"In terms of re-engineering the system, clearly this needs to be looked at very carefully and needs to follow a full, public debate. But, basically, it needs to ensure that markets are more balanced, that they deliver outcomes that are for the benefit of more than a small minority...."

Fine words, but what does this actually mean? What does a balanced market look like, and how do you regulate to achieve it? Delivering outcomes are what (in modern speak) organisations do, but markets are not single entities - they are messy bunches of transactions involving lots of different individuals and organisations.

I looked at the Occupied Times, and it's a none too impressive. I'm trying not to be too harsh but touchy-feely pseudo New Age bullshit will not take anybody any closer to understanding, let alone dealing with the genuinely complicated issues that the current economic situation has thrown up.

There are a number of very dubious practices which need regulating. Closing down so called vulture funds for example. restricting short selling for another. I posted this on another thread, but Professor Robert Frank recently presented a really good lecturer to an audience at the LSE which also outlined some interesting ideas on how one can reduce wasteful activities based on positional competition.
The current crisis has exposed some serious faults in the current system. It's not good enough to say it's too difficult a subject to think about so lets carry on as before.

DaveR Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> I looked at the Occupied Times, and it's a none
> too impressive. I'm trying not to be too harsh but
> touchy-feely pseudo New Age bullshit will not take
> anybody any closer to understanding, let alone
> dealing with the genuinely complicated issues that
> the current economic situation has thrown up.

There is no doubt that the Occupy movement is a fairly disparate group. It's a bit incoherent, but for better or worse, it takes something controvercial and inconvenient like the camp to keep the issue live. Prior to their appearance, we were in very real danger of the debate fading from public attention.
What has actually changed as a result of the financial crisis in terms of how we regulate markets. Very little indeed. There is nothing to stop the same thing happening again? In fact I see only yesterday that the government are encouraging 95% mortgages again.

Totally agree that the solution to this mess lies in effective regulation, but to say that financial markets have very little regulation is completely untrue. As for short-selling... it's an essential tool of risk management, and I'm not convinced there's an effective way to ban "naked" shorting.

"The current crisis has exposed some serious faults in the current system. It's not good enough to say it's too difficult a subject to think about so lets carry on as before."


That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is these are not camping-protest type issues. This not Greenham Common - say no to nukes! This is "how do you incentivise institutional investors to be more interventionist in the companies that they own to improve corporate governance and long-term planning?" "How do you regulate OTC derivatives trading to achieve robust risk pricing without stifling genuine creativity in capital markets?" Call me a cynic but I doubt I am going to get interesting answers to those questions from a moonlighting social worker in Peruvian knitwear.

If you put all that on a T-shirt there isn’t enough room left for the silhouette of Che Guevara



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was 2011:11:22:12:06:46 by Brendan.

The media - and the public at large - aren't really interested in discussing constructive ways to prevent this happening again. Bankers' bonuses and students in tents make more entertaining headlines than the shortcomings of Basel-III.

[www.economicvoice.com]

Occupy Londons website
"The centre was opened on Saturday morning as the ‘Bank of Ideas’, with activists promising to make space available for those that have lost their nurseries, community centres and youth clubs to Government spending cuts."

Why not use a building thats standing empty, pity the goverment couldn't come up with ideas like this.

Don't worry if we don't get our debt under control and start balancing our budget the whole country will soon be empty for the face painters, tipee builders and drum beaters

And where will every1 go ££££s.

Nowhere. They'll just join the swelling ranks of face painters, teepee builders and drum beaters. You can never have too many teepees.

Pity we can't export lounging around talking shite doing nothing rather than trying to sort out the mess we're in

We do. People from all over the world can read this forum.

Nobody is going to volunteer to run a nursery out of an empty office building in the City. The whole episode is totally absurd.

I think without CRB checks and OFSTED checks it might be a tad illegal as well. Bet no one takes any responsibility if a kid gets hurt or a kiddie-fiddler gets in there.

Brendan Wrote:
-------------------------------------------------------
> We do. People from all over the world can read
> this forum.

Was thinking the same Brendan.

Jeremy This is not a new concept, theres loads of squats, social centres been offering there spaces to be used.
If parents want to take up this offer, and create something different, obviously there are some who would find the idea
absurd, regardless of this building lying empty over two years. What would you like to see happen with this space or would you rather it lay empty.

I suppose such action (self help. Urseries, schools etc) could be considered as an example of the "Big Society" and people doing things for themselves, rather than expecting a paternalistic government to provide for every want using money it doesn't have.

Doesn't a nursery need staff (who have had the appropriate training and safety checks)? Does the building have heating, electricity and plumbing? Is it a clean, safe environment for young children? Get real!!

I don't mind them squatting an unused building (I believe it's earmarked for demolition, along with much of the Broadgate estate). But to pretend it's for the good of the greater community is plainly ridiculous.

Everyone should feel safe and welcome in the Bank. Our Safer Spaces Policy asks people to be mindful and respectful of how their ideas or actions might effect others, and there is a No Drugs and Alcohol Policy. As this is a public space any damage or disrespect to the property would be an act of disrespect and violence towards your own community, a community trying to come together to find positive solutions to our current crises. We ask all people who come into the space to come in with respect.

Above of there website here [www.bankofideas.org.uk]

This may be hard for you to understand Jeremy, but not all parents are happy with education, many home educating.
Nor does everyone feel there children are safe in school.

'Occupy London in Lebensraum scandal as they assert sovereign birthright and annex neighbouring properties'

I have to say that seeking 'home education' is the worst excuse for this pathetic and pointless protest I've heard yet.

Are overprotective parents whingeing that their kids are scared of school really going to get us out of this 'current crisis'? Really? Really??

We're going to sort society by singing Kum Ba Yah at glazed eyed six year old children dressed in androgynous clothing?

This is the issue with the 'solutions' that the Occupy camp use - they are not scalable in any way. Their democracy involves everyone in the same tent reaching a 'consensus' by either folding their arms (for disagree) or making jazz hands for agree (I kid you not). Their solution to school woes is to staff it with unqualified volunteers and keeping things in check by asking them not to 'disrespect the community'.

It's a bit like saying you've solved the world's energy problems by showing how you power a small electric light with a hand cranked generator. Cute, but not scalable.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was 2011:11:25:09:32:43 by Loz.

No Huguenot I'm saying not everyone is suited to whats on offer from our non private education system, some
believing it is better to look for alternatives.Bank of ideas is offering a space.

Loz I don't get what you are saying, there are many different opinions, people involved with this protest, a concensus is reached after everyoneone has an oppurtunity to debate, face to face. Or maybe you just prefer consultation periods the councils use.

Bank of ideas isn't offering a space, you stole it - you've simply usurped the reasonable compromises of property rights in order to get your own way. If everyone did this you and your 'protest' would have been steamrollered by people annexing your tents long ago.

It's rather childish of your supporters not to recognise that your 'right to protest' is upheld by the laws that you've just arbitrarily decided to dismiss when they're not to your adavantage.

I think Loz is probably highlighting the fact that our society is too interconnected for us to make decisions through hand gestures in teepees.

It may well be that you don't believe in nation states, but global resource and energy challenges and decisions for 6 billion 7 billion people are not going to be accommodated by such a process.

Frankly it's just silly.

I think the people who deal with complex, interconnected decisions have let us down.
There is a relatively small amount of people at Saint Paul, how would you suggest they reach a decision. Remembering of course the amount of people in that 7billion who feel they have no voice.

I do not think it will be a quick, easy process for changes that will make this this planet a more fair place to live, but there are many people aware of the hypocrisy and greed which is stifling ourselves and children.

Edited to say Why do keep saying "yours" huguenot, this is only my opinion.



Edited 1 time(s). Last edit was 2011:11:24:16:43:17 by TE44.

I called it 'yours' because you called it "Our Safer Spaces Policy.."

I was just matching your claim of ownership - if it's not yours then I don't mind changing it back again?

Hypocrisy is not a unique attribute of the establishment - as I said, you claim a right under law to camp free of interference in central London, but you offer no opportunity for the owners of other properties that you covet to assert their own right.

Hence your own organisation is riven with sufficient hypocrisy to demonstrate that revolution is no cure.

As for the 7 billion people who have no voice, it's an illogical proposition. We all live in such a state of interdependence that it's only a lunatic fringe that can lay claim to do exactly as they please - and the occupiers of tent city and the plutocrats of the City are no different in their indulgence and exploitation of others to satisfy selfish pleasures.

Hugo understood my point. Hand gestures and consensus might work with 60 people. It won't work with 60 million.

I like the point made by the QC making the case for the Corporation of London - viz: "we support free speech and the right to protest but we don't believe this extends to a right to establish a permanent campsite". I am also pleased that the judge hearing the case requiring an early hearing rather than accepting the delay proposed by the protesters.

For me it is simply unsightly, ineffective, small minded and incoherent. It should go.

i did make a mistake by typing "above of there website" instead of off, and forgot quotes. The owners have used there right, a court hearing to take place on the 19th.. This is not about doing what they please, in fact, thìngs have got so bad because the powers that be have done exactly as they please. Is it enough to just talk and complain about it behind a computer, often ive noticed from discussions on this forum these threads go round and round, only speaking about whos right or wrong. A resignation that nothing could be done, regarding goverments, economy etc. which i believe leads to people beiieving they have a superior perception of reality. I can understand how people associate the protesters under the usual stereotypes, yes there are all sorts of people there but they have come together regardless of differences. Some havin similiar views to many on here, difference is theres more respect for individual views with the recognition of wanting to make it better.

We have a perfectly serviceable democratic system that allows us to create, debate and refine ideas to be absorbed by those people that run for office.

We then elect them according to their manifestos.

If the people on this forum want to do more than 'just talk and complain about it behind a computer' then they (and you) have every right to enter that electoral process. Not doing so is not a 'resignation', it's just a reflection of their priorities.

What you are proposing is to jack-in that process in favour of what you believe to be a better system - one that involves teepees and listening.

The natural conclusion of teepees and 'listening' when applied to large groups of people is a parliamentary democracy - which is exactly what we have.

So either you're complaining because you want what we already have - or you actually have no intention of creating a democratic nation at all and you're actually trying to create a state run by peruvian beardies.