11 ms·

Panic of the Plutocrats

275 points by diogenescynic 15y ago

TomOfTTB 15y ago
The movement still, as far as I can tell, has no intellectual grounding. Watch the Reason.TV Video: http://reason.tv/video/show/what-we-saw-at-occupy-wall-str http://reason.tv/video/show/what-we-saw-at-occupy-wall-str You have a Ron Paul supporter next to a guy who wants to nationalize the banks. You have a guy supporting Obama next to a guy who thinks Mitt Romney will "fix the country". And of course the folks "letting their freak flag fly" So this movement stands for nothing. Except for maybe "we're unhappy with the world right now" and really who isn't unhappy with the world right now? The only thing more ridiculous then the Occupy Wall St crowd are the pundits and politicians trying to use them to make their own points (which includes Krugman and the people he's criticizing)
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- WiseWeasel 15y ago
  If they share one thing, it's a feeling of being unrepresented in government. The core purpose of making their numbers known is to impart to Congress and the Obama administration their discontent with the status quo, with legislation increasingly adopted for the benefit of the investment banks in particular, and the extremely wealthy more generally, to the detriment of the rest of the country. It is a not-so-subtle reminder that while those other guys may fund their election campaigns, the rest of us are the ones who can take up pitchforks and torches, and have a good old-fashioned mob lynching if things go too far in the wrong direction.
- wisty 15y ago
  The common thread may be an opposition to "privatize gains, socialize losses". They may not agree on whether socializing the gains or privatizing the losses is more desirable, but they know they don't like the current system.
- clarkevans 15y ago
  That a Ron Paul person is protesting shoulder-to-shoulder with someone from the Green Party is very telling. Even though the solution to the problem isn't clear, they do have something in common; and this in itself is a rather important political development. I disagree that the movement lacks intellectual grounding -- "heads we privatize profits, tails we nationalize the loss" is about as clear as you can get. Doesn't matter if your anti-corporate or anti-government, corporate/government collusion permits right wingers and left wingers to get on the same page.
  - maratd 15y ago
    I think you're illustrating a universal constant through your examples. The political spectrum isn't really a spectrum or a line. It's a circle. There is always a point where right meets left, where people agree on the solution, but disagree on the problem that necessitates that solution. That wonderful point is where the lunatics from either side meet, shake hands, and agree that everything must be destroyed and you have to start over. Of course, once they actually achieve that solution, they'll be at each other's throats again, since they never agreed on what the original problem was. Revolutionary Politics 101.
    - scarmig 15y ago
      True, it's a circle. But are the people who protest the current setup insane, or is it the people who think dumping trillions of dollars into a broken system while doing nothing amidst historic unemployment and stagnation who are nuts?
      - deleted 15y ago
        [deleted]
- jeffool 15y ago
  At the very least it can be said that they have one commonality, they feel their voice is unheard in society. On top of that the narrative seems to be that opportunity is not available to all, as it is those better off, regardless of how they got there.
- Resident_Geek 15y ago
  But isn't that the point? Lots of people aren't unhappy with the world right now, and, wouldn't you know it, they mostly seem to be the people who have the power to change things.
- pnathan 15y ago
  Okay, maybe OWS stands for nothing. But recognize that there is a populist frustration with the way America is going. It's no coincidence that Obama's election, Election 2010 (Tea Party), and OWN (2011) all intertie heavily with populism. There is a rising level of frustration.
  - Shivetya 15y ago
    Except that OWS is losing legitimacy because the political operatives have decided to take it over or at least try. By putting the union members on the line with genuine protesters they are making it out to be something it is not, as in there is a direct attempt to make this work for the DNC and not for the protesters. The odd part about having the union members march along in NYC is many of them are very highly compensated both in yearly pay and retirement whereas the majority of protesters look like they still need mom and dad. There is a rising level of frustration but I don't think OWS has the answer. The local Atlanta version very impolitely chased on Representative John Lewis shows that at is basis they are not aligned with any particular party. So attempts by the DNC machine to co-opt this to give them a legitimate counterpoint to the Tea Party are going to fail, and fail badly.
    - dalke 15y ago
      Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that several of the unions weren't going to back national candidates for this upcoming election, beholden as many of them are towards the 1%, and were instead going to focus more support and funding for state and local candidates. If true, that sounds like pulling back from the DNC.
    - jeffool 15y ago
      Shivetya, I'm a little confused as to how, in the span of one post, you say being co-opted by Democrats dampens their legitimacy, and then say the Democrats' attempted co-option will fail, and badly.
    - pnathan 15y ago
      Legitimacy, I'm not personally concerned about. It's reasonable to presume that any significant group will have the pro political operators move in and attempt to coopt to various aims. The legitimate concern is the fact that 'relatively normal' people across the American political spectrum are unhappy with the direction of "Washington". Note the quotes and generalizations. That's the real story.
- danilocampos 15y ago
  > So this movement stands for nothing. I read your comment, shrugged, then read the op-Ed. When I got back, I found myself scratching my head as to whether you'd even bothered reading it. The thread of common anger among the protesters is the notion that banks took risk, enjoyed protection by tax payers and then, once resuscitated by the people, bought politicians to prevent regulation that would prevent future indiscretions. I don't need to have philosophical agreement with my neighbor for us to be joined in outrage when the guy across the street gets mugged while we're watching. These guys have a legitimate beef. I'm not going to quibble about whether their proposed solutions are in agreement.
  - InclinedPlane 15y ago
    The seed of common anger is the perversion of regulation and governance at the highest tier of financial institutions. However, the expressions of anger at the occupy* protests has been running the gamut. From moderate calls for financial reform all the way to straight up marxist wealth redistribution. There may be fairly broad public support behind the sentiment that there's a fair number of problems with the system as it exists today, but there is nothing like widespread support for the gamut of messages coming out of occupy*.
- quandrum 15y ago
  What is interesting to me is how quickly this narrative infected the media. The only think reported about OWS is clashes with the Police, or the lack of clear message. The narrative "OWS has no message" was started by media pundits. It's unfortunate they all decided on that exact narrative at almost the same time. The conspiracy theorist in me, combined with an intense cynicism, wonders if the corporate parents of the media weren't the originators of this idea, but I'll leave that up to the reader to speculate.
  - joezydeco 15y ago
    I don't believe it's coincidence that the media started bleating the "OWS has no message" meme at the exact same time. Yeah, I know it's reddit, but this comment from a P/R person was pretty eye-opening: "Right at this moment, hundreds of journalists are receiving calls and emails from communication agencies, pitching them on the 'lack of focus' keypoints on the behalf of their clients. This is why the coverage we get only revolves on this point, because there is a concerted effort behind it. Sounds terrible? Well, that the way things work." http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/l428p/occupy_wall_street_comment_from_a_pr_person/ http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/l428p/occupy_wall_...
    - SapphireSun 15y ago
      If you read further down that thread another pr guy calls this guy out as being almost entirely wrong. The reason fire the lack of focus story is that... Drum roll... At best a journalist can say that there are many viewpoints. How would you report that story objectively? Obviously opinion pieces are going to take that and run with it based on their own agenda, but the essence of the argument is correct -even though it is the kind of thing that can kill a protest. This is a problem OWS, et al will have to fix. To their credit, it seems occupy boston formed a committee to ratify some resolutions. To their credit, it seems at least occupy boston formed a committee to ratify resolutions
- gruseom 15y ago
  As far as I can tell, this criticism "but they have no coherent demands" is mostly an invented media talking point. It is the successor to the first attempt, "these people are inarticulate clowns", which was too clumsy to work. Since when is a popular protest movement required to come up with a detailed policy paper? This isn't the Brookings Institute. What we see is exactly what you'd expect: a diverse group, overlapping agendas, a few common themes. It's not like those themes are hard to identify (viz., large banks were rewarded for wrecking the economy, the political process has been corrupted by money, most people are stagnating or suffering economically). It's not hard to see what market-oriented types and anti-corporate types have in common here. They're both opposed to socialism for oligarchs.
- deleted 15y ago
  [deleted]
- amelim 15y ago
  I'd be extremely wary about coming to any conclusions based upon the Reason.TV video. They have a clear political agenda and it's difficult to really understand the complexities of any situation through a series of edited interviews. In any sense, from what I understand it seems that the group isn't necessarily pushing for any particular policy but the fact that the Government is systemically broken. They feel there isn't any democratic say from the average citizen in the policies made by Congress and the Presidency. It seems that they choose Wall Street as their target because their large financial abilities allow for them to give massive amounts of financial contributions to key politicians, essentially cutting out the average voter. However, I haven't been to the movement in person, so it's difficult for me to be sure with any certainty.
- diolpah 15y ago
  "and really who isn't unhappy with the world right now?" Most people who are capable of rationally evaluating the standards of living we currently enjoy versus that of any other point in human history usually aren't that unhappy with the world right now. I say this in the general sense; of course at any given time, N individuals will be hitting the bottom of the barrel, but the barrel is getting shallower and shallower with each generation. Edit: Thanks for the downvotes; apparently I'm factually incorrect, and the Global Human Development Index is actually declining?
  - knieveltech 15y ago
    No, you're probably not incorrect, factually, but if you're expecting a bunch of upvotes for a rehash of the kind of mumbled apologetics we've been subjected to since at least the 80's (eg. the world is better now that it ever has been) when we're staring down the barrel of a massive deficit that wasn't here 10 years ago and you've got home foreclosures and unemployment rates sitting at or near historic highs, well...
xsmasher 15y ago
The movement seems situated somewhere between the Bonus Army, which had a clear and attainable goal, and the Hippie Movement which was far more diverse. The 60's counterculture still managed to have a huge cultural impact. Refusing to take part in a system which is apparently working against your interests is a necessary step one, even if you don't know what step two is.
- bbq 15y ago
  Perhaps, but sometimes you just have to get your hands dirty, right?
geebee 15y ago
I've noticed that wall street is taking a very clever tactic in what is clearly a critical PR battle - they are trying to associate anger against wall street with anger against wealth creators in general. It's a great tactic, because Americans generally are not hostile toward very wealthy individuals when they perceive these individuals as wealth creators - in fact, they actually admire these people [1]. Yes, most support progressive taxation and would support higher taxes for the rich (even wealth creators whose activities we want to support), but they'd oppose a "soak the rich" kind of class warfare, on practical and moral grounds. No surprise, then, that people who profited, first from risky and economically worthless activities [2], and next from a massive taxpayer supported bailout, would want to get real close to the founders of tech companies in silicon valley and hope that nobody notices the difference. I'm not surprised that the movement against "wall street" is incoherent right now. There are so many angles, so many different opinions. You have the anarchists who protest globalization in general, but you also have Tim O'Reilly stating that he thinks wall street bankers got away with a crime [3] (and kept the money too). As someone in high tech, the most important thing to me is to make sure that financial "engineers" don't get to associate themselves with the wealth creation of real engineers and other people who are wealthy because they created wealth. [1] An interesting article about this in the nytimes titled "How we value the super rich" talks ab it about the mentality behind this distinction... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/weekinreview/28stone.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/weekinreview/28stone.html [2] For a pretty comprehensive version of the argument that much of investment banking is useless, check out a New Yorker article "what good is wall street"... http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/11/29/101129fa_fact_cassidy http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/11/29/101129fa_fact_... [3] https://plus.google.com/107033731246200681024/posts/Sy8Z2uWy655?hl=en https://plus.google.com/107033731246200681024/posts/Sy8Z2uWy...
- smoyer 15y ago
  Well stated ... and you really have to be careful defining wealth creation. I view most of Wall Street's activities as sucking money out of the wealth creation stream as if flows by. (I won't even claim that the investment banks are the only ones stealing from other's hard work ... where is the interest on my savings account? It was 5.25 percent when I was younger). And before I get completely flayed by the big company supporters, I'll also state that I don't have a problem with money lenders and brokers making a living ... but what we're watching today is flat-out usury.
jsavimbi 15y ago
> wealthy Americans who benefit hugely from a system rigged in their favor react with hysteria to anyone who points out just how rigged the system is Just like unions. You can't have it both ways.
tsotha 15y ago
I see no evidence at all the "plutocrats" are panicking. "Rolling their eyes with the rest of us" is probably closer to the truth. So far these protests are a media creation, of which Krugman's effort is a part.
- pnathan 15y ago
  A brief review of OWS a few days ago said that Adbusters actually kicked it off.
  - jeffool 15y ago
    They did, and it was quickly taken up by others. There was a great interview on it linked here earlier. Hold up. There: http://thetyee.ca/News/2011/10/07/Kalle-Lasn-Occupy-Wall-Street/ http://thetyee.ca/News/2011/10/07/Kalle-Lasn-Occupy-Wall-Str...
- wh-uws 15y ago
  So far these protests are a media creation That is categorically false. This protest is about as organic as they come. "Adbusters Media Foundation is a not-for-profit, anti-consumerist, pro-environment organization" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adbusters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adbusters They concocted the idea, started it, Anonymous did some promotion, and it caught on with people
  - pnathan 15y ago
    So it was astroturfed/seeded by a media organization.
    - knowtheory 15y ago
      Adbusters is an advocacy organization. Do you count PETA as a media organization?
      - pnathan 15y ago
msluyter 15y ago
I like Krugman, but a Krugman editorial is the epitome of the sort of topic HN should avoid, imho.
- fennecfoxen 15y ago
  And I don't like Krugman, but if I wanted Krugman-bashing, I'd go read _Best of the Web Today_, so I'll refrain from any name-calling and just agree with you. :P
- ramanujan 15y ago
  1000 upvotes. Let's keep both the regular NYT and WSJ opinion page writers off HN. The regular columnists provide zero signal as you can predict their positions on any issue (does anyone think Krugman will counterintuitively oppose OWS? Or that James Taranto will support it?) These editorials carry zero information in the Shannon sense.
  - benmathes 15y ago
    There is a lot more information in an editorial than a directional vote.
  - dorkitude 15y ago
    The substance -- not the source -- is what should be considered in every encounter with an idea.
    - ianterrell 15y ago
      There are too many ideas to consider them all. Source is a valid filter.
  - tomsaffell 15y ago
    I'm in favor of Shannon based assessments of information. But you've assumed that the only information that could be carried is whether or not the author agrees with OWS. In addition to that (predictable / null) information, he also puts forward a theory on how WS reacts to criticism: In fact, the more reasonable and moderate a critic sounds, the more urgently he or she must be demonized He may or may not be right, but either way it's a valid viewpoint, and one I find interesting. IMO, that's where the real signal is in this piece.
paulkoer 15y ago
The shrill tone in American politics has always irritated me. Be it economic policy or going to war, it seems terribly easy to choke off a sensible argument by calling it 'unamerican'. Maybe controversy and argument should be resuscitated as American values... Clearly having had a sensible argument over, say, the Irak war, no matter the outcome, would not seem so ridiculous now. The way I remember it, this was pretty much impossible in the media.
- Cushman 15y ago
  It's really the height of irony. If there's one guiding principle that Americans should believe in, it's that we're all Americans, and that America is all of us. There's really nothing more un-American than calling someone who lives here un-American. But of course ya can't say that.
  - orky56 15y ago
    Very good point. If the majority of Americans advocate for something "un-American", then you really need to think what's what. That's the revolution Wall St is trying to prevent.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
- trevelyan 15y ago
  I've yet to hear anyone protest manufacturing or retail. The outrage is over the government subsidizing the banking industry while refusing to do anything for the roughly twenty percent of the population that is essentially jobless, uninsured and mired in debt. As a case in point, right now the Federal Reserve is funneling free money to banks, which are using those funds not to lend but rather to engage in short-term arbitrage and leveraged trading activities. One example is taking almost zero-interest loans from the Fed and using them to purchase Treasury Bonds which pay much higher interest rates. According estimates published by Ron Suskind in his recent book "Confidence Men", simply printing the money and giving it directly to the government to spend would save something like 350 billion in interest. Leaving aside the question of how many jobs could be created with those funds, I'm sure there are plenty of individuals at the protests in New York and elsewhere who would be willing to act as middleman for considerably less than 350 billion. Why shouldn't they be angry?
  - Gfranc 15y ago
    Here is what is most interesting. The "outrage is over the government subsidizing the banking industry", which is purely a Keynesian phenomena. This is the primary problem with Krugman's beloved Keynesian economics, it looks great in theory, but is horribly corrupt and fallible in practice. As long as one believes that governments don't make mistakes and bureaucrats are "for the people", Keynesian economics would likely work. When people are purely self interested and flawed it rewards the wrongdoers and punishes the masses. I firmly believe that people are always self interested...therefore Keynesian economics has no real world application. The Inflationists like Krugman can never be proven wrong, as the answer always is "the stimulus wasn't big enough", "the stimulus wasn't properly targeted", it's always that their was a small error in calculation rather than the philosophy is completely bogus. In circles we go.
    - MaysonL 15y ago
      I guess you weren't paying any attention back in 2008 or so, when Krugman was vehemently arguing, not for subsidy of the banks, but for nationalizing them.
jeffdavis 15y ago
How is a partisan political analysis Hacker News? It's hardly news, the protesters have been there a while. And it's not an objective analysis of the economics involved -- in fact, there's hardly any economics in there at all. Sure, he's a Nobel laureate. But this particular piece by him is clearly partisan. He calls parties and politicians by name. Is this what Hacker News is going to turn into? Linking to partisan political columns?
- gruseom 15y ago
  Yeah, it's totally inappropriate by the book. On the other hand, the protests are an interesting new phenomenon and some discussion was inevitable. Might as well be this? My favorite comment this morning is geebee's (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3094614 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3094614), arguing that Wall St. should not get away with identifying themselves with true wealth creators in the public mind. It's reasonable, insightful, and has an HN slant. It's also the most upvoted at the moment, so things aren't too bad.
  - jeffdavis 15y ago
    "On the other hand, the protests are an interesting new phenomenon and some discussion was inevitable. Might as well be this?" What I would have appreciated was an article that took a step back and offered something more general about human nature, history, social movements, banking, various conflicts of interest, relationships between large corporations and government, small business versus large, etc. I haven't really been following the protests, mostly because I'm waiting for them to start suggesting concrete actions and plans (which can take a while; I'm not disparaging them for not having a plan on day one). And even with essentially a blank slate, I read that article and learned nothing. "My favorite comment this morning is geebee's" While an interesting point, there are two problems: the comment format is not long enough to really flesh out an idea like that; and it's still well off-topic for HN. Regardless, every political discussion will elicit some insightful comments. There are plenty of other places to get something like that. Anyway, it's pretty obvious that people wanted this discussion to happen here. The downvotes pretty much proved that I was wrong about the scope of HN.
- deleted 15y ago
fistofjohnwayne 15y ago
Wow! Now I know that only Republicans represent the obscenely wealthy. Thanks, Krugman!
anamax 15y ago
The bank bailout is the one thing that seems to have actually worked. The Fannie and Freddie bailout is still sucking money. TARP was a disaster. And, the less said about Obama's green initiative, the better.
- jeffool 15y ago
  I'm a bit confused. TARP was a part of the bank bailout. And according to the Congressional Budget Office, the 700B investment will actually cost about 19B. That said, to claim that they were "too big to fail", bail them out, and then not address that "too big" issue is bullshit. Either they're too big and need to be broken up, or they weren't, and should've been allowed to fail. Trying to have it both ways is, in my estimation, part of the reason for discontent today.
  - anamax 15y ago
    > TARP was a part of the bank bailout Lots of things were bundled together. I'm pointing out what cost money and what didn't. > That said, to claim that they were "too big to fail", bail them out, and then not address that "too big" issue is bullshit. Either they're too big and need to be broken up, or they weren't, and should've been allowed to fail. I agree, but point out that there's no good reason to limit that argument to financial institutions. For example, it applies to govt institutions (fannie and freddie come to mind) and even govts (the US govt being a prime example).
thehigherlife 15y ago
Just thought I'd throw this out there. If you're looking for a way to help/support the protesters: Why not order them some food and have it delivered to Zuccotti Park Zip Code: 10006 I found this pizza place that accepted online orders. http://www.majesticpizzatogo.com/ http://www.majesticpizzatogo.com/
- VladRussian 15y ago
  upvoted you for a specific practicality - too rare and precious element in the environment where many talk, yet a few do. Though personally i will not order the pizza or do anything else that would leave records trail on the government servers and till the end of my life can be mined with "an active sympathizer to extremists" result.
  - jellicle 15y ago
    Maybe you can pay with bitcoins.
sportsTAKES 15y ago
What are the Tea Party 'riots' of Summer 09 he is referring to? Seems like both the Tea Party and OWS demonstrations are peaceful (I'm sure there are a couple of knuckleheads in each group).
acslater00 15y ago
To steal shamelessly from the George Will piece that Krugman pretends to respond to, "Paul Krugman is a pyromaniac in a field of straw men."
partoa 15y ago
The funniest thing about today's plutocrats is that they fail to see that they are setting the economy up for an implosion in which they will be the greatest losers.
- Cushman 15y ago
  Funny? I find it utterly bizarre. The people who owe $300,000 on a house they never should have bought? They're going to be left with no debt and a house to live under. The people with $700m in net worth are going to lose everything they can't fit in their pockets; their houses are all going to get looted and razed the night of the collapse. So why the hell is the guy with debt working hard to prop up the system, and the guy with investments doesn't seem to care what happens to it?
  - partoa 15y ago
    And thus thus the satire :) [Edit] They will be the biggest losers because by the time the cataclysmic implosion occurs, the middle class they depend on so much will not have much left to back the up with. If you think that 2007 was something, brace yourself for what is next if things don't change. The sad thing is that I doubt that President Obama has what it takes to make the necessary changes.
  - mseebach 15y ago
    Yes, that's clearly how what's going to happen. Revolutions historically share the single property that they're totally predictable. And, by the way, your disgusting cheering for violent robbery is exactly why, even though I sympathise with some of the fundamental grievances of the movement, you will never find me expressing support for it.
    - Cushman 15y ago
      What the hell makes you think I want this to happen? Shit, I'm not wealthy, but I'm upper middle class. You think I'm coming out on top in this scenario? It's pure self interest: I'm the guy who doesn't want to get looted.

275 points by diogenescynic 15y ago

The movement still, as far as I can tell, has no intellectual grounding. Watch the Reason.TV Video: http://reason.tv/video/show/what-we-saw-at-occupy-wall-str http://reason.tv/video/show/what-we-saw-at-occupy-wall-str You have a Ron Paul supporter next to a guy who wants to nationalize the banks. You have a guy supporting Obama next to a guy who thinks Mitt Romney will "fix the country". And of course the folks "letting their freak flag fly" So this movement stands for nothing. Except for maybe "we're unhappy with the world right now" and really who isn't unhappy with the world right now? The only thing more ridiculous then the Occupy Wall St crowd are the pundits and politicians trying to use them to make their own points (which includes Krugman and the people he's criticizing)

deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
WiseWeasel 15y ago
If they share one thing, it's a feeling of being unrepresented in government. The core purpose of making their numbers known is to impart to Congress and the Obama administration their discontent with the status quo, with legislation increasingly adopted for the benefit of the investment banks in particular, and the extremely wealthy more generally, to the detriment of the rest of the country. It is a not-so-subtle reminder that while those other guys may fund their election campaigns, the rest of us are the ones who can take up pitchforks and torches, and have a good old-fashioned mob lynching if things go too far in the wrong direction.
wisty 15y ago
The common thread may be an opposition to "privatize gains, socialize losses". They may not agree on whether socializing the gains or privatizing the losses is more desirable, but they know they don't like the current system.
clarkevans 15y ago
That a Ron Paul person is protesting shoulder-to-shoulder with someone from the Green Party is very telling. Even though the solution to the problem isn't clear, they do have something in common; and this in itself is a rather important political development. I disagree that the movement lacks intellectual grounding -- "heads we privatize profits, tails we nationalize the loss" is about as clear as you can get. Doesn't matter if your anti-corporate or anti-government, corporate/government collusion permits right wingers and left wingers to get on the same page.
- maratd 15y ago
  I think you're illustrating a universal constant through your examples. The political spectrum isn't really a spectrum or a line. It's a circle. There is always a point where right meets left, where people agree on the solution, but disagree on the problem that necessitates that solution. That wonderful point is where the lunatics from either side meet, shake hands, and agree that everything must be destroyed and you have to start over. Of course, once they actually achieve that solution, they'll be at each other's throats again, since they never agreed on what the original problem was. Revolutionary Politics 101.
  - scarmig 15y ago
    True, it's a circle. But are the people who protest the current setup insane, or is it the people who think dumping trillions of dollars into a broken system while doing nothing amidst historic unemployment and stagnation who are nuts?
    - deleted 15y ago
      [deleted]
jeffool 15y ago
At the very least it can be said that they have one commonality, they feel their voice is unheard in society. On top of that the narrative seems to be that opportunity is not available to all, as it is those better off, regardless of how they got there.
Resident_Geek 15y ago
But isn't that the point? Lots of people aren't unhappy with the world right now, and, wouldn't you know it, they mostly seem to be the people who have the power to change things.
pnathan 15y ago
Okay, maybe OWS stands for nothing. But recognize that there is a populist frustration with the way America is going. It's no coincidence that Obama's election, Election 2010 (Tea Party), and OWN (2011) all intertie heavily with populism. There is a rising level of frustration.
- Shivetya 15y ago
  Except that OWS is losing legitimacy because the political operatives have decided to take it over or at least try. By putting the union members on the line with genuine protesters they are making it out to be something it is not, as in there is a direct attempt to make this work for the DNC and not for the protesters. The odd part about having the union members march along in NYC is many of them are very highly compensated both in yearly pay and retirement whereas the majority of protesters look like they still need mom and dad. There is a rising level of frustration but I don't think OWS has the answer. The local Atlanta version very impolitely chased on Representative John Lewis shows that at is basis they are not aligned with any particular party. So attempts by the DNC machine to co-opt this to give them a legitimate counterpoint to the Tea Party are going to fail, and fail badly.
  - dalke 15y ago
    Correct me if I'm wrong, but I thought that several of the unions weren't going to back national candidates for this upcoming election, beholden as many of them are towards the 1%, and were instead going to focus more support and funding for state and local candidates. If true, that sounds like pulling back from the DNC.
  - jeffool 15y ago
    Shivetya, I'm a little confused as to how, in the span of one post, you say being co-opted by Democrats dampens their legitimacy, and then say the Democrats' attempted co-option will fail, and badly.
  - pnathan 15y ago
    Legitimacy, I'm not personally concerned about. It's reasonable to presume that any significant group will have the pro political operators move in and attempt to coopt to various aims. The legitimate concern is the fact that 'relatively normal' people across the American political spectrum are unhappy with the direction of "Washington". Note the quotes and generalizations. That's the real story.
danilocampos 15y ago
> So this movement stands for nothing. I read your comment, shrugged, then read the op-Ed. When I got back, I found myself scratching my head as to whether you'd even bothered reading it. The thread of common anger among the protesters is the notion that banks took risk, enjoyed protection by tax payers and then, once resuscitated by the people, bought politicians to prevent regulation that would prevent future indiscretions. I don't need to have philosophical agreement with my neighbor for us to be joined in outrage when the guy across the street gets mugged while we're watching. These guys have a legitimate beef. I'm not going to quibble about whether their proposed solutions are in agreement.
- InclinedPlane 15y ago
  The seed of common anger is the perversion of regulation and governance at the highest tier of financial institutions. However, the expressions of anger at the occupy* protests has been running the gamut. From moderate calls for financial reform all the way to straight up marxist wealth redistribution. There may be fairly broad public support behind the sentiment that there's a fair number of problems with the system as it exists today, but there is nothing like widespread support for the gamut of messages coming out of occupy*.
quandrum 15y ago
What is interesting to me is how quickly this narrative infected the media. The only think reported about OWS is clashes with the Police, or the lack of clear message. The narrative "OWS has no message" was started by media pundits. It's unfortunate they all decided on that exact narrative at almost the same time. The conspiracy theorist in me, combined with an intense cynicism, wonders if the corporate parents of the media weren't the originators of this idea, but I'll leave that up to the reader to speculate.
- joezydeco 15y ago
  I don't believe it's coincidence that the media started bleating the "OWS has no message" meme at the exact same time. Yeah, I know it's reddit, but this comment from a P/R person was pretty eye-opening: "Right at this moment, hundreds of journalists are receiving calls and emails from communication agencies, pitching them on the 'lack of focus' keypoints on the behalf of their clients. This is why the coverage we get only revolves on this point, because there is a concerted effort behind it. Sounds terrible? Well, that the way things work." http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/l428p/occupy_wall_street_comment_from_a_pr_person/ http://www.reddit.com/r/politics/comments/l428p/occupy_wall_...
  - SapphireSun 15y ago
    If you read further down that thread another pr guy calls this guy out as being almost entirely wrong. The reason fire the lack of focus story is that... Drum roll... At best a journalist can say that there are many viewpoints. How would you report that story objectively? Obviously opinion pieces are going to take that and run with it based on their own agenda, but the essence of the argument is correct -even though it is the kind of thing that can kill a protest. This is a problem OWS, et al will have to fix. To their credit, it seems occupy boston formed a committee to ratify some resolutions. To their credit, it seems at least occupy boston formed a committee to ratify resolutions
gruseom 15y ago
As far as I can tell, this criticism "but they have no coherent demands" is mostly an invented media talking point. It is the successor to the first attempt, "these people are inarticulate clowns", which was too clumsy to work. Since when is a popular protest movement required to come up with a detailed policy paper? This isn't the Brookings Institute. What we see is exactly what you'd expect: a diverse group, overlapping agendas, a few common themes. It's not like those themes are hard to identify (viz., large banks were rewarded for wrecking the economy, the political process has been corrupted by money, most people are stagnating or suffering economically). It's not hard to see what market-oriented types and anti-corporate types have in common here. They're both opposed to socialism for oligarchs.
deleted 15y ago
[deleted]
amelim 15y ago
I'd be extremely wary about coming to any conclusions based upon the Reason.TV video. They have a clear political agenda and it's difficult to really understand the complexities of any situation through a series of edited interviews. In any sense, from what I understand it seems that the group isn't necessarily pushing for any particular policy but the fact that the Government is systemically broken. They feel there isn't any democratic say from the average citizen in the policies made by Congress and the Presidency. It seems that they choose Wall Street as their target because their large financial abilities allow for them to give massive amounts of financial contributions to key politicians, essentially cutting out the average voter. However, I haven't been to the movement in person, so it's difficult for me to be sure with any certainty.
diolpah 15y ago
"and really who isn't unhappy with the world right now?" Most people who are capable of rationally evaluating the standards of living we currently enjoy versus that of any other point in human history usually aren't that unhappy with the world right now. I say this in the general sense; of course at any given time, N individuals will be hitting the bottom of the barrel, but the barrel is getting shallower and shallower with each generation. Edit: Thanks for the downvotes; apparently I'm factually incorrect, and the Global Human Development Index is actually declining?
- knieveltech 15y ago
  No, you're probably not incorrect, factually, but if you're expecting a bunch of upvotes for a rehash of the kind of mumbled apologetics we've been subjected to since at least the 80's (eg. the world is better now that it ever has been) when we're staring down the barrel of a massive deficit that wasn't here 10 years ago and you've got home foreclosures and unemployment rates sitting at or near historic highs, well...

xsmasher 15y ago

The movement seems situated somewhere between the Bonus Army, which had a clear and attainable goal, and the Hippie Movement which was far more diverse. The 60's counterculture still managed to have a huge cultural impact. Refusing to take part in a system which is apparently working against your interests is a necessary step one, even if you don't know what step two is.

bbq 15y ago
Perhaps, but sometimes you just have to get your hands dirty, right?

geebee 15y ago

I've noticed that wall street is taking a very clever tactic in what is clearly a critical PR battle - they are trying to associate anger against wall street with anger against wealth creators in general. It's a great tactic, because Americans generally are not hostile toward very wealthy individuals when they perceive these individuals as wealth creators - in fact, they actually admire these people [1]. Yes, most support progressive taxation and would support higher taxes for the rich (even wealth creators whose activities we want to support), but they'd oppose a "soak the rich" kind of class warfare, on practical and moral grounds. No surprise, then, that people who profited, first from risky and economically worthless activities [2], and next from a massive taxpayer supported bailout, would want to get real close to the founders of tech companies in silicon valley and hope that nobody notices the difference. I'm not surprised that the movement against "wall street" is incoherent right now. There are so many angles, so many different opinions. You have the anarchists who protest globalization in general, but you also have Tim O'Reilly stating that he thinks wall street bankers got away with a crime [3] (and kept the money too). As someone in high tech, the most important thing to me is to make sure that financial "engineers" don't get to associate themselves with the wealth creation of real engineers and other people who are wealthy because they created wealth. [1] An interesting article about this in the nytimes titled "How we value the super rich" talks ab it about the mentality behind this distinction... http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/weekinreview/28stone.html http://www.nytimes.com/2008/09/28/weekinreview/28stone.html [2] For a pretty comprehensive version of the argument that much of investment banking is useless, check out a New Yorker article "what good is wall street"... http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/11/29/101129fa_fact_cassidy http://www.newyorker.com/reporting/2010/11/29/101129fa_fact_... [3] https://plus.google.com/107033731246200681024/posts/Sy8Z2uWy655?hl=en https://plus.google.com/107033731246200681024/posts/Sy8Z2uWy...

smoyer 15y ago
Well stated ... and you really have to be careful defining wealth creation. I view most of Wall Street's activities as sucking money out of the wealth creation stream as if flows by. (I won't even claim that the investment banks are the only ones stealing from other's hard work ... where is the interest on my savings account? It was 5.25 percent when I was younger). And before I get completely flayed by the big company supporters, I'll also state that I don't have a problem with money lenders and brokers making a living ... but what we're watching today is flat-out usury.

jsavimbi 15y ago

> wealthy Americans who benefit hugely from a system rigged in their favor react with hysteria to anyone who points out just how rigged the system is Just like unions. You can't have it both ways.

tsotha 15y ago

I see no evidence at all the "plutocrats" are panicking. "Rolling their eyes with the rest of us" is probably closer to the truth. So far these protests are a media creation, of which Krugman's effort is a part.

pnathan 15y ago
A brief review of OWS a few days ago said that Adbusters actually kicked it off.
- jeffool 15y ago
  They did, and it was quickly taken up by others. There was a great interview on it linked here earlier. Hold up. There: http://thetyee.ca/News/2011/10/07/Kalle-Lasn-Occupy-Wall-Street/ http://thetyee.ca/News/2011/10/07/Kalle-Lasn-Occupy-Wall-Str...
wh-uws 15y ago
So far these protests are a media creation That is categorically false. This protest is about as organic as they come. "Adbusters Media Foundation is a not-for-profit, anti-consumerist, pro-environment organization" http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adbusters http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Adbusters They concocted the idea, started it, Anonymous did some promotion, and it caught on with people
- pnathan 15y ago
  So it was astroturfed/seeded by a media organization.
  - knowtheory 15y ago
    Adbusters is an advocacy organization. Do you count PETA as a media organization?
    - pnathan 15y ago

msluyter 15y ago

I like Krugman, but a Krugman editorial is the epitome of the sort of topic HN should avoid, imho.

fennecfoxen 15y ago
And I don't like Krugman, but if I wanted Krugman-bashing, I'd go read _Best of the Web Today_, so I'll refrain from any name-calling and just agree with you. :P
ramanujan 15y ago
1000 upvotes. Let's keep both the regular NYT and WSJ opinion page writers off HN. The regular columnists provide zero signal as you can predict their positions on any issue (does anyone think Krugman will counterintuitively oppose OWS? Or that James Taranto will support it?) These editorials carry zero information in the Shannon sense.
- benmathes 15y ago
  There is a lot more information in an editorial than a directional vote.
- dorkitude 15y ago
  The substance -- not the source -- is what should be considered in every encounter with an idea.
  - ianterrell 15y ago
    There are too many ideas to consider them all. Source is a valid filter.
- tomsaffell 15y ago
  I'm in favor of Shannon based assessments of information. But you've assumed that the only information that could be carried is whether or not the author agrees with OWS. In addition to that (predictable / null) information, he also puts forward a theory on how WS reacts to criticism: In fact, the more reasonable and moderate a critic sounds, the more urgently he or she must be demonized He may or may not be right, but either way it's a valid viewpoint, and one I find interesting. IMO, that's where the real signal is in this piece.

paulkoer 15y ago

The shrill tone in American politics has always irritated me. Be it economic policy or going to war, it seems terribly easy to choke off a sensible argument by calling it 'unamerican'. Maybe controversy and argument should be resuscitated as American values... Clearly having had a sensible argument over, say, the Irak war, no matter the outcome, would not seem so ridiculous now. The way I remember it, this was pretty much impossible in the media.

Cushman 15y ago
It's really the height of irony. If there's one guiding principle that Americans should believe in, it's that we're all Americans, and that America is all of us. There's really nothing more un-American than calling someone who lives here un-American. But of course ya can't say that.
- orky56 15y ago
  Very good point. If the majority of Americans advocate for something "un-American", then you really need to think what's what. That's the revolution Wall St is trying to prevent.

deleted 15y ago

[deleted]

trevelyan 15y ago
I've yet to hear anyone protest manufacturing or retail. The outrage is over the government subsidizing the banking industry while refusing to do anything for the roughly twenty percent of the population that is essentially jobless, uninsured and mired in debt. As a case in point, right now the Federal Reserve is funneling free money to banks, which are using those funds not to lend but rather to engage in short-term arbitrage and leveraged trading activities. One example is taking almost zero-interest loans from the Fed and using them to purchase Treasury Bonds which pay much higher interest rates. According estimates published by Ron Suskind in his recent book "Confidence Men", simply printing the money and giving it directly to the government to spend would save something like 350 billion in interest. Leaving aside the question of how many jobs could be created with those funds, I'm sure there are plenty of individuals at the protests in New York and elsewhere who would be willing to act as middleman for considerably less than 350 billion. Why shouldn't they be angry?
- Gfranc 15y ago
  Here is what is most interesting. The "outrage is over the government subsidizing the banking industry", which is purely a Keynesian phenomena. This is the primary problem with Krugman's beloved Keynesian economics, it looks great in theory, but is horribly corrupt and fallible in practice. As long as one believes that governments don't make mistakes and bureaucrats are "for the people", Keynesian economics would likely work. When people are purely self interested and flawed it rewards the wrongdoers and punishes the masses. I firmly believe that people are always self interested...therefore Keynesian economics has no real world application. The Inflationists like Krugman can never be proven wrong, as the answer always is "the stimulus wasn't big enough", "the stimulus wasn't properly targeted", it's always that their was a small error in calculation rather than the philosophy is completely bogus. In circles we go.
  - MaysonL 15y ago
    I guess you weren't paying any attention back in 2008 or so, when Krugman was vehemently arguing, not for subsidy of the banks, but for nationalizing them.

jeffdavis 15y ago

How is a partisan political analysis Hacker News? It's hardly news, the protesters have been there a while. And it's not an objective analysis of the economics involved -- in fact, there's hardly any economics in there at all. Sure, he's a Nobel laureate. But this particular piece by him is clearly partisan. He calls parties and politicians by name. Is this what Hacker News is going to turn into? Linking to partisan political columns?

gruseom 15y ago
Yeah, it's totally inappropriate by the book. On the other hand, the protests are an interesting new phenomenon and some discussion was inevitable. Might as well be this? My favorite comment this morning is geebee's (http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3094614 http://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=3094614), arguing that Wall St. should not get away with identifying themselves with true wealth creators in the public mind. It's reasonable, insightful, and has an HN slant. It's also the most upvoted at the moment, so things aren't too bad.
- jeffdavis 15y ago
  "On the other hand, the protests are an interesting new phenomenon and some discussion was inevitable. Might as well be this?" What I would have appreciated was an article that took a step back and offered something more general about human nature, history, social movements, banking, various conflicts of interest, relationships between large corporations and government, small business versus large, etc. I haven't really been following the protests, mostly because I'm waiting for them to start suggesting concrete actions and plans (which can take a while; I'm not disparaging them for not having a plan on day one). And even with essentially a blank slate, I read that article and learned nothing. "My favorite comment this morning is geebee's" While an interesting point, there are two problems: the comment format is not long enough to really flesh out an idea like that; and it's still well off-topic for HN. Regardless, every political discussion will elicit some insightful comments. There are plenty of other places to get something like that. Anyway, it's pretty obvious that people wanted this discussion to happen here. The downvotes pretty much proved that I was wrong about the scope of HN.
deleted 15y ago

fistofjohnwayne 15y ago

Wow! Now I know that only Republicans represent the obscenely wealthy. Thanks, Krugman!

anamax 15y ago

The bank bailout is the one thing that seems to have actually worked. The Fannie and Freddie bailout is still sucking money. TARP was a disaster. And, the less said about Obama's green initiative, the better.

jeffool 15y ago
I'm a bit confused. TARP was a part of the bank bailout. And according to the Congressional Budget Office, the 700B investment will actually cost about 19B. That said, to claim that they were "too big to fail", bail them out, and then not address that "too big" issue is bullshit. Either they're too big and need to be broken up, or they weren't, and should've been allowed to fail. Trying to have it both ways is, in my estimation, part of the reason for discontent today.
- anamax 15y ago
  > TARP was a part of the bank bailout Lots of things were bundled together. I'm pointing out what cost money and what didn't. > That said, to claim that they were "too big to fail", bail them out, and then not address that "too big" issue is bullshit. Either they're too big and need to be broken up, or they weren't, and should've been allowed to fail. I agree, but point out that there's no good reason to limit that argument to financial institutions. For example, it applies to govt institutions (fannie and freddie come to mind) and even govts (the US govt being a prime example).

thehigherlife 15y ago

Just thought I'd throw this out there. If you're looking for a way to help/support the protesters: Why not order them some food and have it delivered to Zuccotti Park Zip Code: 10006 I found this pizza place that accepted online orders. http://www.majesticpizzatogo.com/ http://www.majesticpizzatogo.com/

VladRussian 15y ago
upvoted you for a specific practicality - too rare and precious element in the environment where many talk, yet a few do. Though personally i will not order the pizza or do anything else that would leave records trail on the government servers and till the end of my life can be mined with "an active sympathizer to extremists" result.
- jellicle 15y ago
  Maybe you can pay with bitcoins.

sportsTAKES 15y ago

What are the Tea Party 'riots' of Summer 09 he is referring to? Seems like both the Tea Party and OWS demonstrations are peaceful (I'm sure there are a couple of knuckleheads in each group).

acslater00 15y ago

To steal shamelessly from the George Will piece that Krugman pretends to respond to, "Paul Krugman is a pyromaniac in a field of straw men."

partoa 15y ago

The funniest thing about today's plutocrats is that they fail to see that they are setting the economy up for an implosion in which they will be the greatest losers.

Cushman 15y ago
Funny? I find it utterly bizarre. The people who owe $300,000 on a house they never should have bought? They're going to be left with no debt and a house to live under. The people with $700m in net worth are going to lose everything they can't fit in their pockets; their houses are all going to get looted and razed the night of the collapse. So why the hell is the guy with debt working hard to prop up the system, and the guy with investments doesn't seem to care what happens to it?
- partoa 15y ago
  And thus thus the satire :) [Edit] They will be the biggest losers because by the time the cataclysmic implosion occurs, the middle class they depend on so much will not have much left to back the up with. If you think that 2007 was something, brace yourself for what is next if things don't change. The sad thing is that I doubt that President Obama has what it takes to make the necessary changes.
- mseebach 15y ago
  Yes, that's clearly how what's going to happen. Revolutions historically share the single property that they're totally predictable. And, by the way, your disgusting cheering for violent robbery is exactly why, even though I sympathise with some of the fundamental grievances of the movement, you will never find me expressing support for it.
  - Cushman 15y ago
    What the hell makes you think I want this to happen? Shit, I'm not wealthy, but I'm upper middle class. You think I'm coming out on top in this scenario? It's pure self interest: I'm the guy who doesn't want to get looted.