Wall Street Occupation

[PELHAM 10]

Anyone find this leader of the crowd speaking and then crowd repeating stuff sort of, um, creepy?

qoPwo3STiXo

We have seen this sort of thing before, these people are all individuals:

LQqq3e03EBQ

I guess in times of trouble people need a messiah to follow. Hitler emerged out of the chaos of the 1930's. I wonder what will happen this time.

Edited October 14, 2011 by PELHAM

[Minutemen 10]

That's incredibly creepy.

Occupy Atlanta hynotizes zombie collectivists with cult-like trance

I'am getting tierd of these stereotype leftwing crypto communists.

[PELHAM 10]

(Sorry I must have hit the quote instead of the edit button)

[gammadust 12]

We have seen this sort of thing before, these people are all individuals:

LQqq3e03EBQ

I guess in times of trouble people need a messiah to follow. Hitler emerged out of the chaos of the 1930's. I wonder what will happen this time.

Occupy Wall Street: The Most Important Thing in the World Now in The Nation

I was honored to be invited to speak at Occupy Wall Street on Thursday night. Since amplification is (disgracefully) banned, and everything I say will have to be repeated by hundreds of people so others can hear (a k a “the human microphoneâ€), what I actually say at Liberty Plaza will have to be very short. With that in mind, here is the longer, uncut version of the speech

I love you.

And I didn’t just say that so that hundreds of you would shout “I love you†back, though that is obviously a bonus feature of the human microphone. Say unto others what you would have them say unto you, only way louder.

(...)

They're just practicing "the human microphone" technique (the immortal one)... press the link for more :)

Edited October 14, 2011 by gammadust

[PELHAM 10]

Lol human microphone technique! Somebody by that poor boy a megaphone!

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Brains! Brains!

[st_dux 26]

The goal is not egalitarianism in my view. It's simply a question of opportunity. I think we may have to agree to disagree, because I think the idea that such a system does not promote concentrated power is absolutely incorrect. Wealth accumulates upwards naturally when self-interest is the guiding principle of a society. It is the natural human condition, and once you have wealth and power, it becomes exponentially easier to maintain and increase it, especially when the state's singular purpose is to protect accumulated wealth. I can not think of a single exception in human history.

[...]

An upwards concentration of wealth and power into fewer hands, means the source of tyranny becomes a small group of un-elected individuals. And as seen during the Guilded Age (and today), that increased concentration unavoidably corrupts the political system, further eroding the possibility for people to live in a system they consent to.

It's certainly true that it becomes easier to maintain and increase wealth once it's established. If you're born into a family that owns a profitable business, for instance, it is much easier to continue that business than it would be for someone not so fortunate to start a new one from scratch. There is no doubt that there is a tangible difference in opportunity here, but when you get down to it, is this really any different than the difference in opportunity that exists between a genius and an idiot? A cripple and someone who is exceptionally fit by nature?

Fairness is binary. There are no "degrees of fairness"; something is either fair or it isn't, and life is demonstrably unfair. Even if everything we could possibly control was "made fair," there would still be innumerable instances of natural inequalities among people. The distinction we like to draw between these inequalities and "man-made" inequalities is illusory and ultimately meaningless. There is no system in which opportunity is equal because nature is essentially unequal.

Power may tend to concentrate, but concentrated power never lasts forever. Throughout most of history power was concentrated not merely by nature but also by law and thus by force: Noble families were noble by virtue of name and past history alone. No one could challenge this except those who could quite literally overpower the violent potential of the state. Still, there have been no cases of power that was able to concentrate ad infinitum. Even Rome fell eventually.

A system of individual liberty is even harsher than the old system of inherited nobility toward concentrated power. In such a system, wealthy and powerful families are no longer protected by the state merely by virtue of having been wealthy and powerful in the past. There is no state coercion available to maintain their position, so they can only persist on continued aptitude alone. An industrial empire ceases to exist the moment it cannot meet the demands of its customers as well as anyone else.

Everything else being equal, it would seem impossible that anyone could overcome the might of an established corporation in whatever field that corporation specializes. But as discussed above, everything else is never equal. All it takes is one incompetent heir and one creative upstart elsewhere to shift the balance of power. This has always been true, but a system of individual liberty allows this process to occur more readily than ever before. A system of individual liberty, ideally, takes coercion out of the equation. Capability alone determines standing.

As for your final point, that increased concentration of wealth unavoidably corrupts the political system, I'm afraid that I must concede that this seems to be the case thus far. To me, though, this appears to demonstrate indubitably that the political system has too much power and needs to be limited. We can't blame capitalists for taking advantage of the opportunities that are afforded to them; we must blame ourselves for giving them government-provided opportunities that are inconsistent with the principles of individual liberty.

@gammadust:

Good post, my friend. I will respond soon.

[Bee8190 10]

Anyone find this leader of the crowd speaking and then crowd repeating stuff sort of, um, creepy?

qoPwo3STiXo

I read that has something to do with everyone out there being able to hear what one's gotta say.

I also read, that wheather it is creepy or not, its hardly the real message we should be paying our attention to.

Really great, related documentary posted by someone from this very forums (thx for posting this)

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qIhDdST27g&feature=related

[HyperU2 11]

They're better chanting in unison than embarrassing themselves solo.

7SwKxUz7osM

[Hans Ludwig 0]

I also read, that wheather it is creepy or not, its hardly the real message we should be paying our attention to.

What is that message?

[Bee8190 10]

Really great, related documentary posted by someone from this very forums (thx for posting this)

What is that message?

Hint - I suggest to look up the video as it pretty much sums it up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qIhDdST27g&feature=related

[Hans Ludwig 0]

Hint - I suggest to look up the video as it pretty much sums it up

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7qIhDdST27g&feature=related

So the Nazis blamed the Jews for the bad economy and moral decay and the OWS people blame rich people for the bad economy and the moral decay. No, that's not scary at all.

While all this was and is going on, there have been economist of the Austrian School that have been telling people for years that government creates the moral hazard when it gives out other peoples' money (tax) or prints money (central banks) to give to failed companies that should have been allowed to fail and then be liquidated by the market. Instead, we continue to repeat all of the failed policies that we should have learned and understood to be failed policed from the Great Depression.

Edited October 15, 2011 by Hans Ludwig

[Baff1 0]

It's certainly true that it becomes easier to maintain and increase wealth once it's established. If you're born into a family that owns a profitable business, for instance, it is much easier to continue that business than it would be for someone not so fortunate to start a new one from scratch. There is no doubt that there is a tangible difference in opportunity here, but when you get down to it, is this really any different than the difference in opportunity that exists between a genius and an idiot? A cripple and someone who is exceptionally fit by nature?

Fairness is binary. There are no "degrees of fairness"; something is either fair or it isn't, and life is demonstrably unfair. Even if everything we could possibly control was "made fair," there would still be innumerable instances of natural inequalities among people. The distinction we like to draw between these inequalities and "man-made" inequalities is illusory and ultimately meaningless. There is no system in which opportunity is equal because nature is essentially unequal.

Power may tend to concentrate, but concentrated power never lasts forever. Throughout most of history power was concentrated not merely by nature but also by law and thus by force: Noble families were noble by virtue of name and past history alone. No one could challenge this except those who could quite literally overpower the violent potential of the state. Still, there have been no cases of power that was able to concentrate ad infinitum. Even Rome fell eventually.

A system of individual liberty is even harsher than the old system of inherited nobility toward concentrated power. In such a system, wealthy and powerful families are no longer protected by the state merely by virtue of having been wealthy and powerful in the past. There is no state coercion available to maintain their position, so they can only persist on continued aptitude alone. An industrial empire ceases to exist the moment it cannot meet the demands of its customers as well as anyone else.

Everything else being equal, it would seem impossible that anyone could overcome the might of an established corporation in whatever field that corporation specializes. But as discussed above, everything else is never equal. All it takes is one incompetent heir and one creative upstart elsewhere to shift the balance of power. This has always been true, but a system of individual liberty allows this process to occur more readily than ever before. A system of individual liberty, ideally, takes coercion out of the equation. Capability alone determines standing.

As for your final point, that increased concentration of wealth unavoidably corrupts the political system, I'm afraid that I must concede that this seems to be the case thus far. To me, though, this appears to demonstrate indubitably that the political system has too much power and needs to be limited. We can't blame capitalists for taking advantage of the opportunities that are afforded to them; we must blame ourselves for giving them government-provided opportunities that are inconsistent with the principles of individual liberty.

.

I have a counter to this argument.

Increased numbers of non productive people, corrupt the political system.

All along in this debate many people have been taking the assumption that a decision democratically taken is superior to one oligarchicly taken.

It isn't.

I don't ask the plebicite how to design a nuclear power station. I ask an oligarchy.

If I can't create wealth and provide for the next generation of my family, what motivation is there for me to work harder than everybody else?

If the instant I die, the unproductive by weight of numbers is going to vote my property for themselves and not those I worked hard to provide it for...

Why should I bother at all?

If you create a system that rewards the non productive, it's an idiocracy.

The non productive corrupt democratic societies. They have a say over operations which are none of their business. The ability to unionise and to riot and by threat of destruction alone they take power over those who create sustainable resources that are intended to provide for mankind for generations to come in the future.

Nihilism.

The problem with our current system, is not economic in nature. It is political.

So I agree with all these protestors that this is a good opportunity for change, but the change required is to disenfranchise them.

Any idiot can write a 17 page essay on what the world should look like and how we can all change to make the world a better place, but how many people can provide for their families for hundreds of years to come?

Any system that does not encourage and reward a person for working hard to provide for his children is a society that has lost both it's moral and it's evolutionary path.

Edited October 16, 2011 by Baff1

[walker 0]

Hi all

....Why should I bother at all? ...

I can counter that argument.

It is called the social contract.

Why should a policeman catch a thief who stole your money?

Why should a nurse change your wound dressing?

Why should a fireman rescue you from a fire?

Why should a soldier fight to protect you?

Why should a scientist invent you a new gadget?

Etc.

It is called the social contract; that which exists between us all by our mutual agreement. It is what stops those at bottom from taking a guillotine to the necks of the less productve and cooperative members of the 1%.

I would suggest that the current social contract where 1% are holding way more than most people think they should reasonably hold then by definition the contract is up for renegotiation.

Oh by the way all that money you are enamoured of baff1 is also a negotiated contract and at any time can be renegotiated right out of existence.

It seems to me you expect to always hold that which you acquire, with no proof that this so other than a social contract; if you want to break the contract by all means do so.

Kind regards walker

Edited October 16, 2011 by walker

[PELHAM 10]

They're better chanting in unison than embarrassing themselves solo.

7SwKxUz7osM

ROFL dumbass looking for a handout. He has no business going to college, he should be flipping burgers. In the UK we have been putting stupid people into college for years - result - over educated people that are too dumb for the jobs they want and will not take lesser paid work. The average interview is like a week long assault course to try to weed them out.

[gammadust 12]

Another good use for the "human microphone":

RqGzQ4SzCAk

Also:

Remember, remember the 5th of November... (tl;dv from 1:10)

hXMxrgIMQ64

EDIT:

And before someone takes this out of context, the following is the "Why":

(no tl;dv for this one sorry)

Icqrx0OimSs

The Move Your Money project is a nonprofit campaign that encourages individuals and institutions to divest from the nation's largest Wall Street banks and move to local financial institutions. Little has changed to prevent another financial crisis or to end 'Too Big To Fail,' and with Congress unwilling to act, we are encouraging individuals to take power into their own hands by voting with their dollars and no longer contributing to a financial system that has led our country astray. We are a campaign that gives people real, concrete actions they can take to create a more sane, stable and localized banking system.

Edited October 17, 2011 by gammadust

[nodunit 397]

Don't normally stray into these kinds of topics but..I'm a bit curious as to what these people hope to accomplish with this peaceful protest..at best they are a minor nuisance by crowding the street, when the officers show up to move them they peacefully go, or when someone grabbed from a 'mob' the only reaction is a scream followed by the "Shame" chant, there are no attempts to defend these persons.

So what is the resolve here? Are they in any way hindering any progress of what which they oppose or are they just crowding for show?

[Hans Ludwig 0]

5sV-Io_gfL4

[Beagle 684]

Don't normally stray into these kinds of topics but..I'm a bit curious as to what these people hope to accomplish with this peaceful protest..at best they are a minor nuisance by crowding the street, when the officers show up to move them they peacefully go, or when someone grabbed from a 'mob' the only reaction is a scream followed by the "Shame" chant, there are no attempts to defend these persons.

So what is the resolve here? Are they in any way hindering any progress of what which they oppose or are they just crowding for show?

Think back into the 60's...such actions change state of minds...and electiosn are about to come sooner or later. In Eurpe there have already critical political parties emerged that begin to thread the established parties thet rules here for 60 years by gaining more then 10%....like the green parties did back in the 80's. All this movements werre forged in the long lasting demonstrations ans occupations of its time. The geman new "Left" Partie would not exist in it's current form today without the Monday demonstrations that happened every Monday for years since 2003.

It ist of great importance that this happens n the USA currently, because it is the USA politics that prevents the reestablishment of the containment of the financial sectors influence to the world economy. THis dates bacl into the 90's when the western economies realizd that they could not compete in industrial production with China and in turn tried to relocate their economy into money production...and in turn just speeding the global inflation of alll currencies.

Edited October 17, 2011 by Beagle

[jblackrupert 14]

Heres the missing footage from Citibank which shows why they were arrested.

l2vtXJ0k7AA

They were OCCUPYING the bank and were asked to take their protest outdoors.

Typical protest everything crowd technique what they forgot was there were more cameras showing what was really going on

which was to force the police to react and then cry that they were arrested for no reason, blah blah blah.

The protests in a nutshell: You-have-more-shit-then-me-so-give-it-to-me

Edited October 17, 2011 by jblackrupert

[HyperU2 11]

They seem to think that money is a pizza, like if I eat 4 slices there is only 2 left for them. You can get your own, it's limitless.

[jblackrupert 14]

It's just a bunch of "Hipsters" living beyond their means [on credit] crying the blues because they went to college to major in some arts related course and then can't figure out why they can't get the COOL job they wanted with the top floor , corner office on day one.

[dmarkwick 261]

It's just a bunch of "Hipsters" living beyond their means [on credit] crying the blues because they went to college to major in some arts related course and then can't figure out why they can't get the COOL job they wanted with the top floor , corner office on day one.

Yeah. That's all it is :|

[walker 0]

Hi all

It simple people, communist China is surpassing the west in economic growth because it invests in its people. China became the most educated country in the world this year; surpassing all western countries in maths, science and reading, from the OECD Programme for International Student Assessment (Pisa) tests:

http://www.pisa.oecd.org/pages/0,2987,en_32252351_32235731_1_1_1_1_1,00.html

In Shanghai 84% of students go on in to higher education, where as every western country has below 50% of its people going into higher education. In the US just 37% in the UK a mere 26% and declining. China holds a mass of western debt and masses of cash because it retains all its top economists and puts them to work in well paid jobs investing China's sovereign wealth so that now it is the biggest player in the market.

The West is in decline, the rot started at the top as it did in Rome.

The social contract is broken and the bankers fiddle, and the 1% collect to themselves money that will soon be worth a barrow load for a loaf of bread, then two barrow loads, then four, then sixteen etc.

The social contract is what gives a currency its value. If only the 1% hold it and 99% only have debts in it, why bother? It's value to 99% becomes zero. Junk!

The social contract is broken. Why bother with an economic model that is broken and worthless?

The social contract is broken. Fix it or burn.

Kind regards walker

Edited October 17, 2011 by walker

[Minutemen 10]

(Pisa) tests:

oah come on! Screw that, you know as good as i do that the test says which country has the most obedient children. This isn't about real knowledge, this is about memorizing.

China is going well because western economy and policy promotes them by technology and development aid.

China isn't a "economical power", its a freaking labor camp which is kept on life support by the very same Wallstreet Banksters(Rockefeller-From a China Traveler) these collectivist hippies wanna protest.