Occupy Movement right about global recession (see MOD WARNING Post #14)

20Cent wrote: »

Seems it was worth it Occupy has resulted in stricter and more ethical regulation of the financial industry.

According to the British Central Banker responsible for overseeing the City.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/29/bank-of-england-occupy-movement
The Occupy Movement has found an unlikely ally in a senior Bank of England official, Andrew Haldane, who has praised protesters for their role in triggering an overhaul of the financial services sector.

Haldane, who oversees the City for the central bank, said Occupy acted as a lever on policymakers despite criticism that its aims were too vague. He said the protest movement was right to focus on inequality as the chief reason for the 2008 crash, following studies that showed the accumulation of huge wealth funded by debt was directly responsible for the domino-like collapse of the banking sector in 2008.

also

Haldane said Occupy's voice had been "loud and persuasive" and that "policymakers have listened and are acting in ways which will close those fault-lines" with a "reformation of finance that Occupy has helped stir". He said inequality was fuelled by bank lending for speculation on property and other assets that enriched some in society at the expense of others.

Had a look again at the Occupy website:

"We reject the complete control of the European Central Bank (ECB) in dictating our economic policy. Our demand is that the International Monetary Fund (IMF) stay out of our affairs. We do not want their influence or control.
Our demand is that the private bank debt that has been socialised and burdened upon the population of our country who had nothing to do with it be lifted. We will not pay and let our children and their children pay for this crisis that private banks and bondholders have caused. It is their problem, not ours.
Our demand is that the oil and gas reserves off our coast that were criminally handed away to private corporations be returned to sovereign control.
Our demand is for real, participatory democracy – where the people’s interests come first, where the people decide what happens."


Nothing there about stricter regulation of the banking sector. Still God loves a trier.

20Cent wrote: »

Em read the post again. Its refering to the Occupy movement in general, London in particular. Also anyone at a high level in Banking in Ireland will tell you the central bank have become much more proactive in enforcing regulations.

OK, had a look at the Occupy London statement then:

"This initial statement was collectively agreed by over 500 people on the steps of St Paul’s on 16 October 2011. Like all forms of direct democracy, the statement will always be a work in progress and is used as a basis for further discussion and debate.

1. The current system is unsustainable. It is undemocratic and unjust. We need alternatives; this is where we work towards them.
2. We are of all ethnicities, backgrounds, genders, generations, sexualities, dis/abilities and faiths. We stand together with occupations all over the world.
3. We refuse to pay for the banks’ crisis.
4. We do not accept the cuts as either necessary or inevitable. We demand an end to global tax injustice and our democracy representing corporations instead of the people.
5. We want regulators to be genuinely independent of the industries they regulate.
6. We supported the strike on the 30th November and the student action on the 9th November, and actions to defend our health services, welfare, education and employment, and to stop wars and arms dealing.
7. We want structural change towards authentic global equality. The world’s resources must go towards caring for people and the planet, not the military, corporate profits or the rich.
8. The present economic system pollutes land, sea and air, is causing massive loss of natural species and environments, and is accelerating humanity towards irreversible climate change. We call for a positive, sustainable economic system that benefits present and future generations. [1]
9. We stand in solidarity with the global oppressed and we call for an end to the actions of our government and others in causing this oppression.
10. This is what democracy looks like. Come and join us!"

I see now that you must be referring to Number 5.

Is the reform you are referring to the Financial Services Bill in the UK?

http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/1b613d4c-48d8-11e1-974a-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2AmVIm1Xd

http://www.ft.com/intl/cms/s/0/367c04ee-b0ad-11e1-8b36-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2AmVIm1Xd

From what I can see it isn't law yet, so there is no achievement to speak of. Then again, it is widely criticised by competition specialists as not doing enough.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/oct/24/donald-cruickshank-financial-services-bill

http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2012/oct/17/paul-volcker-banking-ringfence-flawed


But if that is the ground-breaking revolutionary change that Occupy wants to claim as success, then that is up to them. Seems to me to be a long way from the type of change being hyped by Occupy. No. 5 was always the least controvsersial of the aims of the Occupy movements (as it was something supported by all major political parties in the UK) and it seems it is not such a great reform after all.

Well the thinnest of straws is still worth grasping.

20Cent wrote: »

Occupy aren't claiming it as a success, Andrew Haldane executive director for financial stability at the Bank if England is saying it.

OK, read the thread title, you are claiming it as proof that Occupy Movement were right. I will await the official statement from Occupy and maybe you should too.

20Cent wrote: »

I'm posting regarding a statement from someone high up in the Bank of England. I happen to agree with his assessment. Doubt Occupy are going to make an "official statement", they know they are right already!
This is a comment from someone high up in the establishment acknowledging that the reasons for Occupy were right morally and intellectually also that it is resulting in positive change.
Care to comment on that or prefer to nit pick and play semantics?

Well, If Occupy and their supporters are going to accept platitudes from bankers as commendations and indications of their success when nothing has changed on their major aims and little has changed on one of their minor aims, that is laughable.

Where is the revolution?

20Cent wrote: »

Did you read the article?
Thats what this thread is about.
If you want to mock and attack straw men there are a dozen other threads doing that.

Yes, I did read the article. It read like a banker talking like a politician running for election and throwing some platitudes in the direction of the Occupy Movement. There you are boys and girls, your little protest made us think a bit differently and we tweaked a few things. A bit like the compliments you would give to the Schools United Nations Project and stuff like that.

I really don't see how you go from those minor comments by a banker to a thread title "Occupy Movement right about global recession". Why is it worthy of a thread in itself? I posted several links to other comments about the banking reforms, none of them praising it and none of them lauding the Occupy Movement for causing them.

Again, I ask, if this is all of the success that the supporters of the Occupy Movement can claim, isn't just a little small?

20Cent wrote: »

Seems it was worth it Occupy has resulted in stricter and more ethical regulation of the financial industry.

According to the British Central Banker responsible for overseeing the City.


http://www.guardian.co.uk/world/2012/oct/29/bank-of-england-occupy-movement
The Occupy Movement has found an unlikely ally in a senior Bank of England official, Andrew Haldane, who has praised protesters for their role in triggering an overhaul of the financial services sector.

Haldane, who oversees the City for the central bank, said Occupy acted as a lever on policymakers despite criticism that its aims were too vague. He said the protest movement was right to focus on inequality as the chief reason for the 2008 crash, following studies that showed the accumulation of huge wealth funded by debt was directly responsible for the domino-like collapse of the banking sector in 2008.

also

Haldane said Occupy's voice had been "loud and persuasive" and that "policymakers have listened and are acting in ways which will close those fault-lines" with a "reformation of finance that Occupy has helped stir". He said inequality was fuelled by bank lending for speculation on property and other assets that enriched some in society at the expense of others.

It's silly to claim this was as a result, direct or indirect, of some randomers who decided to camp in tents.

Regulation is an eternally evolving process. The first Basel Accord was in the late 80's.

It's simple, there are pros and cons of every level of regulation, whether it be lax or strict. There are professionals and experts who work and study in the area for decades. To suggest that the occupy movement gave some added impetus to a subject that most of them probably know very little about, is ridiculous.

Everything is part of the same society. Everything effects everyone. If the banking system fails, the people closest to it also fail fastest. They have as much interest in preserving it as the fella in the tent. That is why regulations are introduced; to stabilise the system.

If occupy claim credit for it....well it'd be a bit like the fella down the pub claiming credit for the American military pulling out of Iraq because he's been giving out about it for years (if they pulled out)


Edit: Just to explicitly add, ironically, these increased regulations should serve to strengthen the banking sector...which might not be what the Occupy Crowd actually want ;-)

This post has been deleted.

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The London finance industry, partially culpable in the economic crisis and widescale loss of jobs in the UK, and the centerpoint of one of the most wide-ranging financial scandals in history, surrounding LIBOR, has itself lost some jobs? Bless them.

Their self-interested complaints about regulation, alleging it will result in apocalyptic job losses, and ignoring their own partial culpability in the crisis, is on similar grounds to FF's historically-blind and hypocritical complaints at FG's handling of the crisis they bear massive responsibility for.

LIBOR was one of the biggest financial frauds in history, economic rent-seeking on an enormous scale that contributes direct damage against income equality, and the centerpoint of the industry that abused that wants to stay free from regulation intended to mitigate that and other issues?
**** that; income equality is one of the most important issues in the world right now, and such reflexive anti-regulation policies are intended on steamrolling down a path that would not only prevent it being challenged, but would directly promote it.


Notice the scaremongering over jobs (without any attempt at quantification of jobs that may be lost in relation to regulations), the generalized use of 'regulations' like they are generally a bad thing, ignoring that regulations are individual laws surrounding specific issues, and not even bothering to pick out individual bad regulations that will be introduced.

Such a vague "regulations are bad" argument that doesn't even bother with specifics.



With regards to Occupy itself: It's success here is in properly bringing certain topics on the radar of mainstream discussion, that are otherwise deliberately shutdown from debate in media, though its success has been fairly limited overall apart from this.
If they genuinely helped achieve getting regulatory enforcement tightened up in the UK, that is something and a good achievement, but the Occupy movement overall seems to have petered out for now.


It's interesting though, the bitter condescension and scorn others place on them (as if offended even); it's like trying to disincentivize people from doing anything in the face of the current economic conditions, to just sit down and shut up, and not make a fuss, do not challenge the current political conditions at all.

Occupy, as disorganized as it was (and even as ineffective as some countries branches have been), should be applauded for putting some of these things on the political radar; income inequality is one of the primary things it sets out to challenge, and when this is barely being discussed in politics or media, it will not change, so any efforts to get that into mainstream discussion should be applauded (you do not need to provide a script of proposals for tackling that, in order to legitimately promote discussion).

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

That's a bit bollocks though, in fact that's the main thing Occupy is complaining about. Take Ireland for example, everyone except those closest to it failed. Bondholders will be repayed in full even if it means the rest of us lose the shirts off our backs. No sign of the golden circle getting screwed over either, with the exception of the Quinns.

Are you a private sector worker with a pension? Have a share account in your local Credit Union? (standard CU accounts are share accounts)


If so, you are probably a "bondholder". Better regulations protect bondholders :rolleyes: . The EU effectively retroactively tried to make up for bad holes in regulation by forcing the Governments to pay out senior bondholders. bondholder only decide who to, or who not to, invest their money in. They don't make any business decisions. If you want to get technical, yeah there can be negative/positive bond covenants, but these are built into the bond and again the investor can only decide whether or not to buy the bond. they can't change it.

"Bondholder" has just become a bogeyman word. People use it without knowing what it means.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Occupy, as disorganized as it was (and even as ineffective as some countries branches have been), should be applauded for putting some of these things on the political radar; income inequality is one of the primary things it sets out to challenge, and when this is barely being discussed in politics or media, it will not change, so any efforts to get that into mainstream discussion should be applauded (you do not need to provide a script of proposals for tackling that, in order to legitimately promote discussion).

The problem is that they were so disorganised and disjoint and all wanting separate things that they didn't have a coherent direction. Therefore the "movement" could equally lay claim to anything.

KyussBishop wrote: »

When discussing regulations, you need to actually talk about specific regulations/policies, because saying "regulation is bad" is like saying "law is bad"; it's a generalization, with quantifications of stuff like 'over-regulation' being massively subjective, all of which doesn't provide for any useful discussion.

You pre-empted a question I was going to ask the OP when he re-appeared. Can you give me a specific example of a regulation that Occupy wanted changed and how they wanted it changed? the thing is they just have a fuzzy idea that regulation failed, which it did and come to the "conclusion" that we need more regulation everywhere and that the more regulation the better!

KyussBishop wrote: »

The core goal of putting income inequality on the agenda was the main point, and it was pushed very coherently and successfully.
The point was not to concentrate as a whole on specific proposals for working on it, but on properly putting the issue on the agenda.

The Occupy movement has mostly petered out from mainstream view by now, so they have had failures in organization and direction, but they more than deserve crediting for their success putting the above on the agenda.

I have never, ever, seen or heard an Occupy mouthpiece decry actual inequality. They only look at wealthier people than them and say "hey that's not fair, I want that too".