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

[Berkut]

I mean, when people are complaining about "Wall St. greed" they're also up in arms about the moral hazard of using tax money to bail out high risk investments the banks made, and the banks paying big bonuses to those self-same bankers.

If that is the case, it is really unfortunate.

I don't know of anyone on either side that were happy about the bank bailouts or salaries of bank execs.

To the extent that there is something going on that really is concerning, it is that wealth continues to be concentrated into a smaller percentage of society, rather than being spread out throughout the financial and social strata.

This is happening, and has been happening. And it is NOT happening because of bailouts, but rather a structural "flaw" in our economic systems. I am hardly smart enough to figure out how to fix this flaw, but I am smart enough to realize that the problem existed long before bailouts, and the solution has nothing to do with bailouts that already happened, no matter how distasteful they were to almost everyone.

Frankly, I am not even convinced that this problem is a result of tax rates. The rich are getting richer while the not rich stay stagnant not because the rich are not taxed enough, but because the economic system concentrates created wealth. I don't know how to fix that. Given serious deficits, the fact that it is happening means I am pretty supportive of the idea that raising taxes on those same wealthy is pretty reasonable - but it is not, IMO, any kind of solution to either the problem of wealth concentration (because that will keep happening unless tax rates on the wealthy become high enough that will likely result in serious damage in our system), nor is it a solution to the problem of the deficit, since even if we confiscate the wealth of this super rich, it still won't make any long term impact on the deficit without serious cuts in spending.

[crazy canuck]

What system is fucked?  What regular folks are getting shafted?

The US system.  People in the US?  The Canadian system which is heavily subsidizing the education of most of the people I see outside my window?  How exactly are they getting shafted?

I take that to mean that you think that there is a message then

No I meant to suggest that the message is so vacuous that anything and everything might be read into it which effectively means it is meaningless.

At the end of the day the Occupy movement may be more damaging than the Teabaggers to much needed reform in the US since it marginalizes any cause they might touch.  At least here the occupy movement wont do much damage since the occupy movement has yet to touch any issues.

[Josephus]

I dont't think anything can be more damaging to reform in the U.S. than the Teabaggers.

[fhdz]

To the extent that there is something going on that really is concerning, it is that wealth continues to be concentrated into a smaller percentage of society, rather than being spread out throughout the financial and social strata.

This is happening, and has been happening. And it is NOT happening because of bailouts, but rather a structural "flaw" in our economic systems. I am hardly smart enough to figure out how to fix this flaw, but I am smart enough to realize that the problem existed long before bailouts, and the solution has nothing to do with bailouts that already happened, no matter how distasteful they were to almost everyone.

Frankly, I am not even convinced that this problem is a result of tax rates. The rich are getting richer while the not rich stay stagnant not because the rich are not taxed enough, but because the economic system concentrates created wealth. I don't know how to fix that. Given serious deficits, the fact that it is happening means I am pretty supportive of the idea that raising taxes on those same wealthy is pretty reasonable - but it is not, IMO, any kind of solution to either the problem of wealth concentration (because that will keep happening unless tax rates on the wealthy become high enough that will likely result in serious damage in our system), nor is it a solution to the problem of the deficit, since even if we confiscate the wealth of this super rich, it still won't make any long term impact on the deficit without serious cuts in spending.

This is my favorite post in this thread.

[crazy canuck]

I dont't think anything can be more damaging to reform in the U.S. than the Teabaggers.

My assumption is that there are people working hard within the US political system to make the needed reforms.  I have no idea how the occupy movement helps them with that.  All I see it doing is galvanizing support on the right to keep "those loonies" as far from any political power was possible.  That is the downside of a protest with no clear message or objective.

A small example of what can occur is the Vancouver mayoral election.  Prior to the occupiers taking up residence the incumbent lefty major was going to win in a landslide.  Most middle to right voters didnt much care about the election and his support on the left was solid.

All that has now changed.  The occupy movement has become THE main election issue and as a result there is some risk the major will lose.

[Oexmelin]

This is happening, and has been happening. And it is NOT happening because of bailouts, but rather a structural "flaw" in our economic systems. I am hardly smart enough to figure out how to fix this flaw, but I am smart enough to realize that the problem existed long before bailouts, and the solution has nothing to do with bailouts that already happened, no matter how distasteful they were to almost everyone.

I share this analysis, but for everything that can be labelled a "structural flaw", there requires something which must serve as a catalyst, or revealer of the problem, and which must serve either as a way to simplify the issue, or spark action. For instance, T. H. Breen argued, convincingly, IMO, that few people understood the deeper issues of the American Revolution, but they could readily subscribe to slogans and practices of buying English goods and making homespun, which in turn served as educational tools.

To a large extent, I think this is what "Occupy Wall Street" is about: the crisis, and bailouts, are serving as revealers of a disquiet. People feel there is a problem, and feel that answers and solutions are confiscated from them. They are being told they lack the capacity to understand the issues - and I am sure many of us are in this situation. The question I have is whether "government by experts" is really what our systems should be about - the reactionary rhetoric being trotted out again is awfully similar to 19th century government by people of means.

[crazy canuck]

There is a difference between a revealer and a show for the cameras is there not?  As I look out over the occupy movment here in Vancouver there are many more tents then there are people now.  The numbers only grow when union members come down to bolster the numbers for show for the media.

As I said much earlier on, if this was a protest in Canada, by more than the usual suspects I would agree with you. But it is not.

I dont know about the situation in the US.

[Berkut]

This is happening, and has been happening. And it is NOT happening because of bailouts, but rather a structural "flaw" in our economic systems. I am hardly smart enough to figure out how to fix this flaw, but I am smart enough to realize that the problem existed long before bailouts, and the solution has nothing to do with bailouts that already happened, no matter how distasteful they were to almost everyone.

I share this analysis, but for everything that can be labelled a "structural flaw", there requires something which must serve as a catalyst, or revealer of the problem, and which must serve either as a way to simplify the issue, or spark action. For instance, T. H. Breen argued, convincingly, IMO, that few people understood the deeper issues of the American Revolution, but they could readily subscribe to slogans and practices of buying English goods and making homespun, which in turn served as educational tools.

To a large extent, I think this is what "Occupy Wall Street" is about: the crisis, and bailouts, are serving as revealers of a disquiet. People feel there is a problem, and feel that answers and solutions are confiscated from them. They are being told they lack the capacity to understand the issues - and I am sure many of us are in this situation. The question I have is whether "government by experts" is really what our systems should be about - the reactionary rhetoric being trotted out again is awfully similar to 19th century government by people of means.

Agreed. I think the protesters are kind of silly, but if you look at them more as an indicator than anything else, I think they provide information.

I just don't know that their continued protesting provides any MORE information. They don't have a solution, after all. And now it is (IMO) largely being co-opted by the more traditional left, who are going to start bleating about how teachers need more pensions and job security, or how all our problems are the creation of the evil rich people, etc.

I do think that it takes a pretty screwed up reality to get to the point that something like this happens in the US and Canada. To that extent, the protests provide some marginal utility.

I like your analogy about the American Revolution.

[Valmy]

There is a difference between a revealer and a show for the cameras is there not?  As I look out over the occupy movment here in Vancouver there are many more tents then there are people now.  The numbers only grow when union members come down to bolster the numbers for show for the media.

As I said much earlier on, if this was a protest in Canada, by more than the usual suspects I would agree with you. But it is not.

I dont know about the situation in the US.

I do not get what the Canadian protestors are protesting about at all frankly.  As I said if the Mayor is giving you aid then what exactly are you protesting?

[Valmy]

Agreed. I think the protesters are kind of silly, but if you look at them more as an indicator than anything else, I think they provide information.

Yeah that is what I was trying to get at earlier.

[The Minsky Moment]

The "corporations are people!!1" misunderstanding is one of things I like the least about the OWS movement and associated leftism.

In this case, the misunderstanding may lie more with the present Supreme Court, and less with the OWS crowd.

[Berkut]

Being a sports guy, here is my attempt an analogy.

The problem with wealth concentration and the "solution" of high taxation to combat it is pretty much a bad idea.

If in football (American football) lets imagine there was no penalty of offensive pass interference. So then people realize that passing is really easy, so everyone starts throwing the ball all the time. This is a problem because it makes the game less interesting.

Now, we could "solve" this problem by simply stating that anytime someone completes a pass, they lose 25% of the yardage they gain from the pass. We are going to "tax" passing yardage. This should then incent people to run the ball some, since that is not taxed.

But does this really solve the basic problem? Not at all - in fact, if passing is so great, it won't even change anything, since passing for 75% is probably still better than running for 100%. And if you increase the "tax" high enough to stop passing, you screw up the game even more, since passing becomes pointless, or you end up with other perverse results.

The problem is that your system has resulted in a lack of balance between the offense and the defense, and the solution is to restore that balance where the problem exists, not try to cover it up with a "tax".

I see "tax those rich bastards!" as a band-aid, and a rather bad band aid to the problem. The problem is that we want our economic systems to distribute increases in wealth across the spectrum. In an ideal American systems, as GDP increases, the wealth from that increase should be distributed to everyone, while the incentive to keep increasing that GDP remains so everyone gets better off over time. That isn't happening now - it seems like the increase in wealth is all going to the wealthy.

[Jacob]

If that is the case, it is really unfortunate.

I don't know of anyone on either side that were happy about the bank bailouts or salaries of bank execs.

To the extent that there is something going on that really is concerning, it is that wealth continues to be concentrated into a smaller percentage of society, rather than being spread out throughout the financial and social strata.

This is happening, and has been happening. And it is NOT happening because of bailouts, but rather a structural "flaw" in our economic systems. I am hardly smart enough to figure out how to fix this flaw, but I am smart enough to realize that the problem existed long before bailouts, and the solution has nothing to do with bailouts that already happened, no matter how distasteful they were to almost everyone.

Frankly, I am not even convinced that this problem is a result of tax rates. The rich are getting richer while the not rich stay stagnant not because the rich are not taxed enough, but because the economic system concentrates created wealth. I don't know how to fix that. Given serious deficits, the fact that it is happening means I am pretty supportive of the idea that raising taxes on those same wealthy is pretty reasonable - but it is not, IMO, any kind of solution to either the problem of wealth concentration (because that will keep happening unless tax rates on the wealthy become high enough that will likely result in serious damage in our system), nor is it a solution to the problem of the deficit, since even if we confiscate the wealth of this super rich, it still won't make any long term impact on the deficit without serious cuts in spending.

I agree with this pretty much completely.

I think that the OWS protests are pretty much on an expression of the problem you just outlined. Yes, some of them will demand higher taxes or even less sensible easy-sounding solutions (in part because people who're convinced that easy sounding "fixes" are the answer will attach themselves to any kind of even vaguely aligned popular movement); but at the core I think OWS is people saying responding to the problem you've outlined and saying "don't put off dealing with this, start fixing shit NOW."

I think the moment is still pretty open. If someone can come up with a credible sounding plan to start fixing stuff, the OWS movement demands might start coalescing behind that. I still think that direction is up for grabs, which is one of the reasons the proponents of various pet-peeve quick-fixes are working so hard at it; this is their chance to get people behind them. Hopefully, something more sensible will emerge.

[Barrister]

Being a sports guy, here is my attempt an analogy.

The problem with wealth concentration and the "solution" of high taxation to combat it is pretty much a bad idea.

If in football (American football) lets imagine there was no penalty of offensive pass interference. So then people realize that passing is really easy, so everyone starts throwing the ball all the time. This is a problem because it makes the game less interesting.

Now, we could "solve" this problem by simply stating that anytime someone completes a pass, they lose 25% of the yardage they gain from the pass. We are going to "tax" passing yardage. This should then incent people to run the ball some, since that is not taxed.

But does this really solve the basic problem? Not at all - in fact, if passing is so great, it won't even change anything, since passing for 75% is probably still better than running for 100%. And if you increase the "tax" high enough to stop passing, you screw up the game even more, since passing becomes pointless, or you end up with other perverse results.

The problem is that your system has resulted in a lack of balance between the offense and the defense, and the solution is to restore that balance where the problem exists, not try to cover it up with a "tax".

I see "tax those rich bastards!" as a band-aid, and a rather bad band aid to the problem. The problem is that we want our economic systems to distribute increases in wealth across the spectrum. In an ideal American systems, as GDP increases, the wealth from that increase should be distributed to everyone, while the incentive to keep increasing that GDP remains so everyone gets better off over time. That isn't happening now - it seems like the increase in wealth is all going to the wealthy.

Berkut, I agree with your basic premise that taxation for taxations sake is a pretty dumb idea, but that analogy is Marti-esque in how forced and tortured it is.

[Jacob]

Actually I recall a LOT of right-wingers being upset about the bailout.

If only this apparent consensus could lead to constructive solutions to the structural problems that face the country, that would go a long way.