The Occupy Wall Street movement is growing in momentum, as it should.
The core point behind it is to peacefully assemble in a show of solidarity with everyone else whom the corruption in our political system and greed in our financial system has inflicted harm upon.
The point of this is NOT to overthrow the government but, rather, to show those whom we (those assembled and those not assembled) have given power to for the expressed purpose of protecting our interests that the people are unhappy.
The sad outcome of this is that the politicians are disturbingly quiet on the issue. They have the power to diffuse the entire situation by calling for all of the assembled protesters to write them and call them. They could have diffused the situation by opening their ears and eyes and inviting a dialog on what we, their constituents, think is wrong. Instead they remain quiet. Their quietness on this issue is tantamount to trying to hide from it and trying to pretend like nothing needs to be done. They are, in essence, telling us that they do not want to listen to our concerns because we do not matter.
The way to solve this problem is to vote AGAINST the incumbent in the upcoming election. Regardless of your political affiliation vote for the incumbent's opponent. If enough incumbents are removed from their elected offices then, and ONLY then, will the people in power decide that they are responsible TO the people whom elected them.
I titled this post "Martial Law" because without the change being instituted at the upper levels we will receive martial law. Up until yesterday the OWS movement was mostly a peaceful movement with occasional incidences of violence being perpetrated by the LEADERSHIP of the NYPD. Yesterday that changed. Yesterday brought incidents that are reminiscent of the "Bonus Army" break-up in the 1930s. Yesterday brought the dawn of wide-spread police violence against protesters. Yesterday the police department and Sheriff's department in Oakland, California fired upon the OWS protesters with rubber bullets and tear gas. Flash-bang grenades were used on the crowd. There is even footage of one police officer deliberately throwing a flash bang grenade into the very center of a group of people who had stopped to assist an injured protester.
I dislike police. I always have. I see the uniform of a police officer and my first reaction is to move as far away from it as I can. I have NEVER seen them as a helpful force whose purpose is to protect me and I have, with few exceptions, not experienced police who were polite, respectful and competent enough to do their job correctly. I am not a criminal and I have never been arrested for anything. I have SHOULD have no reason to dislike the police as much as I do but it is incidents like what is happening in Oakland and New York right now that reinforce my opinion of the police.
This is a sad situation where the small percentage of the police on the streets are ruining the reputation of the blue uniform for the remainder of the population. This, ironically, is in parallel to the core problem that the OWS movement is protesting. The entire OWS movement is protesting a situation where a very small percentage of the people have ruined the economy for the rest of the planet and we've had enough with it.
The sad part is that most people don't even understand the full reasoning and depth of what they are angry about.....
If you are reading this and you are in a city where the police are abusing their authority then film it. Film it and submit it to the local media and the national media. Submit it to YouTube and any other outlet you can. Most importantly submit it to the police department's chain of command AND the management of the municipality. Submit it to the town council and be sure to enclose a letter saying that your vote will be against everyone currently seated unless action is taken against the police officers who perpetrated the crimes AND their supervisors for allowing the behavior.
This is a country of the PEOPLE not of the police. Don't let us become a police state under martial law. It will be worse than anything a terrorist regime could ever do to us.
Wednesday, October 26, 2011
Thursday, October 20, 2011
The Pendulum Swings.... Always
Economics is an interesting social "science."
It has few hard rules and a complex feedback mechanism that makes nearly every mathematical function for prediction and modeling a circular reference.
The one hard and true thing we know about an economy is that it is based on the MOVEMENT of money. If one outlines that reality on a spectrum it looks something like this:
The very nature of an economy makes it very hard to predict how an economy will run and even harder to steer an economy where one might want it to go. All that we know is that we want the economy to be as close to the green zone as possible for maximum growth and earnings potential for everyone living within the economy.
The unpredictability of how to steer an economy is at the heart of the current issues with the economy.
It is at the heart because the lack of predictability makes it very difficult to determine how much government is needed to regulate the economy and in what areas.
Too much regulation will stifle the economy (at best, choke it completely at worst) but not enough regulation leads to a completely free market with no controls.
Governmental structures vary from completely oppressive regimes that micromanage EVERYTHING to a complete lack of government (anarchy) all exist. We have, throughout history, discovered one true and steadfast fact about the differing governmental structures: neither end of the spectrum works. Extremism in managing the government is destined to be a complete and total failure.
This same realization regarding extremism also exists in the managing of the economy. On one side of the spectrum above lies a shrinking economy and on the other lies complete prosperity. The spectrum model above, however, is not the only way to view the economy. One can easily convert the economy spectrum above into a pendulum that aligns with the political viewpoints of "liberal" and "conservative."
That new chart looks like this:
When one does this it becomes apparent that pushing an economy too far in either direction bring catastrophic effects to the economy as a whole. If the government generates too much interference then the economy suffers and, as a result, so do ALL of the people who depend on it. The opposite is also true; if the government does NOTHING to regulate the economy (or simply not enough) then the anarchistic free market will consume the forces of economic development and generate new controls that end up limiting the growth (or even generating shrinkage) in the economy.
The current situation, where the government regulation has been allowed to relax on many financial transactions and policies, has allowed the top 1% and the megacorporations and megabanks to direct monetary policy in such a way as to direct raw capital into the control of people whom already possess more than enough. When their aggregation of wealth exceeds their growth in expenditure they generate a situation of economic shrinkage by sequestering wealth.
As was stated above the economy depends on the MOVEMENT of money. If the money hits a savings or investment account and stops moving then it generates a shrinkage in the economy. This means that ALL savings damage the economy of the time in which the savings are saved BUT the aggregation of super-wealth creates a permanent level of damage because the money rarely comes back out. With the average person the savings eventually come out (emergency spending, retirement spending, buying that long-sought-after-thing, etc) creating a boost to the economy equal in scale to the original damage. As the population distribution is mostly flat (there are a couple of significant variations that can affect this) the saving in compared to savings out levels across the majority of the lower 99% are fairly steady... the problem occurs when the savings in of the top 1% starts to grow because their savings out levels rarely go up.
I think I have made my point on this. Excessive wealth accumulation is as damaging to the economy as governmental controls. It is as damaging to the free market as regulations. It is the root cause of the current economic crisis. It removes economic opportunity from everyone who is not accumulating wealth.
It has few hard rules and a complex feedback mechanism that makes nearly every mathematical function for prediction and modeling a circular reference.
The one hard and true thing we know about an economy is that it is based on the MOVEMENT of money. If one outlines that reality on a spectrum it looks something like this:
The very nature of an economy makes it very hard to predict how an economy will run and even harder to steer an economy where one might want it to go. All that we know is that we want the economy to be as close to the green zone as possible for maximum growth and earnings potential for everyone living within the economy.
The unpredictability of how to steer an economy is at the heart of the current issues with the economy.
It is at the heart because the lack of predictability makes it very difficult to determine how much government is needed to regulate the economy and in what areas.
Too much regulation will stifle the economy (at best, choke it completely at worst) but not enough regulation leads to a completely free market with no controls.
Governmental structures vary from completely oppressive regimes that micromanage EVERYTHING to a complete lack of government (anarchy) all exist. We have, throughout history, discovered one true and steadfast fact about the differing governmental structures: neither end of the spectrum works. Extremism in managing the government is destined to be a complete and total failure.
This same realization regarding extremism also exists in the managing of the economy. On one side of the spectrum above lies a shrinking economy and on the other lies complete prosperity. The spectrum model above, however, is not the only way to view the economy. One can easily convert the economy spectrum above into a pendulum that aligns with the political viewpoints of "liberal" and "conservative."
That new chart looks like this:
When one does this it becomes apparent that pushing an economy too far in either direction bring catastrophic effects to the economy as a whole. If the government generates too much interference then the economy suffers and, as a result, so do ALL of the people who depend on it. The opposite is also true; if the government does NOTHING to regulate the economy (or simply not enough) then the anarchistic free market will consume the forces of economic development and generate new controls that end up limiting the growth (or even generating shrinkage) in the economy.
The current situation, where the government regulation has been allowed to relax on many financial transactions and policies, has allowed the top 1% and the megacorporations and megabanks to direct monetary policy in such a way as to direct raw capital into the control of people whom already possess more than enough. When their aggregation of wealth exceeds their growth in expenditure they generate a situation of economic shrinkage by sequestering wealth.
As was stated above the economy depends on the MOVEMENT of money. If the money hits a savings or investment account and stops moving then it generates a shrinkage in the economy. This means that ALL savings damage the economy of the time in which the savings are saved BUT the aggregation of super-wealth creates a permanent level of damage because the money rarely comes back out. With the average person the savings eventually come out (emergency spending, retirement spending, buying that long-sought-after-thing, etc) creating a boost to the economy equal in scale to the original damage. As the population distribution is mostly flat (there are a couple of significant variations that can affect this) the saving in compared to savings out levels across the majority of the lower 99% are fairly steady... the problem occurs when the savings in of the top 1% starts to grow because their savings out levels rarely go up.
I think I have made my point on this. Excessive wealth accumulation is as damaging to the economy as governmental controls. It is as damaging to the free market as regulations. It is the root cause of the current economic crisis. It removes economic opportunity from everyone who is not accumulating wealth.
Wednesday, October 19, 2011
Shortcomings of the OWS Movement
The second major shortcoming of the movement lies in the fracturing of the American populace.
This fracturing is evident in the people who are arguing over the movement itself. It is also evident in the divergence of behavior between the protesters and the police forces that are monitoring their situation (particularly the leadership of the NYPD).
The longer the situation is able to fracture the people of the country the longer it will damage the average person.
On the plus side, the gathering has generated a specific level of quiet from the politicians. The politicians whom have lost all touch with the very nature of the lives of the people they allegedly represent. The flip side to this fracturing is that it is highlighting the divergence in the lives of the ultra rich and the average person.
So, this one shortcoming is also the core strength of the movement.
That is something that the detractors of the movement should keep in mind when they are stating that the movement is not making any difference and cannot make any difference. It can: the politicians see that the people can be a cohesive unit. They see that we can be a single voice. They see that we want a change. They see that we view THEM as a part of the problem. The core reality is that the more people who get involved in the movement and/or support it from afar the greater the power of the movement through the reduction of the fracturing of the populace. The smaller the fracture among the general populace the greater the fracture between the populace and those whom the movement is protesting. The greater that fracture the more valid the movement will be proven to be.
If you are unsure of whether to support the movement or not based on its lack of a cohesive agenda then consider the reality that the greater the number of supporters the less the specific agenda will be needed.
Politicians do not fear their populace but if the ENTIRE populace is screaming for change they may begin to do so for fear of being not-re-elected.
This fracturing is evident in the people who are arguing over the movement itself. It is also evident in the divergence of behavior between the protesters and the police forces that are monitoring their situation (particularly the leadership of the NYPD).
The longer the situation is able to fracture the people of the country the longer it will damage the average person.
On the plus side, the gathering has generated a specific level of quiet from the politicians. The politicians whom have lost all touch with the very nature of the lives of the people they allegedly represent. The flip side to this fracturing is that it is highlighting the divergence in the lives of the ultra rich and the average person.
So, this one shortcoming is also the core strength of the movement.
That is something that the detractors of the movement should keep in mind when they are stating that the movement is not making any difference and cannot make any difference. It can: the politicians see that the people can be a cohesive unit. They see that we can be a single voice. They see that we want a change. They see that we view THEM as a part of the problem. The core reality is that the more people who get involved in the movement and/or support it from afar the greater the power of the movement through the reduction of the fracturing of the populace. The smaller the fracture among the general populace the greater the fracture between the populace and those whom the movement is protesting. The greater that fracture the more valid the movement will be proven to be.
If you are unsure of whether to support the movement or not based on its lack of a cohesive agenda then consider the reality that the greater the number of supporters the less the specific agenda will be needed.
Politicians do not fear their populace but if the ENTIRE populace is screaming for change they may begin to do so for fear of being not-re-elected.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)