Occupy London

[Huguenot]

eh what?

I think you're projecting your own concerns onto the several tens of people at St. Pauls living in tents made by indentured chinese labour exploited by the regime they're intent on overthrowing.

If we did a straw poll I reckon the number of attendees who think they're there to protest about rising unemployment would be significantly close to nil.

As for suggesting that I have called unemployed people wasters, I think you and I both know where you can shove that little fabricated insult don't we?

[StraferJack]

"Such things are revolutions made of - teenagers milking at the teat of the taxpayer who decline to give their name.

Is it really any surprise that he doesn't want to put the graft in to earn a living?"

"

Teenager in 'I don't have a plan but getting a job seems a bit like hard work' bombshell.

"

"twerps"

"Yoof in 'I don't want to work for the Man' shocker. "

"morons"

"Scrote in 'the world owes me a living, doesn't mum put clean clothes in my chest of drawers' revelation. "

Sorry H, you are right .On reflection, you have been admirably restrained. You have weighed up all the options and unlike the protestors have made a cogent, logical, watertight argument

Economic think tanks globally wish you had accepted their offers, instead of ploughing your own furrow

We are all losers in this

[Huguenot]

Is this a joke?

Me taking the piss out of tinpot protestors is a moral attack on unemployed people? How did you get to that? You've made something up - in your head - and you're projecting it on to me.

Because we've never had unemployed people before right?

You genuinely think that overthrowing capitalism is going to be a panacea that nobody has thought of before now? Hippies didn't exist?

I understand you're worried, but we're not hunter/gatherers anymore. Any system we put in place is going to involve an exchange of goods and services and some sort of currency. There's also a bottleneck on resources related to over population.

Protesting that, and 'bringing down the system' is just pathetic childish bollocks.

I haven't got a clue where you're getting this rubbish about me hating unemployed people from.

[StraferJack]

Ah so despite me saying opposite you think I am arguing for the overthrow of capitalism?

Gosh, I didn't know you paid so much attention

You will find people at the sites arguing for just that. I'm not one of them. And my point is that to dismiss the whole thing as "arguing against capitalism" is smug and easy and wrong

The canary in the coal mine isnt protesting about the mining industry. Just the lack of oxygen

[Huguenot]

The fact is that these people are not worrying about unemployment. You're investing them with a validity they don't deserve.

To use their own words, they are "Anarchists, communists and greens with practical differences on the use of violence".

Proper charlies.

[StraferJack]

As you were then H

Everything is ok

Cities across the globe holding protests

Nothing to see here

It's fine

It will all work out just fine

You can put over simplified words from some protestors into the whole and satisfy yourself they are Charlies

It's fine

I'm SO relieved.

[DJKillaQueen]

There's also a bottleneck on resources related to over population.

Er no H...there's a bottleneck because we are one of the most wasteful species ever to exist...making things that don't last for more than enough time for those manufacturing them to keep us spending. And don't even get me started on the unethical behaviour of food markets and the multinationals controlling them.

So what if some of those young people protesting can't articulate what's wrong with the version of capitalism we have, but I certainly can and if I didn't have to work I would be right there alongside them. Any idiot can see there's something not right with a system where the vast majority of wealth, power and influence in is the hands of less than 1% of those living on the planet. Just because a person doesn't have the solution doesn't mean their observation of the problem is invalid.

[Loz]

DJKillaQueen Wrote:

-------------------------------------------------------

> Any idiot can see there's something not right with a system where the vast majority of wealth,

> power and influence in is the hands of less than 1% of those living on the planet.

But really, when has that not been the case? It's hardly a new phenomenon.

[Huguenot]

The protestors don't know what they're protesting about for the most part - it's not a question of articulation.

About the only general agreement seems to be that if we take money away from rich people under threat of violence that world will be all right once more. That's just plain stupid.

Both yourself and SJ are making the same error of projecting what you are concerned about onto the protestors to convey some kind of legitimacy.

Anyone at St. Paul's protesting about wasteful consumption and unethical food markets is likely to be in a severe minority.

The fact that we're in a recession is not in itself a revelation. We get them every ten years. It's plain weird to be trying to blame banks for this. Austerity drives have come about because people are only electing governments who make promises about education, welfare and pensions that their societies cannot support.

Ironically what many protestors want to see is more government spending - more of the same fantasy existence that will make the next generation destitute.

In general, populist movements such as these are inherently destructive and counter productive. They create and persecute scapegoats like bankers, globalisation and greasy Greeks, they swerve from one desperate target to another with revolutionary zeal until there's nothing left but empty stomachs and the smoking ruins of their society.

[DJKillaQueen]

I think that's unfair H. Both SJ and I are intelligent people, as indeed are you. We both know the limitations of protest and unless you go there and find out for yourself, how do you know what most of the protestors are thinking? We are making some sweeping assumptions here about a group of people that we mostly have not ever met or heard the views of.

Where has anyone suggested taking money from the rich under the threat of violence for example? And when people protest it encourages debate, and gives air time, to those that do have the articulate arguments to make....

Take this recent interview by Noam Chomsky for example.....

We have only had recessions every ten years for the last three decades. It is not the mark of a stable economic structure. And is the direct result of the complete dismantling of regulations, some of which were put in place after the Wall Street crash of 1929, to ironically ensure no such crash would be likely to happen again.

And banks are to blame for more than you think. There is no need for an economy based on the level of debt it is. And that debt IS used as leverage to exercise power over entire nations in some cases. It is also a power that governments have no choice but to bow to (along with the power of multi-nationals) because the pursuit of absolute profit permeates everything. And Chomsky is absolutely right.....politicians need the money of these financial superpowers to fund their political campiagns.....you won't be president without them. So where is the democracy in that?

Bottom line is that the free market does NOT take care of everything. It's a myth. Some people do very well, at the expense of the majority. To think there can not be possibly any other way (I'd argue some regulation is probably the only tinkering required) is just short sighted and naive, but to think things can be changed quickly or easily is equally naive. That perhaps is the only criticism that I would levy at some of the protestors, but that is also a flaw of youth. They will spend their lifetime realising just how difficult it is to really change anything when there is no will to do so by those living in the ivory towers of wealth and power.

And there have been populist movements that HAVE led to change...the civil rights movement for example.

[Huguenot]

People allow their envy of financiers to cloud their judgment.

A unilateral regulation of the UK's financial markets will make them uncompetitive - and we are massively reliant on the financial industry for the health of our nation.

If you think there's a recession now, I wouldn't care to guess what a disaster we'd have if we let knee jerk responses to overpaid paper pushers ruin our economy.

This whole thing about 'debt' is a massive red herring. UK Plc is suffering massive debt because the government spent money they didn't have. It's got nothing to do with the banks. Likewise personal debt is fuelled by greed and ambition, not by the banks.

Debt is created when society tries to extract value from resources before they have been earned. That's the real 'debt' our children will carry - that we've asset stripped the globe to satisfy our greed. That's not the fault of the banks, but of ourselves.

Blaming the banks is like trying to blame farmers because you ate so much you puked.

If we don't want our children to be paying off our debts then we have to pay them off ourselves. If these protestors want to find a scapegoat the first place to look is in the mirror, not Paternoster Square.

[Jeremy]

DJKQ, do you want to go into more detail about the role of banks in government debt?

[StraferJack]

I'd argue it's a bit more like the farmer saying :

Farmer: "Try this, I've just grown it - it's lovely it is"

Me: "What does it taste like?"

Farmer: "chicken!"

Me: "very funny, seriously what is it?"

Farmer: "don't worry about it - it tastes better than dry old carrots anyway, so why not give it a go. No side effects, honest"

Me: "I'm suspicious what if I don't want it?"

Farmer: "well you'd be a fool. Everyone else is trying it and they feel better for it. Secondly if enough people don't try it, I've invested everything in it and I'll have to close down. or move abroad where people do want to try it. Go on - have some. Cheap too - I'm only charging 50p a slice"

Me: "hmmm, go on then I'll have a bit"

Barf

Me: "oi you said no side effects!!!"

Farmer: "oops. Sorry mate. BTW I need you to give me ?20. Lot's of people saying they are sick too so I need a lot of cash to make things better"

Me: "oh do fuck off!"

It doesn't mean I don't want farmers, just like saying something is wrong with the finance system doesn't mean I don't want banks

You are also rewriting history to say governments shouldnt spend more than they have. never been true before and never will be true in future. If growth returned (and I'm not saying we should count on it) and the banking system hadn't imploded, the debt was planned for an serviceable. And in better shape in the UK compared to many decades previously

If a small number of rich people have access to half of the economic cake, it might seem unfair but you can make the argument about the necessity of it, while the rest of us divide the other half of the cake

But if that small number of rich people start saying half the cake isn't enough, they want 3/4 of the cake instead, then yeah people are going to get pissed off. And you and anyone else saying those people are just "jealous" is irritating beyond belief

[StraferJack]

I'm aware of my massive over-simplifications btw

I'm just responding to Huguenot's

[DJKillaQueen]

Jeremy, when the federal US reserve was created in 1913, using a fractional reserve banking system, it's predacessor had been abolished by President Jackson in 1835, to return America back to being a debt free nation. And Jackson said in discussing the Bank Renewal bill with a delegation of bankers in 1832, "Gentlemen, I have had men watching you for a long time, and I am convinced that you have used the funds of the bank to speculate in the breadstuffs of the country. When you won, you divided the profits amongst you, and when you lost, you charged it to the bank. You tell me that if I take the deposits from the bank and annul its charter, I shall ruin ten thousand families. That may be true, gentlemen, but that is your sin! Should I let you go on, you will ruin fifty thousand families, and that would be my sin! You are a den of vipers and thieves. I intend to rout you out, and by the eternal God, I will rout you out."

I'll quote what I wrote on another thread;

'During the American civil war President Lincoln turned down the high interest loans offered by European banks and wanted to create an independent and debt free currency called the Greenback. He introduced the currency. Shortly after, in a secret document in 1862 written by the European and US banking institutions, they wrote 'slavery is but the owning of labour and with it carries the care of the labourers. The European plan is that capital shall control labour by controlling wages. This can be done by controlling the money. It will not do to allow the Greenback as we can not control that'. This is the premise under which the fractional banking system was pushed, to indebt and enslave.

And how about this one from Thomas Jefferson;

"If the American people ever allow private banks to control the issuance of their currency, first by inflation and then by deflation, the banks and corporations that will grow up around them will deprive the people of all their property until their children will wake up homeless on the continent their fathers conquered."

In other words...those who designed fractional reserve banking did so to control money and thereby people (and everything they own).

Banks facilitate debt. It starts when the federal reserve or bank of England prints money (thereby raising inflation and devaluing the currency that already exists). Banks need to facilitate debt to make the obscene profits they do and governments have helped them greatly over the past three decades to do so by removing all meaningful regulation.

Meanwhile the business that the bank suddenly refuses to lend to, still has access to skilled workers. The resources still exist to make whatever those workers can make. Nothing changes there. But the banking system decides it's better to have those workers do nothing (and for governments to borrow to pay them welfare instead!) Banks create nothing. They simply put a price on things that have always existed in enough supply to feed and house every person on this planet....and worse still work to put those basic things beyond the means of far too many on this planet, because all they care about is the money!

I don't pretend to know how we turn that into something more ethical, less corrupt and fairer for the planet and the people on it......but if we are going to persist with this type of economy, there can at least be some things done to safeguard it from the boom and bust cycles of the past three decades. You and I don't feel it...but millions in less affluent parts of the world do.....when traders push the price of corn up so high it can't be bought by those who need it most. And who beneifts from those rising prices? It certainly isn't the majority.

Government debt, on the other hand, is simply a choice of expenditure. We spend billions on arms, wars and doing deals on tax with corporations. The last two Conservative governments have thought unemployment a price worth paying and yet complain about the rocketting wwelfare bills as a result. Conversely the Labour Government created the kind of jobs that are fine in good times but unnaffordable in bad. That's nothing to do with the banks, but to suggest that institutions that facilitate debt, and the addiction of profit and greed over everything else are somehow 'bear no responsibility' is just ridiculous to me. That's like saying the dealer that sells the drug should have no blame applied if the addict OD's. It's all part of an unforgiving system that encourages corruption and greed.

And let's remember.....our lives are but an accident of birth...and most people will be limited in what they can be, have or achieve within that lifetime.

Edited to add 'But if that small number of rich people start saying half the cake isn't enough, they want 3/4 of the cake instead, then yeah people are going to get pissed off. And you and anyone else saying those people are just "jealous" is irritating beyond belief' - that hits the nail on the head for me, because that's the kind of banking and multi-national greed we are talking about - nothing will ever be enough until they have it all.

[Jeremy]

First you say that banks lend money in order to make obscene profits, then you criticise banks for not lending money to businesses. Seems like a contradiction to me. And bear in mind that over-leverage has caused banks quite a bit of trouble over the last few years...

While I would agree that there are some gaping holes in regulations, to say that the banking system lacks any meaningful regulation at all is a gross exaggeration.

You seem to be confusing the roles of central banks and commercial banks. And you also appear to be lumping government debt and private debt into the same bracket. I'd also challenge the assumption that debt is intrinsically a bad thing.

[MrBen]

arrg...just checked this and see what I've started....

StraferJack Wrote:

> Targeting st Paul's? Where did you get that from?

Sorry, clumsy wording. Clearly they're not targeting the church itself but they are indirectly by taking over the area immediately around it and forcing one of the countries finest buildings to close to visitors and to its congregation for worship. If they wanted to hit the City hard and have real impact I can think of better....

> Utilising st Paul's, and having st Paul's back

> them against the police last week would seem to be

> a minor coup

Initially and in theory yes, but any support from St Pauls Clergy is fading fast as the original campaigners claiming alignment with Christian values are joined by Anarchists, Greens and as Loz says the usual scrappers.

They're all there "for the same thing" yet they cannot clearly state what that is. Probably because they are NOT all there for the same thing.

Capitalism as an economic system is 300 years old, a mere flicker in the grand scheme of human economic endeavors. History suggests that once day, it too will be replaced by the emergence of alternative economies. The current movement has a chance to bring that day closer yet they cant agree on any meaningful, coherent alternative apart from to "stick it to the banks".

If Occupy London is to have any real potential they'll need to be smarter with a better message.

[StraferJack]

I don't know about forcing st Paul's to close. St Paul's, along with several of its board, have made a decision and claimed health and safety but that is disputed

I don't much care for the protest and disagree with many of the placards I've seen. But its a broad church, and some of the anger directed towards them seems out of proportion to me. I remain interested in how the whole thing plays out

Coherent messages are rare anyway. Listening to orthodox financial experts and institutions I'm not hearing a coherent view.

[DaveR]

The protesters are not adding anything to the current debate. We all know there are problems, but most sensible people know that they are not simple enough for the answer to be written on a placard. I'm not angry with them but I am perfectly clear that what they are doing is pure self-indulgence. If they want to make a difference, they should go and do something useful. It's always easier to save the world than clear up your room.

[maxxi]

I have now decided to occupy this thread as a protest about stuff some of which is dealt with on this thread and some of which isn't dealt with on this thread but is still stuff that needs protesting about - I view this protest as legitimate and far reaching in its scope and vitality and hope others will build camps and protest at this stuff which we all know about even if we can't articulate it. Save The Forum!!!

http://samarkand-palace.com/cart/images/Camping-Tents.jpg

[Marmora Man]

A simple test for the protesters would be to ask them what specific and defined action, or actions, by Government would persuade them to give up the protest and occupation. If they are unable to articulate this then the protest is nothing more than a childish tantrum - of the "I don't like this, I will scweam and scweam until I'm sick" kind.

My firm conviction is that it is an unfocussed, childish demo with the "usual anarcho / anti capitalist suspects" at its core which will achieve nothing except to blight another part of London with a tented city. Along with the growing and similar excrescence at Westminster it should be removed ASAP.

[Loz]

Being, quite obviously, not part of the supposed 1% that is terrorising the populace, I must therefore be part of the 99%. These people claim that a) they are representing me and b) they are bringing the movement together as a true democracy.

I don't recall voting for them. They don't represent me. I suspect I am very much not alone in thinking they don't represent me. Why are they claiming they are? It's a movement based on a lie.

[maxxi]

Hmmm...http://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ_yQCMIh2sHoJaUt23BeGjp3NzxHSwSAS3CWKjTTfG_VCpu5wsbAhttp://t2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTuajAyZNC85fjSZ8uCyUl9wr9EcXdjSKHe2scKLBJ4aKkUF6e1YAhttp://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSEW5QPpuyNF1sBRTFvP4pgq_b4Gn6mBDlfkpKFk0E6l8gef6E1qAhttp://t1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRr0QM8XR9o-J2cET4u-8kOt8Zjt96glMc06DyDHf3hXbF-Mmk8http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS1QG_0w0hS_b4JVssXIcjkvGM8EhvaIVNS7I65_H9WEGRHdm5f filling up nicely... http://t0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSjiOIi8l1BdjQ4sWj3yTzSWB0aRN_bQQwNTfDZ8GcdZQozEafzPQ now, where did those jugglers get to...?

[DJKillaQueen]

Check out mine!

http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/public/gevoGyWY91uozrRSiWfpVL2ItE8X5diInap7nq-HWVgql644mP49OV5PJWVDfYarz_gV5tVPjd925GNcq6iIl4ukgwRsLIIE92XWNEGHw9ldXFwhcmuNj3DwrCswSRblIZGvdwJVFza3_hI7mjVBQpy-pRg

[maxxi]

(Shouts from Starbucks queue...)

Boo! Disney corporate sell-out!

*steals Jungle Book hot water bottle*