Occupy Wall Street’s Empty Anger
Oct 31, 2011
David Mills
They make you miss Marx, these Occupy Wall Streeters. Though even the New York Times first treated them as a slightly comical affair, the major media now give them the same extensive, sober, even deferential treatment they give a major movement of which they approve.
But not, I think, because the “Occupiers” are really going anywhere with their protest or doing anything very useful, no matter to how many cities the occupations spread, but because others—the Paul Krugmans and Nicholas Kristofs of the world, for example—can project upon the Occupiers what meaning they want and appropriate their “anger” and “passion” and “outrage” for their own purposes. 
I walked through Zuccotti Park a couple of weeks ago with a friend, and there saw a world I recognize from my youth, one I had known somewhat well. I hope my description will not seem too jaundiced, but I think it accurate.
In the park were the activists, of course, mostly young and mostly affluent. They had the time and money to live in the park for a while, and lives to go back to whenever they wanted, and an idealistic vision of a spontaneous, decentralized, passion-driven politics which comes to them from the sixties. They provide the winsome face of the movement.
Also in the park were people who would be sleeping in another park if they were not sleeping in this one; and the unrooted, directionless young people who by choice live in crowded apartments in the poorer neighborhoods (though not the poorest) of major cities, getting by on low paid jobs and feeling that “the system” has failed them; and the related class of “artists” and “playwrights” who work part-time jobs because “society” will not recognize, which means fund, their “art”; and the leftwing political opportunists who flock to such events and who are not likely to be found actually sleeping in the park.
Some are genuinely marginalized, some just feel they are. They are all angry, or claim to be, because things have gone badly for most of us and well for a few. Some, we are safe in saying, have attached their free-floating anger onto a target, that evil 1 percent.
That romantic name “Occupy Wall Street” offers an illusion of revolutionary power, as if they were manning the barricades in Paris in 1968, or protesting in Tiananmen Square in 1989 (at least till a true 1% sent in the tanks), or gathering to oppose tyrannical regimes in the public squares of Arab capitals.
In reality, Occupy Wall Street only describes a small public park appropriated by a group of fairly harmless people, who spend all day drumming and talking and hanging out, and once in a while organizing protests. A nuisance, especially if you live or work in the area, and a drain upon public services, and now a bit of a tourist attraction, but not a threat. Something to be watched, because crowds can become mobs, but not a threat to the established order.
The banker and the hedge fund manager do not need to fear Occupy Wall Street, and I’m fairly sure they don’t. The Occupiers do not threaten them. If anything (from the bankers’ point of view), they may divert attention from people and movements that might actually threaten them. At worst they offer New York Times editors, Democratic politicians clapped out for new ideas, and union leaders who find their movements dying—all one percenters as measured by social status and power—an excuse for doing what they wanted to do anyway.
The problem, I think, is that the nearly everyone has accepted the Occupiers’ anger as validating their movement, but an anger so general has no political value. It gets you nowhere. It offers no critique of, no challenge nor any alternative to the vague abstract thing at which you are angry. “We are the 99 percent” angry at the remaining 1% doesn’t tell anyone who the 1 percent are, and what they’ve done wrong, and what they should have done, and how the system itself encouraged them to do some things and not others, and what the nation should do now.
They make you, as I say, miss Marx. Or not Marx, exactly, but the kind of coherent and thought-out leftism he represents, ideas you can engage and challenge, and be challenged by, which is very different from the establishment liberalism of (to mention them again) the editors of the New York Times.
The loss of a left worth engaging hurts the country, not because that left will answer the questions of the moment, but because the country needs the challenges only the left will (at the moment) provide. The mainstream right will not challenge those who’ll exploit the system for their own ends, and exploit others for their own profit, because so many have off-loaded their moral thinking to the market. Nor, not in a million years, will the Republican Party.
That may be one of the worst results of the sixties, that the politics of gesture and emotion have been privileged, as the academics put it, which means a politics with no actual political content will drive a publicly successful movement like Occupy Wall Street—even though it is not going anywhere in particular.
David Mills is Executive Editor of First Things and the author of Discovering Mary: Answers to Questions About the Mother of God. His previous “On the Square” articles can be found here.
Fall Web Campaign: Please donate to support the online mission of First Things.
Comments:
10.31.2011 | 1:08pm
Not only is what Swathmore says true, but it only scratches the surface. The fundamental - and fundamentally justified - source of anger animating the OWS movement is the rampant and systemic criminality that pervades the system and practice of banking and finance, and has done so for at least the past 15 years. The specific forms and patterns of these criminalities are abundantly documented on any number of independent finance blogs emanating from both the ideological right and left. Try googling "Matt Taibbi" or "Karl Denninger" for just a small sampling of abundantly available informed discussion of this criminality.
It is not just that the 1 percent is rich that angers the OWS people, in other words. It is that their riches were arrogated to a substantial degree through manifestly criminal methods - such as when Goldman Sachs fraudulently marketed mortgage-backed derivatives as sound investments when they themselves not only knew they were garbage, but were heavily betting that they were not through the purchases of put-options and the like on them.
It is not just that the 1 percent is rich that angers the OWS people, in other words. It is that their riches were arrogated to a substantial degree through manifestly criminal methods - such as when Goldman Sachs fraudulently marketed mortgage-backed derivatives as sound investments when they themselves not only knew they were garbage, but were heavily betting that they were not through the purchases of put-options and the like on them.
10.31.2011 | 1:46pm
David Mills says:
Swathmore and Church of the East member may be right, but I think, from my observations at the site and much reading, that they're doing what I describe others doing in the second paragraph. That various people have made substantial critiques of "the one percent" and the OWS people are angry at "the one percent" doesn't mean the two "one percents" are the same, nor that the OWSers have such a critique themselves.
10.31.2011 | 2:02pm
Jack Perry says:
I'm wondering if either of you guys (Swathmore, Church of the East member) read what David actually wrote, in particular the penultimate paragraph: "The loss of a left worth engaging hurts the country... because the country needs the challenges only the left will (at the moment) provide. The mainstream right will not challenge those who’ll exploit the system for their own ends, and exploit others for their own profit, because so many have off-loaded their moral thinking to the market. Nor, not in a million years, will the Republican Party."
10.31.2011 | 2:09pm
stephen weber says:
It seems the author has already thrown in the towel.
I find the author kind of sad to write, "(the) 1% doesn’t tell anyone who the 1 percent are"..
Look around . Pick the nicest walled off section of land. Pick the biggest largest buildings. Since just about everything in America is owned directly by them and leased to the 99%. So who are they? I think the total number is only about 15000.
It isn't that much different then the Arab Spring. In those countries there is a clear dictator. Who picks his friends and funds them up to their 1%. And they own the police, they make the laws , because they fund the government.
We have no clear villian. But the problem is ABSOLUTELY the same. And as our "dictators" get tired of facing people not working as their slaves. The police will start making laws to outlaw them. And slowly through time. The police will start killing them for standing up.
And the rest of the 99% that aren't being peaceful and standing in a nice park in a dozen two dozen three dozen a thousand cities. Will.. Also.
So to the author who wrote , "In reality, Occupy Wall Street only describes a small public park "
How about a road trip for you? One city , really..
I find the author kind of sad to write, "(the) 1% doesn’t tell anyone who the 1 percent are"..
Look around . Pick the nicest walled off section of land. Pick the biggest largest buildings. Since just about everything in America is owned directly by them and leased to the 99%. So who are they? I think the total number is only about 15000.
It isn't that much different then the Arab Spring. In those countries there is a clear dictator. Who picks his friends and funds them up to their 1%. And they own the police, they make the laws , because they fund the government.
We have no clear villian. But the problem is ABSOLUTELY the same. And as our "dictators" get tired of facing people not working as their slaves. The police will start making laws to outlaw them. And slowly through time. The police will start killing them for standing up.
And the rest of the 99% that aren't being peaceful and standing in a nice park in a dozen two dozen three dozen a thousand cities. Will.. Also.
So to the author who wrote , "In reality, Occupy Wall Street only describes a small public park "
How about a road trip for you? One city , really..
10.31.2011 | 2:12pm
maineman says:
Swarthmore and Church seem not to have read the article, because it clearly articulates what anyone who is not projecting on the "protesters" sees, that this is a "movement" going nowhere and without focus.
That is, unless you consider nihilism, narcissism, and envy to be tangible goals. These are largely the empty-headed products of our misspent wealth, same as the "criminals" in the banking industry, most of whom were not breaking laws but were just taking advantage of what looked like a good thing while it lasted. Same as those of us who made a "killing" by buying property and selling it for more than it was worth in a ponzi scheme of historically unparalleled proportions.
No, guys. The moral and intellectual vacuity of these pot-smoking degenerates - believe me, I was one once - represents nothing other than the collective (and not so collective at that) temper tantrum of those raised in unprecedented luxury. The OWS crowd is longing for the exciting world of their grandparents, we who started the nihilistic ball rolling big-time a half century ago.
And the idea that we need someone to take charge of these industries, to control the "criminals," is itself a laughable anachronism, especially given the primary role of government corruption in all of this. Made doubly laughable by the fact that the problem, in the first place, is one of the enormous wealth that has been generated.
Get used to it: mankind is fallen. Stop complaining about it and looking for some earthly power to fix it. The problem is moral and always will be moral. When the protesters are also protesters of the murder of the unborn, sexual acting out, and the increasing loss of individual freedom at the hands of government regulators, then we can talk.
Oh wait, there already is such a group. We call it the Tea Party, the complete opposite of OWS, from its primary philosophical and moral assumptions to the physical and behavioral qualities of the participants.
That is, unless you consider nihilism, narcissism, and envy to be tangible goals. These are largely the empty-headed products of our misspent wealth, same as the "criminals" in the banking industry, most of whom were not breaking laws but were just taking advantage of what looked like a good thing while it lasted. Same as those of us who made a "killing" by buying property and selling it for more than it was worth in a ponzi scheme of historically unparalleled proportions.
No, guys. The moral and intellectual vacuity of these pot-smoking degenerates - believe me, I was one once - represents nothing other than the collective (and not so collective at that) temper tantrum of those raised in unprecedented luxury. The OWS crowd is longing for the exciting world of their grandparents, we who started the nihilistic ball rolling big-time a half century ago.
And the idea that we need someone to take charge of these industries, to control the "criminals," is itself a laughable anachronism, especially given the primary role of government corruption in all of this. Made doubly laughable by the fact that the problem, in the first place, is one of the enormous wealth that has been generated.
Get used to it: mankind is fallen. Stop complaining about it and looking for some earthly power to fix it. The problem is moral and always will be moral. When the protesters are also protesters of the murder of the unborn, sexual acting out, and the increasing loss of individual freedom at the hands of government regulators, then we can talk.
Oh wait, there already is such a group. We call it the Tea Party, the complete opposite of OWS, from its primary philosophical and moral assumptions to the physical and behavioral qualities of the participants.
10.31.2011 | 2:12pm
hippocrates says:
It makes me miss Marx?
Not me - unless you mean Groucho
He would have had great fun with this OWS stuff
Is there really "the loss of a left worth engaging"?
Dude - they aren't lost
The real Marxists are busy making policy
Have you read the health care plan?
And Swathmore has things a little mixed up
Yes, Bush bailed out the banks and some Wall Street investors
But unemployment has really ballooned under Obama's direction
It's a marxist thing - you wouldn't understand
Not me - unless you mean Groucho
He would have had great fun with this OWS stuff
Is there really "the loss of a left worth engaging"?
Dude - they aren't lost
The real Marxists are busy making policy
Have you read the health care plan?
And Swathmore has things a little mixed up
Yes, Bush bailed out the banks and some Wall Street investors
But unemployment has really ballooned under Obama's direction
It's a marxist thing - you wouldn't understand
10.31.2011 | 2:15pm
medievalist says:
The Marxian geographer David Harvey is one worthy Leftist voice. Very readable, and he takes market economics quite seriously.
http://davidharvey.org/
http://davidharvey.org/
10.31.2011 | 2:18pm
Mike Melendez says:
I keep reading that the Bush administration gave a half trillion dollars of bailout money to large corporations. Yet, if they are talking about TARP, my understanding is that the 800 billion was all government guaranteed loans, that almost all those loans have been paid back, so the net cost was close to zero. Is my understanding wrong? Was there some other 500 billion handout my memory does not include? I also remember the 800 billion stimulus package of the Obama administration which included, e.g., the half billion to Solyndra which was direct spending as well as things like "Cash for Clunkers" and an income tax break on the doors I had installed that year. Then again, I remember a 150 billion stimulus in the Bush administration that included checks cut to every citizen. So I don't get where Swathmore is coming from.
As to Church of the East, is he referring to the recent and past and continuing trials of wealthy people who stepped over the line? Or is there a set of criminal acts that are known but unprosecuted?
To back up David Mills, I've yet to hear OWS or "Occupy ..." speak to either of the issues Swathmore or Church raise.
As to Church of the East, is he referring to the recent and past and continuing trials of wealthy people who stepped over the line? Or is there a set of criminal acts that are known but unprosecuted?
To back up David Mills, I've yet to hear OWS or "Occupy ..." speak to either of the issues Swathmore or Church raise.
10.31.2011 | 2:31pm
medievalist says:
Tired of cartoonish protests? Watch a SMART cartoon about the financial crisis that sums up some of David Harvey's basic arguments about how global capitalism masks its failures by shifting crises around geographically.
http://davidharvey.org/2010/06/rsa-crises-of-capitalism-talk-animated/
http://davidharvey.org/2010/06/rsa-crises-of-capitalism-talk-animated/
10.31.2011 | 2:36pm
Judy K. Warner says:
I'd take the first two comments more seriously if the angry left ever mentioned the large sum that the Obama administration gave to the politically correct solar company Solandra, which used the money for luxurious quarter and then went bankrupt destroying over a thousand jobs, and which is connected with an important Obama donor. Just for one example.
I'd say that the rampant and systemic criminality is to be found within the Obama administration, among those who conceived and carried out the Fast and Furious operation, those who refuse to prosecute voter fraud that benefits the Democratic Party, those who direct money to many other politically connected enterprises besides Solandra. It is found in the president himself who directed that the law be broken so that in the Chrysler bankruptcy the unions were preferred over the bondholders (not the rich one percent but mainly retirees counting on those bonds for their retirement).
No, this kind of lawbreaking is not commented on by the useful idiots of the left. They work themselves up at things they are told to get angry about, in periodic bouts of two-minute hate. They are as ignorant as any group of Americans have been, ever.
And for some of them it's just a good time, as it was for so many protesters in the 1960s who didn't have a draft-eligible stake in "peace."
I'd say that the rampant and systemic criminality is to be found within the Obama administration, among those who conceived and carried out the Fast and Furious operation, those who refuse to prosecute voter fraud that benefits the Democratic Party, those who direct money to many other politically connected enterprises besides Solandra. It is found in the president himself who directed that the law be broken so that in the Chrysler bankruptcy the unions were preferred over the bondholders (not the rich one percent but mainly retirees counting on those bonds for their retirement).
No, this kind of lawbreaking is not commented on by the useful idiots of the left. They work themselves up at things they are told to get angry about, in periodic bouts of two-minute hate. They are as ignorant as any group of Americans have been, ever.
And for some of them it's just a good time, as it was for so many protesters in the 1960s who didn't have a draft-eligible stake in "peace."
10.31.2011 | 2:44pm
Sue Abromaitis says:
That sloth, envy, anger, avarice, lust, gluttony, and pride are evident in the OWS participants is apparent to anyone who looks at many of their signs that are, among other things, anti-semitic, hate-filled, desirous of the fruits of the labor of others, and grammatically, historically, and economically illiterate. The manipulation of the market by the incredibly well-paid executive staff of Fanny Mae and Freddy Mac and the profiteering of political hacks have received no attention from any grand jury or Justice Department agency, e.g., mortgage benefits that Sen. Dodd received; salary benefits that one of Congressman Frank's close friends received; the incredible money made by the current mayor of Chicago in his time with a then-large financial firm, and the forture accumulated by the then similarly employed non-tax-paying current secretary of the Treasury.
10.31.2011 | 3:05pm
Patrick says:
I agree with OWS that legal action needs to be taken against certain investment firms. But I don't think they're going to initiate that themselves, so why target Wall St.? Are they expecting the high finance executives to prosecute themselves, or... what, exactly? It's hard to blame people for breaking laws when the laws are not enforced.
The government needs to enforce the laws, that's its responsibility. But let's not forget that the largest contributor to the Obama campaign was... Goldman Sachs.
The government needs to enforce the laws, that's its responsibility. But let's not forget that the largest contributor to the Obama campaign was... Goldman Sachs.
10.31.2011 | 3:14pm
TXW says:
".. . that the politics of gesture and emotion have been privileged. . . ".
I recently watched a clip of Eisenhower's farewell address. I have no idea about Eisenhower's policies or politics, but I was struck by how eloquent, thoughtful, and persuasive his speech was, and then saddened because no politician in either party speaks like that anymore. I can't stand watching the republican debates as they are shallow and spastic, and it is the same with the stinky drum circles of the left. At least they left Madison for now and went to Manhattan. Please keep them.
I recently watched a clip of Eisenhower's farewell address. I have no idea about Eisenhower's policies or politics, but I was struck by how eloquent, thoughtful, and persuasive his speech was, and then saddened because no politician in either party speaks like that anymore. I can't stand watching the republican debates as they are shallow and spastic, and it is the same with the stinky drum circles of the left. At least they left Madison for now and went to Manhattan. Please keep them.
10.31.2011 | 4:47pm
Lincoln Hunter says:
TXW: no one speaks like Eisenhower any more, for sure, and no one has paid close attention to what he said either. That is even more sad than the increase in illiteracy and deficient thought & speech.
10.31.2011 | 4:50pm
Pubius says:
@ Stephen Weber,
150,000 doesn't equal 1%. It equals 0.041666667%. Beats me where you got the number.
And whether or not TARP was ill advised, it bears mentioning that the federal government made money on it.
Finally, have you noticed how many of those involved in these protests have nicer cell phones (and even have ipads or other similar devices)--frequently much nicer than the average working family. Either these folks aren't really without good work or money OR we have an amazing welfare system--paid mostly by the 1%. The top 1% pay about 36.7% of the national tax bill and take in about 16.9% of the country's adjusted gross income. The top 5% of income earners pay 58.7% of the national tax burden. The top 10% pay 70.5%--and take nowhere near that amount of the adjusted gross income for the country. The top 50% pay 97.7% of the tax bill for the country. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay 2.3% of the nation's taxes. Perhaps the numbers can add a little perspective. A good percentage of the country pay nothing at all.
One more thing--what is it that Occupiers want. Greater equality? Did the 1% (whoever they are) steal from them? Isn't all of this premised on a Marxist theory of economics as a zero sum game? Economic inequality does not by itself mean that the holdings of some comes at the expense of the holdings of others and so does not by itself entail anything about what should be done. Non sequiturs seem to abound with the OWS crowd. Equality of conditions is not by itself a goal to be attained but, if of any value, purely instrumental. In which case, you need some account of the good that will be attained, an argument that inequality in holding resulted from injustice, and a principle of rectification (which will be fairly complex) by which things can be set right. This will all be very controversial and command much less than 99% support. Perhaps we should just stick to forbidding stealing and punishing those who do on a case by case basis. In which case we won't be demonstrating against the riches of rich people just because their rich--which seems a manifest waste of time.
Really finally--a good many of us who are not in the so-called 1% also don't identify with the self-identified 99%, whose numbers are manifestly, considerably less than 1% (if we tally the demonstrators or even those with significant sympathy for them).
150,000 doesn't equal 1%. It equals 0.041666667%. Beats me where you got the number.
And whether or not TARP was ill advised, it bears mentioning that the federal government made money on it.
Finally, have you noticed how many of those involved in these protests have nicer cell phones (and even have ipads or other similar devices)--frequently much nicer than the average working family. Either these folks aren't really without good work or money OR we have an amazing welfare system--paid mostly by the 1%. The top 1% pay about 36.7% of the national tax bill and take in about 16.9% of the country's adjusted gross income. The top 5% of income earners pay 58.7% of the national tax burden. The top 10% pay 70.5%--and take nowhere near that amount of the adjusted gross income for the country. The top 50% pay 97.7% of the tax bill for the country. The bottom 50% of wage earners pay 2.3% of the nation's taxes. Perhaps the numbers can add a little perspective. A good percentage of the country pay nothing at all.
One more thing--what is it that Occupiers want. Greater equality? Did the 1% (whoever they are) steal from them? Isn't all of this premised on a Marxist theory of economics as a zero sum game? Economic inequality does not by itself mean that the holdings of some comes at the expense of the holdings of others and so does not by itself entail anything about what should be done. Non sequiturs seem to abound with the OWS crowd. Equality of conditions is not by itself a goal to be attained but, if of any value, purely instrumental. In which case, you need some account of the good that will be attained, an argument that inequality in holding resulted from injustice, and a principle of rectification (which will be fairly complex) by which things can be set right. This will all be very controversial and command much less than 99% support. Perhaps we should just stick to forbidding stealing and punishing those who do on a case by case basis. In which case we won't be demonstrating against the riches of rich people just because their rich--which seems a manifest waste of time.
Really finally--a good many of us who are not in the so-called 1% also don't identify with the self-identified 99%, whose numbers are manifestly, considerably less than 1% (if we tally the demonstrators or even those with significant sympathy for them).
10.31.2011 | 5:35pm
Fr. Jim says:
Not one of the protesters really understands economics. By saving the banking system Bush saved the economy upon which we ALL depend. The crisis began when liberal Democrats forced banks to lend to those who could not repay their loans when the mortgages ballooned. The idea was that everyone should be able to buy a house, even if they couldn't afford it. This caught up with us and that triggered the crisis.
Now the Obama bailouts far outpace anything Bush did. He has borrowed and spent us into the poor house, repeating the problem on a macro level. Vast amounts of money have been spent on the unemployed, see 99 weeks of benefits and counting.
The fact is that seizing 100% of the property and income of the 1% will fund the government at current levels for around 5 months. After that it will be the turn of the middle class. Then we are truly broke. The fact is that we cannot continue to spend at the current levels or raise taxes during a recession which is suicidal. In fact we should look back at how Reagan dealt with the recession of the late '70s. It worked.
Many of these protesters have earned useless degrees and gone into dept to get them. They won't take just any job. They want to start at the top. Ask them what their major was...women's studies, sociology etc. I am willing to bet you won't find many of have degrees in math or the hard sciences. Students need to face the fact that a degree is not a ticket to high income for life. They shy away from difficult courses and even make the liberal arts into adventures in political correctness. These so-called socialists who believe in equality look down on blue collar workers like plumbers and tool and die makers. We need people to do those jobs and can't get enough of them.
Combine all of this with a population where 25% don't graduate from high school and 9% are so addicted to drugs/alcohol that they are unemployable. Add in that many practice behaviors that are socially and morally corrupt. So of course unemployment is high. If you are functionally illiterate and think only of the next joint you don't have much to offer an employer. You reap what you sow. Or in more current terms I would tell them, "Your life is not my fault."
For the record I am not in the 1%. But they have done anything to hold me back from having a full life. Their wealth is not my poverty. Instead of sitting in a park complaining they need to be out there working any job they can find or getting training to do something useful.
Now the Obama bailouts far outpace anything Bush did. He has borrowed and spent us into the poor house, repeating the problem on a macro level. Vast amounts of money have been spent on the unemployed, see 99 weeks of benefits and counting.
The fact is that seizing 100% of the property and income of the 1% will fund the government at current levels for around 5 months. After that it will be the turn of the middle class. Then we are truly broke. The fact is that we cannot continue to spend at the current levels or raise taxes during a recession which is suicidal. In fact we should look back at how Reagan dealt with the recession of the late '70s. It worked.
Many of these protesters have earned useless degrees and gone into dept to get them. They won't take just any job. They want to start at the top. Ask them what their major was...women's studies, sociology etc. I am willing to bet you won't find many of have degrees in math or the hard sciences. Students need to face the fact that a degree is not a ticket to high income for life. They shy away from difficult courses and even make the liberal arts into adventures in political correctness. These so-called socialists who believe in equality look down on blue collar workers like plumbers and tool and die makers. We need people to do those jobs and can't get enough of them.
Combine all of this with a population where 25% don't graduate from high school and 9% are so addicted to drugs/alcohol that they are unemployable. Add in that many practice behaviors that are socially and morally corrupt. So of course unemployment is high. If you are functionally illiterate and think only of the next joint you don't have much to offer an employer. You reap what you sow. Or in more current terms I would tell them, "Your life is not my fault."
For the record I am not in the 1%. But they have done anything to hold me back from having a full life. Their wealth is not my poverty. Instead of sitting in a park complaining they need to be out there working any job they can find or getting training to do something useful.
10.31.2011 | 7:24pm
Diomedes says:
Fr. Jim: "Not one of the protesters really understands economics."
Do you know what usury is? It's called a sin. And the entirety of our contemporary economic system is built upon it. That's the economy "upon which we ALL depend."
It's amusing that it takes some dirty hippies in drum circles to bring to the fore a prevailing theological injustice in the way we structure our lives. At one point, this was something that the Church did. But then its people began to benefit from silence.
Do you know what usury is? It's called a sin. And the entirety of our contemporary economic system is built upon it. That's the economy "upon which we ALL depend."
It's amusing that it takes some dirty hippies in drum circles to bring to the fore a prevailing theological injustice in the way we structure our lives. At one point, this was something that the Church did. But then its people began to benefit from silence.
10.31.2011 | 7:50pm
DP says:
There is a good piece on the Motley Fool site on how the OWS are part of the global 1%. Choice quote:
"In America, the top 1% earn more than $380,000 per year. We are, however, among the richest nations on Earth. How much do you need to earn to be among the top 1% of the world?
$34,000.
That was the finding World Bank economist Branko Milanovic presented in his 2010 book The Haves and the Have-Nots. Going down the distribution ladder may be just as surprising. To be in the top half of the globe, you need to earn just $1,225 a year. For the top 20%, it's $5,000 per year. Enter the top 10% with $12,000 a year. To be included in the top 0.1% requires an annual income of $70,000."
Full piece here: http://tinyurl.com/42fcq6u
"In America, the top 1% earn more than $380,000 per year. We are, however, among the richest nations on Earth. How much do you need to earn to be among the top 1% of the world?
$34,000.
That was the finding World Bank economist Branko Milanovic presented in his 2010 book The Haves and the Have-Nots. Going down the distribution ladder may be just as surprising. To be in the top half of the globe, you need to earn just $1,225 a year. For the top 20%, it's $5,000 per year. Enter the top 10% with $12,000 a year. To be included in the top 0.1% requires an annual income of $70,000."
Full piece here: http://tinyurl.com/42fcq6u
10.31.2011 | 10:56pm
Gail Finke says:
I went down and talked to the (much smaller) Occupy Cincinnati group about 10 days after it started, and found it exactly as David Mills described. Unlike some people posting here, who seem to think that the Occupy people agree with them about various economic ideas, the people I spoke to were all over the place. They had no solutions to propose for anything -- I know, I asked them repeatedly what they were there for. The more honest told me they were seizing (not their word) the park to use as the headquarters of their political movement (their words) and would now start deciding what they were all about and what they wanted to accomplish. When I pointed out that generally one decides what one wants and THEN protests, they told me it was a new kind of protest. I don't think they are about anything except that life isn't fair. Actually, what one of the leaders told me was that everyone should have to get a permit to use the park and vacate it after hours UNLESS THEY HAD A REASON to use it indefinitely. I told him that while they were in it, no one else could use it, which defeated the purpose of having a public park. He said there were other parks other people could use. And that, in a nutshell, is "Occupy." Laws are good and important, unless you have a reason to break them. And who decides? The people who break them. Not exactly a coherent philosophy.
10.31.2011 | 11:02pm
thaddeus says:
There’s a time for sociological analysis and academic distance, and there’s a time for concrete judgment and action–or a combination of both. Criminals and murderers run the U.S. government and military, and thieves and psychopaths run the economy. Is this an overstatement? I don't think so. People are now protesting this instead of just writing about it or lobbying against it. This is a wonderful sign of societal life. Brave New World/1984 has not yet set in.
Any sociological, academic interpretation of OWS that either ignores the basic truth that this a movement of victims of criminality standing up against psychopaths, a psychopathic system that rewards corporate ruthlessness, and the enablers of both, or obfuscates this truth is, in my view, immoral. Your article, Mr. Mills, completely abstracts from the context of the extreme, public criminality without which the protests do seem like unnarrated, arbitrary, self-centered, chaotic angst. But your article becomes a propaganda piece when you prescind from the elephant in the room. Your piece provides more fodder for the stupid Fox News, neo-con-secularized Calvinistic, right-wing, anti-Christian attack on the victims of nation-wide and global looting.
Yes, the protestors are like the worshippers in Athens looking for an unknown God, so, yes, they lack a coherent narrative and philosophical and theological grounding (for the most part), but this is not something just to analyze sociologically or indirectly criticize–they need support and they need Christian intellectuals to help them with the correct narrative. Of course, this is found in Catholic Social Teaching in general, and distributism in particular.
Some helpful words:
"It is now clearly understood that, rather than apply the law equally to all, Wall Street tycoons have engaged in egregious criminality—acts which destroyed the economic security of millions of people around the world—without experiencing the slightest legal repercussions. Giant financial institutions were caught red-handed engaging in massive, systematic fraud to foreclose on people’s homes and the reaction of the political class, led by the Obama administration, was to shield them from meaningful consequences.
--Glenn Greenwald
This sick attitude evinced by Mises here is what is at the heart of what is being protested:
"You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who are better than you.
--Ludvig von Mises to Ayn Rand
"Not only have I never offered remedies for the condition of liberal modernity, it has been part of my case that there are no remedies. The problem is not to reform the dominant order, but to find ways for local communities to survive by sustaining a life of the common good against the disintegrating forces of the nation-state and the market"
--Alasdair MacIntyre 1998g, 235; 1995b, 35).
"In the wake of a financial meltdown that made Chernobyl look puny by comparison, we were told over and over again that the system—which is to say, Capitalism—remains fundamentally sound. To say that deregulation was a good idea or that markets were efficient or that privatization would make large scale enterprises like public education, railroads and energy more efficient were examples of what Quiggin called “zombie ideas,” which is to say bad or defunct ideas which were now in the light of actual trial and error in the marketplace of ideas demonstrably false and yet at the same time somehow possessed of a inexplicable ability to rise from the grave once again and walk among us as if nothing had happened."
--E. Michael Jones
Any sociological, academic interpretation of OWS that either ignores the basic truth that this a movement of victims of criminality standing up against psychopaths, a psychopathic system that rewards corporate ruthlessness, and the enablers of both, or obfuscates this truth is, in my view, immoral. Your article, Mr. Mills, completely abstracts from the context of the extreme, public criminality without which the protests do seem like unnarrated, arbitrary, self-centered, chaotic angst. But your article becomes a propaganda piece when you prescind from the elephant in the room. Your piece provides more fodder for the stupid Fox News, neo-con-secularized Calvinistic, right-wing, anti-Christian attack on the victims of nation-wide and global looting.
Yes, the protestors are like the worshippers in Athens looking for an unknown God, so, yes, they lack a coherent narrative and philosophical and theological grounding (for the most part), but this is not something just to analyze sociologically or indirectly criticize–they need support and they need Christian intellectuals to help them with the correct narrative. Of course, this is found in Catholic Social Teaching in general, and distributism in particular.
Some helpful words:
"It is now clearly understood that, rather than apply the law equally to all, Wall Street tycoons have engaged in egregious criminality—acts which destroyed the economic security of millions of people around the world—without experiencing the slightest legal repercussions. Giant financial institutions were caught red-handed engaging in massive, systematic fraud to foreclose on people’s homes and the reaction of the political class, led by the Obama administration, was to shield them from meaningful consequences.
--Glenn Greenwald
This sick attitude evinced by Mises here is what is at the heart of what is being protested:
"You have the courage to tell the masses what no politician told them: you are inferior and all the improvements in your conditions which you simply take for granted you owe to the effort of men who are better than you.
--Ludvig von Mises to Ayn Rand
"Not only have I never offered remedies for the condition of liberal modernity, it has been part of my case that there are no remedies. The problem is not to reform the dominant order, but to find ways for local communities to survive by sustaining a life of the common good against the disintegrating forces of the nation-state and the market"
--Alasdair MacIntyre 1998g, 235; 1995b, 35).
"In the wake of a financial meltdown that made Chernobyl look puny by comparison, we were told over and over again that the system—which is to say, Capitalism—remains fundamentally sound. To say that deregulation was a good idea or that markets were efficient or that privatization would make large scale enterprises like public education, railroads and energy more efficient were examples of what Quiggin called “zombie ideas,” which is to say bad or defunct ideas which were now in the light of actual trial and error in the marketplace of ideas demonstrably false and yet at the same time somehow possessed of a inexplicable ability to rise from the grave once again and walk among us as if nothing had happened."
--E. Michael Jones
10.31.2011 | 11:23pm
Dan C says:
I love this movement because it drives conservatives nuts. Incoherent, uneducated, uninformed commoners taking positions on complex things they no little about. Its just like all you dudes who listen to Rush Limbaugh. All those descriptors apply to that audience too.
And the Tea Party before big money took over its direction.
And the Tea Party before big money took over its direction.
11.1.2011 | 1:08am
John Medaille says:
I went down to Zuchotti Park and had many interesting conversations with a variety of people. What impressed me was the willingness to talk--really talk and not just scream slogans at each other. I also got my "UnLocke America" button, which I think is pretty good. I guess we met different people there. These people had a pretty clear idea of what the problems were, and it they refuse to have some simple-minded "program" to fix everything, so much the better for them. And maybe for us, as well. After all, look at how much the people who "gotten things done in politics" have done; maybe they would have done better had they done nothing.
11.1.2011 | 1:41am
Gian says:
Where did Bush find $700 B to bail out the banks?
Ans: the money was created ex nihlio and thus was immoral.
Ans: the money was created ex nihlio and thus was immoral.
11.1.2011 | 9:28am
De Las Casas says:
It is not the 1%, but the 99.9% of us, that are the problem,…because we have a “China Problem” that is woven into the seamless fabric of most of our other problems.
The “China Problem”, is not only comprised of the true nature of the savage Peoples Republic Of China, but more importantly, the amorality of the 99.9% who empower China by buying their goods and services, and who go into business with China. The Atheistic Capitalism we practice is not only suicidal, it has similarities to Atheistic Communism other than just rhyming.
What moral disorder has inflicted our 99.9% that, in the selfish interest of short-lived profit, we empower a government as malevolent as The Peoples Republic Of China?
The myth that encouraging capitalism in China will cure the immorality of that government has been exposed by our own descent into moral disorder while pursuing profit above all.
We become “little traitors” with every purchase of Chinese goods. Patriotism should be to our fellow citizens not just to the soil of this country. We become “Big Traitors” when we move a factory to China. We become something even worse when our government co-invests in GM plants in China.
Our patriotism should have as its object not just the soil, but primarily our fellow citizens. There is such a thing as a morally healthy tribalism. A slow betrayal of our country may be more decorous, but is hardly more virtuous, than a sudden one.
Allow me to exaggerate the myopic capitalism of our 99.9% with a bit of clarifying ridicule. There are twenty-six people on earth for every US citizen. Surely there is a more virtuous, smarter, harder working, more deserving individual among those twenty-six, than our brother and sister citizen next door. We could accelerate our profits by a policy of the complete replacement of our entire population. Let us exchange each of our brother and sister citizens with the one of their twenty-six analogues from abroad who is superior because he is more useful to “us”, whoever “us” is. Lets get it over with. Enact “Complete Replacement”. Let us start with the citizens on top rather than on the bottom.
More seriously, may I suggest to the 99.9%, that they perform a spiritual meditation that is rich with repetitions of “mea maxima culpa”. Then, if one pleases, continue with consideration of Distributism as articulated by Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XI, Wendell Berry’s profound localism, the wisdom that informed the Jesuit Reducciones, and, of course, Eisenhower’s farewell address to remind us how much smaller are the shoes that fit us now.
The “China Problem”, is not only comprised of the true nature of the savage Peoples Republic Of China, but more importantly, the amorality of the 99.9% who empower China by buying their goods and services, and who go into business with China. The Atheistic Capitalism we practice is not only suicidal, it has similarities to Atheistic Communism other than just rhyming.
What moral disorder has inflicted our 99.9% that, in the selfish interest of short-lived profit, we empower a government as malevolent as The Peoples Republic Of China?
The myth that encouraging capitalism in China will cure the immorality of that government has been exposed by our own descent into moral disorder while pursuing profit above all.
We become “little traitors” with every purchase of Chinese goods. Patriotism should be to our fellow citizens not just to the soil of this country. We become “Big Traitors” when we move a factory to China. We become something even worse when our government co-invests in GM plants in China.
Our patriotism should have as its object not just the soil, but primarily our fellow citizens. There is such a thing as a morally healthy tribalism. A slow betrayal of our country may be more decorous, but is hardly more virtuous, than a sudden one.
Allow me to exaggerate the myopic capitalism of our 99.9% with a bit of clarifying ridicule. There are twenty-six people on earth for every US citizen. Surely there is a more virtuous, smarter, harder working, more deserving individual among those twenty-six, than our brother and sister citizen next door. We could accelerate our profits by a policy of the complete replacement of our entire population. Let us exchange each of our brother and sister citizens with the one of their twenty-six analogues from abroad who is superior because he is more useful to “us”, whoever “us” is. Lets get it over with. Enact “Complete Replacement”. Let us start with the citizens on top rather than on the bottom.
More seriously, may I suggest to the 99.9%, that they perform a spiritual meditation that is rich with repetitions of “mea maxima culpa”. Then, if one pleases, continue with consideration of Distributism as articulated by Pope Leo XIII and Pope Pius XI, Wendell Berry’s profound localism, the wisdom that informed the Jesuit Reducciones, and, of course, Eisenhower’s farewell address to remind us how much smaller are the shoes that fit us now.
11.1.2011 | 10:05am
Mike Melendez says:
@Gian,
I can't tell if you are joking or not, so I'll play it straight. The TARP money was sufficiently paid back to have never been spent. (Someone point to something that shows how I've got that wrong.) More important, the banking system survived and is now better. Obama's administration spent $800 B ex nihilo and the recession remains. How's that for black and white?
How could the Obama administration have known? Well the Bush administration spent $150 B ex nihilo before the recession and it still happened. Maybe there's a pattern here?
I can't tell if you are joking or not, so I'll play it straight. The TARP money was sufficiently paid back to have never been spent. (Someone point to something that shows how I've got that wrong.) More important, the banking system survived and is now better. Obama's administration spent $800 B ex nihilo and the recession remains. How's that for black and white?
How could the Obama administration have known? Well the Bush administration spent $150 B ex nihilo before the recession and it still happened. Maybe there's a pattern here?
11.1.2011 | 11:35am
Publius says:
@ John Madaille,
There's a difference between having "a simple-minded program" and having no program at all. To have a movement you must have direction. Otherwise what you have is not motion or change or direction. What you have unintelligible, untethered, shifting with the course of the changing winds. Ironically, those who describe the OWS as lacking simple-minded solutions concede that they advance no solutions at all--indeed, advance no analysis of the problem or a coherent account of a set of problems. The defenders of the "movement" (which until it has some coherent directionality is really too strong a word for what it is) unwittingly describe it as adrift.
And, while not belonging to the 1% (or, for that matter the top 25%), I must point out how so many of those who participate in the movement seem to have better technology (iphones, ipads, etc.) than I can afford. If these who have it so well are the disaffected victims of a vast criminal conspiracy carried out by high powered syndicates . . . well, may we all be so fortunate to be the victims of such crime.
Meanwhile, I think David Mills is right--defenders of the "movement" are reading more coherence and depth into it than is there. But perhaps the defenders should offer some real social scientific evidence that there is more there. Some in depth study of the movement and its adherents would be useful before defenders make such comprehensive claims on its behalf.
There's a difference between having "a simple-minded program" and having no program at all. To have a movement you must have direction. Otherwise what you have is not motion or change or direction. What you have unintelligible, untethered, shifting with the course of the changing winds. Ironically, those who describe the OWS as lacking simple-minded solutions concede that they advance no solutions at all--indeed, advance no analysis of the problem or a coherent account of a set of problems. The defenders of the "movement" (which until it has some coherent directionality is really too strong a word for what it is) unwittingly describe it as adrift.
And, while not belonging to the 1% (or, for that matter the top 25%), I must point out how so many of those who participate in the movement seem to have better technology (iphones, ipads, etc.) than I can afford. If these who have it so well are the disaffected victims of a vast criminal conspiracy carried out by high powered syndicates . . . well, may we all be so fortunate to be the victims of such crime.
Meanwhile, I think David Mills is right--defenders of the "movement" are reading more coherence and depth into it than is there. But perhaps the defenders should offer some real social scientific evidence that there is more there. Some in depth study of the movement and its adherents would be useful before defenders make such comprehensive claims on its behalf.
11.1.2011 | 11:49am
Swathmore says:
Of course I read the article - and I'm correcting its misperceptions. Especially? These demonstrators are not just unfocused leftist romantics: Mills simply failed to talk to the more cogent members of the group, to uncover their very serious, legitimate complaints.
Many, many people in an average demonstration - OWS or Tea Party or whatever, Left or Right - of course, are unfocused and vague. But? To take the unfocused majority, as typical or paradigmatic, is simply wrong.
As a demonstrator myself? I've made an effort to articulate the concerns, above: it's mainly government/Republican support for Wall Street and Bankers. Vs. the abandonment of labor to the highest unemployment numbers since The Great Depression.
And of course? I agree that Republicans of course, should listen more carefully to what Labor is saying: because if our people are unemployed, then after all, Production and GDP go down. Which is bad - even for the rich 1%.
By the way: are they ineffectual? "These 'occupiers'" have already had an effect: if you read the newspapers in the last few days, you'd know that the government is now, at last, take some of the more guilty Wall Street investors, to court.
Thanks in large part, to public pressure. From demonstrations like these.
Many, many people in an average demonstration - OWS or Tea Party or whatever, Left or Right - of course, are unfocused and vague. But? To take the unfocused majority, as typical or paradigmatic, is simply wrong.
As a demonstrator myself? I've made an effort to articulate the concerns, above: it's mainly government/Republican support for Wall Street and Bankers. Vs. the abandonment of labor to the highest unemployment numbers since The Great Depression.
And of course? I agree that Republicans of course, should listen more carefully to what Labor is saying: because if our people are unemployed, then after all, Production and GDP go down. Which is bad - even for the rich 1%.
By the way: are they ineffectual? "These 'occupiers'" have already had an effect: if you read the newspapers in the last few days, you'd know that the government is now, at last, take some of the more guilty Wall Street investors, to court.
Thanks in large part, to public pressure. From demonstrations like these.
11.1.2011 | 11:54am
Mike Melendez says:
@Dan C,
So you see the "Occupy ..." urban camping movement as psy warfare against the Conservatives. What happened to the 99 %? Disinformation?
So you see the "Occupy ..." urban camping movement as psy warfare against the Conservatives. What happened to the 99 %? Disinformation?
11.1.2011 | 1:29pm
David Mills says:
Swathmore doesn't know who I talked to or what I know from reading the Occupiers and other sources, but let me turn his point around: Some people in any demonstration like that are going to be able to articulate their ideas at some level, but that doesn't make the *movement* any more coherent — esp. when that movement's spokesmen and supporters themselves make a point of praising its lack of clarity and wide diversity of opinion.
It seems to me a bit much to claim that this movement led to the indictment of some bankers. Public outrage was already great enough to induce either the public-spirited or the ambitious politician and D.A. to pursue them.
It seems to me a bit much to claim that this movement led to the indictment of some bankers. Public outrage was already great enough to induce either the public-spirited or the ambitious politician and D.A. to pursue them.
11.1.2011 | 3:46pm
Mike Melendez says:
@Swathmore,
1. Security investigations take considerable time. Those investigations come before an indictment is pursued. You need enough evidence to get a grand jury to indict. "Occupy ..." is too recent to be able to claim credit for current indictments.
2. If we are talking government/Republican support for Wall Street and Bankers, whatever that might mean, then what happens to the 99%?
You are proving David Mills point by projecting your own beliefs onto the movement.
1. Security investigations take considerable time. Those investigations come before an indictment is pursued. You need enough evidence to get a grand jury to indict. "Occupy ..." is too recent to be able to claim credit for current indictments.
2. If we are talking government/Republican support for Wall Street and Bankers, whatever that might mean, then what happens to the 99%?
You are proving David Mills point by projecting your own beliefs onto the movement.
11.1.2011 | 4:51pm
Publius says:
@ Swarthmore,
A lot of folks compare the current recession to the Great Depression. But the analogy is rather weaker than they seem to think. First, there were virtually no 2 income families during the Great Depression. There are a lot now. During the Great Depression, unemployment went as high as 25%--and the vast majority of those unemployed represented single income families. So not only was the rate of unemployment drastically higher--but the impact of unemployment was significantly worse. Those unemployed were in no position to buy food much less make use of data packages on top of the line cell phones (had they had access to such things at that time).
A lot of folks compare the current recession to the Great Depression. But the analogy is rather weaker than they seem to think. First, there were virtually no 2 income families during the Great Depression. There are a lot now. During the Great Depression, unemployment went as high as 25%--and the vast majority of those unemployed represented single income families. So not only was the rate of unemployment drastically higher--but the impact of unemployment was significantly worse. Those unemployed were in no position to buy food much less make use of data packages on top of the line cell phones (had they had access to such things at that time).
11.1.2011 | 6:38pm
Friedrich says:
@Publius,
Government workers were counted as unemployed by Stanley Lebergott (the BLS economist who put together the most widely used Great Depression unemployment numbers) even though gainfully employed and receiving a pay check. The unemployment analysis of economists like Michael Darby is considered more accurate than Lebergott's, but Lebergott's numbers are what the contemporary press uses when quoting Great Depression unemployment stats.
In addition to this, aside from the problem of under-reporting (which the Dept. of Labor notes does not resolve the accuracy of the data even by its regular adjustments of the figures), the most widely-cited statistics of current unemployment levels use the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics' "U-3" methodology. But "U-6" figures are more accurate, because they include people who would like full-time work, but can only find part-time work, and people who have given up looking for work altogether. U-6 is also is closer to the way unemployment was measured during the Great Depression than U-3.
Contemporary economist John Williams puts current U-6 unemployment rates at 15.9%. That's higher than Michael Darby's unemployment rates for 9 out of 12 years (1929-1949) for which Darby provides Great Depression rates.
Government workers were counted as unemployed by Stanley Lebergott (the BLS economist who put together the most widely used Great Depression unemployment numbers) even though gainfully employed and receiving a pay check. The unemployment analysis of economists like Michael Darby is considered more accurate than Lebergott's, but Lebergott's numbers are what the contemporary press uses when quoting Great Depression unemployment stats.
In addition to this, aside from the problem of under-reporting (which the Dept. of Labor notes does not resolve the accuracy of the data even by its regular adjustments of the figures), the most widely-cited statistics of current unemployment levels use the Department of Labor's Bureau of Labor Statistics' "U-3" methodology. But "U-6" figures are more accurate, because they include people who would like full-time work, but can only find part-time work, and people who have given up looking for work altogether. U-6 is also is closer to the way unemployment was measured during the Great Depression than U-3.
Contemporary economist John Williams puts current U-6 unemployment rates at 15.9%. That's higher than Michael Darby's unemployment rates for 9 out of 12 years (1929-1949) for which Darby provides Great Depression rates.
11.1.2011 | 10:49pm
Publius says:
@ Friedrich,
There were just over 500,000 federal employees during the height of the Great Depression, in 1933. If the Lebergott numbers are adjusted by eliminating federal employees, the unemployment percentage moves from 24.9 percent unemployed in '33 to right around 24% unemployed in that year. Your critique relies on the reader assuming that there were considerably more federal employees than there actually were. The federal government did expand dramatically until the advent of Herbert Croly's progeny to the presidency of the United States. But the total number of federal employees was a drop in the bucket of the overall work force--which was something like 45 million.
Also, given the virtual non-existence of two-income families then and there relative pervasiveness now, the economic impact of unemployment upon families and upon communities was considerably more dramatic than the present recession. That's not to ignore the hardships of the present day. Even so, I'm not sure honest historians or social scientists can say the two situations are comparable. It's still rather apples and oranges. And people with iphones and ipads, at these protests, are not destitute the way families without a wage earner were during the Depression. Apples and Oranges.
There were just over 500,000 federal employees during the height of the Great Depression, in 1933. If the Lebergott numbers are adjusted by eliminating federal employees, the unemployment percentage moves from 24.9 percent unemployed in '33 to right around 24% unemployed in that year. Your critique relies on the reader assuming that there were considerably more federal employees than there actually were. The federal government did expand dramatically until the advent of Herbert Croly's progeny to the presidency of the United States. But the total number of federal employees was a drop in the bucket of the overall work force--which was something like 45 million.
Also, given the virtual non-existence of two-income families then and there relative pervasiveness now, the economic impact of unemployment upon families and upon communities was considerably more dramatic than the present recession. That's not to ignore the hardships of the present day. Even so, I'm not sure honest historians or social scientists can say the two situations are comparable. It's still rather apples and oranges. And people with iphones and ipads, at these protests, are not destitute the way families without a wage earner were during the Depression. Apples and Oranges.
11.2.2011 | 8:55am
Swathmore says:
It may be that the currently unemployment situation - 9% roughly - is not quite as bad as the Great Depression. But it is the worst we have seen, overall, since that time.
So how can we fix it? No doubt it was necessary to save the banking system, for the good of all, poor and working included. And in fact, all that TAARP money appears to be well spent, in that most of it is already paid back.
But? The moral here is that government assistance DID work very well to help the banks.
So? Why not try the same help-out for the workers, and their unemployment situation? By putting government money toward job formation - as Obama recently proposed. Likely, that government program would ALSO pay for itself. Since once your workers go back to work, they produce more income, wealth, and tax revenues.
So how can we fix it? No doubt it was necessary to save the banking system, for the good of all, poor and working included. And in fact, all that TAARP money appears to be well spent, in that most of it is already paid back.
But? The moral here is that government assistance DID work very well to help the banks.
So? Why not try the same help-out for the workers, and their unemployment situation? By putting government money toward job formation - as Obama recently proposed. Likely, that government program would ALSO pay for itself. Since once your workers go back to work, they produce more income, wealth, and tax revenues.
11.2.2011 | 11:26am
Artaban7 says:
DP made a point that has largely been ignored, but deftly shows the hypocrisy, illogic, and incoherence of the OWS movement:
"In America, the top 1% earn more than $380,000 per year. We are, however, among the richest nations on Earth. How much do you need to earn to be among the top 1% of the world?
$34,000."
He goes on to point out that even an American on unemployment/welfare is in the top 10% of global wage-earners ("Enter the top 10% with $12,000 a year.").
And yet, in spite of being in the top 10% in terms of wealth, it is not enough for the GREEDY members of OWS. They want more, whether it's forgiveness of debts, or a free college education, or their own home.
If their "ideology" were logical and coherent, they would be demanding accountability and that wealth be taken not only from the top 1% on Wall Street, but from themselves as well. I haven't heard that from a single OWS protestor. Which just goes to prove that they neither understand economics nor possess any true moral integrity.
I also find interesting the free pass Swathmore and his ilk give to the Democrats that voted for TARP, and the more recent corporate bailouts of the Obama administration. Ideological consistency would require one to be outraged at most members of BOTH parties. "Politician" is sadly becoming a word synonymous with "lying thieves", R or D alike. Of course, that is precisely why there is wisdom in shrinking and limiting the size of government.
"In America, the top 1% earn more than $380,000 per year. We are, however, among the richest nations on Earth. How much do you need to earn to be among the top 1% of the world?
$34,000."
He goes on to point out that even an American on unemployment/welfare is in the top 10% of global wage-earners ("Enter the top 10% with $12,000 a year.").
And yet, in spite of being in the top 10% in terms of wealth, it is not enough for the GREEDY members of OWS. They want more, whether it's forgiveness of debts, or a free college education, or their own home.
If their "ideology" were logical and coherent, they would be demanding accountability and that wealth be taken not only from the top 1% on Wall Street, but from themselves as well. I haven't heard that from a single OWS protestor. Which just goes to prove that they neither understand economics nor possess any true moral integrity.
I also find interesting the free pass Swathmore and his ilk give to the Democrats that voted for TARP, and the more recent corporate bailouts of the Obama administration. Ideological consistency would require one to be outraged at most members of BOTH parties. "Politician" is sadly becoming a word synonymous with "lying thieves", R or D alike. Of course, that is precisely why there is wisdom in shrinking and limiting the size of government.
11.2.2011 | 4:09pm
Mike Melendez says:
@Swathmore, The later has been tried to the tune of $800B under Obama's watch and $150B under Bush'. Neither has worked.
11.2.2011 | 5:02pm
Friedrich says:
@Publius,
The non counting of fed employees was only one factor between Lebergott's and Darby's numbers - it clearly does not account for all of the difference between Lebergott and Darby. As was clear in my comment above, my "argument" does not rest on that factor alone. Again, current unemployment levels are higher than 9 out 12 Great Depression years if we follow Darby's figures. I am not aware of any contemporary economist who argues that current levels of measuring unemployment are closer to Lebergott's methods than to Darby's methods.
As for the two-income households, I always chuckle when I find this used as a means of arguing that this recession is not so bad in the context of a website frequented by social conservatives who claim to defend the "traditional family" or somesuch. Yes, most households today are two income. I suppose this is as damning a critique of Krugmanesque whining as the recent revelation that most poor people in America own TVs.
Tenure metrics are far shorter today than in 1930 - that is one of many factors to consider. We have to ask what conditions provided relatively stable household income in 1930 and what conditions provide it today. Most working Americans had, in the 1930s, a reasonable expectation that a single income household could provide financial stability for a family. Today, it is entirely possible that a formerly middle class family could see one or both adult earners lose their middle class incomes and end up in low end wage jobs in which they earn far less than they were earning, and pay far more than they had been paying for their benefits, particularly health insurance. Such a household would not provide any increase in unemployment rates and thus our data misses them in that regard. But it seems a number of such households are becoming food insecure, as the greatest increase in food insecure households among varying demographic groups has been seen among those households with two incomes. Perhaps they have to pay a mortgage/rent to remain sheltered, and have to pay care expenses to get to work, and they have to pay for a certain medication to remain alive, and thus food becomes the commodity under threat in the household. Of course, they still have their TV, purchased in 2007, and darn it if Dave Ramsey didn't tell them to sell that.
The non counting of fed employees was only one factor between Lebergott's and Darby's numbers - it clearly does not account for all of the difference between Lebergott and Darby. As was clear in my comment above, my "argument" does not rest on that factor alone. Again, current unemployment levels are higher than 9 out 12 Great Depression years if we follow Darby's figures. I am not aware of any contemporary economist who argues that current levels of measuring unemployment are closer to Lebergott's methods than to Darby's methods.
As for the two-income households, I always chuckle when I find this used as a means of arguing that this recession is not so bad in the context of a website frequented by social conservatives who claim to defend the "traditional family" or somesuch. Yes, most households today are two income. I suppose this is as damning a critique of Krugmanesque whining as the recent revelation that most poor people in America own TVs.
Tenure metrics are far shorter today than in 1930 - that is one of many factors to consider. We have to ask what conditions provided relatively stable household income in 1930 and what conditions provide it today. Most working Americans had, in the 1930s, a reasonable expectation that a single income household could provide financial stability for a family. Today, it is entirely possible that a formerly middle class family could see one or both adult earners lose their middle class incomes and end up in low end wage jobs in which they earn far less than they were earning, and pay far more than they had been paying for their benefits, particularly health insurance. Such a household would not provide any increase in unemployment rates and thus our data misses them in that regard. But it seems a number of such households are becoming food insecure, as the greatest increase in food insecure households among varying demographic groups has been seen among those households with two incomes. Perhaps they have to pay a mortgage/rent to remain sheltered, and have to pay care expenses to get to work, and they have to pay for a certain medication to remain alive, and thus food becomes the commodity under threat in the household. Of course, they still have their TV, purchased in 2007, and darn it if Dave Ramsey didn't tell them to sell that.
11.3.2011 | 10:34am
michael Currie says:
I find it interesting that all of the issues that now exist, and are the alleged basis for the many protests that have cropped up around the country, have existed for many years in one form or another. Perhaps it is just a coincidence, I think not, that when things were going well, unemployment was low, housing prices were booming not many seemed to question the practices that produced this cornocopia of wealth and well being. People were more than happy to ignore the reasons for their good fortune. Morality?, get real look at my 401k, my IRA, why I bought this house just 4 years ago and it has tripled in price.
Life was good and why look a gift horse in the mouth. So now things are bad and in lieu of good times we'll trumpet a morality that we had to dig through the attic to find.
Of course many of those protesting were just looking for an excuse to drag out their little used leftish costumes and be indignant with an audience, there is nothing like a camera to stiffen ones umbrage at whatever.
There are ligitemate causes for concern and even anger at what the masters of the universe have wrought and one of the best weapons against what they are selling is not to buy it but buy we did and now comes the correction, if we are lucky. The best weapon is to become the 99% or so virtuous citizenry who demand of their government and the powers to be an honest accounting of their actions while reckognizing that we live in a world always tempted by the easy way which is usually an illusion.
Life was good and why look a gift horse in the mouth. So now things are bad and in lieu of good times we'll trumpet a morality that we had to dig through the attic to find.
Of course many of those protesting were just looking for an excuse to drag out their little used leftish costumes and be indignant with an audience, there is nothing like a camera to stiffen ones umbrage at whatever.
There are ligitemate causes for concern and even anger at what the masters of the universe have wrought and one of the best weapons against what they are selling is not to buy it but buy we did and now comes the correction, if we are lucky. The best weapon is to become the 99% or so virtuous citizenry who demand of their government and the powers to be an honest accounting of their actions while reckognizing that we live in a world always tempted by the easy way which is usually an illusion.
11.3.2011 | 12:00pm
Fr. Jim says:
Today we are seeing more of the violent nature of the protesters. You didn't see that with the Tea Party. When a student who takes out 100 grand in loans to get a degree in Queer Studies tells me that I should pay off his loan that is astonishing in its temerity. Yesterday some of the socialists were confronted by a man who grew up in the old USSR. They denied the gulags existed or that North Korea was worse off then capitalist South Korea. It is simply insane. They are useful idiots and I remember them from the Cold War. They live in a nation wealthy enough that the can take a few days off from playing video games in their parents basement to pretend they are revolutionaries. They would be the first to be shot in a real revolution. Now they are becoming more violent. Women are being raped and they will not cooperate with the police who are investigating. It is all a big excuse to party, burn things down, and pretend they are doing something noble. They don't have jobs because they are useless.
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-video-occupy-d-c-protesters-brush-off-job-applications/
http://www.theblaze.com/stories/new-video-occupy-d-c-protesters-brush-off-job-applications/
11.4.2011 | 9:21am
Swindol says:
Are those poor folks in public parks, who are protesting, really greedy? In fact, the core of their opposition to Wall Street, is anti-materialism. And quite Christian. Monks never made much money.
To be sure, they had education; a Christian education. And they educated others in turn. But normally we don't think of the desire for an education, the development of the spirit, as greedy.
To be sure, they had education; a Christian education. And they educated others in turn. But normally we don't think of the desire for an education, the development of the spirit, as greedy.
11.10.2011 | 11:18pm
Gil Costello says:
“'We are the 99 percent' angry at the remaining 1% doesn’t tell anyone who the 1 percent are, and what they’ve done wrong, and what they should have done, and how the system itself encouraged them to do some things and not others, and what the nation should do now."
When a totally enmeshed consumer culture necessarily (and rightly as a clearly defined culture) places all value on a person based on how far he/she climbs to the top and is well-paid (the monetary measure of one’s success is the only valid measure in a consumer culture, even in academia and church parishes) to narcissistically greet the Consumer God, who turns out to be made in one’s own image and likeness, the paradigm becomes clear: Everyone who hasn’t arrived for any reason is an angry loser, failing to accomplish what the 1% accomplished with buying off, paying off, and digging the screws into any victim available (especially small businesses) to solidly set one more rung on the ladder to consumer sainthood.
President Roosevelt got together the best minds in law and in finance and told them to come up with a plan to make sure the 1% never rip the country off ever again. And they did a good job with their anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws, but there I was a half century later working for a successful computer program company that decides not to expand because they would, by all standards in a consumer culture, be hostilely taken over by a conglomerate (monopoly), which means they did not create new jobs for persons like me who would end up with good pay and excellent benefits.
The top 1% won, and they keep winning. But I sense that there is a lot of bad faith among protesters: many are angry about not getting their chance to be part of the 1%. We are, after all, a consumer culture. But keep in mind all you socialists: Stalin created a 1%, too, that included a death toll of (what is it at now? Last I heard it was 22 million).
When a totally enmeshed consumer culture necessarily (and rightly as a clearly defined culture) places all value on a person based on how far he/she climbs to the top and is well-paid (the monetary measure of one’s success is the only valid measure in a consumer culture, even in academia and church parishes) to narcissistically greet the Consumer God, who turns out to be made in one’s own image and likeness, the paradigm becomes clear: Everyone who hasn’t arrived for any reason is an angry loser, failing to accomplish what the 1% accomplished with buying off, paying off, and digging the screws into any victim available (especially small businesses) to solidly set one more rung on the ladder to consumer sainthood.
President Roosevelt got together the best minds in law and in finance and told them to come up with a plan to make sure the 1% never rip the country off ever again. And they did a good job with their anti-trust and anti-monopoly laws, but there I was a half century later working for a successful computer program company that decides not to expand because they would, by all standards in a consumer culture, be hostilely taken over by a conglomerate (monopoly), which means they did not create new jobs for persons like me who would end up with good pay and excellent benefits.
The top 1% won, and they keep winning. But I sense that there is a lot of bad faith among protesters: many are angry about not getting their chance to be part of the 1%. We are, after all, a consumer culture. But keep in mind all you socialists: Stalin created a 1%, too, that included a death toll of (what is it at now? Last I heard it was 22 million).
What is their legitimate beef? In the financial crisis of the late Bush administration, c. 2007-8, the government bail-out gave more than a half trillion dollars of bailout mone,y to 1) large corporations. Including especially 2) banks. So that Wall Street and the Banks got through the crisis just fine. But? No money was given to help ordinary working folks.
The the real problem behind the protests: the Bush administration bailed out the banks, and Wall ST. investors - but left the little guy laid off, unemployed. Banks are now strong and profitable. But UNEMPLOYMENT REMAINS EXTREMELY HIGH.
And by the way? If your workers are laid off, production declines. And the GDP drops.