10 ms·
Tim O'Reilly on OccupyWallStreet
- AndrewMoffat 15y ago> The smirk on the face of the Fox News reporter who was interviewing various participants said it all. "These people are easy to dismiss." https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-X-DagzpHhDU/TnevQadAJeI/AAAAAAABvkc/PF_J1aqzGQ0/s1024/IMG_20110919_135534.jpg https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/-X-DagzpHhDU/TnevQadAJeI/A... https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Che5TfKQre8/TnevQT7sqZI/AAAAAAABvkc/e9w2vqyrLKE/s800/IMG_20110919_135551.jpg https://lh5.googleusercontent.com/-Che5TfKQre8/TnevQT7sqZI/A...
- bluedanieru 15y agoThat is one of the most punchable faces I've ever seen.
- xiaoqinmjj 15y agowelcometo: http://www.netetrader.com http://www.netetrader.com The website wholesale for many kinds of fashion shoes, like the nike,jordan,prada,, also including the jeans,shirts,bags,hat and the decorations. All the products are free shipping, and the the price is competitive, and also can accept the paypal payment.,after the payment, can ship within short time. free shippingcompetitive priceany size availableaccept the paypal ===== http://www.netetrader.com http://www.netetrader.com ===== jordan shoes $32nike shox $32Christan Audigier bikini $23 Ed Hardy Bikini $23Smful short_t-shirt_woman $15ed hardy short_tank_woman $16Sandal $32christian loubo utin $80 Sunglass $15 COACH_Necklace $27handbag $33AF tank woman $17puma slipper woman $30 ===== http://www.netetrader.com http://www.netetrader.com ===== ===== http://www.netetrader.com http://www.netetrader.com ===== ===== http://www.netetrader.com http://www.netetrader.com ===== ===== http://www.netetrader.com http://www.netetrader.com ===== ===== http://www.netetrader.com http://www.netetrader.com =====
- SODaniel 15y agoWell if that's not a face that says 'Smug' I don't know what is.
- danssig 15y agoWhy would someone even bother talking to a reporter from Fox News? If the SNL fake news sent out an anchor would you participate in the mock interview or wait for a real reporter?
- Natsu 15y agoIf those were my choices, I'd pick the SNL reporter.
- rbanffy 15y agoI watch Fox News when I run out of Onion News Network episodes. Now that I successfully bashed their reporting, Fox News reaches the public that needs to be educated in these issues the most.
- TeMPOraL 15y agoThis photo looks like it's about to be converted to an internet meme.
- mildweed 15y agoThe photos of that interviewer are ripe for a image macro. Based on the first photo: http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/353ysx/ http://www.quickmeme.com/meme/353ysx/
- tmsh 15y agoI don't know if anyone here watches Suits. But basically the reason the Harvey character wins is the reason Wall Street has not been held accountable. A lot of people pay a lot of money and there is enough ingenious strategizing to protect assets for large Wall Street firms (and enough tangential interests among any large American investor), that it makes complete sense that Wall Street has not and will probably not be held accountable. However, if you truly want to fix a problem like that, you have to out-strategize back. Which doesn't necessarily mean legal measures. E.g., no need to occupy Wall Street, as long as the lessons are learned and it's replaced by something better.
- Tsagadai 15y agoI haven't watched the Film you suggested. What you seem to be saying is that somehow this will resolve itself. I honestly doubt that is even remotely possible. Investment banks and hedge funds are making huge amounts of money, why would they change their business model? If the investment bank model stops working smart money will move. Smart money already has moved, look at Goldman Sachs. Goldman has since the crash been playing new tricks and old games that worked to make money. Why would someone stop playing when the game they know is still helping them to win? There is no incentive to change. Devious practices continue in multiple institutions, the market is more volatile than ever and the profits are still increasing. Change only comes from within because of some internal conflict or contradiction. There is no conflict of ideas in the banking industry, their goal is still making money with money. Their goals and methods are still closely aligned. That means that the change must come from outside. Either reform (legislation and government force), revolution (social force) or depression (economic force through a market collapse). Doing nothing just delays the inevitable.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- mcantelon 15y ago>However, if you truly want to fix a problem like that, you have to out-strategize back. Which doesn't necessarily mean legal measures. E.g., no need to occupy Wall Street, as long as the lessons are learned and it's replaced by something better. Not sure what you're trying to say there.
- maxogden 15y ago... in which the Radar rises to face the Factor
- OstiaAntica 15y agoO'Reilly is wrong about the Tea Party-- the entire movement got started during the crisis in 2008. The Tea Party and conservative Republicans initially defeated the TARP bailout in the U.S. House. And the Tea Party and Ron Paul are the main reason that the Federal Reserve -- the kingpin of America's corrupt banking regime -- is under political fire. The Tea Party doesn't have much presence in NYC and its leaders weren't involved in this particular protest, and "Occupying" is a sixties lefty word that's not going to turn out the Tea Party rank and file.
- jgfoot 15y agoAlso, the Tea Party has so far found a far more effective means of political engagement than protests like these. For better or worse, they've actually gotten involved with electoral politics, and they've had a huge impact.
- jeffreymcmanus 15y agoThey've managed to take over the Republican party. It's far from clear if they've had a huge impact. We won't know that for a while.
- protomyth 15y agoI don't think they have actually taken it over. The leadership is not aligned with the tea party values. I think we are more at a split-purposes under the same house. To my mind, the 2012 primaries will be the break point.
- knowtheory 15y agoIt really is the worst of both worlds. The existing republican establishment has harnessed the Tea Party's discontent to justify their policies without actually reforming how the party operates. All the tea party caucus can do is occasionally grind things to a complete and utter halt, and the leadership can to a large extent control when and how that happens. What's the result? Tea partiers aren't going to get what they want (since it's never been on the table to offer them), and they're being used as a weapon to prevent thing that citizens in general agree with (the wealthy should pay more in taxes, the FAA should keep operating, that sort of thing). This really is political coopting at it's finest.
- mmphosis 15y agoThanks Tim O'Reilly. http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/tahrir-moment-wall-street.html http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/tahrir-moment-...
- nhangen 15y agoWhy does every political argument resort to "tea party this" or "liberal that." Drives me nuts we can't have conversations without sweeping generalizations and broad attacks.
- neilk 15y agoI don't know if these protests are going anywhere, but it's good to remember that movements can start very small. In Egypt, half a year before Tahrir Square January-February 2011, they had the "silent stand"[1] -- which consisted of just showing up in public places en masse and saying nothing, in memory of a young man who'd been tortured to death by security services. I'm pretty sure I heard Wael Ghonim say that even he thought it was a slightly daft idea until it actually happened, and then it seemed that they'd found a catalyst for average people to join in a protest. I too hope for some sort of movement that can bridge the artificial divide between Tea Partiers and scruffy leftist kids. Fundamentally, nobody is asking for particularly radical reforms here; so it should be possible to have widespread support. [1] http://www.demotix.com/news/394309/khaled-said-silent-stand-cairo http://www.demotix.com/news/394309/khaled-said-silent-stand-...
- chernevik 15y ago"Occupy Wall Street", and their buddies "We are the 99" and "Days of Rage", dislike Wall Street because they dislike wealth. The Tea Party dislikes Wall Street because the wealth comes from implied government guarantees and regulatory barriers to competition. They could agree on cutting the Washington / New York interconnections. But that's not actually in the interests the smart money actually funding the "Occupy Wall Street" types. The last Congress gave us "finance reform" that left us Too Big Too Fail and a bunch more regulatory levers. The pols got more scope for favors and campaign donations, the bankers got more regulatory barriers to competitive entry. The chief author of that "reform"? Progressive Barney Frank. The Tea Party is the GOP's reckoning for failing their principles. The Democrats has yet to come.
- YuriNiyazov 15y agoWhat are the Democrats' principles?
- derrida 15y agoI think you misunderstand the left position. The left does not dislike wealth or the wealthy. Karl Marx himself acknowledges the importance of capitalism generating wealth like no system before it. The left has an issue with the unjust creation of wealth. In the case of financial capital, the right and the left have a great deal in common - both right and left agree these financial methods by which people became wealthy during the housing bubble at the cost of others was unjust. The left would go a step further and say that there are some forms of productive capital that result in the unjust creation of wealth, such as businesses that are heavily reliant on manual labor for ultra low wages. For this reason, I think #OccupyWallStreet as a movement against unjust investment of financial capital really does have the capacity to unite elements of the left and right.
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- arethuza 15y agoJust to note that you can have "left" leaning views without having any relationship to the ideas of Marx. The co-operative movement arguably demonstrates that you can have very succesful businesses that have a social component: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_cooperative_movement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/History_of_the_cooperative_move...
- pkaler 15y agoSilicon Valley should look itself in the mirror if it wants to throw stones at Wall Street. Tim O'Reilly is posting to the site of a corporation that funnels money to Bermuda so that it only has to pay a 2.4% tax rate. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_Arrangement http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Double_Irish_Arrangement http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-shows-how-60-billion-u-s-revenue-lost-to-tax-loopholes.html http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-10-21/google-2-4-rate-sho... And O'Reilly probably has Eric Schmidt and Larry Page's phone numbers.
- dlss 15y agoPlease bookmark this thread and reread the post (and your response) after you've calmed down. There is a big difference between what Tim was talking about ("constructed a set of financial products with intent to defraud") and what you're talking about ("[using the website of / knowing the founders of] a corporation that funnels money to Bermuda [after getting an okay to do so from the IRS] so that it only has to pay a 2.4% tax rate [on overseas income]").
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- stumm 15y agoO'Reilly is critical of tech companies that try to avoid paying taxes. In fact he posted a lengthy article about why amazon should stop trying to avoid paying taxes in California: https://plus.google.com/107033731246200681024/posts/QypNDmvJJq7 https://plus.google.com/107033731246200681024/posts/QypNDmvJ...
- CamperBob 15y agoYou have a problem with the laws, write your Congressmen. Otherwise you're just player-hating.
- wnoise 15y agoLobbying gets the laws passed for those that enjoy them. The players help create the game, so it is perfectly appropriate to hate them.
- chrismealy 15y agoFinancial capital has always been at war with productive capital. Because it's more concentrated in power (and even geographically) it's easier for financial capital to be aware of its interests and work together towards them. Productive capital is dispersed and varied. Tim O'Reilly is the rare CEO who's smart enough to know what's going on and what side he's on. Good for him.
- Kroem3r 15y agoIs he the only multi-million CEO willing to speak out about this? Or is the protest somehow in his realm that we're hearing about it? Either way, there's little doubt that one $100 million CEO outweighs a lot of scruffy students. And in this case, amounts to something sadly futile. Even if he'd just got one friend CEO ... "and this is my friend Liz: she's a $150 million CEO, listen to what she thinks."
- deleted 15y ago[deleted]
- rbanffy 15y agoHow hard would it be to organize a protest with a hundred $100M CEOs? I don't think it would be that hard to find 100 CEOs willing to do it.
- fauigerzigerk 15y agoDescribing these two types of capital as "at war" isn't a tremendously exhaustive explanation of that relationship in my view. Isn't it also very much a symbiosis? Someone needs to provide productive capital in the form of equity. If that equity wasn't tradable, fewer people would be ready to provide that capital. If there was no financial capital, there wouldn't be any credit either. So without much equity capital and without loans everything would have to be funded out of cash flow. There would be no large projects, no investment in future demand or longer term infrastructure, it would all be hand to mouth. Also, in many cases that cash flow would eventually outgrow what a company or individual can productively deploy. Without creating financial capital out of that cash flow, ie lending the money to someone who can productively deploy it, that capital would be stuck even though it could be used productively elsewhere.
- azulum 15y agoloved one of the posters about the student loan crisis being the next housing crisis. i have a bachelors with three majors. i graduated in 2008. my education has been worth (45000) plus (5 years) plus an ability to recognize bullshit. yep, 45k. i thought i'd get a decent job. now i realize that i have to manufacture my own job. edit: shame sallie mae loans can't be bankrupted anymore.
- S_A_P 15y agoThe Tim O'Reilly Factor? In my only semi informed opinion, it seems that this sort of crime is so distributed and hard to prove that it likely is just too difficult to create a convincing case to a jury of folks who may or may not really grasp what really happened on wall street. I am not even sure that many of the fraudsters even knew the full consequence of their actions. I am by no means defending anyone here, I just think that the "crime" is too difficult to package up neatly.
- jeffreymcmanus 15y agoAnytime there is money, there is always an extensive paper trail. Enforcing financial laws is possible to do if you apply the requisite resources. Unfortunately, we don't do that in this country. But at the end of the day, if a financial product is so complicated that it can't be regulated, that's a good sign that it never should have been created in the first place.
- ddw 15y agoIronic isn't it that the people that are most effected by financial polices - the working class and poor - usually don't come out to these kind of things. But I wouldn't give up on it yet, a core seems to be prepared for long-term occupation and it could grow.
- yardie 15y agoThe working stiff has to go to work or lose hist job in a shitty economy. Besides he already noted that the number of protesters was larger during the weekend. But then Monday rolls around and it's back to work. Plus the audience wasn't that appealing. If there were more middle class people mixed in the protest than it might have broader appeal, if there was even a few that represented the group, clean shaven and able to eloquently speak that would go a long way. From the outside it just looks like a bunch of hippies.
- ddw 15y agoCertainly. But the hope is that if the core keeps some sort of energy going that other people can join in when they can. We'll have to see if it can gain any momentum at all.
- danssig 15y agoThis isn't ironic, it's completely expected. The people most effected can't afford to come out to something like this. Their boss (or bosses for those that work multiple jobs) aren't going to give them any more time off than they must. If they even heard that an employee went to something like this they would fire them for sure.
- ddw 15y agoOh I agree, probably should've stated as such in my post.
- wisty 15y agoSince 1967, real median household income in the USA has risen from ~$40k to ~$49k, a growth of about 0.5% a year. (http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/US_real_median_household_income_1967_-_2010.png/400px-US_real_median_household_income_1967_-_2010.png http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/b/bd/US_...) Since 1967, real GDP of the USA rose from 4T to 13T, a 320% increase (2005 dollars), or a growth of about 2.8% a year. (http://www.data360.org/dataset.aspx?Data_Set_Id=354 http://www.data360.org/dataset.aspx?Data_Set_Id=354) This would be my sign: US household income growth: 0.5% a year since the 60s. US GDP growth: 2.8% a year since the 60s. Who is stealing our growth?
- notahacker 15y agoExtra people being born "steal" a lot of the growth, but they create a lot of it too. The GDP per capita figure, according to the Wikipedia article linked to your graphic, grew by only 1.35% per year over the same period. Typical household sizes have shrunk too, so your median household income might well be feeding 2 people rather than 3. http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/hh4.csv http://www.census.gov/population/socdemo/hh-fam/hh4.csv
- wisty 15y agoDoh, you're right. I really didn't compare apples to apples ther. Still: 1967 - 59,236k households, GDP 3.9T ~= 65k / household (2005 dollars). 2010 - 117,538k households, GDP 13T ~= 111k / household (2005 dollars). That's something like 1.2% GDP growth per household, while median household income is going up at 0.5%. On one hand, there might be less dependents per household, but on the other hand, there's a lot more women working. Despite all the housewives burning their bras, forgoing large families, putting their kids in childcare and getting a job, household income still hasn't risen. Maybe there's a lot of low-payed single women, dragging the median down. That doesn't convince me that everything is OK though. Let's look at incomes of income-earning over 15s: Between 1960 and 2004, the salaries of white males went up 0.068% a year. White women's salaries grew at 2%, probably because they were working much greater hours. Black men did well, and black women did even better. But overall, it was a 0.74% per year increase. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_States#Over_time_-_by_Race_.26_Sex http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Personal_income_in_the_United_S... People are better off, but mostly because the women are working longer hours, they don't have kids. Soon, they will also be working more years, as the boomer realize they can't retire. It's a lot better if you're black, but not because of productivity growth trickling down to median workers. I could track down the numbers, to find how many workers over 15 there are (or maybe how many people there are over 15, or between 15 and 65), but I just don't think productivity growth is <1%, like median income growth. If productivity growth is <1%, then we have another problem altogether. OK, here we go, real growth by percentile (1960 to 2007): 95th: 1.86% / year. 80th: 1.58% / year. 60th: 1.4% / year. 40th: 1.1% / year. 20th: 1.05% / year. Arguably (as pg says), this is a good thing, because risk-takers and innovators are being rewarded, driving growth. But it's not as simple as high inequality = high growth, and that doesn't explain why inequality is growing. pg says it's because corporate structures are becoming more efficient, cutting out deadwood managers. Whatever. If this is the case, why isn't GDP growing at a higher rate than the 60s? Has our society simply reached the point where technology no longer drives growth? That's scarier than greedy executives, compliant governments, self-serving boards of directors looting society; but I don't think it's happened yet. China had huge inequality in the from 1750 to 1950, and stagnent growth, low inequality and moderate growth from 1950 to 1990 (with a few hiccups, notably the Great Leap Forward, and Cultural Revolution, but communism worked a lot better than their previous system of capitalism + corrupt feudalism), then high inequality and high growth from 1990. While inequality might be a requirement for high growth, it's not always a good sign. It can just mean that the rich and powerful are screwing the poor, which makes it harder for a poor innovator to take their idea from rags to riches.
- twoodfin 15y ago> There are a set of people who constructed a set of financial products with intent to defraud. They took our country to the brink of ruin, then got off scott free, even with multi-million dollar bonuses. I have a feeling this movement would be much more effective if it could actually name names and link to evidence. "Read Taibbi" isn't enough. I've read all of Taibbi's pieces, and it's hard to see a real criminal case succeeding out of what he presents. Some of it might seem outrageous, but investors were aware of the risks in CDOs well before the bubble burst and wanted them anyway. Claiming a little marketing spin from Goldman Sachs is a criminal attempt to defraud doesn't pass the laugh test for me.