3 ms·
Occupy failed because it didn't have any clear asks or metrics to track. They were against the bailouts. Did they vote anyone out of office? Did the re-election
by bko 5y ago
Occupy failed because it didn't have any clear asks or metrics to track. They were against the bailouts. Did they vote anyone out of office? Did the re-election rate of 90% budge? Are there "Occupy Democrats" like there were "Tea Party Republicans"?
But most importantly, did they stop future bailouts? The original uproar about the 2008 bailouts (TARP) was originally authorized to spend $700 billion, of which they spent $431 billion and they were all paid back.
What about with Covid relief? This time the politicians learned not to go through legislature and just use the Federal Reserve directly. This time they were able to disburse 4 trillion in asset purchases, most of which was held by large institutions (banks). $1.3 trillion in mortgage backed securities! Another $3 trillion was spent on liquidity measures, other load purchases, lending facilities, etc. So in total a 10x spend from the proposed 2008 bailout which caused all the uproar. Note this doesn't include any money for income support, stimulus, etc. It was just giving money to banks.
Occupy just taught the politicians how to do things under the radar.
https://www.covidmoneytracker.org/ https://www.covidmoneytracker.org/
- Tenoke 5y ago>Occupy just taught the politicians how to do things under the radar. Was it under the radar though? It seems like as many people know about it, but that this time the target and reasoning for the loans was just more liked by the general public.
- bko 5y agoThere will always be reasoning for the bailouts. "We can't let the banks fail because that means they'll stop giving out loans to small businesses and homeowners." There was reasoning in 2008. The difference is now there's no expectation of them paying it back. It's not a loan, its just sitting on the balance sheet of the Fed. Banks may buy them back later, but its always at an advantage since its completely voluntary. There were additional measures for direct payments and loans for small businesses. This was very targeted to prop up the balance sheet of large banks. You see shady stuff like this all the time. Is there a reason mortgage rates are pushing 5% but savings accounts at places like Bank of America are paying literally 0.01%?
- maxfurman 5y agoOccupy failed because the organizers were systematically jailed on the eve of the major protests, preventing them from coordinating and establishing goals like the ones you are looking for.
- pas 5y agoThey were out days later, no?
- maxfurman 5y agoExactly! They were pulled off the street hours before the major marches/protests/actions, and released the next day when it was too late to participate on the ground. So someone would post an event on Facebook, get 1000 people to show up at the Brooklyn Bridge or what have you, and then all 1000 of them would stand around saying "who's in charge here?" because the actual organizer was in police custody! Occupy was dismantled in the public eye very effectively using this tactic.
- pas 5y agoIt's not giving money to banks. Central banks manage the money supply. This of course can help banks make more loans, but banks make loans even if the money supply is tight. https://fullstackeconomics.com/easy-money-is-probably-good-for-ordinary-workers/ https://fullstackeconomics.com/easy-money-is-probably-good-f... https://fullstackeconomics.com/the-2000s-housing-bubble-was-greatly-exaggerated/ https://fullstackeconomics.com/the-2000s-housing-bubble-was-...