Occupy Wall Street Critque

This is a response to the Declaration of the Occupation of New York City
 By the Occupy Wall Street Folks found at this link.
"http://nycga.cc/2011/09/30/declaration-of-the-occupation-of-new-york-city/

I created it as an intellectual exercise for myself in order to test my assumptions and knowledge.  I have placed my comments and links inline with their declaration. My overall view of their position is that, surprise, the world is not perfect. What specifically they want to do to make it "perfect" is not known at this time as this is only a list of grievances. My answer to that question would be

• Smaller government that lives within it's means
• Less onerous regulations so that anyone (these folks for example) can easily start businesses.
• Break up the big banks so that they are no longer "to big to fail".
• A simpler tax system (9,9,9 perhaps) that makes everyone pay into our government.

Declaration 

of the Occupation of New York City

As we gather together in solidarity to express a feeling of mass injustice, we must not lose sight of what brought us together. We write so that all people who feel wronged by the corporate forces of the world can know that we are your allies.
As one people, united, we acknowledge the reality: that the future of the human race requires the cooperation of its members; that our system must protect our rights, and upon corruption of that system, it is up to the individuals to protect their own rights, and those of their neighbors; that a democratic government derives its just power from the people, but corporations do not seek consent to extract wealth from the people and the Earth; and that no true democracy is attainable when the process is determined by economic power. We come to you at a time when corporations, which place profit over people, self-interest over justice, and oppression over equality, run our governments. We have peaceably assembled here, as is our right, to let these facts be known.

They have taken our houses through an illegal foreclosure process, despite not having the original mortgage.

• > 99% of foreclosures are for not paying the mortgage regardless of what process there is for filing the paperwork. 1% may be wrong and that, with check copies, is easily righted.
  

They have taken bailouts from taxpayers with impunity, and continue to give Executives exorbitant bonuses.

• > The government created the bailout problem by

• 1) Cutting rates to near zero to stave off deflation and inflating money by bond purchases. This sent banks on a search for better returns hence the AAA low prime investments.
  2) The unintended consequences of HUD (Housing and Urban Development) policies which by 2002 required banks to make 50% of all loans to low and moderate income borrowers, and pushed GSEs (Government Sponsored Entities) to underwrite hundreds of billions of non-standard loans despite having only 1% in capital.
  3) Allowing banks to mix trading with their standard business in order to compete with European banks.
  4) The US government requires pension funds to invest in AAA rated securities and anoints only a few rating agencies with that power. Again more interference with the marketplace.
  

• >They could have let the banks fail. Most people agree we would have entered into a full scale depression without the bailouts.
  

They have perpetuated inequality and discrimination in the workplace based on age, the color of one’s skin, sex, gender identity and sexual orientation.

• > This is inaccurate. There have never been more laws to prevent discrimination than today. If you are a productive worker you can be assured that your differences will not matter.

They have poisoned the food supply through negligence, and undermined the farming system through monopolization.

• > The food supply has never been so bountiful. Small farmers lost their farms due to price controls instituted by the Government during the depression. Agricultural subsidies are what keep large farms in business as dealing with all that paperwork is easier for large corporations. These subsidies must slowly end. This problem was created by the government. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Farming#Modern_agriculture
• Modern Agriculture requires the use of chemicals to grow enough food for our growing population. This effect will not change unless you want to cause mass starvation.
  

They have profited off of the torture, confinement, and cruel treatment of countless nonhuman animals, and actively hide these practices.

• > Some people are vegetarian and some are not. The choice to purchase from companies that harvest animals is yours.
  

They have continuously sought to strip employees of the right to negotiate for better pay and safer working conditions.

• > Every business has the right to unionize and people have the right to work or not work where and when they want to. Open shop (voluntary to join a union in a company) versus closed shop (must be a member of a union) is the crux of the matter. When left to their own choices most people opt not to pay union dues. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Open_shop

• > Card check is another issue where unions want to know who voted for what versus the current system of allowing a right to a secret ballot. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Card_check
  

They have held students hostage with tens of thousands of dollars of debt on education, which is itself a human right.

• > Students have the choice to go into debt or not for their education. If they choose to then they should pay. Now the US Government now does all student lending so the US taxpayer is on the hook for any defaults. This easy US backed credit is another reason why our education costs are sky high and rising.
  

They have consistently outsourced labor and used that outsourcing as leverage to cut workers’ healthcare and pay.

• > It's a global marketplace and Americans work for much more at the same job as other people in other parts of the world are willing to work for. Part of this is due to our high labor costs which are never lowered by unionizing.
  

They have influenced the courts to achieve the same rights as people, with none of the culpability or responsibility.

• > Freedom of speech for individuals or groups of individuals has been passed by the US Supreme Court. The congress can try to change this but that may not improve things much as government interference rarely does. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Citizens_United_v._Federal_Election_Commission
  

They have spent millions of dollars on legal teams that look for ways to get them out of contracts in regards to health insurance.

• > Not sure what contracts where but insurance always seems to have lots of loopholes however companies that pursue those loopholes get a reputation for doing that and then loose either customers, employees or both. More competition would bring these back actors to light.
  

They have sold our privacy as a commodity.

• > Again it is a matter of free choice whether you want to have a Google account or Facebook account. We have gained a few things from this privacy issue as well.
  

They have used the military and police force to prevent freedom of the press.

• > This is not accurate. The US enjoys much more freedom of the press than say Russia.
  

They have deliberately declined to recall faulty products endangering lives in pursuit of profit.

• > The legal profession works overtime in the USA to sue manufacturers of faulty products. This makes our products cost more or perhaps not even get to market. Our FDA holds back promising drugs and devices for years that are already in wide use in Europe. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Product_liability
  

They determine economic policy, despite the catastrophic failures their policies have produced and continue to produce.

• > We operate under a free market economy that grew as a natural result of the free movement of material, labor and capital towards it's best and highest use. As long as the market place decides we are safe. As soon as the government decides we are in deep trouble. The United State still leads the world in GDP with $14 Trillion, China is a distant second with 5 Trillion. Not exactly catastrophic.
  http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_GDP_%28nominal%29
  

They have donated large sums of money to politicians supposed to be regulating them.

• > As do the Unions and Environmental groups and others. This is all part of free speech and the lobbying that comes from it. It isn't pretty but at least everyone has a chance to influence legislation. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lobbyist
  

They continue to block alternate forms of energy to keep us dependent on oil.

• > Alternative energy has never been so supported by government and business yet it is still a long way from being viable. Large corporations are heavily involved in alternative energy. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alternative_energy
  

They continue to block generic forms of medicine that could save people’s lives in order to protect investments that have already turned a substantive profit.

• > Generics can only be produced legally once the patent has expired. The patent allows the company to make back their R&D costs. Without that guarantee who would want to try? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_drug#When_a_generic_drug_can_be_produced
  

They have purposely covered up oil spills, accidents, faulty bookkeeping, and inactive ingredients in pursuit of profit.

• > There are stringent requirement for oil spills to be reported. I believe that the penalty for a cover up is much higher than a spill in the first place. Oil is a natural product and occurs in nature. Spilling oil is not good but it is something we have to live with if we want to live our lifestyle.
  

They purposefully keep people misinformed and fearful through their control of the media.

• > See arguments for a free press above.
  

They have accepted private contracts to murder prisoners even when presented with serious doubts about their guilt.

• > I need to see an example but I doubt this is widely true. Prisoners in the USA enjoy perhaps the best system of justice in the world however it is not perfect. The death penalty should be abolished and is currently used in only 35 states (since 1976 when the US Supreme Court left it up to the states) and internationally in 23 countries. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Death_penalty
  

They have perpetuated colonialism at home and abroad.

• > The US is not a colonial power although it does promote democracy and capitalism as a solution to poverty and totalitarianism. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Colonialism
  

They have participated in the torture and murder of innocent civilians overseas.

• > I am not sure that corporations do this but our government has sadly instituted "enhance Interrogation" in the aftermath of 911. Amnesty International estimates that at least 81 world governments currently practice torture. Wars, by their nature, create the loss of innocent lives.
  

They continue to create weapons of mass destruction in order to receive government contracts.*

• > Contracts vetted and approved by our democratic government.
  

To the people of the world,
We, the New York City General Assembly occupying Wall Street in Liberty Square, urge you to assert your power.
Exercise your right to peaceably assemble; occupy public space; create a process to address the problems we face, and generate solutions accessible to everyone.
To all communities that take action and form groups in the spirit of direct democracy, we offer support, documentation, and all of the resources at our disposal.
Join us and make your voices heard!
*These grievances are not all-inclusive.

• > They seem quite enough however with that statement the goalposts can continue to move.

Milton Friedman on Donahue 1979

Links to YouTube interview of Milton Friedman by Phil Donahue

This is the first of five
http://youtu.be/E1lWk4TCe4U

This is a summary of a section which is called GREED - It has been used on CNBC

http://youtu.be/RWsx1X8PV_A

Friedman defends capitalism

Facisim as a wrongly used term

Fascism is an often misused word and I would therefore avoid it's use in describing anything at all except perhaps the state of Italy during the mid 19th century.

To see how difficult it is to define or use properly see the talk page for the debate on the definition in Wikipedia. Fascism is many things but certainly not free market. 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Fascism
I particularly like Orwell's run at defining it.
http://orwell.ru/library/articles/As_I_Please/english/efasc

One thing you can be sure of, anyone calling someone a Facist is smearing that person with an pejorative that has little basis in the actual definition. They also don't know what they are talking about.

Why the Robin Hood Tax won't work

My son wanted me to comment on the Robin Hood Tax
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2011/apr/13/robin-hood-tax-economists-letter

Jeffery Sachs spoke at my elder son's graduation. He is very liberal, in the new sense that he wants to tax folks and take that money and use it for what HE thinks is the better good. In other words he thinks he is a Robin Hood.
I have since read two of his other articles and he apparently toned down his comments for the audience who listened to him last May.

Second - I considered myself a liberal for my first 25 years, then an independent for 20 years until around 2004 when I started transitioning into my current state which is not happy with labels which shift and change with the times but if I had to pick a leadership at this point in time it would be conservative so I suppose I agree with that direction more than the liberal one. I understand these terms as follows.

Liberal - used to mean a person who wants free choice - now it means a person who wants to tax people and use those funds to improve other's lives - this takes the choice out of the equation for both parties as a third party is doing the taking and the making.

Conservative used to mean a person who likes things to stay the same as change might threaten their advantages. - Now it means someone who is rebelling against government trying to take over the ability for people to rise and fall on their own skills and efforts by competing in the free market economy.

Now with that background (disclosure) here is my response

For a liberal to succeed (do good works) he has to have money so the Robin Hood tax is proposed. The economists would then be hired as experts (who else?) to allocate those funds.
The tax would be low they say, but of course it won't stay low.
It eventually would act like a drag on financial transactions which would probably be negative but let's leave that aside for now.

What really bothers me is these "third parties" getting all this money and misusing it.
"This money is urgently needed to raise revenue for global and domestic public goods such as health, education and water, and to tackle the challenge of climate change."
This interferes with the free market which is the only mechanism that has proven to properly allocate resources to their highest and best use and raise people out of poverty.
There is tremendous evidence for the failure of self appointed NGO's in trying to solve these issues where they interfere with the markets and prop up regimes that should fail.
"Basically liberals want to run my life for me instead of letting me run my life myself."

See this video on a brilliant refutation to Jeffery Sachs and all of the "I know how better to use your money than you do" liberals.
http://youtu.be/RWsx1X8PV_A
the entire interview is here
http://youtu.be/E1lWk4TCe4U


As a final thought consider what it means to be Robin Hood.
He mugs a shop owner on his way to the bank and takes his money thereby making him leave the forest and set up his shop somewhere else. The forest jobs get lost and those people are out of work. Robin meanwhile gives the money to his merry men for distribution. The merry men take a cut for mead and beef of course and the give the remainder to a few related poor folks who they like. These poor folk get lazy, quit their day jobs cutting firewood and now count on Robin to keep robbing. There is simply no good outcome here. Methinks Robin Hood a common hood.

How to understand the current financial shape of America

Chris Martenson did a comparative fiscal outlook for the US with that of a troubled relative earning $50,000 a year. A good friend of mine sent it to me. I now share it with you. Imagine if THIS WAS YOU.

I have a relative in financial trouble. He makes $50,000 a year, but he spent $74,591 last year, and his prospects of making $50,000 this year look kind of bad. There's a good chance he will get a pay cut.
Unfortunately, he’s been overspending for quite a while and has charged $295,632 on credit cards…

So here’s the picture:

· $50,000: Income

· $74,591: Expenses

· $24,591: Deficit (difference from income and expenses)

· $295,632: Short-term revolving debt at artificially low rates

· $2,372,632: Unfunded promises

· $1,292: A Republican friend suggests I cut from my budgeted expenses

· $137: A Democrat friend suggests I cut from my budgeted expenses

So, what does the future look like for my Uncle Sam? Do you think he can keep going like this much longer? What about his family that’s counting on the promises he made to them? Do you see any possible solution other than bankruptcy?

Multiply the above numbers by 47,620,000 and you get the fiscal picture for the United States Government in 2010:

· $2.381 Trillion: Revenue

· $3.552 Trillion: Budget

· $1.171 Trillion: Deficit

· $14.078 Trillion: Debt

· $113 Trillion: Unfunded Liabilities (Social Security, Medicare, Medicaid)

· $61.5 Billion: Republican proposed budget cuts

· $6.5 Billion: Democrat proposed budget cuts

http://www.chrismartenson.com/blog/how-explain-current-economic-situation-friends-and-family/54409

The Neo Conservative Position and the Egyptian Revolution

The reason Iran's Green demonstrations of two years ago did not succeed is because the Iranian government shot the protesters and arrested or executed the leaders. It's a certainty that Saddam would have done the same, given that he gassed entire villages. Egypt's revolution succeeded due to the restraint of the US trained Egyptian military. It will be much more bloody in Iran.
I would argue that the Egyptian Revolution is a vindication of the Neo Conservative point of view and George Bush's "Freedom Agenda". If you Google "neoconservative Egyptian" you will see related articles.

Bush wanted first of all to make sure that Iraq was not a threat to the US. Saddam Hussein had the option to leave Iraq and avoid the war. He chose war.
Once we won the war the goal was to establish Iraq as an independent democracy. That would then create a democracy in the middle of a fractious group of totalitarian regimes and would be an example to their people. Now that these countries citizens are revolting against their oppressors we may be seeing the fruits of our labors. The rehabilitation of George Bush's "Freedom Agenda" policy is well underway.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2011/02/02/AR2011020207325.html