Friday, October 7, 2011

Current occupy site in the US

Source-Daily Kos


  1. I don't know of any large "occupy" protests inside the US or in Manhattan. This is politically irrelevant in the US. At least the tea party [whose popularity and influence is also exxagerated] are able to bring large numbers of people to the streets.

    Americans are far less interested in who to blame than they are in improving technological innovation, business, investment and job creation in the present.

    TGIA, have you seen the Metropolitan museum in Manhattan? It is amazing :)     What are your thoughts?

  2. I see three possible outcomes of these protests:
    1. They could remain unfocused and quickly become a nuisance, and in the end help elect a Republican president next year.

    2. The protesters will get bored and go home, with the movement devolving into a small faction of the Democratic party with a few celebrity pundits being the main benificiary of all the sacrifices of the protesters.

    3. They can put down roots in all the communities where they are protesting. They can get to know the local concerns and show how they are connected with the larger national and global issues-and convince people that only through organizing on a larger scale they can make their lives better-their kids will have better schools, streets will be repaired, they'll have jobs, etc. Mayor Daley of Chicago-the father- said "All politics is local." These organizers better get that memo.

  3. Joer, what is the point of all of this?

    Railing against rich people or the complex financial system [which less than 1% of people have even a slight understanding of] has never worked politically inside the US [and has rarely worked outside the US as well.]

    Most people could care less how rich people are doing as long as they have a job and prospects of career advancement.

    Do these protestors have any "plan" to facilitate job creation and productivity growth?

  4.    Right now, the protests are an expression of frustration, apparently felt by a lot of people-I don't know if it's 99% like they claim, but it is enough, if properly organized will be able to even things out more.

       Every election both sides rail against the rich. The Republicans rail against "limosine liberal" elitists and the Democrats rail against Wall Street fat cats. Both sides are liars and hypocrites. To quote a wise old man whose advice I respect: Once you start to believe what they say, you are lost.

  5. hmmm. Interesting. I see your point. This said, I still think most people around the world [poor people especially] couldn't care less how many billionairres there are if they are doing well themselves.

  6.  The operative word in your hypothesis is "if". Apparently, there are thousands of protesters and millions of sympathizers who don't feel they are doing well.

       But I'm not sure your hypothesis is correct. There is a shakeup in society when a group of people or a class discover their power. It's almost irrelevant if they are "doing well" or not. The American Revolution was led by rich businessmen and big slave owners. The civil rights movement was led by the black middle class and college students, not by those who suffered most materially from discrimination. I guess the question about these protests is if they will help the majority of dissatisfied Americans discover their power and shake things up.