Wall Street protesters: We're in for the long haul

[Sheilbh]

I quite disagree.  Protests are about effecting change, not "setting the terms of a debate".  I think you're just setting your definition in order to match what is going on.

Not at all.  I think most coherent protests fail.  All they show is that there's a group of people who feel passionate about something - in that category goes most of the anti-war protests, anti-cuts protests and the pro-hunting protests, as well as more fringe ones to do with the environment or animal rights.

On the other hand successful protests change the terms of the debate and the way people think about things (perhaps forcing them to look in a different way).  As I say I think that's true of the Tea Party, and has been true of the Israeli tent cities.  Similarly I think it's  the case with people power revolutions (that they remove the fear) and civil rights movements.  The success of a good protest - or perhaps any political movement - isn't in specific policies but the nature of the debate.

I don't know if these guys'll succeed.  I wish them well though.

[Jacob]

I know nothing of that program.

Check it out then. One of the key components that extra redistributive payments are tied to encouraging socially positive behaviour. Your kids attend school regularly and get frequent check ups at government health clinics? You qualify for extra payments. It has apparently done wonders for school attendance and general health. I think there might be some nutrition components as well.

"has the potential to" is not the same as "will inherently".

Of course, and that goes both ways. A badly designed and badly redistribution program runs the risk of being counter productive. A well designed one less so. If your conclusion from this is "so we should design our redistributive plans so they make things better, not worse" we're cool. If it's "since we might fuck it up, we shouldn't bother" we'll have to disagree.

Point is that if the protests are by "flakes" it compromises their effectiveness. Agree/disagree?

I think it's not that relevant, to be honest. The "flakes" will always be there. The question is if there happens to be enough non-flakes involved and if the issue has sufficient resonance in spite of the flakes.

Complaining that lifestyle protesters are lame is a distraction. It may be an effective distraction, if it's your goal to distract, but it doesn't make the the issues more or less real (though the number of non-lifestyle protesters may be a good indication of how much resonance the issue has).

[Barrister]

I quite disagree.  Protests are about effecting change, not "setting the terms of a debate".  I think you're just setting your definition in order to match what is going on.

Not at all.  I think most coherent protests fail.  All they show is that there's a group of people who feel passionate about something - in that category goes most of the anti-war protests, anti-cuts protests and the pro-hunting protests, as well as more fringe ones to do with the environment or animal rights.

On the other hand successful protests change the terms of the debate and the way people think about things (perhaps forcing them to look in a different way).  As I say I think that's true of the Tea Party, and has been true of the Israeli tent cities.  Similarly I think it's  the case with people power revolutions (that they remove the fear) and civil rights movements.  The success of a good protest - or perhaps any political movement - isn't in specific policies but the nature of the debate.

I don't know if these guys'll succeed.  I wish them well though.

Most protests of any sort fail.

But where protests succeed is when they have a clear message, a clear (if simple) policy and general resonance with the public.

[Jacob]

My guess would be:

Redistrubutionist policy does put a brake on social mobility, but nations with high infrastructure and well-formed justice systems also tend to be more distributionist and that offsets the impact.

I find it hard to fathom what you base that guess on....

I mean, redistributionist policies that give access to quality education, child care (so parents can work), and/ or provides proper health care and nutrition somehow put a brake on social mobility? Because if the poor have a harder time getting those things, they'll somehow be more likely to improve their status?

... unless you mean the absence of these things increases the chance of downward social mobility, but that's not usually what's being talked about.

[Ideologue]

I don't think protests need a coherent agenda to change the world. 

I don't think protests change policy necessarily.  If you want to do that you're best hiring the gay lover of a cabinet minister or, failing that, a lobbyist.

Protests change the focus and terms of a debate.  So the Tea Party are probably unhappy at the policies that have come in while they've been going but because of them the focus of the debate has been very much about the deficit, debt and spending.  If these protests are successful then the debate will probably shift on that to unemployment and the banks which'll produce a different response.

Successful prrotests don't make anything happen.  They change what's being talked about and how it's understood.  I think that's true of the Tea Party, of the tent cities in Israel (incidentally these protests seem similar to that and los indignados rather than a case of the US exporting counter-culture) and even of the revolutions in Egypt and Tunisia.

I quite disagree.  Protests are about effecting change, not "setting the terms of a debate".  I think you're just setting your definition in order to match what is going on.

He's thinking like a lawyer already.

[Ideologue]

I quite disagree.  Protests are about effecting change, not "setting the terms of a debate".  I think you're just setting your definition in order to match what is going on.

Not at all.  I think most coherent protests fail.  All they show is that there's a group of people who feel passionate about something - in that category goes most of the anti-war protests, anti-cuts protests and the pro-hunting protests, as well as more fringe ones to do with the environment or animal rights.

On the other hand successful protests change the terms of the debate and the way people think about things (perhaps forcing them to look in a different way).  As I say I think that's true of the Tea Party, and has been true of the Israeli tent cities.  Similarly I think it's  the case with people power revolutions (that they remove the fear) and civil rights movements.  The success of a good protest - or perhaps any political movement - isn't in specific policies but the nature of the debate.

I don't know if these guys'll succeed.  I wish them well though.

Most protests of any sort fail.

But where protests succeed is when they have a clear message, a clear (if simple) policy and general resonance with the public.

Did the Arab Spring protests have a clear message?  Is "I hate Mubarak" a clear message?  I mean, I guess, but it says nothing about what comes after.

[Barrister]

I quite disagree.  Protests are about effecting change, not "setting the terms of a debate".  I think you're just setting your definition in order to match what is going on.

Not at all.  I think most coherent protests fail.  All they show is that there's a group of people who feel passionate about something - in that category goes most of the anti-war protests, anti-cuts protests and the pro-hunting protests, as well as more fringe ones to do with the environment or animal rights.

On the other hand successful protests change the terms of the debate and the way people think about things (perhaps forcing them to look in a different way).  As I say I think that's true of the Tea Party, and has been true of the Israeli tent cities.  Similarly I think it's  the case with people power revolutions (that they remove the fear) and civil rights movements.  The success of a good protest - or perhaps any political movement - isn't in specific policies but the nature of the debate.

I don't know if these guys'll succeed.  I wish them well though.

Most protests of any sort fail.

But where protests succeed is when they have a clear message, a clear (if simple) policy and general resonance with the public.

Did the Arab Spring protests have a clear message?  Is "I hate Mubarak" a clear message?  I mean, I guess, but it says nothing about what comes after.

"Mubarak out" is pretty damn clear.

And Egypt is precisely now having problems because the protests were unclear about what comes after.

[Jacob]

And Egypt is precisely now having problems because the protests were unclear about what comes after.

I think it's inaccurate to suggest that the current Egyptian difficulties are down to bad communication management by the protestors.

[Barrister]

And Egypt is precisely now having problems because the protests were unclear about what comes after.

I think it's inaccurate to suggest that the current Egyptian difficulties are down to bad communication management by the protestors.

If that was what you got out of my post then my post was not sufficiently clear.

[Malthus]

Of course, and that goes both ways. A badly designed and badly redistribution program runs the risk of being counter productive. A well designed one less so. If your conclusion from this is "so we should design our redistributive plans so they make things better, not worse" we're cool. If it's "since we might fuck it up, we shouldn't bother" we'll have to disagree.

I think well-designed redistribution programs are part of the solution, but not the whole of the solution.

I dunno where you got the idea that my post amounted to 'problem too difficult, so don't try'.

I think it's not that relevant, to be honest. The "flakes" will always be there. The question is if there happens to be enough non-flakes involved and if the issue has sufficient resonance in spite of the flakes.

Complaining that lifestyle protesters are lame is a distraction. It may be an effective distraction, if it's your goal to distract, but it doesn't make the the issues more or less real (though the number of non-lifestyle protesters may be a good indication of how much resonance the issue has).

I'm saying that the relative purportion of lifestyle protesters cuts the effectiveness of the protest. If it's just a few who are attracted to any sort of protest, but the actual bulk of the protesters are more serious, then fair enough, focusing on the few guys in tats and dreadlocks going on about freeganism is lame. If the protests are largely composed of the dreadlocked types, the *protests* come off as lame, even when they are organized with clearly-articulated and reasonable goals. Much more so if their goals are generalized unhappiness with, well, the economy, capitalism and stuff.

It is silly to say, 'complaining about the flakes is just a distraction from the serious issues'. The whole point of a protest is to get attention, otherwise why do it? Of course protesters will be judged by their appearance, actions etc. If people say 'yeah, these guys look/sound/are reasonable', then the protest works. If they say 'these guys think protesting is recreational', it will not.

[Ideologue]

I quite disagree.  Protests are about effecting change, not "setting the terms of a debate".  I think you're just setting your definition in order to match what is going on.

Not at all.  I think most coherent protests fail.  All they show is that there's a group of people who feel passionate about something - in that category goes most of the anti-war protests, anti-cuts protests and the pro-hunting protests, as well as more fringe ones to do with the environment or animal rights.

On the other hand successful protests change the terms of the debate and the way people think about things (perhaps forcing them to look in a different way).  As I say I think that's true of the Tea Party, and has been true of the Israeli tent cities.  Similarly I think it's  the case with people power revolutions (that they remove the fear) and civil rights movements.  The success of a good protest - or perhaps any political movement - isn't in specific policies but the nature of the debate.

I don't know if these guys'll succeed.  I wish them well though.

Most protests of any sort fail.

But where protests succeed is when they have a clear message, a clear (if simple) policy and general resonance with the public.

Did the Arab Spring protests have a clear message?  Is "I hate Mubarak" a clear message?  I mean, I guess, but it says nothing about what comes after.

"Mubarak out" is pretty damn clear.

And Egypt is precisely now having problems because the protests were unclear about what comes after.

That's what I'm saying.  It's not up to some throng of punks to tell experts how to fix the economy.  Their job, and I think they're doing it, is to express dissatisfaction with the economy as it is.  I think that's enough.

[MadImmortalMan]

My guess would be:

Redistrubutionist policy does put a brake on social mobility, but nations with high infrastructure and well-formed justice systems also tend to be more distributionist and that offsets the impact.

I find it hard to fathom what you base that guess on....

I mean, redistributionist policies that give access to quality education, child care (so parents can work), and/ or provides proper health care and nutrition somehow put a brake on social mobility? Because if the poor have a harder time getting those things, they'll somehow be more likely to improve their status?

... unless you mean the absence of these things increases the chance of downward social mobility, but that's not usually what's being talked about.

Those things provide the floor, they don't lift the ceiling. We're talking about mobility, specifically upward mobility. Redistribution of any kind at the very least slows it down. Anything we do to lift the floor will require resources that will then be unavailable to use by a given individual to raise the ceiling.

[crazy canuck]

Your intrepid reporter gives you the latest from his walk past the protest area to go to get a brisket sandwich - a very good one so worth the risk to life and limb.

A strong odour mainly of pot can be smelled. This is day one.  I hate to think how bad it is going to smell in a couple days.  Most of the "protestors" appear to be well dressed in fairly expensive clothing (you know the look rich kids take on when they try to look poor...).  My guess is university/college kids for the most part.  The number of media present also appear to outnumber the protestors. 

Down one block there is a group of 10 people drumming and chanting.  There is a large group around them - I would say 2-3 times larger than the occupy group.   They are in the middle of the intersection and so are blocking one of the main access routes of the city centre.  These people appear to be protesting something about the Missing Women's inquiry going on nearby.  There was no smell of pot there.

On the whole I take the second group a lot more seriously than the first.

[crazy canuck]

Those things provide the floor, they don't lift the ceiling. We're talking about mobility, specifically upward mobility. Redistribution of any kind at the very least slows it down. Anything we do to lift the floor will require resources that will then be unavailable to use by a given individual to raise the ceiling.

"Those things" as you call them allow infidivuals the opportunity to raise their ceiling and with out them would always remain on the floor.  That is the very nature of social mobility.  Your concern as more to do with those who already have resources to lift their ceiling ever higher and has nothing to do with social mobility.  You are confusing the two concepts.  But that is part of the American Myth (I mean Dream) and so you can be excused.

[Malthus]

My guess would be:

Redistrubutionist policy does put a brake on social mobility, but nations with high infrastructure and well-formed justice systems also tend to be more distributionist and that offsets the impact.

I find it hard to fathom what you base that guess on....

I mean, redistributionist policies that give access to quality education, child care (so parents can work), and/ or provides proper health care and nutrition somehow put a brake on social mobility? Because if the poor have a harder time getting those things, they'll somehow be more likely to improve their status?

... unless you mean the absence of these things increases the chance of downward social mobility, but that's not usually what's being talked about.

Those things provide the floor, they don't lift the ceiling. We're talking about mobility, specifically upward mobility. Redistribution of any kind at the very least slows it down. Anything we do to lift the floor will require resources that will then be unavailable to use by a given individual to raise the ceiling.

The counter-argument is that a certain basic level of health, education, security etc. is necessary for people to compete effectively - that is, you need a floor set at some basic point to allow for the competitive striving for mobility to effectively happen by the poorest (particularly, the poorest children). Otherwise, they are condemned to a life struggling simply for existence.

The larger problem to my mind though is that entitlements alone do not remove barriers to competitive striving, in particular where the available opportunities appear to be narrowing and where cultural disincentives to education and work appear to exist - what you could get is a class of "have nots" effectively supported by the striving "haves".