#occupy<insertlocalehere>

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by woob

Sweet, we're both calling each other shortsighted
!

Why is it my problem when you're shortsighted?

Nope, I don't think differently. Just like I don't think those nutbars represent the movement in it's entirety, no matter the location.

In that case, unfortunately for you, most people in Calgary today probably think they do. And generally around North America I would suspect.

Again, not my problem. That's your problem. You need to address it. But its probably too late.

Oh, and I'll be sure to notify all protesters that they're not allowed to protest if they own electronic devices of any sort. You definitely can't protest for change when you buy products from corporations you're upset with

Go back and read what I said about the hard times of yesteryear versus today.

Tom Joad was a man who suffered. Our man with the I-Pod has a ways to go yet to "learn the bitterness of life."

Cowperson

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by Ozy_Flame

I don't disagree with you on this point, but if people have the chance to contribute to a cause without getting off their butts they'll do it. Online petitions, for example, are one of those very examples that can have a mass effect if necessary.

When you think about it, the number of subscribers on a Twitter feed, or the number of "Likes" on a Facebook page are (in some ways) a form of online petition. Corporations are susceptible to these. A "social media backlash" can drive corporate strategy, such as happened with the GAP, Nivea, BP, Kia Motors, even Bank of America's debit card fees drew significant ire. Many companies have had to reverse policies or change tactics due to online disapproval and protest.

For actual, physical protests, then yes - feet on the ground matter, and in large quantities. However, visibility in the sense I think you're using it isn't a pre-requisite to drive change. At least not in the Information Age.

As someone who has been shamelessly using "Cause" and "Community" features on Facebook to drive aspects of my volunteer work, as well as Twitter, I can agree to some extent.

I'm just not getting any sense at all that Occupy Wall St. is resonating and building . . . . . and I wouldn't mind saying so if it was.

If you're of a like mind to this group like our friend Woob, it's no doubt invigorating . . . . but that's not the perspective to look at it. If you're trying to build something, it can't be just about what your regulars think about it. That's the easy sell. And these are the easy, early days.

"You'll die on the vine waiting for P-O-T-E-N-T-I-A-L" were the wise words once uttered to me by an arch-capitalist.

Occupy Wall St. can't live forever on a small number of narrowly focussed left wing extremists and expect them to magically duplicate themselves into thousands and tens of thousands.You need new people. Specifically, the people who aren't the easy sell. Lotsa them. And that's unlikely given the earlier extreme messages being espoused and still being heard.

Again, in terms of many theoretical demands, when you finally get around to it, you might find me on something of the same page. Enhanced regulation and oversight on derivatives, limiting political donations etc. . . . . and I'm an arch-capitalist myself.

And, by the way, the push for regulatory enhancements regarding derivatives has been underway for a while now, although difficult to co-ordinate across all possible jurisdictions. Its a complicated problem. But that's been happening long before this movement ever showed up.

As The Hill poll revealed, the majority of Americans realize the remedies for these issues are at their legislatures, that capitalism is what it is and so is Wall St.

Placards decrying corporate greed are sincerely comical. I know they're greedy. So am I. So are most people. Wall St. serves an extremely useful purpose in the prosperity of us all . . . . . if the general population uses Wall St. carefully in return. These are dangerous guys if they get out of their cages.

"Good luck storming the castle boys!!!" - Max The Miracle Worker in The Princess Bride. I'm not hoping against you. Just skeptical about the future of what seems like a extremist gimmick.

Cowperson

[woob]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

In that case, unfortunately for you, most people in Calgary today probably think they do. And generally around North America I would suspect.

Thanks for sharing your opinion on that. I, however, do not agree

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Go back and read what I said about the hard times of yesteryear versus today.

Tom Joad was a man who suffered. Our man with the I-Pod has a ways to go yet to "learn the bitterness of life."

Cowperson

Did I miss reading somewhere that says a person must be suffering the bitterness of life in order to protest for change? Man, I should go back and read that in "Standard Protest Manual". Is that put out by Oxford?

[Cowperson]

Originally Posted by woob

Thanks for sharing your opinion on that. I, however, do not agree



Did I miss reading somewhere that says a person must be suffering the bitterness of life in order to protest for change?

You do that. Meanwhile, I'm going for a bike ride. The hippy in me coming out.

Cowperson

[woob]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

You do that. Meanwhile, I'm going for a bike ride. The hippy in me coming out.

Cowperson

Enjoy! It's a beautiful day for one.

[woob]

Since we seem to be referencing polls, I thought I'd add this one to the mix:

Poll: Most Americans Support Occupy Wall Street

A new survey shows that Americans overwhelmingly support the self-styled Occupy Wall Street protests that not only have disrupted life in Lower Manhattan but also in Washington and cities and towns across the U.S. and in other nations. Some 59 percent of adults either completely agree or mostly agree with the protesters, while 31 percent mostly disagree or completely disagree; 10 percent of those surveyed didn't know or refused to answer.

What's more, many people are paying attention to the rallies. Almost two-thirds of respondents--65 percent--said they've heard "a lot" or "some" about the rallies, while 35 percent have said they've heard or seen "not too much" or "nothing at all" about the demonstrations.

[THE SCUD]

I'd be interested in an IQ test of those involved in this 'movement' versus the general populace. Over/under on one std. dev or more below the mean?

[Resolute 14]

Originally Posted by woob

Since we seem to be referencing polls, I thought I'd add this one to the mix:

Poll: Most Americans Support Occupy Wall Street

It is easy to support from afar. Everybody hates those rich guys who live better lives than we do. For most Americans, the protests don't affect them at all. I wonder how many of the 99% whose lives are being disrupted by protests support it? Or how much support OWS would have if they were calling for everyday Americans to change their own habits too?

[Calgaryborn]

Originally Posted by Resolute 14

It is easy to support from afar. Everybody hates those rich guys who live better lives than we do. For most Americans, the protests don't affect them at all. I wonder how many of the 99% whose lives are being disrupted by protests support it? Or how much support OWS would have if they were calling for everyday Americans to change their own habits too?

It really is going to be difficult to keep the message positive. Both the communist party and the Nazi party are supportive and been joining in. There has been some anti semitic stuff surfacing. In New York the homeless has also joined the encampment because of the hand outs. Some of these(homeless) guys have mental problems or drug problems. One teen has complained of being raped.

There is a lot there which could retract from the message. I also wonder how they see them accomplishing their goals. In the States nothing meaningful will get through congress. In Canada I can't see Harper responding to this kind of pressure.

[freedogger]

Originally Posted by Freedogger

On Bailouts of banks and car companies - if you require a public bailout, then your executive should be compensated going forward to the same level as a public servant. I don't care if you paid it back, that is like a gambler saying, look, I'm up now and I don't need you anymore. The banks in the US were bailed out in 1983 by Reagan, and look, here we are again. Without the bailouts these companies would have failed. Instead, last year they get record bonuses. This isn't capitalism, its the definition of fascism.

Originally Posted by CaptainCrunch

It would be nice to actually know what fascism is before you start throwing the word around.

Right, I meant to say corporatism, or socialism for the corporations and capitalism for the middle class.

[freedogger]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

A columnist in the Toronto Star yesterday, as a matter of fact, suggested Occupy Wall St. form its own Co-Op bank and run it by the "socially responsible" principles it espouses.

His father and a bunch of other guys in the 1950's, each with about $35, did a similar thing - forming their own Co-op - and eventually it built into something significant.

Go fer it. Knock yourself out.

Cowperson

While not quite this extreme, a fair amount of people in the US have been moving their accounts from the big banks to local credit unions. All it takes is enough people to do this...

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by freedogger

Right, I meant to say corporatism, or socialism for the corporations and capitalism for the middle class.

I still don't think you know what you're talking about. Corporatism in its current incarnation is really just corporate lobbying, which has already been established as one of the few common nitpicks of the occupy movement. What "socialism" among corporations does this include and how does that mean "capitalism for the middle class?"

[Cowboy89]

Originally Posted by freedogger

While not quite this extreme, a fair amount of people in the US have been moving their accounts from the big banks to local credit unions. All it takes is enough people to do this...

Why can't we learn from history? This is what happens when people start doing things for the sake of getting their pound of flesh as opposed to doing what's sound. A significant move backwards towards smaller, local financial institutions could create another Savings and Loan crisis like in the 80s when there is a panic and these smaller banks and credit unions can't handle the liquidity crunch.

Pretty much the big reason why the Canadian model is being reconized as the best internationally is because we have a oilgopoly of a few large Schedule 1 banks that service every market everywhere in the country. That basically ensures the banks don't make as risky loans, because the marketplace doesn't force them to (Because there's less competition). When there's a problem they're big and can handle the liquidity crunch.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by Cowboy89

Why can't we learn from history? This is what happens when people start doing things for the sake of getting their pound of flesh as opposed to doing what's sound. A significant move backwards towards smaller, local financial institutions could create another Savings and Loan crisis like in the 80s when there is a panic and these smaller banks and credit unions can't handle the liquidity crunch.

Pretty much the big reason why the Canadian model is being reconized as the best internationally is because we have a oilgopoly of a few large Schedule 1 banks that service every market everywhere in the country. That basically ensures the banks don't make as risky loans, because the marketplace doesn't force them to (Because there's less competition). When there's a problem they're big and can handle the liquidity crunch.

Not only are they "too big too fail" but they are fairly heavily regulated. The Government, from what I understand, says, you can have a oligopoly, but here are the rules you have to play by....win-win.

In the U.S. the problem is the big banks were unregulated and took even larger risks our Schedule 1 banks are prohibited from doing so.


EDIT: I should also point out that small credit unions are slow to adapt to technology, it's only recently that some have been able to process email money transfers...and I wouldn't be surprised if that's largely piggybacking on the infrastructure put in place by the big banks.

[macker]

Is Capitalism broken? http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-1...html?cmpid=bit


Rage Against the Machine : http://www.economist.com/node/21533400

[Cowperson]

Amusingly, a study finds the top 100 hockey players make more than the top 100 bloodsucking Canadian CEO's.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle2207538/

Occupy The Saddledome?

Cowperson

[Devils'Advocate]

Meh. I think that a flawed analysis. There are far MORE CEOs than there are professional hockey players. You get into scenario's like Nortel where the upper managers are taking the glut of the company profits home with them while the workers get stiffed.

And while it may be true that Iginla's salary may or may not affect the beer vendor's salary, there is something wrong when a company's revenue is spent on remuneration mostly to the CEOs and very little to the people doing the actual work of producing the product for the corporation. Hockey may be one of the few examples where the workers actually get paid reasonably well in comparison with the CEOs.

The gap between the rich and the poor is growing. Capping executive salaries is one means of curtailing that gap.

But even in that hockey analysis... their salaries *HAVE* been capped as a percentage of revenue. If CEOs want to tie their salaries to how well the company is doing, I'm happy with that. What pisses me off is the Nortel situation where the company was going bankrupt and the CEOs were making out like bandits.

[zuluking]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Amusingly, a study finds the top 100 hockey players make more than the top 100 bloodsucking Canadian CEO's.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle2207538/

Occupy The Saddledome?

Cowperson

Tonight - 7:30pm. I'll be there wearing my jersey as a means to mock these elitist sports figures! And I'll occupy a lower bowl seat so a member of the 1% no longer has the opportunity to enjoy it. I'm not going to like it, but ... stand together comrades!!!

[username]

Originally Posted by Cowperson

Amusingly, a study finds the top 100 hockey players make more than the top 100 bloodsucking Canadian CEO's.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/repor...rticle2207538/

Occupy The Saddledome?

Cowperson

Terrible comparision since most NHL players only earn those salaries for a few years if they are lucky. CEO's can make their huge salaries for many more years than this plus their careers are much less likely to be cut short due to an injury.

I'd imagine that the list of CEO's making 6+ would drastically increase with a good economy since their compensations are typically all stock/options.

[corporatejay]

Originally Posted by username

Terrible comparision since most NHL players only earn those salaries for a few years if they are lucky. CEO's can make their huge salaries for many more years than this plus their careers are much less likely to be cut short due to an injury.

I'd imagine that the list of CEO's making 6+ would drastically increase with a good economy since their compensations are typically all stock/options.

So CEOs should make less because they can perform at a high level for a longer period of time?

By that logic, Strippers should be making $10,000,000 because really they're only in their prime for a few years.