Worldwide Occupy Movement?

anishboi · 01-02-2012 9:40pm #1

What do you think of it and it's objectives? Should it be done more throughout Ireland?

Personally I'm in favour of closing the social wealth gap in our society.

PeadarCo · 01-02-2012 10:14pm

What are its objectives? What would success be for the Occupy movement? Any time these questioned have been asked the questions been ignorned or goal posts shifted and thats before you even look for properly thought out proposals. Even the whole 99% v 1% thing there was a whole thread about that and no agreement was reached, the 1% kept changing.

Thats what I percieve about the Irish version. Obviously the Wall Street version has achieved international attention so it is a success in that sense. The problem is all they seem to do is protest and beyond that have no plans even the US one spent 3 months protesting before being hold to move(Also a sign of success that it managed to recruit enough people to inconviance the locals). Again basing from what I've seen from the Irish version the movement is not interested in democracy unless its them or their decsions.

As whole they seem a very well meaning group of people who are hopelessly nieve and at times don't seem to have done basic research about what ever they're protesting about. Look its nice to protest but unless you have an alternative idea thought out your're wasting your time as option 1 can't be changed without an option 2.

hatrickpatrick · 01-02-2012 11:10pm

PeadarCo wrote: »

What are its objectives? What would success be for the Occupy movement? Any time these questioned have been asked the questions been ignorned or goal posts shifted and thats before you even look for properly thought out proposals. Even the whole 99% v 1% thing there was a whole thread about that and no agreement was reached, the 1% kept changing..

From Wikipedia:
" Naomi Wolf has argued that the impression created by much of the media that the protestors do not have clear demands is false. Wolf argues they do have clear demands including a desire to end what they see as the corrupting effect of money on politics. [68] The New Yorker magazine stated that the claims of Lasn and White were specific: tighten banking-industry regulations, ban high-frequency trading, arrest all 'financial fraudsters' responsible for the 2008 crash, and form a Presidential commission to investigate and prosecute corruption in politics [39] According to Bloomberg Businessweek, protesters want more and better jobs, more equal distribution of income, bank reform, and a reduction of the influence of corporations on politics.[69]"

Seems pretty clear to me.

One person, one vote. Nothing more, nothing less.
No special treatment because you're loaded or because your dad is best friends with the minister. No more vested interests having more influence than the ordinary population. No more blind eyes turned to corporate corruption and crime. No more "bailouts for buddies".

A society which is run for the benefit of everyone, and not the current system which is run for the benefit of the political elite, with any benefits to the general population mere "side effects".

Godge · 01-02-2012 11:24pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

From Wikipedia:
" Naomi Wolf has argued that the impression created by much of the media that the protestors do not have clear demands is false. Wolf argues they do have clear demands including a desire to end what they see as the corrupting effect of money on politics. [68] The New Yorker magazine stated that the claims of Lasn and White were specific: tighten banking-industry regulations, ban high-frequency trading, arrest all 'financial fraudsters' responsible for the 2008 crash, and form a Presidential commission to investigate and prosecute corruption in politics [39] According to Bloomberg Businessweek, protesters want more and better jobs, more equal distribution of income, bank reform, and a reduction of the influence of corporations on politics.[69]"

Seems pretty clear to me.

One person, one vote. Nothing more, nothing less.
No special treatment because you're loaded or because your dad is best friends with the minister. No more vested interests having more influence than the ordinary population. No more blind eyes turned to corporate corruption and crime. No more "bailouts for buddies".

A society which is run for the benefit of everyone, and not the current system which is run for the benefit of the political elite, with any benefits to the general population mere "side effects".

I want motherhood and apple pie. I want children dancing at the crossroads. I want everyone to have their own four-bedroomed house with a large garden somewhere nice in the countryside with fast broadband and public transport every five minutes to take them to work. They should also have two cars, an apartment in Spain and three holidays a year.

I guess we would all vote for that.

RMD · 02-02-2012 12:11am

I like the idea of the movement but the problem is the people involved. The people sitting outside Central Bank are a bunch of fúcking idiots and have completely alienated many many people from the potential cause. It pisses me off when they consider myself and themselves on the same level in society.

nyarlothothep · 02-02-2012 1:09am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

From Wikipedia:
" Naomi Wolf has argued that the impression created by much of the media that the protestors do not have clear demands is false. Wolf argues they do have clear demands including a desire to end what they see as the corrupting effect of money on politics. [68] The New Yorker magazine stated that the claims of Lasn and White were specific: tighten banking-industry regulations, ban high-frequency trading, arrest all 'financial fraudsters' responsible for the 2008 crash, and form a Presidential commission to investigate and prosecute corruption in politics [39] According to Bloomberg Businessweek, protesters want more and better jobs, more equal distribution of income, bank reform, and a reduction of the influence of corporations on politics.[69]"

Seems pretty clear to me.

One person, one vote. Nothing more, nothing less.
No special treatment because you're loaded or because your dad is best friends with the minister. No more vested interests having more influence than the ordinary population. No more blind eyes turned to corporate corruption and crime. No more "bailouts for buddies".

A society which is run for the benefit of everyone, and not the current system which is run for the benefit of the political elite, with any benefits to the general population mere "side effects".

hmm yep, seems reasonable compared to this new world of austerity, bailing out parasitic dead banks, destroying the livelihoods of millions, creating a new lost generation etc all for the sake of protecting elite financial interests simply because that is the status quo we have at present.

hatrickpatrick · 02-02-2012 2:15am

Godge wrote: »

I want motherhood and apple pie. I want children dancing at the crossroads. I want everyone to have their own four-bedroomed house with a large garden somewhere nice in the countryside with fast broadband and public transport every five minutes to take them to work. They should also have two cars, an apartment in Spain and three holidays a year.

I guess we would all vote for that.

So you're basically saying that asking to live in a proper democratic system where there isn't a culture of undue corporate and financial influence on policymakers is unreasonable?

It's unreasonable to ask that the government be required to act in the interests of everybody, not just their golf pals?

Attitudes like yours disgust me TBH. We live in a democracy. The last time I checked, it's supposed to be a democracy for everyone, not just for those with the spending power to buy government policy, or the social influence to call their friends up and ask for a favour, say, I dunno, a €30bn bailout for your mate's bank, for example :mad:

RichieC · 02-02-2012 3:58am

Godge wrote: »

I want motherhood and apple pie. I want children dancing at the crossroads. I want everyone to have their own four-bedroomed house with a large garden somewhere nice in the countryside with fast broadband and public transport every five minutes to take them to work. They should also have two cars, an apartment in Spain and three holidays a year.

I guess we would all vote for that.

Honestly, the cheek of people..

RichieC · 02-02-2012 4:00am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So you're basically saying that asking to live in a proper democratic system where there isn't a culture of undue corporate and financial influence on policymakers is unreasonable?

It's unreasonable to ask that the government be required to act in the interests of everybody, not just their golf pals?

Attitudes like yours disgust me TBH. We live in a democracy. The last time I checked, it's supposed to be a democracy for everyone, not just for those with the spending power to buy government policy, or the social influence to call their friends up and ask for a favour, say, I dunno, a €30bn bailout for your mate's bank, for example :mad:

When the media successfully divides every issue into left and right like it has in the US, expect even more infuriating "opinions" than the drek you just quoted...

PeadarCo · 02-02-2012 9:08am

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

From Wikipedia:
" Naomi Wolf has argued that the impression created by much of the media that the protestors do not have clear demands is false. Wolf argues they do have clear demands including a desire to end what they see as the corrupting effect of money on politics. [68] The New Yorker magazine stated that the claims of Lasn and White were specific: tighten banking-industry regulations, ban high-frequency trading, arrest all 'financial fraudsters' responsible for the 2008 crash, and form a Presidential commission to investigate and prosecute corruption in politics [39] According to Bloomberg Businessweek, protesters want more and better jobs, more equal distribution of income, bank reform, and a reduction of the influence of corporations on politics.[69]"

Seems pretty clear to me.

One person, one vote. Nothing more, nothing less.
No special treatment because you're loaded or because your dad is best friends with the minister. No more vested interests having more influence than the ordinary population. No more blind eyes turned to corporate corruption and crime. No more "bailouts for buddies".

A society which is run for the benefit of everyone, and not the current system which is run for the benefit of the political elite, with any benefits to the general population mere "side effects".

Very simple and selective. Why just companies. Unions are also vested interests and can be just as bad. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0202/1224311111939.html Why not ban them (Not something I'd support). Why not ban organisation that lobby for people on the dole, they're just the same as groups that campaign for tax breaks for the rich.(Again not something I'd support)

Is the Occupy movement not a vested interest itself. It wants society to be a certain way and will support people who will further this. I know it can be said its the working to improve society but anything that could be classed as a vested interest will say that.

My point is saying your against vested interests is basiclly like saying you're against people coming together and working towards common goals. Thats what unions, companies, charities, politcal parties etc are essentially. All could be described as being vested interests. Being against them is wishing for a uptopia. Any ideas put forward by the Movement in Ireland(the only one I'm in any way fimiliar with can't really comment on others) follow the utopian line.

A secondly any movement that can't communicate its ideas clearly to the general public will never ever succeed no matter how good its ideas actually are.

20Cent · 02-02-2012 10:34am

RMD wrote: »

I like the idea of the movement but the problem is the people involved. The people sitting outside Central Bank are a bunch of fúcking idiots and have completely alienated many many people from the potential cause. It pisses me off when they consider myself and themselves on the same level in society.

Why do you think they are idiots and why do they p1ss u off?
What does "same level in society mean"?

20Cent · 02-02-2012 10:35am

PeadarCo wrote: »

Very simple and selective. Why just companies. Unions are also vested interests and can be just as bad. http://www.irishtimes.com/newspaper/opinion/2012/0202/1224311111939.html Why not ban them (Not something I'd support). Why not ban organisation that lobby for people on the dole, they're just the same as groups that campaign for tax breaks for the rich.(Again not something I'd support)

Is the Occupy movement not a vested interest itself. It wants society to be a certain way and will support people who will further this. I know it can be said its the working to improve society but anything that could be classed as a vested interest will say that.

My point is saying your against vested interests is basiclly like saying you're against people coming together and working towards common goals. Thats what unions, companies, charities, politcal parties etc are essentially. All could be described as being vested interests. Being against them is wishing for a uptopia. Any ideas put forward by the Movement in Ireland(the only one I'm in any way fimiliar with can't really comment on others) follow the utopian line.

A secondly any movement that can't communicate its ideas clearly to the general public will never ever succeed no matter how good its ideas actually are.

Maybe its because you are not listening?
For example the post you quote says nothing about banning lobbying.

PeadarCo · 02-02-2012 11:52am

20Cent wrote: »

Maybe its because you are not listening?
For example the post you quote says nothing about banning lobbying.

Thats the point judging from the amount of people at Dame Street very very few are listening. I have managed to walk by it and not notice it.(That wasn't done on purpose I noticed it coming back up the street)

To make your're life easier. I'll ask like many other posters again. What are the aims of the movement? What would the movement define as success? Can you point to me a detailed plan to how achieve these aims?What are the advantages and disadvantages of your plan versus the current one?

The group has been around long enough to have had time to come up with answers to all the above questions. If you can answer them a real debate can had on the merits of the Occupy plan verus the current governments plan.

Also have you looked at why people are not listening, why beyond the one off stunt the group have attracted not attention in Ireland in the general media. The private media needs people to listen to it so that means talking about things people are interested and prepared to listen to.

My other point is the Occupy movement is a vested interest. We all are. Vested interests are not a problem providing they don't recieve undue attention. But what is undue attention depends entirely on your point of view. In going to war against vested interests Occupy are commiting themselves to an unachieveable goal.

20Cent · 02-02-2012 12:17pm

PeadarCo wrote: »

Thats the point judging from the amount of people at Dame Street very very few are listening. I have managed to walk by it and not notice it.(That wasn't done on purpose I noticed it coming back up the street)

To make your're life easier. I'll ask like many other posters again. What are the aims of the movement? What would the movement define as success? Can you point to me a detailed plan to how achieve these aims?What are the advantages and disadvantages of your plan versus the current one?

The group has been around long enough to have had time to come up with answers to all the above questions. If you can answer them a real debate can had on the merits of the Occupy plan verus the current governments plan.

Also have you looked at why people are not listening, why beyond the one off stunt the group have attracted not attention in Ireland in the general media. The private media needs people to listen to it so that means talking about things people are interested and prepared to listen to.

My other point is the Occupy movement is a vested interest. We all are. Vested interests are not a problem providing they don't recieve undue attention. But what is undue attention depends entirely on your point of view. In going to war against vested interests Occupy are commiting themselves to an unachieveable goal.

Since when do protesters have to come up with alternative solutions?
Were Vietnam protesters asked to come up with a plan to end the "red menace". Were anti-Iraq war protesters asked to come up with a plan to stop terrorism worldwide, anti-apartheid etc etc... A solution is evading even the most powerful people in the world at the moment so expecting normal citizens to come up with one is pure fantasy and something they have specifically stated they are not going to do even if it was possible.

What protests do is highlight a large broad issue. The current plan is not working and is unfair. This is not a controversial view it is held by most commentator even Colm McCarthy has said so in his columns.

Differentiate between sovereign and private debt for a start. All solutions proposed so far a have been to the benefit of a minority instead of solutions that benefit the majority and hit the weakest hardest. Pretty simple really. It is working very well in the US even the republican candidates are talking about it. Wall St money is becoming a hindrance rather than a benefit to politicians. The SEC is getting tougher on Wall St fraud etc etc

Recently here the Anglo payment became a big news story none of the other payments really hit the news to such an extent. The unlock Nama group have brought the secrecy and waste that is Nama into the media once again. Anglo and Nama are being discussed on daytime TV, check out the letters pages in the papers, online media and the radio. I'm hearing people who are normally uninterested in politics asking questions now and discussing it. Thats mostly what occupy in Ireland is about for me anyway raising awareness and creating discussion because its not coming from our government anyway.

And before you say it I'm not claiming this is only due to ODS no one is under the illusion that one action, march or whatever is going to bring about the changes we need overnight. Lots lots of people working together or individually will. Occupy is a part of that. If you think that there is nothing that can be done or that everything is fine then Occupy should be irrelevant to you just ignore it then.

hatrickpatrick · 02-02-2012 12:48pm

Posted this on AH a while ago as an example of what should happen and what I would consider a good outcome:

Let me put this to YOU: What if I got MY way, and no corporate money was allowed in politics, any politician found to have cut a corrupt deal was immediately removed from office and a bye election held to determine if the people would tolerate it, bankers who f*ck up and developers f*ck up didn't get bailed out but had to face the harsh reality of the losses they inflicted on everyone else, and we created a truly democratic society in which each person has one vote, and there are no vested interests whatsoever controlling anything beyond that and overriding the will of the people?

If there had to be a complete and total disconnect between the corporate world and the political world, and if this was vigourously regulated, with extremely harsh penalties for any politicians violating the rule?

If accepting middle of the night phone calls from bank managers asking for multi billion euro bailouts without properly consulting the rest of the cabinet were not only outlawed, but resulted in an immediate expulsion from office?

If white collar crime was vigorously pursued and there was absolutely no question whatsoever of any sweeping under the carpet, as has been the case with Anglo?

If developers and others who made bad investments were left to deal with the consequences without taxpayer subsidised bailouts, just like any other citizen who chooses to gamble and finds that they gambled badly?

These are just a few examples, I'm sure I could think of many, many more. What would you say to a society like that though? A society with proper equality, where everyone has to play by the exact same rules, and the penalty for failing to do so is the same - regardless of any personal connections you have or friends in high places? If confidential discussions between corporations and ministers simply weren't allowed? I could go on and on.

How about it?
A society of equals. No elite. No cronies. No VIPs. One set of rules for everybody. Politicians who are legally required to serve the nation, not their friends.

What say you?

PeadarCo · 02-02-2012 12:56pm

20Cent wrote: »

Since when do protesters have to come up with alternative solutions?

Then why are you protesting we all can complain. The alternative put forward by the anti-war protestors was get out of the country involved. In the

20Cent wrote: »

What protests do is highlight a large broad issue. The current plan is not working and is unfair. This is not a controversial view it is held by most commentator even Colm McCarthy has said so in his columns.

No point protesting if you don't have an alternative as things will never change. The only reason why I give the current plan any support is that I don't see another viable option. I would support anyone with properly thought out alternative.

The occupy movement highlights nothing thats hasn't been highlighted already. Many of the people such as Colm McCarthy can construct a coherant arguement and also know what they're talking about. Why not just leave to the proffessionals?

PeadarCo · 02-02-2012 1:09pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

How about it?
A society of equals. No elite. No cronies. No VIPs. One set of rules for everybody. Politicians who are legally required to serve the nation, not their friends.

What say you?

Sorry won't ever happen. Its a utopian ideal. Fianna Fail listened to the people and look what happened to them. They were elected 3 time in a row. The top 3 parties followed similar crazy spending and banking policies. Scofflaw posted that in both the 2002 and 2007 elections they got 3/4+ of the vote. Had they acted in the interests of the nation they would have ignored the electorate or the will of the people. But if they had done that they would have been sacked.

Two we are not all equal. Some people work harder than others, some people have talents are certain areas that others don't. We are all different and unequal in many different ways.

And why the fixation about corporates? What about unions they rejected pay cuts and so it has meant cut backs in services as well qualified people leave.

Also what has this to do with the Occupy movement. The ULA and parties like them espouse those type of views why not just vote for them?

Godge · 02-02-2012 2:37pm

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So you're basically saying that asking to live in a proper democratic system where there isn't a culture of undue corporate and financial influence on policymakers is unreasonable?

It's unreasonable to ask that the government be required to act in the interests of everybody, not just their golf pals?

Attitudes like yours disgust me TBH. We live in a democracy. The last time I checked, it's supposed to be a democracy for everyone, not just for those with the spending power to buy government policy, or the social influence to call their friends up and ask for a favour, say, I dunno, a €30bn bailout for your mate's bank, for example :mad:

What exactly about my post disgusts you? You were asking for a real democracy and from your previous musings on this subject where you talked about direct democracy etc., you are clearly looking for plebiscites on various policy issues. Read my post again below.

Godge wrote: »

I want motherhood and apple pie. I want children dancing at the crossroads. I want everyone to have their own four-bedroomed house with a large garden somewhere nice in the countryside with fast broadband and public transport every five minutes to take them to work. They should also have two cars, an apartment in Spain and three holidays a year.

I guess we would all vote for that.

See, all I did was suggest some things that say a group of voters could get together, collect signatures and require a vote on and I guessed the outcome of the vote. What is the problem with pointing out some logical outcomes of your approach? Similarly, I am sure that if we had a vote on various other issues, such as free education for all, free health care for all, increased social protection for those at the bottom, no service charges, property tax or septic tank charge and tax the rich (whoever they are) that we would all overwhelmingly back it fully.

Ultimately, what I see as the problem with your version of direct democracy (including where you propose various immediate removals from office - how this would work in reality perplexes me) is that is very little difference between your version and mob rule. And that has been tried before. Look at the history of France between 1789 and 1799 which led to the rise of Napoleon, the Russian Revolution that ultimately facilitated Stalin and other examples throughout history. Mob rule is failed rule. We have representative democracy because it works better than direct democracy. Direct democracy allows people to assert their rights without considering their responsibilities.

20Cent · 02-02-2012 2:41pm

PeadarCo wrote: »

Then why are you protesting we all can complain. The alternative put forward by the anti-war protestors was get out of the country involved. In the

Yeah a simple clear broad message. Occupy also have a simple clear broad message you seem to want a list of solutions from them. Protests draw attention to issues.

Godge · 02-02-2012 2:56pm

20Cent wrote: »

Since when do protesters have to come up with alternative solutions?
Were Vietnam protesters asked to come up with a plan to end the "red menace". Were anti-Iraq war protesters asked to come up with a plan to stop terrorism worldwide, anti-apartheid etc etc... A solution is evading even the most powerful people in the world at the moment so expecting normal citizens to come up with one is pure fantasy and something they have specifically stated they are not going to do even if it was possible.

You are making it sound a bit like a Monty Python or Father Ted sort of protest. "Down with that sort of thing" etc. What do you want to change? Everything. Into what? Don't know, maybe some form of direct democracy. What will that do? Prevent bankers ringing in the middle of the night to get their banks guaranteed. And what will that solve? Dunno.

20Cent wrote: »

What protests do is highlight a large broad issue. The current plan is not working and is unfair. This is not a controversial view it is held by most commentator even Colm McCarthy has said so in his columns.

What is unfair about introducing a property tax that won't be paid by poor people on low wages and social welfare who can't afford to own their own houses?
What is unfair about increasing capital gains tax?
What is unfair about increasing capital acquisitions tax?
What is unfair about a programme to target social welfare cheats and those who won't work rather than those who can't find a job?

Is it working, well the deficit is coming down and the measures above are helping that process so I would think it is working (albeit slowly) and it is fair in that while all are suffering but those that are richer and own property are suffering more.

Finally, tell me as a supporter of Colm McCarthy, do you support the rest of what he says in various reports he had written about cutting expenditure?

20Cent wrote: »

Differentiate between sovereign and private debt for a start. All solutions proposed so far a have been to the benefit of a minority instead of solutions that benefit the majority and hit the weakest hardest. Pretty simple really. It is working very well in the US even the republican candidates are talking about it. Wall St money is becoming a hindrance rather than a benefit to politicians. The SEC is getting tougher on Wall St fraud etc etc .

We as voters elected the government who borrowed that money on our behalf, who made decisions to turn systemic bank debt into sovereign debt. You can't go back and undo the decisions that FF made, you can only live with the consequences. Two options, slowly work our way out of this with the suffering less or default, and collapse the economy making the current austerity seem like a holiday in the sun (which nobody would affored ever again)

20Cent wrote: »

Recently here the Anglo payment became a big news story none of the other payments really hit the news to such an extent. The unlock Nama group have brought the secrecy and waste that is Nama into the media once again. Anglo and Nama are being discussed on daytime TV, check out the letters pages in the papers, online media and the radio. I'm hearing people who are normally uninterested in politics asking questions now and discussing it. Thats mostly what occupy in Ireland is about for me anyway raising awareness and creating discussion because its not coming from our government anyway..

Anglo are being discussed now, three and a half-years too late. The horse has bolted, why are we discussing the stable door. We owe money for the horse, even though it has bolted, we have to pay up.

20Cent wrote: »

And before you say it I'm not claiming this is only due to ODS no one is under the illusion that one action, march or whatever is going to bring about the changes we need overnight. Lots lots of people working together or individually will. Occupy is a part of that. If you think that there is nothing that can be done or that everything is fine then Occupy should be irrelevant to you just ignore it then.

I am glad you are not claiming that any perceived increased awareness is only due to ODS. I would find it hard to believe that any of it is due to ODS.

Thankfully I don't think about ODS too much, only when I am on sites like this and see drivel about how marvellous they are. The rest of the time I, like the 99%*, forget they exist.

*the 99% who have never even heard of ODS

20Cent · 02-02-2012 4:51pm

Godge wrote: »

Is it working, well the deficit is coming down and the measures above are helping that process so I would think it is working (albeit slowly) and it is fair in that while all are suffering but those that are richer and own property are suffering more.

Finally, tell me as a supporter of Colm McCarthy, do you support the rest of what he says in various reports he had written about cutting expenditure?

You think its working and the rich are suffering more :rolleyes:
Good luck with that.
Pretty much every expert disagrees.

Godge · 02-02-2012 5:37pm

20Cent wrote: »

You think its working and the rich are suffering more :rolleyes:
Good luck with that.
Pretty much every expert disagrees.

Yes, I do think it's working. Ratings agencies (Fitch and S&P), the Troika, serious economists tend to agree. Here is an extract from Fitch's last statement on Ireland where they again held our credit rating stable while dropping it for a lot of Europe.

"
The strong political support behind the multi-year fiscal consolidation plan and the broader public acceptance of its necessity are key supports to the adjustment process. According to preliminary data, the 2011 deficit-to-GDP ratio was better than the 10.6% target set in the IMF-EU programme with current official estimates suggesting the deficit came in at just under 10%. Fitch believes the 2012 target of 8.5% is attainable, not least due to the lowering of the interest rate on the EU portion (a total of EUR 40.2bn by 2013) of the official loans.
Export-driven recovery characterised the first half of 2011. While domestic demand is still contracting, the flexibility of the Irish economy, in particular the cut in nominal wages and prices resulting in a sharp improvement of competitiveness, helped to take advantage of strong external demand in early 2011.
Overall, financial stability concerns have receded following the PCAR exercise in March 2011. Market confidence has increased in Irish financial institutions, as evidenced by deposit stabilisation in H211 following previous sharp declines, successful raising of private capital by the Bank of Ireland and wholesale funding transactions. Following the public recapitalisation of the sector by EUR63bn, the capital adequacy ratios of the three largest banks are among the highest in the eurozone, providing a sizeable buffer for the expected losses. However, downside risks remain - non-performing loans are still rising, property prices have yet to reach a bottom and low mortgage foreclosure rates suggest further adjustment lies ahead."

Notice how they credit the reduction in the interest rate on the EU portion of the loans - something that FG and Labour said they would get a better deal on than FF. They did do that so all credit to them.

Maybe you could post a link or a quote from a reputable international organisation - IMF, EU, OECD, etc. - that says Ireland's recovery is not working. Yes, it will be slow, yes, it will be painful, yes, we will all have to suffer cutbacks and drops in our standard of living.

The only people who say it is not working are those who cling to the illusion that we can live like rich Germans while earning money like the Greeks.

Jonny7 · 02-02-2012 6:29pm

20Cent wrote: »

Yeah a simple clear broad message. Occupy also have a simple clear broad message you seem to want a list of solutions from them.

For the one-thousandth time -

No they don't.

20Cent · 02-02-2012 6:44pm

Jonny7 wrote: »

For the one-thousandth time -

No they don't.

Godge · 02-02-2012 7:00pm

20Cent wrote: »

So the clear message as taken from the cartoon is:

- Healthcare (what exactly on healthcare?)
- Nuclear disarmament (this is a new one for ODS, what do they want on this?)
- Jobs (do they want the banks to create jobs?)
- Put bankers on trial (mustn't be the banks they want to create jobs)
- Tax the rich (we have started to do that, see property tax in last budget with increases in CAT and CGT)
- Get $ out of politics
- Government for the people by the people (motherhood and apple pie)
- We are 99% (aren't most of us)
- Regulate banks
- The bank stole my home (you mean you didn't pay your mortgage)

Yes, definitely a clear message but no mention in that cartoon about reclaiming the oil reserves off our western shores.

P.S. I didn't miss the banker guiding the media which is presumably why you posted it but the great thing about that cartoon is that it is difficult to see who isn't being made fun of.

20Cent · 02-02-2012 7:26pm

Godge wrote: »

So the clear message as taken from the cartoon is:

- Healthcare (what exactly on healthcare?)
- Nuclear disarmament (this is a new one for ODS, what do they want on this?)
- Jobs (do they want the banks to create jobs?)
- Put bankers on trial (mustn't be the banks they want to create jobs)
- Tax the rich (we have started to do that, see property tax in last budget with increases in CAT and CGT)
- Get $ out of politics
- Government for the people by the people (motherhood and apple pie)
- We are 99% (aren't most of us)
- Regulate banks
- The bank stole my home (you mean you didn't pay your mortgage)

Yes, definitely a clear message but no mention in that cartoon about reclaiming the oil reserves off our western shores.

P.S. I didn't miss the banker guiding the media which is presumably why you posted it but the great thing about that cartoon is that it is difficult to see who isn't being made fun of.

Just to explain the cartoon to you and hopefully you might finally understand though I think at this stage you are pulling the p1ss.

As you can see there are a large number of people there with lots of signs. When confronted with such a thing the media and people observing need to interpret what is going on.
One way would be to take every sign literally and apply its content to everyone else there. This would be dishonest and not a correct interpretation. For instance claiming all the Tea Party were racist because some of them were holding racist signs. The shock media does this all the time or else it is a useful way to disregard the message if one doesn't like it.

The other option is to try and make sense of the situation. Why are all these people here what can I deduce from what they are saying. Since there are lots of different signs and messages an intelligent person would deduct themes and ideas from what they see. The over riding theme is that they are protesting economic inequality. This is clear to anyone who wants to see it even the republican candidates in the US know this.

If you still don't understand then I doubt it can be made simpler and I can't help you.

Jonny7 · 02-02-2012 9:44pm

20Cent wrote: »

Occupy also have a simple clear broad message

Not exactly the best choice of cartoon...

20Cent · 03-02-2012 6:16pm

As if to prove my point Ian O'Doherty in the Indo today does the exact same thing as the "journalist" in the cartoon. Very dishonest reporting there dude.

Permabear · 03-02-2012 8:39pm

This post has been deleted.

20Cent · 03-02-2012 8:51pm

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Digging up a 2 year old post wow, dedication.

If they were calling themselves the Occupy Party and running/endorsing candidates you might have a point but they are not. If someone pointed out the more extreme elements of the tea party and pretended they represented the whole you would disagree I'm sure same with Occupy.

Anyway, Obama, Ben Bernanke etc even Newt Gingrich know what its about so no offence but doubt the posters in this thread not knowing really matters.

Permabear · 03-02-2012 9:04pm

This post has been deleted.

Worldwide Occupy Movement?

Comments