- Juan Esteban Ordonez Salazar
- New York, NY
- United States
This conversation has closed. Start a new conversation
or join one »
Do you agree with the 'Occupy Wall Street' movement? Why or why not?
I understand that they're all coming together because they're frustrated with the way the economy is moving but.. do they have a unified goal? A fundamental agreement?
Im sorry about my english, I'm still learning :)
Take a moment and check this page out:
www.avaaz.org
Tim blackburn 30+
Deborah Harrison
Certainly - anyone can chose to do both or any variation on that theme. But as we all have a finite amount of time and energy to work with in this mortal coil, I prefer to ensure that mine is spent in ways which can and do effect change. To each his own.
Gisela McKay 30+
It is at least a stance I can respect.
Deborah Harrison
Gisela McKay 30+
What are you actually doing? Meaning, other than tearing other people down, what are you doing to build something up?
Deborah Harrison
So - that's why I perceive it as huge waste of vibrant energy. Energy that could be used quite effectually in more focused and meaningful ways.
[And sorry if I breached some sort of protocol with posting the article link - in every other social media platform, it ia customary to revisit threads when your reading has turned up something relevant]
Krisztián Pintér 100+
Gisela McKay 30+
Is there a particular reason why a person cannot do both?
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
"Both alternative and mainstream media are filling up with it, trying to understand, trying to suppress, trying to spin, trying to ride the wave, trying to contribute to the motion,
' turning, turning, turning, turning up, turning down, turning toward, turning away, turning, turning...The tidal wave is turning, turning;We turn around and find we care.Kaleidoscopes keeps circling, circling... and (r)evolution's in the air... "Little wheels spin and spin, big wheels turn around and around..." -- Buffy Sainte-Marie
"The derivation of "converse" is "to turn together." And the derivation of "evolve" is "to roll out." It is well we should learn to do both these things elegantly. Coheartedly, Tom"
The full piece by Tom and the third article on Occupy Wall street are the lead essay at his posterous blog.http://tom-atlee.posterous.com/the-revolution-of-occupy-wall-streets-convers-7655
Thanks again, Krisztian, for affording this additional opportunity to hail the good work of "Occupy Wall Street"
Andrea Grazzini Walstrom 30+
Here-here!
Andrea
Gisela McKay 30+
People like me muddy the waters by joining in. I'm not a trustafarian. I'm not unemployed. I own a business which screws with their "start your own business and do it your way" response.
Truly, I do not have time this week, and I am STILL going there even if just for a short bit. We launched a national campaign yesterday and this weekend I have to be at a conference (which is fortunately walking distance from the protest area), but I think it is THAT important.
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
First Congratulations on the launch of the national campaign for your business..it is good to know that start up companies headded by young people are still managing to grow and thrive under exemplary leadership, as you must provide.
It is good to know too that you take time away from what must be avery demanding and challemging time for you to show support for Occupy Wall street.
The chnages that will hopefully come from the "awakening" they are causing around the wolrd will produce a much better business for truly small businesses which have always been America's furnace creating jobs, buolding communities, fueling our economy.
I celebrate you. I celebrate all showing support for Occupy Wall Street around the world.
Andrea Grazzini Walstrom 30+
Occupy Wallstreet is of value for raising awareness. To succeed it must:
1. Continue
2. Evolve in ways that capture sustained media
3. Capture the attention of middle-class people, this will require them navigate the view that they are "hippies" and "outsiders" to the reality that the problems they are addressing are the problems of middle-class majorities.
4. Hold their positions, but also connect to robust parallel movements.
Here is a TEDConversation regards another movement that can help them with all of the above:
http://www.ted.com/conversations/6281/why_isn_t_there_more_coverage.html
All can be part of what Nobel Peace Prize winning economist Elinor Ostrom calls "polycentric" culture change. Basically this means they must not only "connect the dots" between their interests and those of others, but also overlap with them. This overlap can make all stronger and support the mass populist voice that is required to catalyze meaningful policy and behavioral change.
Andrea
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
====
http://www.truth-out.org/occupying-wall-street-what-went-right/1318173044
Occupying Wall Street: What Went Right?
J.A. Myerson: "Of all the criticisms being hurled at Occupy Wall Street, the most substantively interesting is the issue of scale. How large can the living-society portion of the occupation grow, dependent as it is on a reasonably small living space and an inspiringly simple if limited amplification system? Questions like this are worth pondering, and I’ll be taking some of them up here at Truthout in the coming weeks, but let us pause for a moment to consider how astonishing it is that this is a concern at all."
======
http://www.nationofchange.org/where-99-percent-get-their-power-1318173459
Where the 99 Percent Get their Power
Sarah van Gelder: "Powerful movements build not on a laundry list of policy demands, but on principles and values.... Powerful movements create their own spaces where they can shift the debate, and the culture, to one that better serves. That’s why showing up in person at the occupy sites is so critical to this movement’s success. In hundreds of communities around North America, people are showing up to make a statement and to listen to each other. They are also teaching one another to facilitate meetings, to take nonviolent direct action, to make their own media. They are taking care of each other, gathering food supplies, blankets, and clothes that can allow people to remain outdoors even as the weather gets wetter and colder."
Krisztián Pintér 100+
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
I am not at all surprised that Tom Atlee and his work on wise governance is not front and center on your radar screen or your reading list. He does most of his work from his non-profit , the Co-Intelligence Institute...not that I think you'll check it out.
L :D
Krisztián Pintér 100+
Lindsay Newland Bowker 50+
I suggest we not feed this silly diversion off the main topic any more..what is happening with Occupy Wall Street is too important for such nonsense.
I encourage everyone to read the links I posted on Occupy Wall Street and ignore this silly diversion.
Krisztián Pintér 100+
Juan Esteban Ordonez Salazar
I just wanted to say thanks to everyone who replied. I am a 17 year old person trying to understand better this whole thing.
What I take is that they may don't have a unified goal or a fundamental agreement, what they Do have is the spirit to see things get better and don't take this situation we live in today as the only possible reality. Does it matter if it's in Wall St, or in front of the Capitolium? The only thing that matters for me is that they stand up for all of those that want things to change but are not courageous enough to Make them change.
As far as I'm concerned, I do would like to be part of the change and, hopefully, that's what I'll do :)
Albert Hong
That being said,
The movement is rather unclear and doesn't have a unified logical argument. This makes it very difficult for any change to take place. Communication here is the problem. People aren't getting much beyond the outrage. I just feel that somebody needs to take charge and create a uniformed message. Our democracy should ideally function to heed the most logical argument rather than the loudest complaint.
by the way, your English is spot on =P.
Emil Stolarsky 500+
Amrut Deshmukh
Please support me with answers as quick as possible .... !
Sebastian Maximilian
Sebastian Maximilian
Sebastian Maximilian
5. Credit rating agencies rated bonds backed by pools of these mortgages as AAA.
6. Because interest rates were low, cost of the mortgages to borrowers was low.
7. Because interest rates were low, investors were eager to lend and buy products which had a higher yield, like mortgage-backed bonds.
8. Certain tranches of mortgage-backed bonds were kept by the banks because they didn't yield enough for investors to want to buy them,. They were rated AAA by the credit-rating agencies so the banks didn't think they had much risk.
9. Eventually the worst borrowers (sub-prime) started to default on the mortgages, the market started to find out about the problem of sub-prime, lending stopped to them.
10. Lending to the housing market slowed, therefore buying of houses slowed. This caused house prices to go down because there had been overbuilding and excess inventory. This caused losses on mortgage backed bonds. The credit crisis then occurred.
So, bankers are to blame?
There are many actors in this complex system who can be blamed for not doing their job well or for abusing the system (as well as the system itself). Furthermore, it is the responsibility of the regulators (the federal reserve bank and greenspan) to monitor and oversee the system as well as politicians.
The people who really stand out for me are:
--people who lied on their mortgage applications --the mortgage origination companies who falsified info --the credit rating agencies for not doing better stress tests to see what affect a drop in housing prices would have --Politicians, Greenspan and the federal reserve bank for not putting a stop to the bubble
Sebastian Maximilian
It is sad and shocking how many people (even educated people) have the view that the credit crisis was caused by bankers. I guess it is not surprising that people have this view given that the politicians (in order to deflect responsibility and find a scapegoat) blamed the banks, and the mainstream press (driven by envy) swallowed it without question.
The creating of the housing bubble and its bust is quite complicated. Not easy to explain in two sentences. Not easy to point the finger at one group.
Public discourse doesn't handle complex problems like this well. The media and public need one simple answer: it's the fault of the jews !!!(during the economic crises in eastern europe before WWI), it's the fault of the bankers!!
so I have tried to explain whose fault it is as briefly as I can
Here are the steps and components in the process which created the housing bubble (just one part of the overall credit bubble), which when it burst caused the credit crisis.
1. Very low interest rates - set by the federal reserve bank (Greenspan)
2. Very lax bank lending rules which allowed for 100 pct financing of home purchases with zero down payment (allowed by the federal reserve bank, federal laws, and state laws). France and Canada on the other hand, which did not experience a housing bubble had federally set limits on mortgage lending capped at 70 pct of the purchase price. Given that the housing bubble created a lot of jobs (in construction for example) and allowed many more people to buy homes than would normally be feasible, it was political suicide to object to these policies - given the short term orientation of US democracy
3. Mortgage origination companies falsifying financial details of applicants for mortgages because they get paid on volume, take no risk on lending and package the mortgages to send off to banks and other lenders.
Krisztián Pintér 100+
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lXNOxnn7_uA
Erich Kreppenhofer
gale kooser
Erich Kreppenhofer
Debra Smith 100+
Krisztián Pintér 100+
now what? you continue to brag about the MBA program, and i continue to refer to my home studies, or maybe we start to talk about the facts at hand?
and the facts are: granted, banks bought politicians and stole billions of dollars from the central budget and future generations. but the real problem is that they could do it! because there was a gigantic state that was willing to create new money, borrow and tax, extend its power to almost every area of life, and is willing to sell itself to the highest bidder. if there is such a government, corruption inevitably appear. no matter how strict the regulations are, the problem won't be fixed until governments are fixed.
Debra Smith 100+
http://youtu.be/qj0WnJHeLl8
No response to other components of the above post because I have learned that the not so phantom flagger attacks every time the poster is out argued.
Seth Powell 10+
Oversimplified theses such as "Wall Street is greedy" and "Government is bad" gloss over what is, IMO, the real issue.
America's social structure is to have two mechanisms to counter both claims - capitalism and representative democracy. When a financial institution becomes too risky, the market punishes it. The overall detriment is usually small, for only small start-ups would typically employ such schemes - established institutions would have no reason to do so. Similarly, when a government becomes too ineffective, our elective process removes it from its role.
The problem arises when the two contrive to counter the checks placed on the other. Government supplies funds to Big Finance to cover its losses, and Big Finance supplies funds for re-election campaigns. You guys know how this works.
So instead of throwing doctrinaire analysis back and forth at each other, why not unite and go after the common enemy, the capillary which allows our current system to distribute its cronies wherever needed, the Federal Reserve System? (As well as the cronies themselves.)
Sure, we will still disagree over whether to implement wholly private or wholly public money, but let us agree that this abysmal amalgamation that we currently employ is THE PROBLEM, and that, if operating under their counterbalanced roles, both Government and Big Finance could be part of THE SOLUTION.
SEP
Seth Powell 10+
How do you reconcile the video's pretense - that Keynesian superiority lies in it's willingness to adapt to evidence - with the findings of Yasheng Huang? After examining the data, he asserts that infrastructure is actually a result of, rather than the impetus of, economic growth. This is at odds with Keynesian dogma - dogma which is still being espoused by celebrated Keynesian Paul Krugman. And for all the blustering about the 'scientific approach', there was a significant lack of data produced - this was more of a philosophical criticism which did not even meet it's own stipulations. Certainly you can produce better criticisms of Austrian economics than this, no?
If you want a cutting philosophical critique of Austrian economics you should ask -
"Krisztian, why is it that your philosophy bases a society on 'market equilibrium' rather than individual empowerment? How is it that for all of your talk of individualism, your ideology critiques the world through the lens of a faceless, collectivist criteria?"
The answer to this will help us better understand why the critique in the video is actually just a shallow assessment of a fundamental problem with the science of economics.
SEP
Krisztián Pintér 100+
and yet again, baseless accusations. you can't name a single occasion when i flagged arguments. but you drop it in anyway, knowing that you can get away with it. this is very very sly.
Krisztián Pintér 100+
the real enemy is a way of thinking. a way of thinking that calls for initiating aggression to server our own personal needs, or to defend our own personal valuations. the people of the US (and other nations similarly) authorized their government to control and coerce. they want a strong powerful ruler up there, and they want their choice of ruler to be in control. this thinking led to unwanted consequences. and now, instead of realizing it, they look for someone to blame. and in the process, they want to give even more power to the government.
the real problem is not government. the real problem is ignorance.
Andrea Grazzini Walstrom 30+
Government is run by people who embody the "real enemy" you speak to: idealogical and/or ignorant thinking.
The people of the US do not authorize their government to control and coerce. Citizen's United a stunningly mis-named law unilaterally created by the US Supreme Court which is not subject nor beholden to democratic process. The US democracy applies only to the legislative (Congress) and executive (President) branches of government.
Citizen's United which neither benefits nor unites the majority of citizens, stipulates that multinational corporations qualify as individual citizens and thus may contribute unqualified sums to political campaigns. Their funds are what "control and coerce" the US government. Since to compete for public office, politicians need major campaign funds.
Here is a piece I wrote about bipartisan businessmen's rejection of Citizen's United: http://dynamicshift.org/archives/burnsville-bi-partisans-governor-dayton-is-right
The only solution to this is for citizens to refuse to vote for politicians who accept such funds. But since the law is less than a year old and the forces behind it (Republican power brokers, including the US Chamber of Commerce) are, shall we say, persistent, this will take significant awakening of citizens.
Andrea
Seth Powell 10+
If you and I were to list our beliefs, you would probably be astonished at how similar the lists would be. Our biggest difference is one of priority - whereas your main intent when commenting on a given thread is to state how the topic relates to your ideology, mine is typically to apply my ideology and knowledge to the topic presented.
Not that I do not sympathize with your borderline fanaticism - if I were forced to invest 40% of my savings in Hungarian bonds, I would probably embrace Rothbard with equal passion and zeal. In fact, if you were to preface each of your posts with "I AM FORCED TO INVEST IN HUNGARIAN BONDS" the entire TED community would probably better understand your position.
I, like you, appreciate the free market dynamic. I, like you, tend to dislike cumbersome regulation and excessive taxation. However, unlike you, I do not view a completely 'free' economy as absolutely advantageous, nor do I believe we shall ever participate in such a thing - that is to say, my worldview is shaped by history and psychology, as well as economics.
I agree that ignorance is the problem, to the extent that it is at the root of every problem. But more pointedly, I feel America's social structure is currently impaired by the Federal Reserve System. Moreover, I feel the debt-laden, stagnant carcass that is America's economy and the bureaucratic superstructure that is America's government are necessary by-products of such a system. Do you agree?
SEP
Comment deleted
Krisztián Pintér 100+
http://www.ted.com/conversations/697/the_role_of_government.html
but TED in its ultimate wisdom decided that all conversations have to expire, so it is now closed
Krisztián Pintér 100+
eer ... no?
Debra Smith 100+
There have been multiple conversations in which the approaches you suggest have been tried to no avail. I posted the debunking video to make it clear that not everyone supports the Austrian School of Economics.
Yes, the issues are as you say about how much government and how to improve it. I find though, that I cannot make headway with anyone who only yells for the eradication of government entirely and will accept no information, accept no other position.
Krisztián Pintér 100+
ps: no, i don't want anyone to vote for romney/perry either.
Andrea Grazzini Walstrom 30+
Your argument is provocative.
Will you cite some sources for your claim that banks do not make lending rules?
While it is true the government has regulations, it is also true that these regulations generally require self-reporting by the institutions as part of the due diligence process. Thus, corporations can corrupt (intentionally or not) the information they provide the government regulations offices.
Given that government is not an omniscient force, but rather a delimited institution, misinformation can and does botch up its processes.
All this said, I'm interested in seeing the sources you are using for your argument.
Thanks in advance,
Andrea
Jake Williams
Zdenek Smith 100+
This movement is about fair distribution of wealth so that companies, bankers, investors etc. receive a reasonable compensation and take on responsibility for their actions. They should not just receive bonuses but also pay for damages they comit due to negligence or pure abuse of the financial system?
Deborah Harrison
anthony bruni 30+
If I were to boil down what I have heard after a couple of days of talking to different people involved I would say the main point is that the middle class is disappearing and mainly for political reason. Now what to do about this is where we have been a bit muddled, but again we are trying to take in as many point of view as possible before be form an agenda.
Deborah Harrison
I've worked on Wall Street and been the victim of two lay offs inside of the last 3 years, so I understand this movement [sic] from both perspectives. It is correct to assert that the middle class has gone from this country and it is also correct to link that disappearance to the plutocratic banana republic said same middle class voted (against their best interest) into office. First rule of successful communication in the boardroom, bedroom or the Brooklyn Bridge is to never mention a problem without having first sorted through possible scenarios for addressing it - without this, all you're really doing is just whining and exacerbating the problem. I've yet to see anyone associated with the Occupy demonstrations throughout the US who was able to elucidate succinctly what they were protesting against, outside of sound bytes stolen from other protestors' signs, and none of them are proposing frameworks for solutions.
Populist anger alone does not a "movement" make . . .
anthony bruni 30+
Erich Kreppenhofer
James Turner 10+
James Turner 10+
Erich Kreppenhofer
Debra Smith 100+
Jacob Miller 10+
Brittney Stewart
America has never been satisfied with status quo, and striving to be better than our natural inclinations is a sign of true progress.
Stefan Alexiev
Krisztián Pintér 100+
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTx6t3FUSkM
anthony bruni 30+
Krisztián Pintér 100+
they are attacking the wrong people. we have a state that uses its power to extract money from people, and waste it on things that don't help, to grow their power even bigger. they also use credit expansion and excessive borrowing to increase their budget further. these are the politicians, not the businessmen.
and of course we have the wall street. they are aspirants to cooperate with the government in their quest for power. if you have the mafia in your street, "regulating" things, surely you will find people who cooperate with them. the mafia can go both ways: punish and reward. some agrees to cooperate for benefits, others out of fear. you might not like the ones who cooperate, and they might be regarded as criminals. but if you want to solve the problem, you need to get rid of the mafia.
we all saw police aggression. who do you think operates the police? mortgage brokers or the state?
and who do you think is responsible for the expansion of credit, debt, high taxes, diminishing liberties, the "patriot" act, the police state, overseas wars, assassinations and all such atrocities?
anthony bruni 30+
Andrea Grazzini Walstrom 30+
I agree with you.
That "handful of businesses" gets a big hand from the US Chamber of Commerce. Which is all over politicians with lobbyists -- at least.
This article about Tom Donahue of US Chamber, if true, is pretty chilling. It suggests Donahue et al use brutal methods to coerce players to favor the biggest of big business exclusively:
http://www.washingtonmonthly.com/features/2010/1007.verini.html
Donahue's previous post was as leader of the American Trucking Association.
Andrea
Comment deleted
Krisztián Pintér 100+