Here is the college students: http://25.media.tumblr.com/tumblr_ls...5y9yo1_500.jpg

It's not an individual problem either, it's a familiar and social one. Some of the texts on the tumblr page make me want to kick puppies.

True that, Zenit. :)

I'm surprised the foreign members here are so hostile to this movement, because some of their main requests are things these countries already have: single payer healthcare, progressive taxation, regulations on unfair or corrupt business practices, more environmental protections, and a more robust safety net, to name a few (basically things that are commonplace in most other industrialized countries, but are lacking here).

Don't see why this makes them "hippies," sounds more like just a request for better governance, to me. This is a grassroots movement of people of all races, ages, and backgrounds rising up against a corrupt status quo that is not working for the good of society or the planet, not an AstroTurf movement like the teabaggers.

Another thing to remember is that journalists like to look for the most extreme or radical person in a bunch, because "crazy sells" in the media. So if you see videos of people extolling the goodness of Chairman Mao, or something similar, please remember it is just a journalist trying to make a fast buck, or someone with a political agenda trying to cast a negative light on these people, and is not representative of the movement as a whole.

Having an iPad does not really compare to having millions of $$ to ones personal disposal...

And I think the 99% is a reference to a US statistics. Globally, you are right, the whole of the US is the 1% and the rest of the world would not be wrong to go out on the streets and rightfully say that they are in that context the 99%, but that is another point I think - that movement is after all one that is happeining within the context of the western countries...

And if you do not see why that picture is insulting and demeaning, I cannot help you.

iron_jones, it sounds to me like you're railing on the liberal arts :xD: Fine if you want to do that, that's your POV, I do it myself sometimes (most of the time), but what about everyone out there with a real major? Education in America is the most expensive worldwide, to my knowledge. You're promoting a silly stereotype which actually has no relevance to the issue.

Elaborate, please. :hmm:

Why don't we look at some slogans that protesters are putting up in the movement and we can see what the intentions of the people here are.
http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/...69_634x414.jpg

http://www.3news.co.nz/Portals/0-Art...street-2-2.jpg

http://www.deathandtaxesmag.com/wp-c...ry-wall-st.jpg

They have reasonable demands..Democratic demands.
It seems like there aren't just students in this movement Iron Jones. You have ex servicemen, families, workers ect.

Here's a link: http://www.zerohedge.com/contributed...treet-protests

http://www.bet.com/content/betcom/ne...on-workers.jpg

Workers are there as well.

Union Workers Add Strength to Occupy Wall Street March | News | BET

I think bankers have actually manged to piss off every demographic in the country.

It's no surprise. The economic crisis has hit almost every one in the country..

I've always been afraid of crazy student debt :( I stay away from it and go to my cheapy local school, UNO :D

Tuition prices are inconceivable! I too am going to the "cheapy" local University. Currently I get about $10,000 worth of scholarships a semester, and you know what, I STILL pay out of pocket for tuition. Sure its always under $500, but I still have to buy books. Good books alone are usually $1000. There is a monopoly that needs to be targeted. I sympathize with all the protesters who are focusing on tuition. It doesn't matter if you majored in something worthwhile or not, the odds of getting out of University without debt are minuscule.

Anyway I just spent the day setting up and getting ready for my areas Occupy event. By the end of the week we plan to have a crowd gathering daily.

The price of books is ****ing outrageous.

Good on you tsmukan. :) Hopefully there's a good turnout. It's a huge rip off that students are being burdened with so much debt. Over here if you want to be a doctor you accumulate $10 000 per year of uni debt and the course goes from anywhere from 4-6 years..If you want another degree or an honours then it's even more money that you have to pay back.

Exactly. University students need to buy 4-5 books at least per semester and the books are usually $100 or more. Then you have to pay money for transport and even more if you have to pay bills and rent. That's why the university student is normally in a unique state of poverty..Living on noodles and rice and such..I know a few uni mates who do this.

I'm paying $10000 a semester to become an Environmental Policy...ier...person...maker...person who does Environmental stuff. What's worse is I plan to go to Law School after I graduate!

We had a decent turnout yesterday and it looks like the next couple of nights will involve lots of meetings and organizing. We should be out and on the streets by the weekend.

These school costs are crazy. I do not blame people to at least want what is common here. I paid about 100€ per semester for the student organization at the uni and occasionally some money for books that were not available at the student library plus the money for travel to do field trips. Oh and about 100€ or so for paper, a geologists hammer and compass. And that university is not one of the worst at all. In fact it has gotten an "excellency award". For the last 5 years though, there is an (in the eyes of students outrageously high) tuition of 500€ per semester, but that is crumbling again.

Maybe this is "socialist" or "communist", but I think it is a very fair and good thing to give all students - poor or rich - the opportunity to study whatever they want without loading themselves in debt.

Oh and its not even just working people, students, soldiers,... its the elders as well: :D
http://weknowmemes.com/wp-content/up...ad-as-hell.jpg

I don't care about reforms coming from the right or the left wing anymore, I want reforms to deal with problems and sort them out. I want practical solutions, whatever the color, wherever they come from; for as long as it makes our lives easier and our society fairer.

The common people, us, can't change society right here and right now because we have been left powerless in the only two ways we could make a stand: politics and economics.

On politics, democracy is working in such way that two parties are always even and always opposing, leading to decisions being made by a really small difference of votes, and with a constant opposition by the rest of the "loser" party. Demonstrations, signatures, any way of direct action is meaningless or illegal; it's not the people who decides but their representatives.

On economics we can't act upon our own sense of morals and justice without being dismissed for it and replaced by anyone else with less concerns about anything they're asked to do or how it could affect their society. It seems as though the deal is about us and not the market's demands. Making this situation even worse is unemployment, what restricts our choice even more and leads to us working in jobs we need but are a waste of time and effort, or live without a regular income or any safety for the future.

Who's causing this?

If I'm not agreeing with actually occupying Wall Street it's because it's not a single problem and it's not a single person, or a group of persons.

A great part of the problem is that there is one, but nobody knows how to target the cause. It's like having the symptoms and knowing that the person is ill, but not knowing the disease -and giving the patient the wrong medicine will either make him worse, or kill him.

This is the part we must be the most careful about. We cannot make mistakes on determining what is exactly causing this "global pandemic" if we want to solve it, in spite of how difficult it is; but we can't either just stay arms crossed, ignoring the problem and keep giving the ill painkillers like we've been doing to the present moment.

We will be only making the agony longer.

We know things are bad. But when are we going to make happen and put in common our goals and solutions to deal with it?

Again. I don't care what is your side, what you believe in or which is your income. If you have a solution that is practical, if you know how to deal with the problem; that's a solution I want to count on.

You're thinking of socialism, we've covered communism and why it doesn't work.

For real. I don't have a job to make a little extra money, I have a job to stay out of debt :stare: The movement here is sort of small and unorganized. They couldn't have picked a worse time to have it as far as students are concerned, midterm season :xD: except maybe final exams :S I won't be able to participate, also, I don't feel well informed enough in general about current politics to do so. It's all a little philosophical ;)

Exactly. It's a case of people with entitlement wanting their lifestyle to be subsidised.

As for signs, 'billionaires, your time is up' - seems like communism to me.

Hey that's really unfair..Haven't you looked into the movement at all. It's widespread and involving so many different types of people. I find your assumptions to be pretty insulting to people in the USA who have suffered more then people in the UK and Australia.

You have to realise HNM, communism is more like this: "a system of social organization in which all economic and social activity is controlled by a totalitarian state dominated by a single and self-perpetuating political party." Why should billionaires be more privileged then every other person in the country? It's not democratic at all..and the fury towards billionaires and corporate greed doesn't have to be communist/left wing/anarchist. You have decent human beings here.

They took the risk to make their money, they have a right to not have it taken by a totalitarian state as that sign was implying.

Clearly, there are lots of political viewpoints, but it's naive to say that they should not be able to have their money. 'Privilege' depends on how you class it - if it's merely because of spending money, that's their right to as someone competent enough to become rich, while if it's from having money, that's something entirely different.

Many billionaires get their money either from selling inherited stocks or property or by inheriting a mass fortune. That isn't fair on anyone else. There are people who have gotten sacked from jobs that they have had for ages and have been living in their cars, whole families even. That wasn't because "they took a risk to make money". You are making sweeping assumptions.

Of course it's fair - they inherited it from someone who made it. Would you also class giving someone else money as 'unfair' then?
Many billionaires did not inherit it anyway, that's more in the range of millions.

So freedom to take others' freedom should be allowed?

Money is a more powerful means than what you could imagine.

Any case, and replying you (HNM), my point is that you can't be rich on your own only. There's always people behind you making all the things you don't have time to do or don't know how to do. People who exchange their time and effort for your money.

Imagine these people have such a small income that they are having no treatment for their diseases, not enough money for their families' basic needs and no time since they have to work in three different places to earn a living. (yea bull****)

Yeah, they would be pissed off.

Libertarianism would be fair if we were self-sufficient, glass-caged individuals; but the reason why any human society has been built is: we can't live on our own. We are linked and bonded to thousands of people who are affected by what we decide to do.

That you can't see the consequences of what's happening (or rather, what is not happening) after people do what they want with their money; it doesn't mean everything is all right. You could say none of it is your but their business, blame the others for being "lazy"; but they are still there. And you depend on them (hence one of the reasons why economy keeps getting better and better since 2008).

State intervention is fair when its actions are fair. It's not about being an absurd egalitarian saying everything has to have exactly the same as anyone else; but rather about protecting the people from disease, hunger and overexploitation; and have a common, public project. Living in society should mean helping each other live together and not having the others as a means to make your living.

That is a fair society.

Either way, and whether it's the State or the enterprise, taking from the rich is far better than having to take from the poor to sustain a system.

^Exactly.

Again, it shocks me how you are so hostile to this movement, HNM. What ever happened to Seeing? I thought you used to want societal changes, remember back to the beginning of AF and ToS? Now you're defending an economic status quo that has screwed millions out of their hard earned money and livelihoods (why are people so quick to defend the fortunes of the rich but not the fortunes of the everyday man?), and a government status quo that turns a deaf ear to the people who elected them, a government that only represents the rich. This kinda thing might be an Ayn Rand wet dream, but Ayn Rand wasn't part of the 99%!

Things are bad for the working class in this country, and unless people are willing to stand up and say NO to this cronyism, things will only continue to get worse, and people who sit back and defend banksters and rich execs are part of the problem, not the solution.

Damn, well said Zenit. Anyone have an alternative to this movement & the changes proposed they'd like to suggest other than to do nothing? :P

There's no alternative I'll put forward. To be honest I like seeing these large groups of citizens using their right to assemble and speak up as opposed to doing nothing. Who am I to forbid them from doing that. I can't help but feel for a lot of people on that tumblr.

Look I(we...uh people) aren't mad that they made money. Bully for them they succeed in this utter crap hole of a world we inhabit. What most of these people are unhappy about is how those with money decide to "use" it. They continue to only utilize their wealth to obtain more wealth, keep others down, and enact political change that they want. As a Catholic I see that if you have more to give you should give more. Most of the 1% continue to pursue goals that do not help humanity as a species. Instead they pursue short term goals that only help themselves. I don't want their money taken from them, I want them to see that we must work together to change this screwed up ball of rock we call home.


Why is it that things like this make my much vaunted "cynicism" vanish? I think I need my head examined...me....ME...talking about humanity coming together to do good?!? I need a drink.

I find it strange that hnm is defending the billionaires/millionaires and not the average people and the poor in the USA who have had everything turned upside down because of the greed of both the financial industry and the billionaires. I concur, what has happened to "seeing"?

I'll just say that if the '99%' want to change things around, they should be demonstrating outside the White House, not Wall street. The economy won't move for anyone but the government and the military.

They are. There's an Occupy Wasington DC, as well. Along with Occupy Chicago, LA, and dozens of other cities.

Many billionaires are also pretty nice people. More than a few are giving away from half to 90% of their fortunes to charity.


Its those god damned millionaires that are mostly *******s.

It's going global. Occupy movements are in Australia, UK, Iceland, Japan, Middle East, Greece and Spain, even Sweden. :) I'm going to the one in sydney this weekend.

Bankster protests go global, as

Point taken.

This saturday, the 15th October, there almost certainly is a city near you where there will be protests or gatherings in solidarity and/or about the same general topics.
I certainly will be there!

Indeed - this is a problem I try to mention always. It is not about some Tony Hayward getting millions for killing the gulf of Mexico or some bankers playing the system to collect a lot of money. The problem is the system itself. This is also why it is next to impossible to change anything fundamentally with the means provided by the system. The change may have to be outside of the system. The change has to be as radical as the change from monarchy to democracy. No single person or political party is "the cause"...

No we have not. You think you know what it is and dismiss it. As I said, there never was communism within the last 200 years on a large scale anywhere int he world.

Haha, together with a saying that "the US is a state with only one political party that has a right and a center wing" - this describes the US as a communist state :P

But really the definition of communism is very different. In fact it is a socioeconomic system that prevents people from opressing others. Quite simple. Everything else follows from that. What good is all the money in the world if no one is willing to be your servant, what if that money cannot be used to make someone do something he'd rather not do but that benefits the one who has money. Why should someone clean your pool or yacht or destroy his own land for extracting oil if no one can tell him that he has to do to have a decent life (or to survive at all)? Why would anyone but a few work 60 or 80 hours a week if it was not for them being opressed by the current economics that demands them to pay so much money for just living (and repaying student loans)?

Communism does not mean that no one can have a bit more of this or that than someone else, it means however that one person cannot make other people work for him in a way that gives him all the profit while the workers get just enough to live.

While you seem to call many of the great thinkers of the 19th and 20th century "naive" (which is quite arrogant, I daresay that Marx, Engels, Fromm and many others certainly have spent more time and brain cells on this topic than any of us freetime-political theorists here), I would say that it is actually the other way round. Zenit mentioned it already - the money these people "made" was not actually made by them. The profit, work, innovation, surplus was generated by others. The only thing most of the rich do is to take some of their money and "invest" it which means they pay some people a bit of money but cash in on the much greater value of the products these people create. To me that sounds a lot like parasites.
A common argument then is "well who is going to build the factory and buy the machines if not an investor - without the investor, there would be no factory and thus no one would have anything". This is however self-referential as this is only true within capitalism. In a society that has wealth more equally distributed, the workers could form a cooperative and build or buy their own factory and then reap the full benefits of their production.
The only thing the rich people are good in is luck (becuase they inherited some money) and risk management or simply playing chance games. That certainly is a quality and a talent or profession, but I see no reason why this specific talent or profession should be rewarded so much more than any other profession. Yet the current economic system is set up in a way that it is! And this is IMO the thing that has to change. The priorities have to change. Who really deserves the highest reward in a sane society - the ones who plunder the earth and its inhabitants to make more money or the ones who actually help the Earth and its people? Why does a banker deserve a higher reward than 100 social workers or nurses? What is more important - the economy or the people?

One thing that especially the US people but others as well do not understand anymore - and that is in itself very understandable as reality has drifted away from theory so much - is that in a true democracy, "the state" is in fact the people. This is what democracy means. State intervention is the intervention of the people, of the majority of the masses and thus is perfectly justified. Only because none of us live in a democracy anymore, because governments and politics are not really representing the opinions and will of the people, only because of that, we see state intervention as something external, as something "someone else" is putting forth.

Re taking from the rich - in the german constitution there is a rule. It says "Ownership/Property is an obligation. All property/ownership shall also contribute to the wealth of all people". So it is even there in the very basic legislature of this country that actually the ones who own a lot, the rich, the corporations, the banks have an obligation to contribute more than those who dont have much at all. Of course the rich are the ones that have to pay more - what other benefit would this society have from allowing people to become rich?

... and destroys this beautiful planet.
I dont get it either. What happened?

my personal opinion - she was maybe a psychopathic, but most definitely an antisocial person, maybe with some form of autism. There is nothing wrong with autism, which places individuals into their own universe, separated from the rest of the world and causes them to think of the world as a place in which everyone is like that - seperated individuals all living in their own little worlds. But to make a philosophy, a sociaoeconomic system and global politics from that is maddening!

Yes - there are no "solutions" yet. I think one reason for these assemblies and the groups forming there and the discussions held there is to create a forum to find these solutions. We NEED solutions - otherwise we are so fvcked...

So anyone who doesn't subscribe to your politics is automatically not a true fan?
Pathetic. I expected more even from such a walking political stereotype as you. I'll remind you of this: The Na'vi are not communists. they do not take private property from those who create it.

You're right that the US is very deficient in some areas, particularly healthcare, but that does not mean people should not have the opportunity available to make more money than another person. Yes, the US specifically probably needs to rethink investment into provision of services, but if that was what these people were interested in, they'd be at the white house, not wall street.

I defend EVERYONE's right to have money.

That's an entirely different issue, but is as near as impossible to resolve as makes no difference within a representational political system rather than a direct democracy.

That doesn't mean communism.

Why am I not surprised you're (mistakingly) labeling me a communist? :facepalm: And why am I not surprised you're labeling (again, mistakingly) Occupy Wallstreet communist? Right now you're a walking political stereotype yourself, of a right-wing, Tea Party republican, you know that? Anytime people ask for a more progressive taxation system, more affordable healthcare, a more fair and representative political system, more environmental protections, more regulations on business, etc., in this country, they are labeled a communist (even though these are conditions that are already present in nearly every other industrialized country in the world, including your own, HNM. Unless you feel that the UK and EU have become too socialized for your own taste? Do you?). That's all these people want! They just want the same standards and policies that most of the rest of the industrial world has, and if you think that is somehow Communist, you're listening to the wrong people, or you have a warped political ideology.

Don't listen to the mainstream corporate media, who are OBVIOUSLY going to be attempting to cast this movement in a negative light. And remember what I said before, journalists look for the crazy in a bunch and attempt to cast them as a group's status quo. Don't fall for it.

Oh, and the Na'vi might not be communists, but I know who's side they'd be on in this situation. ;)

I'm not. I'm questioning their intentions.
I know you're not a communist, you're the most stereotypical anarchist I've ever seen.

Now I know you didn't read my post at all.

"You're right that the US is very deficient in some areas, particularly healthcare, but that does not mean people should not have the opportunity available to make more money than another person. Yes, the US specifically probably needs to rethink investment into provision of services..."

Yes, I can read. I am just pointing out that not only do they have completely the wrong target, but holding signs like 'billionaires your time is up' just goes to perpetuate the idea that they do seek to enforce totalitarianism.

I've barely read ANYTHING from the media on this, to be honest - I've had a lot of my own problems to deal with recently and this hasn't particularly interested me (apart from the very interesting faking of information, that is)

You're doing it again.
If you think the Na'vi are even socialist, you're doing it wrong. The Na'vi don't have people who do arts degrees then complain because they can't use them in the real world and don't get enough free stuff.

And if you want investment in more social programs and infrastructure, you're going to have to ask the rich to pay the bill more than the common man. As was previously said in this thread, if you make more wealth in a society, you have more of an obligation to give more back. Hence progressive taxation. That's just shared sacrifice. Period.

And yes, I read your post, nice try at making me look like an idiot.

And no, I'm not an anarchist. Swing and a miss, that's strike two.

And how is this the wrong target? Wall Street is the financial center of the United States, where the people and banks who do the inside trading, speculation, and dealing of bad mortgages and loans. Wall Street is the epicenter of the people who ruined the economy. It's also where lobbyists originate from. There is also an Occupation in the governmental center of the United States, Occupy Washington DC. Both have my full support.

I still don't understand how the sign "Billionaires, your time is up" is somehow a call for totalitarianism. How do you know it doesn't mean, "Billionaires, your time of dodging taxes is up," or "Billionaires, your time of artificially raising prices through speculation is up," or even "Billionaires, your time of paying off politicians is up." When I saw that sign, I thought it was a warning to the wealthy that their **** does stink, and their time of not paying their fair share, of gambling with peoples money, and of corrupting government is coming to an end. How you got a call for totalitarianism out of that is...beyond me. :hmm:

I don't see how if you read it, you missed the central point. You complain about me making guesses at your politics - fine, I apologise, it was uncalled for - but in the same post you do exactly the same back. "Swing and a miss" as you say. I am neither right nor left wing and calling me either is equally ignorant from my point of view.

As I said, they aren't making themselves clear in that case at all. If they want proper service provision, shouldn't they be in Washington DC?

I understand that there are going to be a LOT of ideologies there, but I was just questioning their choice. Irresponsible business practices never came into this until the post above this one. If they want improved public services, they need to take that to their government.

It all depends on what each person wants. If they do just want proper changes in the US, I can completely understand that. What I can not get behind is opposition to free enterprise, opposition to the opportunity to do business and be more successful than someone else who makes a different choice.