jump to last post 1-5 of 5 discussions (50 posts)

For all the OWS naysayers!

  1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago

    For all those who have berated the Occupy Movement, waxed lyrical about their lack of achievement and morality. Yawns, read this:

    http://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/po … 31521.html

    Apparently, and according to a Bank of England director, they were right!

    1. Mighty Mom profile image91
      Mighty Momposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Wow.
      I'm not holding my breath to hear similar sentiments expressed stateside, however.

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
        Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        Always say you never know, MM. Stranger things have happened. smile

        1. Cody Hodge5 profile image82
          Cody Hodge5posted 4 years ago in reply to this

          And Chris Christie has given President Obama credit for his handling of Sandy!

          Has hell frozen over?

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
            Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            It appears so, Cody. Or, a huge disaster has brought people to their senses, who knows?

  2. American View profile image60
    American Viewposted 4 years ago
  3. Hollie Thomas profile image59
    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago

    Which is exactly why they are endorsing OWS, because OWS were right. The bankers are greedy, corrupt and out of touch with rest of us. And OWS brought this to the worlds attention. Thank you, AV, for substantiating my point further.

    1. innersmiff profile image78
      innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Hollie, since OWS essentially argues for violent intervention in the economy,  this suits the Bank of England right down to a tee. This is completely un-controversial.

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
        Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        They're not asking for violent intervention in the economy. They're asking for more equity in the economy. The Bank of England and their cronies are scared, the LIBOR scandal's got a bit too close for comfort, and they know that they have to "be seen" to make some policy changes (however small and possibly insignificant, time will tell) hence, their apparent new sense of economic justice.

        1. innersmiff profile image78
          innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          And how does one achieve this 'equity'? Presumably by interfering with the market, i.e. violence. OWS actually serves as a perfect excuse for more manipulation, printing and phony 'stimulus'.

          1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
            Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Innersmiff, if you *honestly* believe that putting pressure on the bankers, who, lets face it, effed up the economy because of their greed, irresponsibility and resistance to any form of regulation whatsoever, amounts to violence, then you have clearly led a very sheltered life. Try unemployment as a young man who does not  have a *comfortable* family to support them.

            Do you have any idea how many young men of your age are too afraid to further their education because they are worried that upon graduation they will not find a job to go to and therefore, do not want to be saddled with a huge debt? Not *all* young people have fathers that have their own business and can help their children,

            1. innersmiff profile image78
              innersmiffposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              It's not really my opinion - it is violence, my 'sheltered' life has nothing to do with it (making things personal is a good sign of a bad argument).

              I'm assuming you still buy into the politically correct story that the banks, out of their own accord, got up and decided to be greedy and then the recession happened. I've explained this multiple times on HP so I'll keep it brief: without the central banks (US Federal Reserve, BoE), that are facilitated by government, artificially affecting interest rates, the banks would have been incapable of giving out the dodgy loans in the first place. Also, a big part of economic equality is down to the Fed and the BoE's manipulation of the money supply: as they print the money, the new paper reaches the parties with the most assets first and is therefore most valuable to them; it is then distributed downward until the very last people to utilise this new money is the poor, and by this time inflation has been so great that the new money is worthless to them. Economic 'stimulus' is like giving away money to the rich.

              So my argument is that without government central banking interference, economic collapses would be less frequent, and with competing currencies based on real assets, there would be much more economic parity.

              The most appropriate way to punish the banks would be to:
              1. Legalise the competing currency
              2. STOP bailing out the banks
              3. STOP quantitative easing
              4. STOP fractional reserve banking
              5. Relieve regulation that restricts smaller businesses so that there is greater competition.

              None of this requires any violence, and would naturally result in a freer and fairer economy than we have now. Socialism, despite being immoral, is completely unnecessary.

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
                Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Innersmiff,

                That was not a personal attack, I stated that *if* you believed that protesting amounted to violence you had led a sheltered life. Was it not you that agreed that Gandi's stratagy of none violent resistance was a good one? How does protesting outside St Paul's amount to violence? Just because you many disagree with some regarding the root of the problem (ie, bankers, government etc) does not make their opposition violent.

                And, for what it's worth, I actually agree that successive governments are just as culpable as the bankers themselves. The problem, however, is that governments get kicked out every few years- so just targeting them for reform is like whacking moles.

                I also agree that fiat currency, quantitative easing and fractional reserve banking are the cancers of society. In terms of relieving regulation for small businesses, yeah great, but it never works out that way. Small businesses are rarely helped by any form de-regulation- just huge corps!

          2. Greekgeek profile image97
            Greekgeekposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Violence? Of course not. You can invent arguments so you don't have to listen, but you only make yourself look foolish.

            Claiming that OWS' goals are reform through violence is like claiming that the civil rights movement was at its core violent because of some rock-throwers.

            What OWS was asking for is to put the post-Depression banking regulations back in place that kept banks from gutting our economy and our banking system for the better part of a century. The past 10 years or so have shown what the banks do when those regulations get tossed out.

            Disagreeing with that premise is fine, but you can't dismiss an argument by pretending it doesn't exist and substituting one you've invented.

            1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
              Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              +1000

    2. American View profile image60
      American Viewposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      You miss the point, you do not get a criminal to endorse a criminal enterprise and think that makes it OK. The time has also come for those OWS and their followers to see the truth but that would go against their agenda.

      Let me ask you this, if you put an animal cracker in front of a child and said do not eat it, I bet they would eat it, they could not help themselves.  Banks have rules and regulations to follow. If you loosen those regulations, do you think the bankers would ignore it or would they take advantage of it. Then when the people who oversee them are asked or told that experts see an impending doom and those people say "no everything is sound, no problems in the future'.Then as the experts said, came the doom. Who do you blame, the bankers or the ones who loosened the belt to allow it to happen?

      1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
        Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

        I actually blame them both, AV. I see the government of the UK and the City of London as equally culpable. See my response to Innersmiff above.  My point regarding this thread is that had OWS not protested, not made a lot of noise, we'd be absolutely no further on. I'm not suggesting that the proposed policy changes are adequate, or even that significant, but it is a step.

        1. Drhu profile image59
          Drhuposted 4 years ago in reply to this

          So you feel whatever violent acts or public squalor left by the protestors to be perfectly fine and dandy?
          You have to pay for that you know. Not the banks.

          1. recommend1 profile image71
            recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Are you seriously pitting the rubbish left by protestors against the wholesale stealing of vast amounts of pensions, mis-selling rigged mortgages and financial 'plans' - never mind clubbing the economy to death in their greed.   I have rarely seen such a pathetic post, excepting of course from those babbling loony right wing shils.

            1. recommend1 profile image71
              recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

              Mr or Ms DrHu -  I forgot to add the weird twisting of the facts in your claimed violence - all the violence I saw were bully cops pepper-spraying seated protesters and police beating youngsters into trucks.  Your eyesight must be as twisted as your mind.

              1. Gnarles Snarkly profile image61
                Gnarles Snarklyposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                Not like the nice cops in China?

                1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
                  Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I don't believe that R1 was comparing the cops in China to the cops in London, but just asserting that any violence came from the police, not protesters.

                  1. Drhu profile image59
                    Drhuposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I may have been wrong about London but that idea does not hold true globally. Particularly in America.

                2. Drhu profile image59
                  Drhuposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  I have not broached the subject with him but the panda makes me suspect he may support the Chinese govt.
                  That's just what the image suggests.

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
                    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    So, a picture of a panda illustrates that a poster may be a supporter of the Chinese government? Please. It's no wonder that you can't distinguish between the London riots and a perfectly peaceful protest. Even, even, if he was, so what? You clearly support the wholesale massacre of your own peers, by supporting the very establishment that ripped off so many of your so called friends and neighbours, and then have the audacity to claim that a non violent group has committed violent acts, based on evidence that you don't even have. Pitiful.

                  2. recommend1 profile image71
                    recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    I have a cute Panda as my HP face and you assume I support the Chinese government - big_smile  Does your 'image' of a question mark make us all assume you are stupid ?

                3. recommend1 profile image71
                  recommend1posted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  This thread is about the violence of the  'cops' in respect of OWS protesters all around the world.  If you want to discuss the cops in China you should create another thread.  Stay on-topic.

            2. Drhu profile image59
              Drhuposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              There is the old adage about two wrongs.........are you familiar with it?

          2. Hollie Thomas profile image59
            Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

            Please, enlighten me, I'm not aware of any violent acts committed by OWS London. I am aware that they were forcibly evicted and their tents removed by authorities, but if you have a link confirming otherwise please feel free to share.

            Oh, and by the way,  that's the whole point- that they
            banks might just have to pay!

            1. Drhu profile image59
              Drhuposted 4 years ago in reply to this

              All that sort of thing has to be sorted out by public works of one type or another.
              That means it is funded by tax money.

              1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
                Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                I'll take it then that you have no evidence to back up your claim that OWS protesters in London committed violent acts. Who's money bailed out the banks?

                1. Drhu profile image59
                  Drhuposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  This article swings in a positive direction but the violence that had occurred is clear.

                  http://article.wn.com/view/2012/09/03/Y … crackdown/

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
                    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    You have either inadvertently posted the wrong link, or you are unable to distinguish between gang culture in London, the London riots and the OWS movement in the city.. The article you have posted bears no relationship whatsoever to the OWS movement in London.

                2. Drhu profile image59
                  Drhuposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                  So is it your contention if you create enough public mayhem that costs the people you claim to be supporting enough they will go out and create even more mayhem against the banks and thereby in some unknown fashion solve the problem?
                  Is that supposed to be "justice"?

                  1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
                    Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

                    Please, stop putting words in mouth and try to post factually accurate accounts wherever you can. Tents were left behind after the OWS movement were evicted from St Paul's, which were removed by the authorities. The only "mayhem" as you put it, was two members of the clergy who resigned, and the Cathedral was shut for down for a couple of days because of health and safety concerns. Ie, they didn't want church goers falling over protesters on the steps. As far as I'm aware, going to church is not considered economic activity, expect in terms of St Paul's collection tin that is.

                    It sounds like you are still unable to differentiate between the London riots and protests made by OWS London. Trust me on this one, they were completely separate and unrelated events.

  4. EmpressFelicity profile image84
    EmpressFelicityposted 4 years ago

    I wonder how many Occupy protestors have ever heard of fractional reserve banking?

    1. Hollie Thomas profile image59
      Hollie Thomasposted 4 years ago in reply to this

      Probably most of them, EF. You are aware that the *majority* of protesters in the Uk have higher levels of education than those who do not protest, right?

      Although, if we're talking about Northern Ireland the opposite is true, I wonder why?

  5. Drhu profile image59
    Drhuposted 4 years ago

    And by the way.....there is violence and crime:

    http://news.yahoo.com/occupy-wall-stree … 00180.html

 
working