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

20Cent

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.

Godge

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

Godge wrote: »

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.

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.

Godge

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

Godge wrote: »

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.

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

Godge

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

Godge wrote: »

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.

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?

Godge

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

Godge wrote: »

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?

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.

Godge

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

Story is also being reported in the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9641806/Occupy-protesters-were-right-says-Bank-of-England-official.html

The Independent
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/top-bank-of-england-director-admits-occupy-movement-had-a-point-8231521.html

The Financial Times
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/09b53a94-2271-11e2-8edf-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2AnwLYcU5

even the Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2225013/Occupy-St-Pauls-protesters-morally-right-attack-financial-says-Bank-Englands-Andrew-Haldane.html

This Banker isn't the only one endorsing the movement, Obama, Ben Bernanke, Patrick Houlihan, Ron Paul and many others. Income inequality has been moved from something no one talked about to being a main issues in western countries. The 99% 1% slogan has become part of the political lexicon.

And its not finished yet, quite an achievement imo.

Jonny7

20Cent wrote: »

This Banker isn't the only one endorsing the movement, Obama, Ben Bernanke, Patrick Houlihan, Ron Paul and many others. Income inequality has been moved from something no one talked about to being a main issues in western countries. The 99% 1% slogan has become part of the political lexicon.

And its not finished yet, quite an achievement imo.

Pick up a school textbook. Income inequality has been talked, discussed and written about for centuries. It's the reason that disaffected youths could camp in parks for months and live off money from the government.

I eagerly await the "Clouds cause rain" movement to enlighten the world.

Einhard

Big bloody whoop. I, and most of the people who post here, thought that regulations were inadequate. Do we do get a thread to ourselves dedicated to clapping us on the back for thinking and stating the obvious.

Next thread from 20Cent: Occupy movement celebrated for stating that global warming is a bad thing.

Black Swan

MOD WARNING:
Please focus on the thread topic, not each other.

20Cent

Einhard wrote: »

Big bloody whoop. I, and most of the people who post here, thought that regulations were inadequate. Do we do get a thread to ourselves dedicated to clapping us on the back for thinking and stating the obvious.

Next thread from 20Cent: Occupy movement celebrated for stating that global warming is a bad thing.

Did you do anything to change the regulations you thought were inadequate?
If yes then yep you probably do deserve a thread.

yore

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 ;-)

20Cent

yore wrote: »

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 ;-)

Occupy aren't claiming anything, its the bank of England saying it.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

Godge

20Cent wrote: »

Story is also being reported in the Telegraph:
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/finance/newsbysector/banksandfinance/9641806/Occupy-protesters-were-right-says-Bank-of-England-official.html

The Independent
http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/politics/top-bank-of-england-director-admits-occupy-movement-had-a-point-8231521.html

The Financial Times
http://www.ft.com/cms/s/0/09b53a94-2271-11e2-8edf-00144feabdc0.html#axzz2AnwLYcU5

even the Daily Mail
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2225013/Occupy-St-Pauls-protesters-morally-right-attack-financial-says-Bank-Englands-Andrew-Haldane.html

This Banker isn't the only one endorsing the movement, Obama, Ben Bernanke, Patrick Houlihan, Ron Paul and many others. Income inequality has been moved from something no one talked about to being a main issues in western countries. The 99% 1% slogan has become part of the political lexicon.

And its not finished yet, quite an achievement imo.

OK. other news outlets have picked up on the isolated story of one banker in one situation giving Occupy some credit. I still don't see what the big deal is about that.

Remember Bob Geldof and Live Aid, all those commendations, politicians falling at his feet, yet 28 years later, people still die of famine in Africa. Grassroots movements generally don't get much except a pat on the head. Surprised it took so long for Occupy to get theirs.

20Cent

Godge wrote: »

OK. other news outlets have picked up on the isolated story of one banker in one situation giving Occupy some credit. I still don't see what the big deal is about that.

Remember Bob Geldof and Live Aid, all those commendations, politicians falling at his feet, yet 28 years later, people still die of famine in Africa. Grassroots movements generally don't get much except a pat on the head. Surprised it took so long for Occupy to get theirs.

The Central Bank of England is bringing in the most radical agenda of financial reform for 80 years. Pretty big news imo.
About time the out of control financial sector has managed to almost crash the world economy, cost trillions and caused millions to lose their jobs. Time to reign it in before it happens again.

The Bishop!

This thread brings me back i must say. Some of the vitriol on this board towards the movement when it started was truly something to behold.

The uncomfortable fact that the Occupy movement has actually helped to create real change is undoubtedly hard to stomach for its most vociferous detractors.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Pick up a school textbook. Income inequality has been talked, discussed and written about for centuries.

You're missing his point. 20Cent is correct. Read this:

A few short months ago, the corporate media and inside-the-Beltway chatter was all debt and deficits, all the time. Occupy changed that. It reset the media narrative so it’s more aligned with the true crises of our times—income inequality, downward mobility and economic fairness. It’s also renewed attention to corporate accountability and the corrosive role of corporate money in politics.
Just look at the media’s use of the words “inequality” and “greed” post-Occupy. As Peter Dreier notes, a Lexis/Nexis search shows that US newspapers published 409 stories with the word “inequality” in October 2010. Through September 2011, the number of stories about “inequality” remained roughly the same. But in October 2011, when OWS erupted across the country and overseas, the frequency skyrocketed to 1,269 stories.
You can see a similar pattern with stories on “greed.” Between October 2010 and September 2011, “greed” stories fluctuated between 452 and 728. But in October of that year newspapers stories on greed jumped to 2,285.
And the “Occupy Effect” continues. As of mid-January there were 455 mentions of “inequality” in US newspaper articles, and 549 mentions of “greed.” So just halfway through the month, the figures had already reached the total monthly usage pre-Occupy.
As New York Times columnist Charles Blow puts it, “On this point, we must applaud the efforts of the Occupy Wall Street movement. It took income inequality and corporate responsibility out of the shadows and into the streets.”
http://www.thenation.com/blog/165883/occupy-effect#

KyussBishop

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

yore wrote: »

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'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.

If they were having to suffer the exact same hardship everyone else is, I'd be far less interested in protesting, and so would many others I met at Occupy Dame Street.

What's good about this case is that this guy is apparently acknowledging that the protesting managed to scare some of the authorities into actually taking action instead of just bullsh!tting. That, given our currently ridiculous political system, is a result in and of itself. It's a start.

yore

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.

yore

KyussBishop wrote: »

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.

You do realise that over-regulation leads to "rent-seeking" opportunities?

As I said in an earlier posts, there are pros and cons to every level of regulation from lax to strict.

yore

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

yore wrote: »

You do realise that over-regulation leads to "rent-seeking" opportunities?

As I said in an earlier posts, there are pros and cons to every level of regulation from lax to strict.

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.

yore wrote:

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.

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.

yore

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".

Jonny7

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 core goal was camping on the streets for months protesting a huge raft of random issues with no apparent achievable solutions.

Hold your finger up and circle it three times if you agree

Jonny7

The Bishop! wrote: »

The uncomfortable fact that the Occupy movement has actually helped to create real change is undoubtedly hard to stomach for its most vociferous detractors.

What real change specifically?

Funny how bankers are crooks and liars until they say the right thing.

KyussBishop

yore wrote:

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!

I haven't really followed any Occupy stuff, but more than likely they wanted existing regulations to actually be enforced; i.e. wanted the finance industry to be accountable to existing law, just like everyone else is accountable to the law.

yore wrote:

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".

Heh, see this is pretty much the caricature that gets pulled out all the time, as the summary of any topic that covers tackling income inequality: Frame people as petty and begrudging, instead of addressing their actual points of view.

The irony in this, is that the majority of the people supporting proliferation of such income inequality, seek to be part of the entrepreneurial class, but are blind to the fact that only a tiny fraction of them will ever get there.
It's a zero-sum game, and people that support increasing income inequality, support pushing others down in the hope that they will be successful (be one of the 'priviledged' class), but in doing that they just make it less likely that they themselves will ever get there, short of sucking up to someone 'priviledged' enough who is already there.

There is always the generalization/caricature of one groups argument as "trying to pull others down", when their own set of policies promotes "pushing everyone else down", so they can rise.

Johnny7 wrote:

The core goal was camping on the streets for months protesting a huge raft of random issues with no apparent achievable solutions.

Hold your finger up and circle it three times if you agree

Yes that's right, the entire global Occupy movement was nested in Dame street, and they are thus the sole representative group for the entire movement.

Again, seemingly willingly ignoring, that you don't have to provide any solutions, to successfully put the issue of income inequality on the agenda.

yore

KyussBishop wrote: »

Heh, see this is pretty much the caricature that gets pulled out all the time, as the summary of any topic that covers tackling income inequality: Frame people as petty and begrudging, instead of addressing their actual points of view.

The irony in this, is that the majority of the people supporting proliferation of such income inequality, seek to be part of the entrepreneurial class, but are blind to the fact that only a tiny fraction of them will ever get there.
It's a zero-sum game, and people that support increasing income inequality, support pushing others down in the hope that they will be successful (be one of the 'priviledged' class), but in doing that they just make it less likely that they themselves will ever get there, short of sucking up to someone 'priviledged' enough who is already there.

There is always the generalization/caricature of one groups argument as "trying to pull others down", when their own set of policies promotes "pushing everyone else down", so they can rise.

You misunderstood. Real inequality is not between the fellas on Dame St with their starbucks Cafe lattes/imacs and the fella with the 100K BMW. Inequality is between anybody in the Western world, and the billions eeking out a living


If everything was equal, in your "zero sum game", I'm not sure that the average Occupy person would be better off! Anyone in the West is rich

KyussBishop

yore wrote: »

You misunderstood. Real inequality is not between the fellas on Dame St with their starbucks Cafe lattes/imacs and the fella with the 100K BMW. Inequality is between anybody in the Western world, and the billions eeking out a living


If everything was equal, in your "zero sum game", I'm not sure that the average Occupy person would be better off! Anyone in the West is rich

It's income inequality though, not wealth people already have; it is the distribution of earnings throughout the population, and when 1% of the population is taking in 90% of the earnings (as in the US), that is severe income inequality.

Added to this are various forms of economic 'rent seeking', which make up part of this income disparity, through the 'rents' extracting income from others, without any productive effort.


Saying that this should not be dealt with locally first, it must be dealt with globally all at once, or that "it's not so bad relative to the entire planet, so we shouldn't try to improve anything", would just be a red herring, trying to muddy the waters.

yore

KyussBishop wrote: »

It's income inequality though, not wealth people already have; it is the distribution of earnings throughout the population, and when 1% of the population is taking in 90% of the earnings (as in the US), that is severe income inequality.

Added to this are various forms of economic 'rent seeking', which make up part of this income disparity, through the 'rents' extracting income from others, without any productive effort.


Saying that this should not be dealt with locally first, it must be dealt with globally all at once, or that "it's not so bad relative to the entire planet, so we shouldn't try to improve anything", would just be a red herring, trying to muddy the waters.

The occupy "movement" are entitled to protest what they want. But if they give me some moral high ground position I'll gladly tell them to fu$k off. They don't want "equality". They just want to be the rich ones. In that sense, they are no better than this mythical 1%. And if the rules were changed so that they became the 1%, they wouldn't give a shite about theoretical morality.

The population of Europe and America the USA is about 1bn. Which is about one-seventh of the World. And that includes a lot of poorer Eastern European countries and really poor people in the USA. The people protesting aren't the poorest of the poor in Europe or the US. They are usually college-educated comfortable people. Don't tell me that they're not in the top 10% globally. They're hypocrites

yore

Just one addendum:

6.7% of the worlds population have a college degree. If you're from the west and have one, consider yourself to be easily inside the top 6.7%

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/05/19/percent-of-world-with-col_n_581807.html

KyussBishop

yore wrote: »

The occupy "movement" are entitled to protest what they want. But if they give me some moral high ground position I'll gladly tell them to fu$k off. They don't want "equality". They just want to be the rich ones. In that sense, they are no better than this mythical 1%. And if the rules were changed so that they became the 1%, they wouldn't give a shite about theoretical morality.

The population of Europe and America the USA is about 1bn. Which is about one-seventh of the World. And that includes a lot of poorer Eastern European countries and really poor people in the USA. The people protesting aren't the poorest of the poor in Europe or the US. They are usually college-educated comfortable people. Don't tell me that they're not in the top 10% globally. They're hypocrites

There's not really any arguing with (paraphrasing) "it's worse elsewhere therefore problems here should not be fixed", and ad-hominem "they just want to be the rich ones", as that's much a waste of time when there isn't even the pretense of a real argument.

Same pretty much goes with other clearly facetious/smearing arguments, that they're just "endlessly planning another tent city".

It is clear Occupy is offensive to you both in some way, because otherwise there's little real reason for disparaging their quite clear success in bringing income inequality to greater attention and discourse, or for the smears directed at them.

Again, it's the reinforcement of the idea that we should all just sit down and shut up, and not protest or fix anything; that's what it seems to be, the actual smearing of protesting itself, because it is exactly the fact that Occupy did not have one coherent plan of action, that makes them a general protest movement, not one homogeneous group with a fixed set of ideas.

yore

KyussBishop wrote: »

It is clear Occupy is offensive to you both in some way, because otherwise there's little real reason for disparaging their quite clear success in bringing income inequality to greater attention and discourse, or for the smears directed at them.

It's not offensive to me. It might be to the vast population of the world that will never get a sniff of what the beal bocht occupiers have.

KyussBishop wrote: »

Again, it's the reinforcement of the idea that we should all just sit down and shut up, and not protest or fix anything; that's what it seems to be, the actual smearing of protesting itself, because it is exactly the fact that Occupy did not have one coherent plan of action, that makes them a general protest movement, not one homogeneous group with a fixed set of ideas.

Protest all you want. Just don't paint it as some high and mighty global "fairness and equality" movement. It's not. It's just rich people who want more of what the even richer people have.

Edit: The heterogeneity of the movement is proof in itself that they are all each focused on their own separate, selfish, agendas.

The Bishop!

Jonny7 wrote: »

What real change specifically?

Far too much to mention.

As someone already said, it's a start. What's important is the massive worldwide support for its general aims.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Funny how bankers are crooks and liars until they say the right thing.

Jonny7 wrote: »

It's the reason that disaffected youths could camp in parks for months and live off money from the government.

Jonny7 wrote: »

I eagerly await the "Clouds cause rain" movement to enlighten the world.

Jonny7 wrote: »

The core goal was camping on the streets for months protesting a huge raft of random issues with no apparent achievable solutions.

Jonny7 wrote: »

Hold your finger up and circle it three times if you agree

Is that you Bill?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Pure hyperbole. If jobs are the issue then putting legislation in place to stop another Lehman brothers, sub prime mortgage crash, Libor scandal, a trader loosing a few billion in a few seconds or some similar crash need to be put into place. This will protect the economy far more. After the experience of the 2008 crash it is clear that this is needed.

No serious economist, commentator or politician is blaming the financial crisis on too much regulation. The problem is that the laws there already are not enforced and additional regulations need to be added. Too big to fail institutions which can hold the country to ransom for a bailout, separate the arms of these financial institutions so that one part can do the high risk stuff
without harming the other parts, punish fraud and corruption instead of encouraging it. There needs to be an awareness of how big money affects legislation and gov policies.
All this requires an effort which won't come from politicians as they are basically paid off, it has to come from a mass movement of people, part of which is Occupy.
No one is suggesting legislating the financial industry out of existence just putting in some safeguards to prevent another crash like 2008.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

The hyperbole is the suggestion that regulation will cause the whole finance industry to move east.
One doesn't need to legislate for every conceivable calamity no one is saying that. But there are gaping holes in the current system where another 2008 collapse is just waiting to happen. Current regulations have not been enforced enough but that is beginning to change thanks in part to Occupy by highlighting the abuses and the close relationship between Gov and Wall street.

Jonny7

The Bishop! wrote: »

Far too much to mention.

Woah.. you said

The uncomfortable fact that the Occupy movement has actually helped to create real change is undoubtedly hard to stomach for its most vociferous detractors

Like what change?

As someone already said, it's a start. What's important is the massive worldwide support for its general aims.

Then they should have no problem with their latest November 5th proposal right?

The Bishop!

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

A recent poll of...investment bankers?:)

Call me a cynic, but what else are investment bankers going to predict in an attempt to stave off nasty regulations and transaction taxes except threats of capital flight and relocation?

This fellow Haldene pointed out as much in his speech:

For his part, Haldane broke some interesting ground during the evening’s extended question-and-answer session. At one point, he signalled that “there was no great ideological chasm” preventing the adoption of a Financial Transaction Tax that would be “felt disproportionately” by high frequency traders and that the risk of large banks moving their headquarters out of the country was “somewhat overblown"
http://occupylondon.org.uk/archives/17783

So who are we to believe? The investment bankers themselves or those tasked with regulating them?

The Bishop!

Jonny7 wrote: »

Like what change?

Sorry, but i don't have time to reference every individual thing achieved by every branch of Occupy worldwide. For starters one could go here to read about Occupy the SEC. Or here for Occupy Nigeria. That's real change right there.
Certainly that can't yet be classed as 'success' on the big issues; for some, nothing the movement does will ever be seen by them as a success.
But a big achievement so far imv is that they've helped to put inequality and it's pernicious effects firmly on the agenda. For that alone they should be applauded.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So out of interest how do you think something like the LIBOR scandal, financial fraud, companies that are too big to fail should be handled? Just leave it be?

Kinski

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

Just out of curiosity, are you confident that locations like Shanghai and Hong Kong represent good long-term prospects as hubs for international finance? Hong Kong may have a very free economy right now, but it is controlled by China, and that's not a country whose government is noted for its liberalism.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

20Cent

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

In the absence of Libtopia governments and central banks will set interest rates. Pointing out what is wrong now is not proposing a solution.

Too big to fail refers to financial institutions that are so large and so interconnected that their failure is widely held to be disastrous to the economy, and which therefore must be supported by government when they face difficulty. So your solution would be just let the lot go and the massive damage to that will occur to happen anyway. Life savings, insurance policies pensions etc of anything connected to the institution all wiped out.

To be prosecuted through the courts for fraud something must first be deemed illegal. So your proposing more laws then?

Permabear

This post has been deleted.