
Occupy George - mccooscoos
http://occupygeorge.com/
======
muon
"Votes for Women" movement in 1903 used to deface the penny to spread the
word.

Suffragette-defaced penny :
[http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/objects/iVUVhaKVREWj...](http://www.bbc.co.uk/ahistoryoftheworld/objects/iVUVhaKVREWjsHrr9IoOOA)

------
Shenglong
Can someone brief me on what Occupy Wall Street is trying to do? I can't quite
figure it out.

If they're mad about being unemployed, marching sure isn't going to fix their
situation. If they're mad about government corruption, what exactly would they
like done? If they're mad about the economy in general, isn't Wall Street the
worst place to be protesting? I feel like the traders on Wall Street would be
the first people to want an economic bounce back. Do they just hate rich
people? Hmm.

I've held back on criticizing this movement, but after all this time, I still
can't figure out exactly what they want. It's seeming more and more to me, as
just a way to waste peoples' times, and our tax dollars.

~~~
jamieb
_I feel like the traders on Wall Street would be the first people to want an
economic bounce back._

Hence your failure to understand OWS. Wall Street's job is to make money.
Period. If it happens that it is effective to make money by repeatedly
crashing and booming the stock market, then that is exactly what they will do.

Well, it turns out that it is extremely effective to make money by repeatedly
crashing and booming the stock market.

If it happens that it is legal to pay government officials to pass laws
covering your losses, and if it can be done for a reasonable cost, then they
will do that too.

Well, it turns out that yes, this can be done for a very reasonable cost!

I find it amazing that any person on HN - HACKER news - is unable to imagine
of hundreds of different ways to hack the government-economic system for fun
and profit, or once having imagined them, to imagine that people with the
necessary money would then _not do so_.

Our economy has been rooted.

~~~
mseebach
> If it happens that it is effective to make money by repeatedly crashing and
> booming the stock market, then that is exactly what they will do.

The two crashes of the past decade were painful exactly because "they"
expressly failed to make money. They caused a lot of pain to a lot of 1%ers.
If you think the financial sector likes, and purposefully causes, crashes,
well, you're wrong.

> Our economy has been rooted.

Thing is, the box was left with numerous unpatched known vulnerabilities for
the better part of half a century. Whenever it got sluggish, the sys admins
eagerly added memory and processors, not bothering to consider what might be
wrong. And when the box finally collapsed the sysadmins are more than happy
that all the anger is directed at the hackers.

~~~
jamieb
_They caused a lot of pain to a lot of 1%ers. If you think the financial
sector likes, and purposefully causes, crashes, well, you're wrong._

<http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Black_Wednesday>

George Soros made $1bn in a day. The UK Gvt lost 3.3bn UKP.

Some people believe that Norman Lamont rose to the highest office of economics
in the united kingdom without the knowledge of how currency markets work, and
that he could not possibly have known that his actions would be to hand George
Soros, and others, 3.3bn UKP. But let us pretend that this was incompetence so
that we can answer your point.

Did George Soros purposefully crash the value of the UKP? Yes.

I use this example, rather than other more recent examples like [1], because
it highlights the role of government in the transfer of wealth from the poor
to the rich. In short, if the government were to say to the common man "We
must give this rich person one trillion dollars and you and your children will
pay for it", there would be revolution.

But if the government says "Look! The stock market has crashed! We must give
one trillion dollars to the banks so that the financial system does not
collapse, so that children and dogs do not roam the streets, oh dear God we
must give one trillion dollars to the banks now!" And nobody complains.

Better yet, give one trillion dollars in a highly recognizable bill, lets call
it TARP. Make sure that all of _that_ money is paid back. Then, when someone
says "But we gave you all that money", the rich can claim "TARP? No! We paid
all that back! Look!".

But also give several trillion more in completely one-off, non publicized,
totally forgettable transactions. For example, give citibanks $25bn in TARP
funds - and also give them $275 in non-TARP funds. Then have them pay the
$25bn back. Amazingly, if you ask the average american about citibank, they
will say "Yes, they got $25bn! Bastards". "No! They gave that $25bn back! Look
it up!" "Oh you are right!" And that will be the end of it. Fox News will tell
you almost daily, "Look who paid back their TARP funds! TARP has made a
profit!". TARP is the hand they want you to look at, while they make your
future vanish with the other.

You have to admit, its really impressive.

    
    
      [1] http://www.npr.org/2011/05/02/135846486/how-some-made-millions-betting-against-the-market

~~~
viggity
And yet, curiously, George Soros and #Occupy are both leftists

~~~
viggity
I don't mind getting down voted, but you could at least leave a comment on
why.

~~~
nknight
I didn't vote you down, but I'd say you were missing the point. You think OWS
is exclusively left? Did every ordinary right-leaning American suddenly decide
massive government spending is OK so long as it's to bail big corporations out
of their own f'ups?

------
hkmurakami
This is alarming to me, because this particular act is appears to be pure
sensationalism to me. It also takes the numbers grossly out of context.

When I saw the "Richest 400 vs Bottom 150,000,000" 50/50 split on one of the
bills, my immediate thought was the following:

__Do these people consider how many jobs these top 400 people created over the
last decades, and how much better off the world is because they existed?__

Yes, the US tax structure is flawed. Yes, there are some truly corrupt things
going on. But depicting the situation as a "me vs you" situation rather than
presenting the situation as a structural issue seems very alarming to me. I
know I'm sounding like a lot of random Republican talking heads when
criticizing the "class divide" issue of this movement, but why on earth would
you classify a man like Bill Gates, who created tens of thousands of jobs for
this economy and continues to do great deeds for humanity through his
foundation, along with the truly corrupt?

Generalizations are dangerous, and I'm concerned.

~~~
jamieb
_Do these people consider how many jobs these top 400 people created over the
last decades_

You seem to be claiming that these people actually create jobs. That they have
some magical power, or even non-magical power. Some economic something. Some
accumen. Whatever. You are saying jobs were created and these people are
responsible. Great. If that is the case, may I ask "Why have the stopped now?"

It turns out that jobs are actually created most by small businesses.

<http://www.census.gov/econ/smallbus.html>

~~~
duck
_It turns out that jobs are actually created most by small businesses._

Which many have been able to grow or start due to Microsoft and Bill Gates.

~~~
josefresco
Replace "due to" with "despite" and you're closer to the mark.

------
scottjad
"The richest 1% of Americans control over 1/3 of the wealth, leaving the
bottom 80% with less than 1/5."

This suffers from the pie fallacy covered in
<http://www.paulgraham.com/wealth.html>

Also if you look at
<http://sociology.ucsc.edu/whorulesamerica/power/wealth.html> table 3 you'll
see that the distribution of wealth between 1% and 99% in 2007 (which I assume
is pretty much the same today) was essentially identical to that of 2001,
1989, 1965, 1939 and 1922.

~~~
jamieb
If by the pie fallacy you mean that people are forgetting that the 2011 pie
now represents a much greater total number of dollars than the 1920 pie, then
I must point out that the simple economic fact that if we just multiplied
everyone's bank balance by 1000, nobody would be better off, even though they
now had 1000 times as many dollars.

And while it is true that a 1920's person could not buy an iPad, this is of
scant comfort to a homeless family in 2011.

~~~
scottjad
Your characterization of the pie fallacy is wrong.

pg: "I can remember believing, as a child, that if a few rich people had all
the money, it left less for everyone else. Many people seem to continue to
believe something like this well into adulthood. This fallacy is usually there
in the background when you hear someone talking about how x percent of the
population have y percent of the wealth. If you plan to start a startup, then
whether you realize it or not, you're planning to disprove the Pie Fallacy."

~~~
jamieb
Ah, ok. So "Its possible to create wealth without taking wealth from others".

Unfortunately, although it is possible to do so without taking it from others,
taking it from others is still a viable way to do it. Further, its also
possible to destroy wealth. And its possible for the destruction of wealth to
be asymmetrical.

So is the current financial state an example of wealth creation, wealth
transfer, or wealth destruction?

I'm looking at the national debt, the median house price, and the DJIA and I'm
not seeing "wealth creation". What leads you choose "pie fallacy" as your
answer?

~~~
maigret
Thumbs up for your comment. I'd like to add on that.

Let's take a very prosperous society. Even if all people get wealthier (let's
say 2x), which would mean improvement in life quality and all, and 10% of them
get massively richer (let's say 20x), then we as a society still have a
problem. Because it will be extremely hard for someone who is in the bottom
part to get to the upper one. Because of numerous reason I could elaborate on:
they will not be able to afford the same schooling, or be in the same
expensive circles which creates the networking opportunities. Numerous studies
show growing inequality reduces social mobility (American Dream, where are
you?). Sure, a couple persons will prove that wrong, but statistics are here.

So at some point, inequality is in itself a problem, even if everyone has
enough to eat and more. Because everybody should have chances at succeeding -
that is, changing things, but also taking responsibilities. PG means often
that being a hacker is enough and you can change a lot with that only, but I
think this is not enough. CEOs, judges, bankers, politicians should come from
a diverse background. And you don't get there without some equality.

And don't get me started on inheritance ;)

------
iwwr
The 1% are hardly representative of the true 'ruling elite'. This group is
probably around a few hundred people, no more than a few thousand. Wall Street
is also not the center of power, but rather Washington DC and the Federal
Reserve.

~~~
sambeau
To quote a recent trader:

    
    
      "Governments don't rule the world; Goldman Sachs rules the world"
    

If you need any more explanation, ponder this question:

    
    
      Who is the national debt owed to?
    

_Hint: it's not China_

~~~
maigret
A trader? This guy was proved to be a joke.
[http://www.businessinsider.com/turns-out-the-trader-who-
scar...](http://www.businessinsider.com/turns-out-the-trader-who-scared-the-
bejeezus-out-of-bbc-viewers-was-just-some-guy-living-in-his-girlfriends-
house-2011-9)

~~~
sambeau
Clearly he wasn't much of a trader.

I did read another article where they interviews other traders about what he
had said. While they disagreed with some of his other points they were in
general agreement about that one.

~~~
kokey
Goldman Sachs is expected to report a loss at the next results, seems like
ruling the world doesn't guarantee profits ;-)

It's true that day traders don't care if the market is going up or down, just
like many specialists focusing on their domain doesn't care that much about
the industry that employs them. Some people make money on volatility (day
traders), but a lot of others make their money on trading on certainty
(pension funds). Some people have a vested interest in seeing certain markets
crash, e.g. if your industry struggles because of materials are getting
expensive because of high demand from the building industry.

------
c4urself
Very innovative idea. There is probably a law against writing/printing on
money in the U.S., though.

~~~
furyg3
It's sad to think that the organizers of this will probably be arrested for
"conspiracy to deface government property" or something.

Or, since they're also advancing a political message of 'fear', maybe it will
be terrorism?

~~~
maximusprime
The correct course of action for them, is to put up candidates to be elected
into office. That's what a democracy is about.

You don't get anywhere by whining and moaning on the streets that life isn't
fair. You certainly don't get taken seriously by anyone.

~~~
nknight
A long time ago, some crackpots thought protests were worth protecting. Can't
remember who they were, must not have had much impact...

 _Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or
prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or
of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances._

~~~
maximusprime
heh "A long time ago" doesn't really exist in America.

------
marcamillion
The design of the site is awesome...but seriously, this anti-
capitalism/populist nonsense is getting ridiculous.

------
thevinnie
When I tried to access the site at work (we use Postini for our web
filtering), I got the message below. What I found most interesting was the
category the site was blocked under.

Access Denied The web resource <http://occupygeorge.com/> has been deemed by
your administrator to be unsafe or unsuitable for you to access. The resource
has been blocked. No further action is required. Reason: The category of Hate
Speech has been blocked by your System Administrator

------
ppereira
There is a lot of interesting research on wealth inequality in the US and
around the world. For those interested in looking at data, I suggest the
following as a starting point:

A historical database of top incomes in several countries:
<http://184.168.89.58/sketch/>

A nice theoretical starting point on taxation and inequality:
<http://arxiv.org/pdf/cond-mat/0002374> Note that the term used to express
trade in the first section of the paper could also be used to model
progressive/negative tax rates.

Plots of the income going to the top 0.1% above a plot of the US top marginal
tax rate (a proxy for the progressivity of the tax scheme):
[http://visualecon.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-
content/uploads...](http://visualecon.wpengine.netdna-cdn.com/wp-
content/uploads/percent_income_top_0_1.gif)

The top 5-10% of incomes tend to follow a pareto distribution which has a very
fat tail. If the share owned by the top 0.01% increases, so will the share of
the top 0.1% and the top 1%. Conversely, the share of the bottom 90% will
decrease. In comparison to the 1970s, the take home pay of the bottom 90% is
probably 30% lower just because of these distributional effects, while the
relative income of the top 0.1% has increased 5 or 6 times. The next time you
see an exorbitantly high CEO salary, it might be worth wondering how it
affects you. Likely, many readers here are in the top 95-99% for whom the
effect is somewhat neutral.

Some argue that inequality is good for growth, and that a rising tide raises
all boats, etc. But the literature regarding the correlation between GINI
coefficients and long-term growth is weak and not conclusive. When I looked at
the data from the income database cited above, I could see little correlation
for developed and undeveloped countries. I seem to remember reading an MIT
thesis to the same effect.

Perfect redistribution and equality would obviously eliminate economic
incentives for growth. Near-perfect inequality, might have the same result.
The very small fraction of the population in which wealth has condensed would
be economically motivated, but the rest of the population that is living on
the welfare state (e.g. welfare, minimum wage + EITC) would have a reduced
incentive to earn more. A detailed analysis of the EITC is interesting, but
peripheral to my point.

Furthermore, when inequality varies like a power law, it is easy to see that a
rising tide with reduced Pareto coefficient (increased inequality) could lead
to a worse outcome for the majority.

The obvious way to address inequality is through progressive or redistributive
taxation. The theoretical paper linked above shows how increasing
progressivity reduces inequality, but this result is also intuitive. With a
100% redistributive tax, one would have perfect equality.

Increasing income tax progressivity alters financial incentives and creates
incentives for small business and corporations that target the (more affluent)
majority. By contrast, flat or regressive taxes alter the economics to favour
larger customers. There is a related but much more complex story for
international taxation. When corporations accumulate their income in corporate
tax havens and then repatriate that income during a "tax holiday", the result
is a highly regressive tax system.

Many argue about addressing inequality through "job creation" and "big
government projects". I don't have a story related to this, but the Canadian
data I have looked at makes me a little suspicious. I guess when you inject
funds at a single point in the economy (e.g. corporation) and then allow it to
trickle down to employees, portions of those funds would be funnelled off at
every level of the corporation and the net result may be an increase in
inequality. However, if that corporation is performing a valuable social
service to the public, then that may mitigate the inequality.

I guess my main point is that the story of income inequality is a complex one
that is closely related to taxation. As such, it is a policy choice of the
government and the people who elect them. If the "99%" feel that they are not
satisfied with the deal that has been struck, then they can voice their
opinion in the hope that the government will alter that deal.

~~~
cantastoria
1\. Increase taxes on the rich.

2\. ???

3\. Better wealth distribution.

I have yet to see a good explanation for what happens in step 2. Raising taxes
on the rich is the easy part. How exactly does that money get redistributed?
Are we supposed to suddenly trust the federal government to spend its money
wisely? What will they spend it on and why?

The papers you cite talk about wealth distribution as if it's obvious how it
is going to happen. I'm not so sure that's the case and if the results of the
recent stimulus spending in the US are any guide we need to think of some new
ideas before considering this course of action.

~~~
ppereira
2\. Actually, with respect to progressive or negative taxation, the
redistribution is quite direct. The government takes more from some and
distributes it to others through benefits, the EITC, welfare, tax credits,
etc. The factor most correlated to income inequality is not total tax revenue
and government spending, but the amount of progressivity in the tax scheme.

There are also many market models, only one of which I cited above, that
describe the evolution of the income distribution in response to changes in
tax schemes. The models are complicated but their basic ideas are not. The
redistribution changes market incentives and capitalism does its job to modify
the Pareto coefficient and income inequality.

------
LetBinding
They are protesting the casino economy.

------
acoster
This is more an annoyance to the 99% that gets such bills (many places don't
accept defaced banknotes).

~~~
ars
The bill will not be accepted by anyone, so the only one who will see it is
the person who printed it.

They could deposit it in a bank, but the bank will just send it to the Fed to
be destroyed and replaced. (They have automated scanners that look for dirty,
worn out, or defaced bills.)

So this is pointless if they want these notes to actually circulate - all they
are doing is wasting money used to reprint the notes.

~~~
sixtofour
I used to see decorated bills fairly regularly, back when I mostly used cash.
I was never aware of them not being accepted; it never bothered me.

One of my favorites, on a $1 bill: "Taxes are revolting; why aren't you?"

------
dizidoro
the problem is mainstream-corporate media is not showing the demands, for
those who say the movement has no clear demands, i recommend watching Young
Turks : <http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RCiAG7LF7Q4> and Democracy now!
:<http://www.democracynow.org/>

------
forensic
Great hack

