We get targeting Wall Street, the nerve center of corporate greed, crony capitalism and all those other bad things. We don’t see what’s to gain by occupying Greensboro, which is suffering from the lousy economy as much as anywhere.

The N&R seems to have turned its unsigned editorials over to a random elderly man who just doesn't understand the kids these days.

No, that's unfair random elderly men, because the logic of local protests is easy to grasp.

The lousy economy is not a natural disaster. People across the country are suffering from the depredations of Wall Street and its minions in Washington, who gutted the sensible regulations that kept the bankers from blowing up the economy for much of the 20th Century, and they're mad as hell about it. As an expression of the public mood, a gesture of support for those able to be in lower Manhattan, and a call for change, it makes perfect sense to protest here.

But if you actually know anything about Greensboro, the logic is even clearer.

For three decades our economy has been hammered by policies made on Wall Street and in DC. The textile and furniture industries were gutted, and all we got in return was everyday low prices at Walmart. Our biggest financial-services company was sold for the benefit of its managers. Conservative investors held shares in allegedly conservative companies (e.g., AIG, which bought a homegrown stalwart) only to see the value of those shares destroyed by gamblers playing with instruments they didn't understand themselves.

For thirty years we've been told to wait for the magical market to rescue us.

The real question is not, Why occupy Greensboro?, it's What took you so long?

Comments

[eric]

http://youtu.be/qQzkDzLw_gA

[Billy Jones]

I hope to see you there on Saturday.

[Kim]

We were also told that those were sweat shop jobs, and not really worth saving.

[Billy Jones]

"We were also told that those were sweat shop jobs, and not really worth saving."

Kim, I think I understand you but try telling that to the people who were laid off from those sweat shop jobs.

[designation]

Agree wholeheartedly.

Something to add to Occupy Greensboro's list should be:

1) Specifically calling for Senator Hagan to withdraw her bill to give more tax breaks to corporations that send money overseas -- introduced last week with Senator McCain.

2) Calling for Hagan and Burr to stop the free trade agreements sent to the US Senate by Obama in the past few days.

[Andrew Brod]

The other thing about the old man at the N&R is that he's taking the name "Occupy Greensboro" way too literally. Whatever OG protests will obviously be an outgrowth of, and perhaps precisely the same stuff as, what the OWS people are protesting. The movement won't be protesting against Greensboro, per se.

It's been interesting watching the media try to figure out what make of OWS. The fact that there are no white papers or specific policy recommendations drives the MSM batty. It just doesn't compute.

[Billy Jones]

Andrew,
Great point about driving the MSM batty. At Thursday's planning meeting the local TV stations showed up trying to get us on the 6:00 news but because the meeting didn't start until 6:00 none of us were willing to speak for the group. They couldn't grasp that we weren't chomping at the bit to get on TV and speak our minds.

Hope to see all of you on Saturday.

[Billy Jones]

designation,

I agree with you but can't say where your suggestions might end up on the list.

Hope to see you Saturday.

[eric]

What Andrew said. There is, I suppose, some ambiguity, since the original "Occupy Wall Street" did refer to the target, and not merely the location, of the action. But, as with the various "Occupy {Place}" groups springing up around the county (and in other countries), "Occupy Greensboro" is so-named because it is an effort by people in Greensboro to act in solidarity with the broader "Occupy" movement.

Perhaps if the unwashed hippies who started this had consulted with some marketing professionals, they might have come up with a better branding strategy. But to get hung up on the name is as trite & vapid as getting hung up on the fashion sense & personal habits of the participants.

[Kim]

Billy, agreed.

[Abner Doon]

Can not demanding anything allow an unnamed movement
to evolve and re-evolve?

How can you win
if you don't have demands?

How can you lose?

Is the only way for a status quo to "win" against a demandless subculture
to eliminate the occupation by outlasting it,
or by force?

Is the only way for a demandless subculture to lose
stopping started?

Is an offer of negotiation by a status quo
a win for a demandless occupation?

Is an uncalled for concession a win?

Could renegotiated undemanded concessions
indicate positive change?

If an opposition of the a status quo demands nothing,
does the status quo have nothing give?

If the goal of occupation with no demands
is to initiate positive change
and the only way to initiate positive change is to peacefully testify
in mass
without demands,
could occupation without demands increase the likleyhood
of creating positive change?

[Billy Jones]

Good questions, George. Maybe we'll know the answers someday.

Eric, Good point.

Kim, Agreed to agree.

I hope we see all of you there on Saturday.

[polifrog]

Again, it is interesting that I find so much in common with Occupy complaints but find so little solidarity.

I am all for attacking crony capitalism, however, I get the sense that Occupy is about attacking capitalism rather than crony capitalism.

Reminder: It was by the power of government that our pockets were picked to the benefit of financial institutions. Without government compliance there is no complaint.

Do these people somehow see "angelic governance" being corrupted by Wall Street? If so, their sense of the flow of corruption is itself corrupted. Wall Street will take the path of least resistance toward profit and if that path is through the corruption of governance, so be it; that doesn't make Wall Street evil. However, that Wall Street has this path to profit open to it is an indication of our government inviting corruption within Washington.

The first Tea Party had it right; it was Washington that sent out the invitation.

[Billy Jones]

Thus far solidarity has not been a problem for us. But it appears to be a major problem for those who want to pick us apart. The group has many complaints and we realize we can't solve them all. In time we'll agree on which problems we must tackle first.

You see, unlike the astroturfed Tea Party, Occupy is not an attempt to take over a political party. We want to see lots of political parties and more choices on the ballots. IMHO, Occupy sees Democrats and Republicans as being one failed political party and we don't want to control it. We want to give other parties a piece just as we want our own pieces.

I agree that Wall Street will take the path of least resistance but what we want first is to see those responsible for the economic downfall to be held responsible for their crimes.

The Tea Party has done everything in its power to protect the guilty.

And we've picked up 20 more cities since 10:20 AM today.

I hope you'll join us on Saturday.

[Abner Doon]

"it was Washington that sent out the invitation."

Along with who owns Washington, no?

[Joe Killian]

Guess who's on duty this Saturday?

[polifrog]

"it was Washington that sent out the invitation."

Along with who owns Washington, no?

It's muddy (revolving doors and such) but one thing is clear. It is Washington that writes the law and it is the citizen who has the vote. Vote trumps influence.

However, when the citizenry is distracted from who has the power to open and close the door to corruption and instead begins to focus on punishing those who take advantage of the open door, then the strength of their vote is diluted.

It is in this way that Occupy strengthens crony capitalism.

[Thomas]

"Reminder: It was by the power of government that our pockets were picked to the benefit of financial institutions."

I think it might be more accurate to say it was the lack of exercising the power of government that allowed our pockets to be picked to the benefit of financial institutions.

[Andrew Brod]

The pox-on-both-their-houses school of political dissent has a long history. I remember it being used way back in... well, actually just a couple of years ago. The Tea Party folks said all the same things about not being just another Republican movement and wanting a third way that would hold Republicans' feet to the fire as well as Democrats'. Guess how that worked out? Those who supported the Tea Party in 2010 voted strongly Republican. It was always obvious that it was a deeply conservative movement.

It's always a challenge to predict votes, but I'm going to go out on a limb and predict that if the OWS movement coalesces and picks up steam, its supporters will vote strongly Democratic in the 2012 elections. It seems pretty clear that it's a liberal movement.

[scharrison]

Froggie, you're missing a major part of the puzzle:

Influence, in the form of high-dollar campaign contributions, is what actually steers the vote. You simply can't win an election without television (& radio) spots, direct mail, costly organization, etc. It shouldn't be that way, but it is. I've watched it happen as a campaign volunteer, more than once.

And you know whose fault that is? You and me, pal. I won't go as far as to say we're sheep, but we do love to graze on some sweet grass. At the end of the day, voters are consumers, and if somebody doesn't court us properly with bells and whistles and groovy color schemes, we ain't gonna vote for 'em.

Until we grow up and behave like responsible citizens, which I believe many of the OWS'ers are trying to do right now, we'll continue to be herded from one field to the next.

[greensboro transplant]

"thus far..." nice post poli. hammer and nail.

i also wonder how they're planning to affect change. Billy says they want to get involved in party politics. but, as Andrew points out, at the end of the day, they're likely to side primarily with the dems. This is despite the fact that obama has shown himself to be crony capitalism friendly,

[bubba]

"The pox-on-both-their-houses school of political dissent has a long history."

As if.....

Your "pox-on-both-their-houses school of political dissent" is designed to deflect attention away from thhuge political problems caused by the Obama Administration/Democrat crony capitalism, corruption, and gross malfeasance, in hopes of salvaging some sort of political survival.

[Andrew Brod]

"Obama has shown himself to be crony capitalism friendly."

LOL.

I expect Ed to make his usual point (which with I don't disagree) that both parties drink deeply from the well of corporatist politics. But there is a difference. Corporate leaders may get in bed with the party that wants to raise their taxes, but only if they have to. They're obviously more naturally aligned with the Republicans.

[Bill Yaner]

In the first few weeks of Tea Party protests, much was conjectured about who they were and what they wanted - much of that wrong - and I suspect that's where we are right now about the OWS. We're looking hard at these ink blots and seeing all kinds of things.

What fun!

See y'all Saturday!

[polifrog]

Thomas :

I think it might be more accurate to say it was the lack of exercising the power of government that allowed our pockets to be picked to the benefit of financial institutions.

Like I've said before both parties were culpable to some degree and each party offered (likely accidently) bills that may have mitigated peripheral issues. In either case there was a larger under current that pushed for ever greater spending such that:

With consumer spending in mind, the government (fed.) manipulated the money supply such that borrowing became irrationally cheap, then imposed irrationally low lending practices on financial institutions having gone so far as to remove legislated barriers to irrationally low lending practices. It was in this way our government created a financial bubble from which it later absolved the financial industry of the moral hazard of irrational lending.

And ultimately pissed us all off.

Unfortunately many of us are distracted by one portion of the elephant or the other that effects us most.

[Abner Doon]

"Influence, in the form of high-dollar campaign contributions, is what actually steers the vote. You simply can't win an election without television (& radio) spots, direct mail, costly organization, etc."

Agreed.

"it was the lack of exercising the power of government that allowed our pockets to be picked to the benefit of financial institutions."

Agreed.

"we do love to graze on some sweet grass"

Agreed, in the form of unsustainable entitlements
and ever increasing debt,
to save ourselves from amassing too much debt.

"at the end of the day,
no matter what your Ivy (or wannabe Ivy) League professor tells you,
more debt does not fight debt."

Something I read somewhere.

"both parties drink deeply from the well of corporatist politics."

Agreed.

"They're obviously more naturally aligned with the Republicans"

Not Agreed. Contradicts prior statement. Seems a statement of a partisan.

[polifrog]

Brod's link:

'I know you are but what am I.'"

Real mature.

No Dr. Brod for you this time.

[bubba]

"They're obviously more naturally aligned with the Republicans."

Sort of like the unions with Dems, and Wall Street with Obama, huh?

[Andrew Brod]

"I know you are but what am I."

Um, what? Go back and reread the link. The point of it was that the "real mature" comment is in essence what Republicans saying.

[eric]

Polifrog: "I am all for attacking crony capitalism, however, I get the sense that Occupy is about attacking capitalism rather than crony capitalism."

I think it is fair to say that Occupy Wall Street originated within an explicitly anti-capitalist milieu. And anti-capitalist voices have continued to get the most attention, especially in mainstream media accounts. As someone who shares an anti-capitalist viewpoint, I'm not entirely unhappy with this, since such perspectives are most often absent from mainstream political-economic discourse.

But this doesn't mean the Occupy movement is, or needs to be, limited to or even dominated by anti-capitalists. In this country at this time, the movement has to be more inclusive if it is to have any real success.

Even among "anti-capitalists", there are plenty of differences and disagreements over what "capitalism" really means, why it is undesirable, how it should be overcome, and what should replace it. And, as the Occupy movement has grown, it has broadened to include many who do not reject capitalism entirely, but rather believe that with proper reforms, a capitalist economy can be compatible with democracy and social justice (again, a term that carries many different meanings for different people). This means not only liberals & progressives who favor regulation to promote a kinder, gentler capitalism, but also conservatives & libertarians who believe that our current economic & political problems are the result of too much government facilitation of cronyism rather than too little regulation.

The beauty and challenge of the developing movement is to find the points on which we can agree, and those on which we can agree to disagree, and work together within that space. This is one of the multiple meanings behind the "99%" theme: Not that we all agree about everything, but that there there are large and important things around which we can unite, without erasing or denying our differences (of ideology, privilege, etc.).

The current situation poses a tremendous opportunity. To take advantage of that opportunity, anti-capitalist radicals and pro-capitalist reformers will have to suspend, at least provisionally, our mutual suspicion and find ways to talk and work together. It won't be easy. It might not pan out. But that's a risk that seems worth taking, given how high the stakes are.

[polifrog]

Republicans didn't say that, Alec MacGillis did.

Neither was it the intent of Republicans to imply that; it was, however, Alec MacGillis' intent to imply.

Therefore by way of link it was your intent to imply and say childish nonsense.

[Andrew Brod]

Ohhhkay.

You've really got that one figured out.

[Billy Jones]

GT wrote: "i also wonder how they're planning to affect change."

That is still being considered.

"Billy says they want to get involved in party politics. but, as Andrew points out, at the end of the day, they're likely to side primarily with the dems. This is despite the fact that obama has shown himself to be crony capitalism friendly,"

I actually said the movement wasn't interested in party politics-- at least not in our current "2 party system."

As for siding with the dems-- that's what the dems would like to see but not necessarily what we want to do based on my observations thus far. The call is for more political parties, not involvement with existing parties.

I hope you'll join us on Saturday and see for yourself.

Bill, see you Saturday.

Andrew, I hope to see you as well.

Eric, Good points, I hope you can make it Saturday.

[polifrog]

Eric,

I don't understand anti-capitalists.

They denigrate without pointing to a better way having been tried. They denigrate without pointing to a better way going forward.

I am convinced that anti-capitalists are anarchists by default.

I can't support that.

You say:

As someone who shares an anti-capitalist viewpoint, I'm not entirely unhappy with this, since such perspectives are most often absent from mainstream political-economic discourse.

The best astroturfing available comes via media attention and the 200 to 400 people on Wall Street have gotten press attention far beyond their numbers. It took months for the Tea Party to approach in attention what anti capitalists got in a week and even then it took tens of thousands of Tea Partiers at singular rallies to come close to the attention Occupy has gotten with 200-400. Not only that, but the reporting gives the appearance of a greater number of feet on the ground than there are. You should appreciate your anti-capitalist friendly press atroturf.

As for working together:

The current situation poses a tremendous opportunity. To take advantage of that opportunity, anti-capitalist radicals and pro-capitalist reformers will have to suspend, at least provisionally, our mutual suspicion and find ways to talk and work together.

"Tremendous opportunity" implies a degree of forward thinking that you say is currently absent. That you, an anti-capitalist (anarchist), embrace it suggests an outcome I would not favor. You loose me with your very presence.

Did you support the real Tea Party?

[Ed Cone]

I don't think a truly anti-capitalist movement is going to get very far in this country, nor would I support one.

I would like to see a return to the sensible and effective regulation of the banking industry that helped keep the system from melting down for 70 years or so.

That system was in fact dismantled by both Democrats and Republicans. There are degrees of blame for specific and significant parts of that story, and policy differences going forward, all of which are worth discussing, but neither party is clean on this disaster.

There is much the Occupy movement could do to lose my interest, but I welcome an earnest populist outcry against a major component of our current woe.

[Andrew Brod]

"That system was in fact dismantled by both Democrats and Republicans."

Absolutely. My j'accuse! on this matter is directed not at a party, but at an ideology embraced by both parties. But it's only fair to note that the parties take a very different view of how we should move forward. One of them is willing to address past mistakes.

[Abner Doon]

It seems the TV channels and news sources
are affecting how some are recieving this issue.

I do not beleive this to be anti capitalist.

I believe this to be pro free market.

I beleive we have too many monopoly type entities
choking off innovation.

I believe the "adults" have promised themselves more
than thier children can pay.

I beleive those at the tippy top want to stay there
at any cost, which we appear to currently be paying.

I think there are two sets of rules,
not very many for those at the top,
and very many for those who are trying to get a leg up.

I own a small business.

How can GE pay nothing and Google pay 2.4%
while I pay 35% on less than $50,000 for my education business?

Something is wrong.

[polifrog]

...I welcome an earnest populist outcry against a major component of our current woe.

Where were the first time? Did the maturity of the attendees frighten you?... the American flags, the cleanliness of both the grounds and the protesters?

You rejected the Tea Party but you embrace .... this?

[Ed Cone]

The Tea Party was interesting at first, although I thought its focus on Wall Street was at best far too limited (just bailouts, not a the core problem), but then it turned into a bellicose wing of the GOP and lost me pretty quickly.

[Andrew Brod]

I would go further, Ed. The problem wasn't that the Tea Party protests were too limited as regards Wall Street, but that they missed the point. The bail-outs were necessary only because the core problems were effectively wished away.

[bubba]

"How can GE pay nothing and Google pay 2.4%"

Who benefits from their campaign spending in recent times?

[Bill Yaner N]

"I think there are two sets of rules, not very many for those at the top, and very many for those trying to get a leg up.".

Spot on, Abner. And even those few for the top are too many in their view. Watch those in Congress owned by the banking industry do their diligence in repealing the already watered down Dodd Frank regulations that would lessen the chances of another meltdown.

[polifrog]

It seems the TV channels and news sources are affecting how some are recieving this issue.

I do not beleive this to be anti capitalist.

I believe this to be pro free market.

Although, the preponderance of signs I have seen say otherwise, this may be true. The press was very disingenuous in its reporting of the Te Party, so I suspect the same may be true again.

I beleive we have too many monopoly type entities choking off innovation.

I believe the "adults" have promised themselves more
than thier children can pay.

I beleive those at the tippy top want to stay there
at any cost, which we appear to currently be paying.

I think there are two sets of rules,
not very many for those at the top,
and very many for those who are trying to get a leg up.

I own a small business.

How can GE pay nothing and Google pay 2.4%
while I pay 35% on less than $50,000 for my education business?

Something is wrong.

I have to quote it all. Right on, Right on, Right on. It is too bad the Andrew Brods of the world defend it.

[Andrew Brod]

"Who benefits from [GE's] campaign spending in recent times?"

In the current cycle, mostly Republicans. But even more so, incumbents.

[Andrew Brod]

In what universe have I ever defended crony capitalism, GE's low tax bill, or monopolies choking off innovation?

And people wonder why I question your intellect.

[Ishmael]

It is my opinion that the banks fully intend to go back to "business as usual" if we don't keep their feet to the fire or make it known that we are paying attention.
I think this is the real core of the OWS movement, no matter what other dross sticks to it or is manufactured by those in opposition.
The other day Obama was questioned about his inability to prosecute the perpetrators of the meltdown. His answer was very telling: "They have broken no laws" is the short version. Who writes the laws? Congress. Who must either sign or veto these laws? The president.
So here we have many bad actors - at least three Presidents could be at fault for the mess we are in, as well as untold numbers of Representatives and Senators. We don't pay adequate attention to the laws they write and how these laws screw us into the current situation. We've all been asleep, or, while awake, choose to tear each other to pieces with inane partisan rants which accomplish nada. It is like Greek theater.
So please, shut up about what the OWS look like or what you think they are. At least they are awake.

[ab]

At least they are awajke.

[Abner Doon]

"...this matter is directed not at a party,
but at an ideology embraced by both parties.

Agreed.

But it's only fair to note
that the parties take a very different view
of how we should move forward."

Agreed, they are both wrong.
.
.
"One of them is willing to address past mistakes."

Which one?

I see none.

Have they admitted to spending all the money
in the social security "trust fund"?

[Abner Doon]

http://research.stlouisfed.org/fred2/series/FDHBATN

If Social Security taxes were increased in 1983
to ease the burden of a smaller generation
tasked with providing benefits to a larger number of longer living elders,
why would elected leaders borrow and spend the surplus?

Where's the money Andrew?

[Andrew Brod]

The same place it always was, George: in the future earnings of working Americans.

And by the way, I can't speak for others, but I never follow your links, because you don't make them clickable. It doesn't speak well for me, I admit, but I just don't feel like going to the effort of cutting and pasting them into a browser. Learn to link, dude.