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

[Malthus]

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.

The problem here is not that the "reactionaries" here are reposing trust in "government by the experts". No-one has expressed any sentiment that the "experts" actually know of any solutions to the problems we face.

Indeed, it would be sort of sweet and endearing if someone was to naively repose such trust in the 'experts' to solve these issues! 

[The Minsky Moment]

  But that doesn't explain the ECB's bizarrely inadequate response to the Eurozone's economic problems in general.

WAD

In addition I think Paul Krugman's right that this was an elite that created a monetary union without considering that things could go wrong, or explaining that to the people of Europe. 

I think that lets "the people" off too easy.  The "elite" made it pretty clear that monetary union was a stepping stone to further economic integration.  The people embraced what they variously saw as the benefits of a single currency but then balked when it came time to approve further measures that were needed to make it work over the long haul. 

[fhdz]

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

Well, you and I both know that just recognizing a common problem doesn't mean that anyone's going to agree on the solution.

[Sheilbh]

Increasing taxes on the rich in the US should really just serve one purpose which is to cut the deficit.  Increasing the top marginal rate won't really do much to cut inequality and the sort of rates required for it to have that effect really are the sort that would cause serious economic damage.  I've said before I find the American left's glee at raising taxes on the rich rather distasteful.

Having said that I don't see how you can address the problem in a globalised world. 

[MadImmortalMan]

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.

The way you guys make it sound, the teabaggers and OWS are essentially all about the exact same thing and should join forces.

[The Minsky Moment]

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.

But others did understand the deeper issues, and assumed leadership positions that were actively or passively endorsed by those whose participation was more emotive.  Without that, the revolution would have been an abject failure, just a Boston Massacre-type uprising writ large (like the later Whiskey Rebellion).

Where is the Washington, the Adams, the Jefferson, the Franklin, etc. etc. of the OWS movement (or the tea party for that matter)?  I don't see 'em.

[Malthus]

As I stated earlier in the thread, I see there as being 3 really big structural issues:

1. Increasing divide within 1st world nations between "haves" and "have-nots";

2. Increasing pressure from former 3rd world nations to become 1st world nations; and

3. Environmental degredation/overpopulation.

As I said, these three issues are interrelated. The press from the 3rd world/globilization is putting the squeeze on the middle class in the 1st world, who in many cases find it hard to compete, fueling the divide into haves & have-nots; the tremendous economic growth in places like China and India is screwing the environment even worse that it already was; and curbing economic growth is likely to create more unhappy, joblesss people everywhere. 

[Jacob]

Oh yes, I am sure if you asked the typical tea party advocate, they would say "Oh yeah, I totally think that the government should tax us and give the money to giant corporations!"

The fundamental position of the right is that the government should not take money from anyone without a really, REALLY good reason. And even if we accept that some is necessary, it should be as little as possible.

What the government does with that money afterwards is a secondary issue, but giving it to anyone else (rather than spending it on things that only the government can do) is a bad idea.

So no, that is not "well put", it was pretty horrifically badly put - it is a caricature of the opponents position that even Jacob knew had no resemblance to what "the right" actually thinks.

I don't think the popular right wants that either; I think that that characterization of the popular right's goals is about as accurate as your earlier characterization of the popular left's.

While the amount of money taken from private individuals for the state to allocate is a significant difference between the right and the left, I don't think that difference is that important to the current set of problems except insofar as it serves to obscure the real problem.

The issue is not so much whether there should be more or less tax money provided to the public in any of the given systems (health care, finance/ mortgages/ pensions, education) but the fact that deregulation and mis-regulation has created systems where public money provided for the public good (be it health care, support for homeowners or or education) tend to go into the pockets of shareholders rather than actually providing those public goods.

The issue is not so much how much water to put into the irrigation system, as much as it is that it seems that significant parts of the system leads the water away from the dry fields altogether.

I think we actually see the problem in pretty similar terms, Berkut.

[Sheilbh]

I think that lets "the people" off too easy.  The "elite" made it pretty clear that monetary union was a stepping stone to further economic integration.  The people embraced what they variously saw as the benefits of a single currency but then balked when it came time to approve further measures that were needed to make it work over the long haul.

Further economic integration's different from the steps that have been required by this crisis such as the budget session or the austerity program or fiscal transfers in some Eurozone countries.

I don't think it was ever made clear to Germans that they could end up being on the hook for Greek debt.  In fact I think various politicians went out of their way to declare that there would never be any sort of fiscal transfer union, or a move towards Eurobonds.  Similarly my understanding is that many Southern European nations pushed through some reforms to have sufficiently converged for Euro entry but they also said it would stabilise their currency (compared with Lira, Drachma, Escudo) and that would help protect their way of life. 

I think that both of these could be seen as based on a rosy future for the Euro and meant that the people of the different Eurozone countries were never prepared for the potential downside.  But I also don't think the elites ever tried to take the steps necessary for the Euro to work in the long-term.  I can't think of any major attempted steps by a PM, President or Central Banker prior to this crisis.

[fhdz]

The way you guys make it sound, the teabaggers and OWS are essentially all about the exact same thing and should join forces.

No, no - they aren't about the exact same thing at all. There are some overlaps, though, to be sure. Both recognize there is a problem with our economy. Both definitely think "the little guy" is getting screwed. Where they place the blame, though, is radically different. That makes the solutions proposed radically different, too.

[Jacob]

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.

I agree with you here Berkut. If this turns into "more money for the teachers' pension fund" or whatever, then it will have been completely highjacked and will likely fizzle out (teachers' pension funds may in fact be screwed and deserve more money - or not - but it's not a cause for the nation).

The optimist would hope that this apparent common ground between the popular left and right could actually be harnessed and turned into constructive solutions. It seems perhaps unlikely given the state of the two political parties, and given that both left and right have rhetoric that is antithetical to their opposites in spite of apparently significant shared grounds.

I mean, if everyone can agree that doctors should not perform unnecessary surgeries or demand hundreds of thousands of dollars in what's essentially bribes to refer patients to hospitals; and that executives should not be paid big bonuses out of tax payer money when their companies are destabilizing the economy; might it not be possible to focus on fixing that rather than worrying about whether it's a socialist or laissez-faire solution that does the trick?

... or is that too technocratic and pragmatic?

[Jacob]

Well, you and I both know that just recognizing a common problem doesn't mean that anyone's going to agree on the solution.

Of course, but recognizing the common problem is at least a first step.

[Valmy]

No, no - they aren't about the exact same thing at all. There are some overlaps, though, to be sure. Both recognize there is a problem with our economy. Both definitely think "the little guy" is getting screwed. Where they place the blame, though, is radically different. That makes the solutions proposed radically different, too.

Well generally they both place the blame on the elites.  They just blame different elites.

[Jacob]

The way you guys make it sound, the teabaggers and OWS are essentially all about the exact same thing and should join forces.

In many ways I think they are, and should.

Of course, the discontent with the structural problems is understood through different cultural filters. With the addition of different views orthogonal to this issue there's plenty of both superficial and substantive issues to clash over it seems.

[crazy canuck]

Well, you and I both know that just recognizing a common problem doesn't mean that anyone's going to agree on the solution.

Of course, but recognizing the common problem is at least a first step.

Ok so I ask again.  What is this common problem that vexes people across the world - since Sheilbh asserts this is a function of globalization.  You speak of common ground between the right and left but the example you use is uniquely American.  As JR said, where are the leaders of this movement that can take whatever you might think unifies all these protest movments and turn themselves into something coherent.

So far the occupiers have taken pride in the fact they are leaderless.  I think this is because there is no coherence to what they are saying and it is a convenient dodge to say that is because no one speaks for them.