Perhaps, because that's the only purpose those without any prospects have. It's hardly childish to exercise your democratic right to protest against a grave injustice, which hasn't as much as been investigated.

Without any prospects, really? Compare them to someone in the 30's? They have lots of prospects, lots of oppertunities, its just some people have an entitlement issue. They think they are to have the world handed to them on a stick, and then bitch at the world when it doesn't provide them a flatscreen tv.

The link TeePee posted sums it up quite nicely, whilst I'm sure they were hand picked examples, most of these people can easily fix a part of the system by looking at themselves!

Then you also say it hasn't as much as been investigated. Thats utter horse crap, and I think shows how little you understand this situation. A lot of what has happened is a case of honest mistakes. Those who were knowingly been fruadulent have actually gone to prison or been 'bumped off' (enron, maddoff etc). The downside is they STILL haven't put in place simple things like APR, however for most of the sub prime lot that is little use anyway as they won't understand it. There are so many different schools of thought right now investigating what the biggest issue here was, there might emerge one 'excepted' theory, but no time soon by the looks of it.