The Occupy Wall Street protestors’ validity has been enhanced just this week by an SEC settlement with Citigroup. Citigroup settled a one BILLION dollar fraud suit for a mere $285,000,000. That’s astounding! Let’s check the numbers on that;
1,000,000,000 - 285,000,000 = 715,000,000
American society loses $715,000,000 and Citigroup profits by the same amount – over twice what they paid. And let’s not forget that much of that $715,000,000 is represented by people losing their homes, their pensions, their children’s college education, and all kinds of other important assets. If I could rob a bank and end up paying back roughly less than a third of what I stole and keep the other two thirds of my theft, I think I would not be dissuaded from committing more bank robberies. How ‘bout you? Not much of a deterrent there.
Some will naturally argue that Citigroup had a responsibility to its “shareholders”. Frankly, I think if shareholders are willing to gamble with their money by trusting Citigroup’s investors with it, and those shareholders lose their money because of Citigroup’s illegitimate endeavors, then those shareholders deserve to lose their investments certainly more than average taxpayers deserve to pay to keep Citigroup in business while simultaneously losing their pensions, their children’s college education, and all kinds of other important assets.
People who ponder what exactly the motivation of the Occupy Wall Street protests is baffle me. What they are protesting is obvious and simple to understand, despite the complexities of the system that has led to the current problems. The gradual erosion of protections against such abuses as those that have recently been exposed over a period of decades contains within it the solution; reinstate and strengthen those protections.
Quite possibly one of the most idiotic questions recently considered among the various media is this; “What are the protestors’ demands?” You need to ask? Really? The recent economic collapse and its revealed causes, along with the recent barrage of right-wing attacks on the general economic safety nets for average citizens don’t make obvious what they are demanding? Really???
Attempts to reduce the motivations of the Occupy Wall Street protests to simple political agendas within the constraints of the current system and its corrupt machinations is the result of misunderstanding the humanness of the motivations and demeans the entire human aspect; especially once it is recognized that these protests are spreading on a global level.
Teabaggers worried about tax increases that would not affect most of them and railed against concepts like what they called “socialized medicine” – even as many of them benefited from Medicare and Medicaid – based on their complete misunderstanding of all the concepts they were using, such as communism, socialism, and capitalism. Occupy Wall Street goes so far beyond the trivialities of the Teabaggers that the Tea Party becomes even more laughable than it already was all along. (Laughter; perhaps the Tea Party does have value, afterall.) As corporate corruption and dominance has gone global, so Occupy Wall Street has gone global.
Some suggest fear is the motivation behind Occupy Wall Street. There may have been an aspect of foundational fear initializing the motivations of Occupy Wall Street. Having said that, I think the motivation has moved beyond fear to the experience of pain and the emotion that leads more often to action; anger:
…the refrain "anger won't help" is misleading. It does seem to help people in one profoundly important way: it helps them connect. Anger is a most powerful connector between people, perhaps even more so than sex.
[…]
I believe that for good reason the country exhorts the President to be "angry." The country senses the President is "off" -- off of his true feelings. People have a nose for feelings because it is feelings that are what allows for progress between people. "Thinking" as opposed to "feeling" is a paraylzer. Despite all this our longing for an angry more feelingful president is likely a waste of time. It is we who most profit from when we cultivate the crop of anger rightly fermented. Anger born of legitimate discontent will yield more progress than a thousand congressional hearings and legislative panels.
It is worth remembering that once upon a time about 240 years ago, a group of 13 colonies got angry and produced the United States of America - the greatest country on earth.
Anger is a healthy response to attacks that threaten a person’s livelihood. Much as the immune system rises up to respond to internal bodily attacks, the limbic system employs anger to defend against outward attacks against the person.
Remove ideology and ideologues from the global economy; let scientific analysis of the stability (and instability) of particular economic systems guide us past the backward ideologies and darkened beliefs that persist in the light of clear evidence proving them obsolete. Allow enlightened non-partisan science to take us beyond the religiosity of dogmatic antiquated approaches that continue to fail and damage society.
Anyone who questions the motivations and validity and attempts to constrain the bounds of the Occupy Wall Street protests, which have now spread far beyond national borders, is either willfully blind, or stupid. There is no reasonable explanation for the greed and corruption that led to such abuse, nor for the inexplicable defense of the very institutions that created the recent global economic collapse, being levied by so many average right-wing Americans, some of whom I speak with almost daily, and who also are now carrying the burden for these abuses of greed. I am daily confused by the level of ignorance and willful blindness required by these individuals to continually delude their selves into maintaining their beliefs in the face of so much overwhelming evidence that refutes them.
Willful blindness in such a scenario is only explained by a failure of mental faculties; an inability to suspend belief in the face of overwhelming evidence that the belief is wrong. To support the kind of greed that creates Citigroup’s level of malfeasance and condemn those who protest against it is to be less than human. These events and their consequences must be understood on a human level and the corporate profits-over-people mentality must be subjugated to the human aspects of society; that is the overriding demand of the Occupy Wall Street protests.
Just connect the dots ...
UPDATED:
Judge Jed Rakoff agreed that Citigroup had gotten a free pass and disallowed the "settlement" the SEC had allowed:
For S.E.C., Court Ruling on Penalties Ties a Hand
TIP:
Enter the amount, and click "Tip" to submit!
Beth Winegarner
SnippytheGrammarDog
Paul Nevins
Chauncey DeVega
Belinda T.
Erica K
Salon.com
Comments
;-)
The more I see this phrase repeated, the less believable it becomes. Yes neighbour, it’s 2011 and we’ve all known how the “big lie” works.
It’s especially fun to see this phrase pop up in places where everything else written shows it to be absolutely untrue - like, for instance, this blog!
When something is truly “great” it has no need to boast - others do that for it.
.
The later writings of Twain and his complete disappointment in the bipedal species that is annihilating the planet come to mind. How it is that those who are falling through the cracks can support the sources that are causing them is the great mind boggler of all times.
one of the most idiotic questions recently considered among the various media is this; “What are the protestors’ demands?”
Yep. Our media has done a good job of not connecting the dots - that is their job these days after all, to tell us where and who and when but never, ever to talk about WHY, especially if the answer might draw attention to the fact that our government is run almost exclusively for the benefit of the rich. I love the quote in this post about anger; it is way past time to be angry, time to use that anger to effect change. So far the larger mass of people haven't awoken to how serious our situation is, but once they do things are gonna get interesting. OWS is a good start, but it's just the first flickerings of what's coming.
When you perpetrate fraud to the tune of hundreds of millions of dollars, you are a first-rate, top of the line, head of the class, unsurpassed, consummate and sublime rip-off artist! Continue reading → http://outlierideas.com/
I hate to pragmatist about these issue, but I find the question of What are the protestors’ demands?” to be exceptionally relevant. Anger at existing institutions can materialize into many different things. For example, in my experience, it materializes into violence and nationalistic persecution. Without a concrete foundation, Occupy movement is risking abuse by the sort of people who would love to have an angry mob on their side for short term goals. Without setting concrete agendas this movement will marginalize itself when people keep hearing only rhetoric without concrete results.
You don't like the current system of governance? Then make a suggestion to the alternative? Do we march on Washington and physically overthrow them? Do we force a national referendum and pass anti-lobbying laws? (Who gets to write them anyway? Group effort on Facebook?)
I can be angry about the government all I want, but unless there is some concrete plan of actions in front of me, I am going to assume that Occupy is not actually a populist movement but rather an expression of recent economic woes that would dissipate if there is a sudden influx of cash into the system.
But if you tell me that you have a good plan, a plan that you can get your fellow Occupiers to agree to, then I can start actually backing you with the things that truly matter - my voice and my vote.
Love this.
While the Citigroup settlement annoys me, the potential for the crooks of Wall Street to escape the estimated $1 TRILLION + cost of restitution for their crimes for a mere $5-20 BILLION and legal immunity annoys me even more. Why is it wrong to expect the criminals responsible for harming virtually EVERY American citizen and our economy to take a stab at making it right by paying for it?
I'm also tired of hearing about how OWS needs to "become" something. Why? The point is being made. It's not necessary to turn the OWS movement into a political party. It's doing fine just as it is, ever growing larger. It's forcing the crooks of Wall Street and the employees who benefit from their crimes to face, on a daily basis, both the plebian masses they regularly harm and the signs that detail the harms done. It's encouraging those who have suffered to risk hoping for real change once more. It's letting the 99% know that they are not alone, that the People still have power, and that We have finally been motivated to use it.
OWS and We Are the 99% illustrate that the culture of secrecy upon which Wall Street depends is over, that there is still hope for Our nation, and that We are still free to change it.
The corruption is only one aspect, as the economy will never recover without addressing wealth distribution. Poor and poorer people make lousy consumers.
The Tea Party is just the GOP base, soaked in Fox propaganda and especially libertarian-leaning Beckianist conspiracy theories and paranoia. Their political power is more apparent than real or different. The excuse for Republican debt-mongering. If not for the Tea Party, how could the GOP debt-mongers yammer about debt?
OWS won't end up like the Tea Peeps, being an excuse for D Party incompetence, but they have to mean something besides what most will see as ambiguous anger if it's all protest and no message.
No change without politics.
1,000,000,000 - 285,000,000 = 715,000,000"
Citigroup packaged a group of financial instruments, encouraged depositors to buy them, and then bet against those same instruments success on behalf of their shareholders. The depositors did not lose all 1,000,000,000 dollars. It was a case about the fact that Citigroup recommended someone buy something while also betting that they would fail. The 285 million dollar settlement covered the loses. Citigroup was not forced to give the money they earned betting against their depositors to those depositors, however, which could easily be considered unjust.
Yep, “…it’s especially fun …” and “…When something is truly ‘great’ it has no need to boast …”
a.k.a.,
I am daily frustrated, yet somehow cynically amused, by some of my coworkers who complain about the state of things, but continue to defend the very people causing that state.
nana,
Agreed on anger and that most people have yet to realize the depths of the trouble. It will be interesting to see where this leads …
Outlier,
I couldn’t agree more. It is astounding when one starts looking beneath the surface at all the fine-tuned and nuanced machinations these corporations and their lawyers engineer to rip off the majority of us in so many ways. An interesting read is the book, The Retirement Heist by Ellen Schultz, who writes also writes for the Wall Street Journal.
Otaku,
You’re entitled to your opinions. I disagree that the Occupy Wall Street people should narrow their focus. Their focus is one of human morality, which is something that speaks to people on a more visceral level than policy agendas; policy should be the result of responses from government, and it should be easy enough to respond to the morality expressed by Occupy Wall Street. Apparently George Lakoff agrees, so I’m in good company on that.
sickofstupid,
Obviously, you and I are on the same page with this. If you haven’t seen it yet, follow the link above to the George Lakoff article about how Occupy Wall Street might benefit all of us most through their “framing” of their actions.
I agree with what you’ve said. The only place we seem to see things a little differently is in the idea that Occupy Wall Street should narrow their focus. I think that was actually a weakness of the Teabaggers; they were too easy to pigeonhole. There is a tricky balancing act involved in doing that with a situation like the current corporate corruption of our nation.
You write, “No change without politics.” Agreed. But what is “politics”, exactly? It’s really about emotions and morality. The policy part comes through government and legislation, which when properly functional, should be adequately responsive to morality. I think appeals to emotion and morality have always been the most effective political tools of persuasion, and I think that at this moment, Occupy Wall Street is capturing those elements perfectly. The issue is one of whether or not government will respond in a properly functional manner.
See the link above to the George Lakoff article about the framing of the Occupy Wall Street inspiration.
Thanks for acknowledging the “passionate” aspect of this. It seems to me that is an important element that is already threatened by attempts to turn it into an intellectual debate, which is where liberals usually end up losing the attention of a large swath of the public.
You make a good point. I suppose that if Citigroup “settled” for $285, 000, 000, it was because they knew they were liable for far more. And I resent that Citigroup, like so many others, received taxpayers’ bailout money for all of this, and still came out ahead. My point was not so much that Citigroup’s depositors lost 1,000,000,000, but that money from taxpayers, many of whom garnered no benefit from bailing out Citigroup, and many of whom have since lost their homes (investments of a sort, no?), equates to a societal loss large enough that we can’t really even measure it. The malfeasance of Citigroup and all the others is something that rivals and reflects the era of lawlessness that was ushered in with the Supreme Court ruling that appointed Bush/Cheney in 2000 and continues to this day.
Thanks for your point, which led to some good clarification.
Politics is getting a wide enough group to support an idea to get enough votes to change the situation.
What won't do that is a group Americans see as ambiguously angry, even if they agree there's corruption because anger isn't an idea.
Protest groups can become like ideologies, in a way. They can get so caught up in the trappings of protest the motivation becomes protest. For example, what's the motivation of conservatism? The perpetuation of conservatism. The radio shows, the Fox propaganda network, the websites. Otherwise, it's all about blaming others and un-governing.
You can see this self-interest in the way OWS is looking for consensus among OWS and not the wider public whose votes they need IF change is the main focus. I assure you whatever they come up with as an agenda will have to bear the OWS label, because they'll be too wrapped in self importance to leave it at asking the fundamental question or addressing that with a message. It's the nature of such things once a few people get a mic and camera stuck in their face.
I use the same Lakoff link in my piece. It supports the basis of what I said there, and here. He ends that article with frame yourself before others frame you.
OWS has a certain moral feel to it, but not a moral message. I attempt to provide a fundamental, American and moral message.
Instead, We Are the 99%...which began as a statement of wealth disparity and "those for whom the economy operates" then rapidly turned into a tyranny of the 1% message. As if they're about to storm the Bastille. The 1% didn't cause the problem, even if they gain, tangentially, from the self-dealt bennies the .00001% deal themselves. If nothing changes, look again in 2-3 years and the 1% income threshold will have dropped from 250K to 175K. I can't bring myself to consider a couple, say a lawyer and a doctor, are manipulating the system to disadvantage the 99%. Their incomes are on the line as well.
Like I point out, it's a thing, not a person or group. It's a thing that has handlers, but it still performs in the mindless nature of a thing.
I see 2 fundamental questions.
Who owns America?
Do our laws mean anything if they don't mean anything to corporations?
I have another thought to add that I think applies. America is, economically, "left," but they're not emotionally leftist. If OWS can't bridge that gap, they won't get the support for change. They can though, pat themselves on the back for patting themselves on the back. And for providing some decent street theater.
That won't change anything.
I don’t disagree with anything you’ve said here. I’m not sure, though, that OWS is broadcasting anger, merely reacting to it in a way that has now garnered national, even international, attention drawing in a good number of politicians who are, at least publicly, supportive of OWS. I agree with you about OWS needing to “frame” itself, but I think framing themselves too specifically could be detrimental, just as not framing themselves could be. I guess my thoughts on this agree with Lakoff’s suggestion:
“I think it is a good thing that the occupation movement is not making specific policy demands. If it did, the movement would become about those demands. If the demands were not met, the movement would be seen as having failed.
“It seems to me that the OWS movement is moral in nature, that occupiers want the country to change its moral focus. It is easy to find useful policies; hundreds have been suggested. It is harder to find a moral focus and stick to it. If the movement is to frame itself, it should be on the basis of its moral focus, not a particular agenda or list of policy demands. If the moral focus of America changes, new people will be elected and the policies will follow. Without a change of moral focus, the conservative worldview that has brought us to the present disastrous and dangerous moment will continue to prevail.”
My view is that, as Lakoff says, “it’s easy to find useful policies,” but the politicians who are willing to implement those policies will need clear support, which is, I think, exactly what you’re saying. I think those politicians are starting to see that support among “The Public”. So, all I’m saying is that I think OWS will appeal to a broader constituency is they keep things on a humanistic moral level while pointing to the actual problems and not getting TOO specific. One of the strengths of conservative talk shows (radio and TV) is that they keep things moralistic, simple, and somewhat generalized, while their opponents talk about legislation, policy, and often get too specific, which loses the audience, which loses support by losing motivation among their constituents.
I think OWS has been clear about their grievances and have, so far, maintained a relatively positive approach, while it has been the “other side” that has reacted negatively --- calling on typically conservative defence mechanisms like misrepresentation and ad homonym attacks that merely intend to distract from the overriding OWS message that a majority of Americans see and agree with.
I guess, if there is anything we disagree on, it might be how we see the message already presented; I think OWS has been clear, while you apparently do not. OWS are not politicians, they are people, which is the moral message they are delivering. I certainly understand what you are saying and don’t disagree, I just think the message is clear and that it is possible to get TOO specific and lose support that way just as easily as not being specific enough.
The quote is talking about specific policy demands. Saying We Own America is not a specific policy demand, it's a message.
You don't see transmitting anger, but I do, though in a good and bad way. But you and I don't matter so much as does the sort-of-paying attention wider public.
So if the messages are about particular policies, and so far what I've seen on the web are vote on specific issues to present, then the tasty cheesburger gets piled with so many condiments Americans can't get a bun-to-bun bite. Further, some policy suggestions I've seen drift to boutique leftist issues. Then, some condiments most don't like mixed in and sold as the number 57 combo.
Who should care what the other side says? Forget the Tea Peepish Repub conservatarians. They don't matter. If the majority of Americans thought they mattered, their shows and BS websites would have far, far more dupes.
You read my piece, so you have seen how I'd take them on directly (and probably have seen how I already do) and make them look fools denying what most every American feels is true. The more they shouted, the more they'd be digging a grave.
Better the single message that defines, fundamentally, what all other possible initiatives flow from. Better still, few policy prescriptions and a whole lot of change the way America looks at their position and power first. Pols can dance around policy ideas anyway, and it's likely few would be brought up in the House. Make the pols dance around who's boss around this joint first, then play the tune.
There ya go. You just had a cheeseburger at a juke joint. :)
Regarding too many policies, you wrote, "...the tasty cheesburger gets piled with so many condiments Americans can't get a bun-to-bun bite,” and this, “…some policy suggestions I've seen drift to boutique leftist issues."
Yes, and regarding the drift you mention, that is something that I worry about a lot. In fact, as I think of it just at this moment, this is perhaps part of my fear of getting too specific about things. Point to some of the problems, maybe make a few suggestions, but stay away from those "boutique leftist issues", which as you point out, are already drifting into the discussion. So, thanks for helping me clarify that aspect of what is/was bothering me about this.
Yes, I have read your post, which I would highly recommend to anyone reading this one who has NOT already read yours.
http://www.open.salon.com/blog/paul_j_orourke/2011/10/21/from_main_street_to_ows_father_to_son_a_message
You wrote, “America is being consumed by a mindless capitalism that can’t respond to the havoc it creates.”
As I have said many times, when we reach a point where society exists to serve capitalism rather than capitalism serving society, which is where we are now, then capitalism becomes primarily a problem. Your statement points this out beautifully. So, clearly, one thing OWS needs to point out is that they are not about elimination of capitalism, but fixing it so it serves us better.
There would be not likely be a United States without the colonists anger over England treating them worse than second-class citizens. The proof that history might have turned out differently save for the colonists anger? Canada.
Yes, it's important to remain level-headed in a time of crisis, but it's also important to scream bloody murder when you're being raped. Silence in the face of tyranny and abuse implies -- at least -- tacit approval. My anger is expressed even in the title of my blog -- I Will Not Go Quietly.
I agree; I have said many times that ‘anger’ gets a bad rap. It’s merely an emotional response to being wronged or threatened. Any emotion can be problematic in a social context if it’s not presented well behaviorally or if it is too intense and anger is no exception.
Clearly, history is replete with examples that support anger as a good adaptive response to certain situations. One problem, I think, is that in our currently overly ‘PC’ environment, people withdraw from anger, which ironically, is what an angry person is most often seeking. But too often people dismiss what an angry person says simply BECAUSE the person is angry. Hopefully, OWS can tap the obvious anger than is currently running through so much of average American citizenry without repelling too many of them. So far, I think they are succeeding.
I think the message needs to be something like what you have said: “Silence in the face of tyranny and abuse implies -- at least -- tacit approval.”