

Occupying Wall Street - mun2mun
http://www.newstatesman.com/blogs/laurie-penny/2011/10/wall-street-york-police-bridge

======
tpatke
For those of you who haven't heard about this, CNN has a bit more facts in
it's coverage: [http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/06/politics/occupy-wall-
stree...](http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/06/politics/occupy-wall-
street/index.html?hpt=ibu_c2)

The full impact of the greek default hasn't hit yet and it is not unreasonable
to expect that Italy or Spain may default next. People have already started
leaderless protests. Meanwhile - it's pretty easy to make money on the way
down assuming you have it to begin with.

It is not hard to predict some pretty big changes in the next few years.

~~~
danmaz74
Italy and Spain are in a completely different situation if compared to Greece.
Expecting that they will default _is_ unreasonable.

~~~
bd_at_rivenhill
Italy and Spain are dangerously over-leveraged in a low growth environment and
thus vulnerable to a speculative attack that pushes interest rates up long
enough for them to go into default. It is not clear yet whether the European
establishment will toe the line on not letting a sovereign default on its
obligations, but if they fail to do so, then such an attack becomes much more
likely.

~~~
stygianguest
Italy. Yes. Spain. No.

Spain has a smaller debt 65% of GDP compared to most western countries,
including the USA (92%) and Germany (83%). They do have huge economic
problems. Right now the biggest danger is that outside trouble brings down
their banks.

~~~
danmaz74
On the other hand, Italy is running a primary surplus, its families are among
the less indebted in the Western world, and its banks have liquidity. To put
it simply: if needed, it is still possible for the government to raise a lot
of money, for example through a property tax - something that has already been
done in the past and is being discussed now.

------
jeffool
A wonderful article, though I think what's often unsaid in regards to the
occupation is their commonality; they all feel that their voices, despite what
it is that they're calling out for individually, are being ignored, despite
being larger in number. Little is as frustrating as silence in the face of
effort.

~~~
hugh3
So they're frustrated that despite the fact that they've been whining for
years that the world isn't perfect (where "perfect" means "precisely the way
_I_ want it to be), the world still isn't perfect?

The solution: more whining?

~~~
michaelchisari
Do you really think that people are expecting the world to be perfect, or is
that the straw man you prefer in order to ignore their demands?

And, more esoterically, would the world ever progress if everyone accepted it
as it was and never pushed for perfection?

------
rick888
"We are getting kicked out of our homes."

..and why is that? I want to see how many of these people protesting actually
got kicked out of their homes and why.

"We are forced to choose between groceries and rent."

Do you have a cell phone? Do you have cable? Where do you live?

"We are denied quality medical care."

Interesting how this is somehow wall street's problems. Can I blame them for
tax increases too?

"We are suffering from environmental pollution."

lol?

"We are working long hours for little pay and no rights, if we are working at
all. We are getting nothing while the other 1 percent is getting everything."

If you can't find a job..you need to ask yourself why. I lost my job a little
over a year ago and then started my own company. Since then, I've had tons of
recruiters and other companies emailing me because they want me to work for
them. There are still plenty of jobs out there. You just need to bust your ass
to get them. Most people aren't willing to put in the work.

I saw the start of this entitlement mentality with music and software piracy.
Many people from this generation feel it's their "right" to be able to
download these things for free. Now they are entitled to a home, a college
education, and a job.

They want equality, but the problem isn't we aren't all equal. I work 12 hours
a day. As a result, I have more money in the bank than someone that works
part-time. Why should I be limited or penalized for this?

"So far, it's pick-your-own cause, with grievances ranging from bank bail-outs
to animal testing, and yet what most of the mainstream media seems to have
missed is the fact that the occupation itself is its own demand"

This is why I find the entire "occupation" to be a joke. Every left-wing
asshole with a grievance against big business is out there protesting.

~~~
exit
to whoever responded with:

 _"But anyways. Like most of us, I am also very fortunate to be in tech, and
have a passion for programming. But I do not pretend that my good fortune some
how means I work or harder or am smarter than other people in our society."_ ,

but then deleted their comment:

you really should repost it. it captures my feelings too and i wanted to thank
you for putting them into words.

again and again, i encounter people in my circles of well-employed colleagues
who do not realize how lucky they are to have interests coinciding with
aptitudes coinciding with particular economic demands in their productive
years.

and it makes them sickeningly self congratulatory.

~~~
rick888
"But I do not pretend that my good fortune some how means I work or harder or
am smarter than other people in our society"

What a defeatist attitude. I do work harder and smarter than other people in
our society. My work and success reflects this.

"and it makes them sickeningly self congratulatory."

It's sickening that you would equate having a good job with mostly luck.
Winning the lottery is pure luck.

I chose to get involved in the tech industry. If I would have been in any
other time, I would have chosen a different industry and most likely been
successful. Less than 1% of it has to do with luck. If I would have just sat
here and done nothing, my career wouldn't have fallen into my lap and my skill
set wouldn't have suddenly appeared.

Anybody can be successful.

~~~
nick_urban
I started programming because I was fascinated by computers. It wasn't until
years later that I found out it was a lucrative job. It sounds like your
recommendation would be for everyone to chase money regardless of their
passions. You have to admit that people who are passionate about things that
pay well get a better deal in that situation. There are a lot of things that
are worthwhile that are not well rewarded economically. If all of the artists
and idealists disappeared and we were only left with money-chasers, the world
would be that much poorer.

Also, regarding success: hard work and intelligence matter a lot, but so does
opportunity. Have a look at Gladwell's Outliers for an interesting analysis of
this.

~~~
michaelchisari
Plus, there's the negative effect of having our market flooded with people who
go into programming "because that's where the money is".

I'm as critical as anyone when people decide to get liberal arts degrees
without at least working on other skills on the side, but let's not be so
naive to think that if a CS degree was the new liberal arts degree, that we
wouldn't be having the same exact problem in society.

Only we (people on HN) would probably be making much less money.

~~~
_delirium
I sometimes wonder what a bizarro-world hacker culture would be like. What if
tech didn't pay well at all, and there was a lot of social pressure to get a
"real job" and a "real degree", like Political Science or English Literature,
instead of wasting your time getting a worthless CS degree?

It'd probably be less pleasant in a lot of ways, but the people still in tech
would probably be an interesting group.

~~~
rdouble
_I sometimes wonder what a bizarro-world hacker culture would be like. What if
tech didn't pay well at all_

It would be like the early 1990s, or living in North Dakota.

------
lhnz
They were sold security. Bow to authority, relinquish individual
responsibility, receive a steady paycheck and a base standard of living. Here
are your ethics: "Accept your place in life; don't fight for yourself: we'll
fight for you. Turn on the TV and kick back. Be docile. We'll look after you."

Now they're still repeating their original mistake: they're asking others to
fix their situation. But the game has changed while they had relinquished
control: real economic damage has been caused (Tragedy of the Commons). Of
course, as usual, now there is a call to arms and a protest at authority, but
they still don't understand: instead of asking for handouts they should fix
their situation by putting in effort, taking responsibility and standing up
for themselves and each other.

~~~
nhaehnle
_instead of asking for handouts they should fix their situation by putting in
effort, taking responsibility and standing up for themselves and each other._

Isn't that exactly what they're doing?

Taking responsibility can take many different forms. No, those people are not
taking an individualist entrepreneur route that most here on this particular
forum are probably more comfortable with. However, the individualist approach
cannot solve every problem. Sometimes, a different route is needed.

The Occupy Wall Street protests are exactly the kind of process by which
people _are_ taking responsibility. Ideas are fermenting there, people are
activated, becoming involved at whichever level (political or otherwise). This
is not a uniform process - certainly, many people will just be there out of
rage, not really becoming activated, but at the same time, many people undergo
transformations, gaining knowledge, forming goals, talking about and then
attempting concrete steps to get what they want.

This is hard to believe if you've never actually been in touch with a movement
like this, mostly because it is impossible to see such developments from the
outside. I've been personally involved in similar things when I was younger
(though at a smaller, local scale), and even I can't see what's going on as an
outsider. But believe me, if you think those people are all shouting for
somebody else to fix everything for them, you have absolutely no clue what
you're talking about.

~~~
lhnz
> Isn't that exactly what they're doing?

Okay, yes. In a way. But they're taking responsibility to try to get other
people to do something for them. You're right, I do have an individualistic
perspective on this. I don't think it works well. The only control they will
get over the situation will be the control they're given by the government/big
industry.

> But believe me, if you think those people are all shouting for somebody else
> to fix everything for them, you have absolutely no clue what you're talking
> about.

I'll take the bait. What are they doing other than protesting for a government
response/solution to their woes?

~~~
nhaehnle
_What are they doing other than protesting for a government response/solution
to their woes?_

First of all, I think we have to make sure we understand each other what the
question is here.

Most of the griefs of the protestors, as far as I understand them, can almost
by definition only be solved by a government solution. (Assuming you accept
their claim that they are not protesting for their individual well-being, but
are instead protesting against systemic issues in society.) Bank regulation
comes to mind - obviously, banks cannot be regulated by individuals. The same
thing applies to macroeconomic problems such as mass unemployment.

Once you recognize that a given problem can only be resolved by government
changing its behavior, there remains the question of how you proceed. Do you
simply shout about it on the street, or are you trying to do more?

It is this "more" that I was talking about, which usually happens in movements
like this. Of course I cannot give you concrete examples since I am not
involved in the whole Occupy Wall Street thing, and outside observers can only
see them after the fact, if they have been successful.

It usually starts with people genuinely interested in learning. Groups form
where people teach each other and become creative. People spend a lot of time
thinking about how to fix the problems, and trying to reach out to those who
are already in a position to implement their plans. Some may go on trying to
run for office themselves. And so on.

This is often unsuccessful for obvious reasons - changing the behavior of
government is extremely difficult. But it's not unsuccessful for a lack of
trying. More often, the greatest problem is the fact that the people involved
are simply inexperienced in dealing with those type of power structures, and
therefore fail to acquire enough social influence to really effect a change.

------
coreymaass
The question I can't find an answer to is, what do they actually want? I feel
like "change" isn't specific enough. They need a single, obtainable goal, and
focus on getting the media to say that goal with every report.

~~~
dhume
From what I've heard from them, I think "better safeguards against regulatory
capture" would cover a lot of it, though I have yet to hear that term
specifically.

~~~
mortenjorck
The best five words for Occupy Wall Street that I've heard.

I'd bet a vast majority of people there would get behind this.

------
r4vik
watch some of them squirm through their cognitive dissonance. If you are
protesting wall street then how the hell do you support Obama when his
presidential campaign was bankrolled by Goldman Sachs?
[http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFVR9Nv43J4&feature=share](http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bFVR9Nv43J4&feature=share)

~~~
Andrew_Quentin
They are in fact also protesting against the merger of big business and
politics. They are thus demanding an end to big money like the example you
gave into politics.

I do not think this is necessarily a democrat's protest. This is a people's
protest, the 99%.

~~~
r4vik
This reminds me of a quote:

“A democracy cannot exist as a permanent form of government. It can only exist
until the voters discover that they can vote themselves largesse from the
public treasury. From that moment on, the majority always votes for the
candidates promising the most benefits from the public treasury with the
result that a democracy always collapses over loose fiscal policy, always
followed by a dictatorship. The average age of the world's greatest
civilizations has been 200 years.” ― Alexis de Tocqueville

~~~
tokenadult
The quotation you mention was not said by de Tocqueville:

[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville#Misattrib...](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexis_de_Tocqueville#Misattributed)

[http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler#Unsourc...](http://en.wikiquote.org/wiki/Alexander_Fraser_Tytler#Unsourced)

------
maximusprime
This whole 99% vs 1% BS is just getting ridiculous.

Maybe they should be happy they're not the 99% of the world who die of
starvation and preventable diseases instead of whining that it's so unfair.

The protestors ARE in the 1%. It's depressing to see their open greed and
belief they are entitled to more.

Maybe if they applied all that energy toward creating wealth instead of
protesting, they would be in a better situation. Or better yet, try and help
the 99% of the world that's worse off than them.

~~~
jeffool
I'm reminded of people who argue against high-paid athletes going on strike
for being greedy, despite the institution owners pulling in far larger
portions of the wealth. "They're paid millions to throw a ball around! They
should be happy with a fraction of the wealth they generate!"

Which is, of course, the underlying point. Who is really "creating" the
wealth? That's a matter of perspective. I'm sure the self-described "99
percenters" feel they're the ones who "created" much of the wealth the "1%"
has.

~~~
maximusprime
I don't think that's the point at all personally.

Protesting that other people have more money than you is just the same as a 2
year old throwing a tantrum.

~~~
jotto
the "too big to fail" situation is dangerous. the banks are _correctly_ making
big bets because they know it's impossible to default since the government HAS
to bail them out to prevent contagion.

~~~
maximusprime
I don't think that's true. Many banks have fallen. Big ones as well.

Also, the proper way is to vote out the government if they do something like
that, and to make it clear you don't think it was a good idea.

Protesting on streets is a barbaric way to do things.

------
ckeck
I'd offer some of them a job...but then again I don't think they want one.

Nor are they willing to take any sort of personal responsibility for the
"mess" they are in. You didn't necessarily get screwed, you probably screwed
yourself. And if you are complaining about tuition costs go protest at the
universities, not Wall Street. How dumb can some people be?

Certain financial institutions may certainly be at fault to a degree, but so
is Washington and Congress and YOU. Take responsibility and do something
positive for the country. This is a joke.

~~~
icandoitbetter
You really believe that a vote has any power?

~~~
ckeck
Absolutely! But people need to vote at every single level from city council to
the Presidency, not just once every 4 years for whoever your favorite news
stations tells you to.

I personally don't feel bad for or listen to those who refuse to vote.

~~~
artmageddon
>Absolutely! But people need to vote at every single level from city council
to the Presidency, not just once every 4 years for whoever your favorite news
stations tells you to.

On the one hand I absolutely agree with you, but on the other hand,
corporations vote with their dollars every single day.

~~~
ckeck
True, but who else votes with their dollars every day? American citizens.
Perhaps some should pay more attention to what they are voting for with their
wallets.

