Occupy Wall Street: A Manifesto

What's really going on at the Wall Street protests?

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men, women, and transgendered—and any other human who is able to elude the tyranny of work for a couple of weeks—are created equal. We gather to be free not of tyranny, but of responsibility and college tuitions. Prudence, indeed, will dictate that a government long established and a nation long prosperous be changed for light and transient causes. So let our demands* be submitted to a candid world.

First, we are imbued with as many inalienable rights as a few thousand college kids and a gaggle of borderline celebrities can concoct, among them a guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment and immediate across-the-board debt forgiveness—even if that debt was acquired taking on a mortgage with a 4.1 percent interest rate and no money down, which, we admit, is a pretty sweet deal in historical context...

...but down with the modern gilded age!

We demand that a Master of Fine Arts in musical theater writing, with a minor in German, become an immutable human right, because education is crucial and rich people can afford to fund unemployment checks until we find jobs or in perpetuity, whichever comes first.

We demand a minimum wage of $10, no ... make it $20. We earned it. And we demand the end of "profiteering," because there is no better way to end joblessness than stopping the growth of capital. We also demand a maximum wage law, because selfish American dreams need a firm ceiling.

We demand the institution of direct democracy, because if a bunch of people say it's OK, it's OK. And everyone deserves to have his or her voice heard. Except Mr. Moneybags, who we demand stop contributing his own money to candidates we disagree with, to issue groups we loathe, and to lobbyists who do not work for organizations featuring "Service," "Employees," "International" and/or "Union" in their title.

We demand the end to bailouts and corporate subsidies, unless we're talking about companies that feature sunflowers or sun rays in their logos, because that's the kind of morally gratifying institution we approve of, and thus, they should totally be fast-tracked and bailed out with your money to bring the fossil fuel economy ("the economy") to an end.

We demand the end to a corrupt Wall Street ("Apple" "your 401(k)") because banks hold too much power. We demand that government consolidate authority so that elected officials can make prudent choices for us. All that cash in banks was printed by the war god Mars and has nothing to do with the voluntary deposits by ordinary Americans, so we do not consider this theft.

We demand the end to corporate censorship, because if we can't force private news organizations to run the types of stories with which we agree, there can't be a healthy democracy. So actually, we demand the end of all corporate news organizations in the name of free speech.

We demand the end to health profiteering, because everyone knows that all the wondrous and lifesaving advances in modern medicine were invented in the People's Democratic Republic of Laos. Smart people work for the good of humanity, not because they're greedy.

We demand these rights because of the mass injustice of being able to freely protest against racism and corporatism without any real fear of imprisonment in the most diverse city on earth. And to the wiseguy who walked by the other day and claimed that I'd be writing this manifesto with a quill pen on parchment paper if it weren't for capitalism, we have two words for you: Koch brothers. Think about it.

This is the fifth communiqué from the 99.9 percent. We are occupying Wall Street, and we're not going home until it gets really cold.

*These grievances are not all-inclusive.

David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Blaze. Follow him on Twitter @davidharsanyi.

COPYRIGHT 2011 CREATORS.COM

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  • Tim||

    Clear the Area! Scoops are on the way!

  • Tim||

  • Bill3||

    The Marxists are coming out of the closet, but we can fight back!

    With Fox News, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of Center-Right America, we're gonna fight all these bastards and we're gonna win.

    Let the ruffians and human garbage enjoy their Marxist parades for now, by 2012 we're gonna get rid of that mulatto and replace him with Team Red, hopefully we'll get a real conservative with libertarian sympathies and not some pussy RINO.

    Remember, that hippie slime is not 99% of Americans, if they were then the ratings of the liberal media wouldn'tt be so low.

    Capitalists of America, unite!

  • seguin||

    Reason's newest game show:

    Moby or Real?

    Place your bets.

  • marlok||

    Got to be a spoof. Among other overplays, the "team red" reference gives it away.

  • BILL3||

    It's not a spoof, I'm a very passionate writer, I hate Marxism with all my heart and mind, I hate the enemies of freedom, and I am sarcastic on occasion.

  • ||

    "I am sarcastic on occasion"

    Was that sarcasm?

  • Ø||

    Gregoooooooooooooooooo!

  • MWG||

    I wonder why he changed his name. He had come to be beloved by all of us here at H&R.

  • BILL3||

    Because the LINO Fascists keep banning me. But that's ok, unlike the Marxists at Huffpo, thy haven't figured out how to ban someone forever.

  • Thad Cummins||

    Human garbage and Marxist - Wow. Please read Schumpeter. The American Capitalists are destroying themselves.

  • BILL3||

    No, crony capitalists and stupid progressive billionaires are destroying themselves. Don't lump us all together.

  • Sparky||

    GREEEEGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • matt||

    What an ignorant article. If you're in my generation, you're struggling and taking a job you're vastly overqualified for - if you can land a job at all that requires a diploma, much less one that requires a four year degree; whether it's a useless liberal arts degree as stereotyped in the article, or a useful degree, like engineering (like my own discipline). Too bad I took computer hardware engineering, a field that's been outsourced 100% to other countries whose own engineering talent exceeds america's by virtue only of relative population size (though india/china's lack of heavy industry regulations is a huge incentive to fuck over american skilled labor and american students as well)
    I find it hard to believe that the author doesnt know any 4-yr college grads - grads mind you, not dropouts - who can barely pay back their loans, or can't repay them. or if the author is in an older generation, how could he not know any of the millions of struggling parents, paying their kids loans off and having them live at home because they can't get work in high-paying jobs except for in international war zones or other absolute shitholes? Thank God I didn't get injured or seriously ill during the 8 years preceeding 2011 when i was either jobless, or working at some tiny as business with no health benefits, or I'd be bankrupt. But this rate I can afford a corporate PPO plan, and still be able to pay the rest of my student loan balance off by retirement age, and then I can start saving up for ret- uhh... aw shit nevermind.

    Though I suppose with wall street still getting the white glove treatment to be a moneypit, a 401k won't be of much use for me anyway.

  • George||

    I think we have an elevated sense of how bad we have it. Your story would be laughed at a generation ago. So I say, in the name not being a roll over, let your troubles inspire you to overcome them. Work with determination and don't forget that talking about a generation such as ours (I'm 20) as being over qualified is just....bullshit.

  • George||

    I think we have an elevated sense of how bad we have it. Your story would be laughed at a generation ago. So I say, in the name not being a roll over, let your troubles inspire you to overcome them. Work with determination and don't forget that talking about a generation such as ours (I'm 20) as being over qualified is just....bullshit.

  • ||

    They can't they have been taught that "problems" and "loosing" are created from someone's tricking the system and "taking advantage" of them.

  • Jr Deputy Accountant||

    Really? That's funny because I am likely in your generation and I'm an art school dropout (realized immediately it would be a money-sucking scam that wouldn't help me get a job) who has not one but two jobs... I actually had three but I quit the third because it wasn't very good money and, frankly, pretty annoying.

    But now I am paid a fair wage for work I love and can afford to live in one of the most expensive cities in the country (DC) and don't have $50k in student loan debt to worry about.

    Can I afford health insurance? No. But I had health insurance a few years back at a job that ended up making me sick, so I quit.

    I highly recommend growing a pair and trying on being a grown up for size.

    Or you should spend a year in Africa, Central America or impoverished rural China to get some perspective.

    But hey, good luck!

  • Shannon Ferguson||

    I hope to goodness, you're right. I'm trying to do my part and influence all I can....but when I see stuff like Occupy Wall Street....I get worried. But, yes....UNITE!

  • Markus||

    Center-right? What planet to you live on?

    Mulatto? What decade are you living in? If you speak for Capitalists, then nothing makes me want to back this Occupy Wall Street movement more than this hateful, fantastical, nonsensical, gibberish comment. You obviously have no idea what America actually stands for.

  • BILL3||

    America stand for FREEDOM, not welfare, not diversity, not multiculturalism, not government-funded BS.

    Besides, no real libertarian would ever join the Occupy Wall Street group. That would be like a carnivore joining PETA, and if you can't understand that, you're a LINO.

    By the way, I did write an article about what they stand for and why they're wrong.

    LIBERTARIAN ANSWER TO THE WALL STREET PROTESTORS.
    http://libertarians4freedom.blogspot.com/

  • matt||

    Whats the difference between a liberal and a libertarian anyway? Or a tea bag partier?
    Aren't we all on the same page, in terms of: keeping the constitution intact just the way it is, preserving and expanding personal liberties/rights/privacy, and shrinking the government's expense and its unnecessary roles in our lives?

    Every self-described libertarian I've heard from basically sound like liberals, except that libertarians shouldn't have to pay taxes in order to have things everyone needs and uses (i.e. garbage collection, skilled fire squads to put out your house or business if it burns, police to enforce helpful laws and prevent crime, thirteen years of free schooling, roads from every location to every other location, bridges with incredibly low failure rates)
    These things should be available to everyone, and the service levels should not very based on how much cash or credit you have.

    That's the only difference I can see between liberals and libertarians. Am I missing something?

  • BILL3||

    The difference is that liberals i.e. "progressives" don't believe in freedom unless you're talking about getting an abortion or a tattoo.

    Their progress is marching in lockstep, the liberal will tell you what you can eat, wear, speak, drive, etc.

    Liberals refer to people like me as fascist, but they are the fascists for while I'm not trying to ban vegetables, they're trying to ban meat.

  • matt||

    That's a heavily over-generalized opinion. What does abortion and tattoos have to do with anything, other than being two things I personally avoid, despite not wanting to get either one banned. Liberals don't want to tell other people how to live their lives more than any other freedom-loving person does, they want people to have as much freedom as posible that doesn't step all over anyone else's freedom. Most liberals are definitiely not trying to ban meat. "Liberal" has been turned into an oxymoronic, meaningless label that applies and disapplies to "us people" at the same time. Not all liberals are in favor of weapons bans - I'm not. Most of us are not Godless - we just don't like to go to church. Hell I can't speak for all of us. Some of use want to legalize most drugs, some want to keep it banned. If wedge issues and distractions like gay marriage aren't a distraction, then any libertarians who wanna make a difference need to start infiltrating or hijacking the Democratic establishment with people who will actually make change; just the same way the fundie-christians like Palin, Bachmann and their ilk want to turn American law into a subjective, Christianized "Sharia" hellstorm by sucking up to the GOP establishment.

    The "occupy wall street" people are basically left-leaning people that are pissed off about being swindled by Obama and all his broken campaign promises. Yes congress has been blocking him at every fucking chance, but Bush would have railroaded some of this shit through. And Obama is special, he doesn't have to give a goddam about personal liberties, double standards will always apply to him, and later on to his daughters, just like the Bush twins can get away with whatever the fuck they want out of effectively being American Nobility.

  • BILL3||

    Matt, liberals DO tell people how to live their lives all the time. In Santa Monica, California, parking is FREE if you drive a hybrid vehicle. In New York City, you need permission from a sheriff if you want to buy a gun (not a background check, his blessing based on your need), in Detroit, they banned smoking from bars.

    Liberals today are PROGRESSIVES, progressives believe in "progress" which basically means "we should all be doing the same thing."

    Read "Liberal Fascism," learn about the progressive movement in both America and Europe. It's the scariest story ever told.

  • ||

    Yup.
    Yer missin the difference between Alinsky and Hayek.

  • ||

    It's easy to make light of this movement, but it scares the shit out of me. It's growing and now a couple of unions are officially joining in. I think this has legs and we need to be very wary of snorting that they don't know what they want. They don't, but that doesn't mean that really bad ideas won't come out of it and become law before we know it.
    Just saying...

  • rts||

    Mayor Quimby: Are these morons getting dumber or just louder?

    Mayor's Assistant: Dumber, sir.

  • Sudden||

    The point of the article is that they do know what they want, broadly speaking, but that what they want is in cases completely contradictory or simply immune to the logic of mathematics or economics.

  • Mainer||

    But illogic and contradiction are not necessarily show stoppers.

  • ||

    Indeed.

  • Thorbie||

    I'm pretty sure that's how Bill Maher show was pitched to HBO

  • marlok||

    I thought Maher was marketed as the hip, edgy comedian who's so rebellious that he kisses the feet of every liberal democrat who waddles his way.

  • ||

    Yet he "claims" to be a Libertarian.
    Maher is the joke.

  • Markus||

    Exactly. The Tea Party is a perfect example.

  • ||

    Gimme free stuff NOW!!!!!

  • ||

    I'm coming for yours!

  • seguin||

    So, you mean perfectly engineered by legislative standards?

  • o2||

    because libtoidz have no remedy for financial crime, they're forced to deny its existence & try to make fun of citizens exercising constitutional rights instead. real objective...

  • ||

    The problem with your analysis is that these imbeciles are assuming that the practice of finance itself is a "financial crime".

  • ||

    Go fuck yourself you disingenuous fool.

  • ||

    @ o2

  • o2||

    tell that to AIG & CUNA who are suing BoA for gross malfeasence.

  • ||

    AIG is suing BoA ? LOL.....

  • JoJo Zeke||

    In the comic book continually writing itself in o2's head? Doubtless.

  • ||

    Actually, it's true. AIG IS suing BOA for $10 bil because of FRAUD! Do you get it now?

  • ||

    Apparently the irony of them having the freedom to protest against freedom escaped you.

    They have a vague reptilian awareness of the problem, and they have a reptilian response, destroy.

    We are the only ones who have a solution to financial crime. Stop subsidizing it. Stop bailing it out. Stop giving it printed and borrowed money. Stop providing legislative protection for it.

    Just stop it.

    The sanction of freedom for failure and fraud is the final sanction for any enterprise.

    You claim to be against corporation rapacity but have no stomach or interest in the real solution to the problem, and you support the regulations which ensures big corporations must crowd out smaller business.

  • o2||

    i personally dont regard gross financial malfeasence as "freedom"...and neither do the courts.

  • sevo||

    You seem to regard logic as unobtainable.

  • o2||

    logic is just a rightwing meme to foam the wingnutz

  • Resto Druid FTW||

    Don't you ever get tired of espousing the same tired leftist memes? Seriously dude, get a new shtick. Of course, anyone who resorts as often as you do to simple name-calling can hardly be construed as a towering intellect.

  • Markus||

    Why haven't you called out the people saying these are just "Marxists?" You yourself use the term "leftist" and then complain about name calling. Hypocrisy at its finest.

    You all are idiots. "Reason?" Please. You're just in the pockets of big money.

  • TANSTAAFL||

    "Why haven't you called out the people saying these are just "Marxists?"

    Because that is what they are. '

    From each according to is ability, to each according to his need.

    Yup, shoe fits!

  • ||

    logic used to be something one could expect of college grads. That day, sadly, passed a while ago but most folks were too busy running companies, raising families, paying their taxes, and doing all the other things this hyper-spoiled, odious brat club rails against. They hate mommy and daddy, but willingly use the parent-funded credit card and take the checks that subsidize their lives. What is worse, THESE are the folks who will soon enter the work force and THESE are the folks who will be supporting SS and Medicare. And if that's not scary, what is.

  • o2||

    "logic" is inharently [RACITZ]

  • Bill||

    02...nice neme, but it sounds like something you are seriously lacking. Take a deep breath, you're turning blue.

  • ||

    THESE are the folks who will soon enter the work force and THESE are the folks who will be supporting SS and Medicare...

    Only if things worked as we expect them to work, and as they did in the past. These Occupy Wall Street brats won't soon enter the work force because they're allergic to work, and employers now have a vast pool of much, much better and more experienced workers from which to choose from.

    You can't support SS and Medicare with your employment taxes when you're living in Mommy's basement and you regard a few hours a week of barista work as a hardship equivalent to being chain-whipped in a gulag.

  • ||

    Allergic to work? I guess the unemployment rate won't improve then until there is a proper histamine blocker on the free market? Maybe instead of Zyrtec it would be Worktec?

    Please at least be aware of structural problems this countries suffers from. The job market doesn't operate as it once did. Do you really think all of us "angry idiots" don't want to work? Or, is it maybe that we don't want to work for $15/hr after spending $100K on schooling. I guess your answer would be to tell high-school aged students not to go to college so they won't be disappointed when being a plumber will earn much more than anything out there that's entry-level that requires a college degree.
    You, my friend, should work on self-awareness a little, or a lot, it's up to you.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    Do you really think all of us "angry idiots" don't want to work? Or, is it maybe that we don't want to work for $15/hr after spending $100K on schooling.

    Please--you dumb striver poors' version of "work" is getting paid $80k a year for a job that's as demanding as elementary school recess.

    You bought into the lie that the $100K certificate guaranteed you a seat at the Big Kids Table. So why aren't you raising hell with the people who told you this lie?

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=zgFhnWXOcJM

    The fact that these people took out six figures in debt for a worthless certificate compounds how stupid they are--at least if they had put themselves that far in hoc for a house, they'd have had a roof over their head for up to a year or longer until the bank finally kicked them out, and then they could have declared Chapter 7 and started over. Good luck doing that with non-dischargeable student loan debt.

    I guess your answer would be to tell high-school aged students not to go to college so they won't be disappointed when being a plumber will earn much more than anything out there that's entry-level that requires a college degree.

    Fuck your entitled, pampered, spoiled ass and your whole fucking generation that actually believes this bullshit. You honestly think you're too good to do manual labor? You're a pustule on the ass of life. You are not special. The SWPL bubble you live in doesn't even function without those plumbers you disdain, and I guarantee they are a hell of a lot smarter than you faggots. Why? Because they didn't take out six figures of debt to get a worthless credential. And what's more, they picked a field where work is plentiful. And you actually think you striver poors are among the best and brightest, when you can't even identify the career paths where employment is likely?

    You, my friend, should work on self-awareness a little, or a lot, it's up to you.

    Maybe you should start with yourself, shithead.

  • ||

    +1,000 Awesome.

  • ||

    @ Redrocks, obviously.

  • Chatroom Crank||

    What the fuck is wrong with being a plumber? Why would the ability to do honest work disappoint anyone? Oh, they might have to sweat and get their hands dirty. Much better they spend 100K on a degree in Ancient French Feminists that allows them to get a government job and tell the dirty blue collars how to live. I tell you what, you and your 100K in debt college buddies can suck my blue collar cock.

  • ||

    Or, is it maybe that we don't want to work for $15/hr after spending $100K on schooling

    Whose fault is that? Did you have a contract that guaranteed you a job before you assumed that debt?

    I can go out and borrow a lot of money. But just because I can doesn't mean I should. What is it about today's job markets that makes people think it's a good idea to borrow 100k to get a useless degree?

  • matt||

    degrees change in usefulness alot, sometimes between starting and finishing the damn thing. can i really be blamed for expecting to go somewhere fun/challenging/rewarding with a computer hardware B.S. in 2003?

  • wheels||

    since when is a college degree a guarantee for job worth more than $15 an hour? and kudos to the kid who at ag 18 realizes he doesn't want to spend $200 thousand on college when he could apprentice for a couple of years and then become a plumber and make a decent living. it's this whole "entitled" mentality with the 20 somethings in this country that is the problem, you are not given a job, you earn it, and they may require a little extra time and more than likely some scarfice. But today, unless you're promised six figures, a car and an expense account, you feel "exploited by the man". Get over yourselves already.

  • Llama Face||

    "logic used to be something one could expect of college grads"

    That was before the higher ed bubble. Before the government subsidized student "loans" to anyone who graduated from high school (no matter how dumb you are) and managed to get into a college somewhere, which is not terribly difficult, considering colleges will now let pretty much anyone in because they want that gubment cheese.

    That was also back when people went to college to actually learn something of value, and not feminist literary theory of racial studies in underwater sneaker repair.

    It was also back before tenured liberal professors forcibly indoctrinated college students (who are largely too dumb to know the difference these days) by reserving A's for the students who dutifully spew the party line regardless of ability or quality of work, and designing courses to only present the approved liberal viewpoints.

    These people will in fact be entering the workforce, but I remain confident that they will be entering the workforce as employees of libertarian entrepreneurs who may or may not have even gone to college.

  • ||

    Is that what they are on about? Odd because gross financial malfeasance seems to have been left out of their manifesto.

    With a couple of exceptions their manifesto has a pretty stern beef with freedom, so I take them at their word.

    Again: if you want to end fraud and malfeasance stop supporting it.

    It's really not hard. Except the truth is you have no interest in stopping it.

    The truth is you're afraid of the principle of disallowing theft and fraud because that's exactly what you want to engage in.

    Tell me you want to end theft and then you'll have my support. Until then, what difference to me is it if it's you or 'wall street' that's doing the stealing?

    I want to end theft. A new improved thief doesn't motivate me much.

  • hancock||

    If their demands were simply "investigate banks for fraud", fine. But as the guy above me pointed out, they generally regard all finance as fraud.

  • seguin||

    I have a right to make fun of them. You gonna report me to Attackwatch now?

  • ||

    Can you please give an example of a "financial crime". I'm actually really curious about what you'll say.

  • T-shirt||

    When the rich steal from the poor they call it business. When the poor steal from the rich they call it violence. Libertard can go fuck themselves. And fuck all your shitty pseudo statistics. And fuck Ron Paul's idiotic platform. Thank GOD he will never EVER become president. Our country would go to the shitter.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    And fuck all your shitty pseudo statistics.

    Translation: "REAL WORLD DATA DOESN'T MATTER TO ME A BLOO BLOO BLOO!! LIKE, FUCK YOU DAD!!"

    Why are so determined to make society pay for your daddy issues?

  • T-shirt||

    No Daddy issues here. Just a rich dad.

  • ||

    Please explain this 'theft' that the rich are involved in and calling 'business'.

    It's not that you don't have a slight point, it's that you have not the slightest clue what that point is.

    But your rhetoric is typical collectivist rhetoric of violence. You don't want to end theft and violence. You want to engage in theft and violence.

    So what is so attractive about this 'change' and 'evolution' you want to those who do not want to engage in theft or violence and merely want to be free from theft and violence?

    Why would I put any least effort to change slavemasters? While certainly not fully embracing freedom, even the teabaggers do promote a less rapacious slave master.

    Short version: Fat, drunk, and stupid is no way to go through life, son.

  • T-shirt||

    Collectivist? Atlas Shrugged a bible for right wing losers. Bad logic all the way.

  • ||

    What does Rand have to do with anything?

    I'm pretty sure from that comment you haven't a clue what collectivism means.

    It's quaint that a person who thinks Rand invented the term collectivism, much less said novel things about it, consider themselves competent to judge logic:)

  • jacob||

    Our country The moochers would go to the shitter.

  • ||

    Don't worry. The unions will kill it.

  • ||

    +1

  • Michael||

    The upside is that if in the wake of these protests the demands of organizations like SEIU were actually met, the majority of the sign-toting, sloganeering, college tuition-owing "99-percenters" would still end up with absolutely jack shit. Way to make the "useful idiot" stereotype a reality, idiots. Enjoy your Top Ramen!

  • Bill3||

    Don't worry, Geoff, with Fox News, Glenn Beck, Ann Coulter, Rush Limbaugh and the rest of Center-Right America, we're gonna fight all these bastards and we're gonna win.

    Let the ruffians and human garbage enjoy their Marxist parades for now, by 2012 we're gonna get rid of that mulatto and replace him with Team Red, hopefully we'll get a real conservative with libertarian sympathies and not some pussy RINO.

    Remember, that hippie slime is not 99% of Americans, if they were then the ratings of the liberal media would not be so low.

    Capitalists of America, unite!

  • ||

    GREGOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO

  • ||

    Not sure where you're getting your stereotypes from. I actually had hopes that Obama might reverse some of Bush's more egregious human rights violations, but instead he's turned out to be just Bush 2.0. The 'real conservatives with libertarian sympathies' scare me too. I'm sure not rooting for them, and Johnson, the only one I have some sympathy for, doesn't stand a chance. I'll probably have to sit the next one out, because there won't be a NOTA choice, and the Libertarian Party almost always seems to run clowns and goofs (Barr and Ed Clark excepted...)

  • BILL3||

    Geoff, I respect you, but surely you must understand that a warmongering Republican is better than a Marxist Democrat.

    And if you hate war, guess what? Democrats are famous for DRAFTING people. Whether is Wilson, FDR, Truman, JFK or LBJ, they're all big drafters.

    Reagan, Bush Sr. and Bush Jr. never drafted a single soldier in their lives.

    If Obama wins a second term, guess what? He's gonna say that there are too many blacks in the army and we need more whites or rich or middle class or whichever group he wants to do the "share sacrifice" thing.

    Got to vote Republican. Oh, and to the people who say that you can't vote for the lesser of two evils, get real. America has a two party system, if progressives can control the DNC, we can work with the right. After all, rightwingers believe in state's rights, that means they'll respect libertarianism if the people vote for it.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    Grudgingly, I have to admit that this is probably true for the 2012 cycle. Although, everyone should be maximalist in their House and Senate races, especially if they have to be minimalist in the Presidential race.

  • BILL3||

    Thank you, I don't understand why so many libertarians struggle agreeing with me.

    Right is right even if my style can be crude and unpolished.

  • ||

    That's not the choice: The choice we have is a warmongering neocon who has a smattering of economic comprehension vs an economically ignorant warmongering marxist*.

    If Obama had vetoed the Patriot act, and that is one of the few things he actually has the power to do or proved not to be a warmonger I'd have a different opinion.

    * - and I do understand saying warmongering marxist or ecnomically ignorant marxist is redundant.

  • CE||

    These protests could easily morph into austerity protests by government salary takers, if Congress ever takes any steps toward actual austerity.

  • ||

    I'm sorry. Did you really type "if Congress ever takes any steps toward actual austerity"????? This is the bunch that defines austerity as a reduction in the rate of budgetary growth.

  • Maxxx||

    It's easy to make light of this movement, but it scares the shit out of me.

    Stop being such a pussy.

    The worst thing these protesters will do is crap all over themselves.

  • #||

    i dont know... dont make the mistake the left did in ignoring the tea party - this may morph into a larger cause. Look at all the protests in europe - mostly people complaining that their bankrupting handouts have to be trimmed slightly.

  • Thad Cummins||

    Please read Schumpeter. Strong evidence that we are destroying our own markets.

  • Paul Krugman||

    Please read me. Free box of crayons with every purchase!

  • erikjay||

    You're right. It IS scary, because powermongers can EASILY use these useful idiots. Be on the lookout for "economic democracy" legislation. Bernie Sanders must be splooging in his pants.

  • DJF||

    They must be Reason staff, here is Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

  • spambot||

    Even a busted clock is right twice a day.

  • ||

    not me!

  • spambot||

    I LOL'd

  • Noon, Midnight||

    Uh, what?

  • AM/PM||

    How does it fuckin' work?!

  • Indian Man||

    We never close on the assumption that there will always be hungry commuters all hours of the day.

  • Jumbie||

    You mean, the am/pm indicator that would be lit up to show which of the two possible times the busted digital clock would be showing? ;-)

  • ||

    All for that. Just no welfare state for them.

    Then maybe we can end the welfare state for us.

  • Juice||

    But another demand was high tariffs.

    You can't have high tariffs and open borders and vice versa. The overall effect of either is the same.

  • Psychic Octopus||

    Of course, then all the no-longer-illegals would essentially assure that guys like them never get any job, ever.

    But then, of course, people and business would move to places that didn't violate the laws of nature so maybe they would end with less immigrants in that case. Hard to say.

  • rather||

    This is the fifth communiqué from the 99.9 percent. We are occupying Wall Street, and we're not going home until it gets really cold.

    ...or they run out of weed

    ...or they run out of their allowance

    ...oh Halloween: free candy!

  • k2000k||

    Or until democrats win some more elections

  • Sacre Bleu||

    You're thinking of Jesus

  • Sacre Bleu||

    The Men who Crashed the World
    Part 1 of 4

  • sarcasmic||

    This is why I firmly believe that if/when there is a revolution in this country, that the concept of individual liberty will die as this country becomes just another statist/socialist shit-hole.

  • The Other Kevin||

    I agree. I think the people who believe they have a right to keep their own property are now outnumbered by the people who believe they have a right to take someone else's property.

  • ||

    Yes, and we have a lot more guns than they do.

  • Zachary Taylor||

    *sigh*

  • ||

    How do you maintain even a strictly libertarian government without taking someone else's money?

  • ||

    If there were an actual revolution, these imbeciles would be dead by the end of day one.

    They may not even be worth shooting. We could just talk them into rushing at the ABC troopers and dying like pawns.

  • k2000k||

    Agreed, numbers are only part of the battle. It is concentrated power that ultimately decides whose the victor in an unlikely event of revolution. Simple fact is those of us who believe in property rights are better armed, better motivated, and frankly more capable. Not to mention that if those events transpire I think certain agents of the state, police and military specificaly, will be torn amongst themselves. We Americans really are a petulant and argumentative lot, and I like it that way.

  • erikjay||

    I need to come around more often. I like what you say, k2000k. I also try (unsuccessfully most of the time) to convince people that gridlock, partisanship, negative campaigning, and all the other bugaboos of the Sensitive Left are GOOD things. It IS a good thing that we are "a petulant and argumentative lot," and I like it that way, too. It is hard to push back at the communitarianazis and be left alone anymore...

  • sarcasmic||

    The moochers and looters have the power structure on their side.

    Politicians don't like individual liberty. They like to control things. So when the shit hits the fan "these imbeciles" will have the politicians on their side.
    Unless the police and military disobey orders en masse, they won't be shooting at "these imbeciles". They'll be shooting at us.
    Then the Constitution will be rewritten to look something like this, and individual liberty will become nothing but a memory.

  • ||

    My point. The NCO corps - the backbone of our combat units - is very aware of their Constitutional duties. The Army and Marine Corps would basically dissolve before they started shooting us.

    Where do you think our professional soldiers come from? It isn't DC and NYC.

  • sarcasmic||

    What about the police?

    In my experience the average policeman cares only that they have the power and authority to beat your head in if you disrespect them, and they don't give a shit what the rules are that they enforce or who issues them orders as long as they have authorita. I'm sure there are some good cops. I've just never met one.

    IMO the police forces would not dissolve, though they may be overwhelmed.

  • ||

    Some cops will walk away. The rest don't worry me a bit.

  • Britt||

    I would expect big city police forces to go for the statists in this hypothetical civil war/revolution. I do think the Army will mostly go for the other side.

    I would love to see the donut fed legions of the city governments try to take the field against even geriatric veterans of actual wars. The blood would flow like frosting in July.

  • ||

    When I see the girly men who are occupying Wall Street and yammering on about revolution, I am comforted by the fact that Our Side has several hundred million weapons, while they have....patchouli.

  • ||

    ...And hearts the size of dinner plates.

  • matt||

    Yet another idiotic generalization. Just because we don't talk about guns all the time doesn't mean all liberals don't own guns. This party-line dem voter owns a pistol, a 8-shot revolver, a shotgun, and 3 rifles.

  • matt||

    my dem/lib neighbors are even more strapped. some of them aren't very responsible with their weapons though...

  • Zuo||

    Not if the individual liberty types band together and claim a defensible land as their own. Even if libertarian types are only 5% of the population that is still 15 million people all said.

    A ton of Hindus and Muslims migrated for the formation of Pakistan and India to the place they thought fit them best. Israel was formed by mass cultural immigration to a specific area. The Republic of China's people mostly came from the mainland, and mostly within the last century.

  • CE||

    Sounds sort of like the Free State Project, but on a much bigger scale. The FSP hasn't yet reached their modest goal of 20,000, ten years later.

  • k2000k||

    Who said we would have to do that? I think it is estimated that only 3% of the population of colonial America actively supported the Revolution. As long as a majority of the remaining 97% don't actively support the statists then the end result will be their eventual departure from power.

  • ||

    As long as a majority of the remaining 97% don't actively support the statists

    Somewhere north of 10% actually work for the State in one of its iterations, so I don't think we can count on that.

  • ||

    Yes, individual liberty is over for those civilized in the USA. There is no such concept, we are a civilization that has been resolving the problems of civilization for over 200 years....too bad if you own property that you actually have to worry about the liberty of others.

  • FlyoverCountry||

    Man, say that three times fast...

  • ||

    Yes, individual liberty is over for those civilized in the USA. There is no such concept, we are a civilization that has been resolving the problems of civilization for over 200 years....too bad if you own property that you actually have to worry about the liberty of others.

  • ||

    Yes, individual liberty is over for those civilized in the USA. There is no such concept, we are a civilization that has been resolving the problems of civilization for over 200 years....too bad if you own property that you actually have to worry about the liberty of others.

  • ||

    Yes, individual liberty is over for those civilized in the USA. There is no such concept, we are a civilization that has been resolving the problems of civilization for over 200 years....too bad if you own property that you actually have to worry about the liberty of others.

  • GILMORE||

    I'm sorry, what again?

  • GILMORE||

    I'm sorry, what again?

  • ||

    "that the concept of individual liberty will die "

    That concept is dead already. Long dead. You will actually be scoffed at if you talk about personal liberty as a value.

  • ||

    Yes, individual liberty is over for those civilized in the USA. There is no such concept, we are a civilization that has been resolving the problems of civilization for over 200 years....too bad if you own property that you actually have to worry about the liberty of others.

  • The Other Kevin||

    Somehow this movement does not strike me as the type that will call or write their congress person, or campaign for a candidate in the primaries.

  • ||

    Hey, you are talking about a lot of effort there.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    "Dude... like... can't we just bongo?"

  • Almanian||

    These #OccupyWallStreet people are funny. I appreciate their taking time to entertain me. For free!

    They have succeeded. Thank you.

  • ||

  • Keggers||

    Reason is almost always top-notch and everything.

    But this may be one of the greatest Reason articles that I've ever read.

  • ||

    I especially liked the point about their hypocrisy on corporate welfare. Yeah, corporate welfare is bad ... unless your company makes windmills or solar panels or electric cars, then it's good.

    I wonder how the UAW feels about their stance, while we're at it.

    Corporate welfare is bad ... unless you're a company with a heavily unionized workforce ... then it's good.

  • ||

    Or you belong to a corporation called a "union".

  • Rhywun||

    Hey! I have a minor in German. At least I paid for it.

  • terry||

    Nothing to see here folks, Wall Street is totally innocent..move along.
    http://youtu.be/MO4ZRKkfGpE

  • ||

    I stubbed my toe on the way into the AIG building. That fucking street is guilty as hell.

  • ||

    Nothing in that video justified the protesters' position. It amounted to nothing more than a "we rock you suck". Thank you very much for wasting 3 minutes, 7 seconds of my time.

  • ||

    But it was a British/Indian robot voice! And stock pictures of people!!1

  • Anonymous||

    The Occupy movement where I'm at does not have the same demands; they focus on ending the FED, getting rid of lobbying, and lower college tuition/better education system/citing issues with the monopolies colleges have on certain accreditations. Nobody where I'm at wants to spread the wealth.

  • Sudden||

    I'll agree with ending the fed, although admittedly that aspect seems like an afterthought for most of the hipsters. And if they truly understood the implications of that in terms of providing a contraint on govt largesse, a great many might not be so supportive.

    Lobbying is part of the foundation of this country. Madison envisioned a legislative process that in part relied on competition of interest groups. That's a critical feature, not a bug. The issue is that government has annexed powers it was never intended to have, so now those same interest groups are more active in lobbying because they can extract greater power from the hands of legislators. As for education cost, I think the majority of the hipsters at the #occupyastreet protests don't have the basic understanding of economics to realize that part of the reason higher ed costs so damn much is because gummint is giving away money left and right for people to pursue said needless MFA in theatrical writing. Many of these people are of the belief that they're entitled to an education, with no regard to how useful or productive that education may be.

  • NoVAHockey||

    I tell people I'm a first amendment specialist. That the first amendment goes beyond selectively-approved speech apparently is a new concept for some.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    But,but CORPORASHUNS are not PEEPLE!

    Except of course the New York Times, the Washington Post, etc. etc.

  • marlok||

    "Many of these people are of the belief that they're entitled to an education, with no regard to how useful or productive that education may be."

    John Edwards knows which America you are living in.

  • ||

    The side that isn't knocking up some campaign groupie whilst his wife is dying of cancer?

  • Admiral||

    The fact that these people are carrying signs with slogans like "Down with Capitalism" and "A Job is a RIGHT" scares the hell out me. Welcome to Ayn Rand's dystopia...

  • ||

    Sounds good to me!

  • ||

    To be fair, the minor in German might come in handy when the owners of the grocery store that you work at come by for a visit (Trader Joe's)

  • ||

    Maybe the Tea Partiers and the Occupy Wall Streeters can declare war on each other, and the only survivors will be those of us who think both sides are hypocritical, populist idiots and stayed neutral.

    Seriously though, it's hilarious to watch statists complaining about getting repressed by the State. You know the pepper spraying, uniformed thugs are part of the 99% too.

  • ||

    It would be very interesting if the Tea Party staged a counter protest, I think.

  • ||

    Who do you think is more likely to have misspelled protest signs? Those are always such a hoot!

  • ||

    Too bad they mostly seem to have jobs. They only come out on the weekends.

  • kilroy||

    I wonder if the police union is going to join?

  • ||

    and give up their overtime? Please. For all their bleating, unions are every bit as self-serving as the greediest of corporations.

  • ||

    Unions are just corporations who sell labor. As a commodity, essentially, given that they make a positive effort to make individual workers interchangable.

    Moreover, their machinations amount to much the same attempts that corporations use to manipulate the market and drive out competition. Right down to lobbying in Washington for special regulatory favors and tax breaks.

  • erikjay||

    Excellent!

  • Wupta||

    The head of the snake is the federal reserve and you idiots can laugh all you want to but the gig is over. We are going to kick all of you out of your lofty fraudulent towers.

  • ||

    Bring it, tuff gai.

  • Keggers||

    What makes the towers "fraudulent"? The fact that they are not towers at all? Or the fact that I don't live in a tower, I live in a house?

    I'm confused.

  • ||

    He's speaking truth to towers.

  • Tman||

    We are going to kick all of you out of your lofty fraudulent towers.

    Good luck tough guy. The idiots currently "occupying" Wall Street would last all of about three seconds in any type of serious revolution. People in Syria are getting gunned down by tanks and M-50 machine guns but they are pushing on in order to gain their liberties that have been denied.

    Your sorry ass band of disaffected trustafarians act like you're in Selma in the 50's when someone gets pepper sprayed in the face by some stupid cop.

    You are a large crowd of FAIL.

  • yup||

    Because libertarians LOVE the federal reserve. Moron.

    As I've said many times before: The average "grunt" worker on wall street are 40k-50k earners who majored in Accounting/Finance/Business/etc... in college. The same middle class demographic you claim to represent. Except, oh noes, they're doing the WRONG kind of middle class work.

    You're whole "We are the 99%" is nothing but a not-so-cleverly disguised argumentum ad populum . If 99% of people think it's right, it must be right!

  • ||

    The protests aren't about the workers in financial firms who earn 50K a year, Mayor Bloomberg. Get a clue.

  • ||

    You'll find that many here are not fans of the Federal Reserve. We're more the Ron Paul crowd.

  • ||

    You'll never take my lofty tower!

  • Citizen Nothing||

    They'll take my "lofty tower" when they pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

  • Tony||

    You'd need to cold chisel my lofty tower in order to pry it away from my fingers. Weekends being what they are, I mean.

  • ||

    I live in a rambler, actually. But if I had a lofty, fraudulent tower, I'd invite you to sit 'n' spin on it.

  • ||

    A call to End the Fed met with a rousing cheer at last night's General Assembly at OccupySF. This article's as dumb and clueless as FOX News. There are leftists at the Occupy movement, but the movement's not leftist. Why don't you go down to the nearest encampment in whatever city you live in, and try to find out what's actually going on?

    I've been following OccupySF since they started three weeks ago. It's nothing like what you wrote and its nothing like what a lot of people think. They're already trying to link up with the Tea party. These are not Obamatrons. These people -- mostly kids but a good sprinkling of 60-somthings -- are out there on the street bearing witness to the fact that something in this country has gone wrong.

    No solutions, no demands. Just bearing witness.

    And not nearly as leftist as you and FOX News seem to think.

  • yup||

    That's actually interesting, if true. Got any links?

    I know a few of the main organizers of Occupy Wall Street, and they are very committed marxists/leftists. And the demands they released earlier this week were pretty left-of-center. From the pictures I've been seeing, there appear to be far more "Education/Work is a human right" type signs than "end the fed" type signs.

    And you understand, that Fox isn't the only ones portraying them as leftist? Other organizations are portraying them that way as well, Fox is the only one putting a negative spin on that political orientation.

  • ||

    The demands that were quoted in this article and what you're quoting are not anything "official". They were taken out of one guys forum post. That is one guys wish list, not that of the movement.

  • o2||

    holy shit and i thought i was stoopid

  • KDN||

    Nothing at all leftist about "down with Capitalism," "a job is a right," "education is a human right," "ban private medical insurance," "imposing tariffs on all goods entering the US," "raise the minimum wage to $20," "pass the Buffet Rule," "living wage regardless of employment," or "bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while bringing the alt. energy economy up to meet demand." Nope, not at all. Nothing to see here. They're all just disaffected anarcho-capitalists looking to get that government monkey off their backs.

  • ||

    Not just any job. Easy high-paying jobs for Fine Arts Majors.

  • ||

    What? No love for me esse?

  • ||

    Fishfry has a point in that we should not assume that the idiots in New York are representative of protesters elsewhere. I swung by the Chicago version yesterday and was surprised to find the sort of protesters fishfry describes.

  • KDN||

    This may be true, but mine are the idiots in NYC so I'm forced to assume the worst.

  • ||

    To be fair and mildly open minded - I checked out "Occupy DC" website and facebook page.

    Top of the website: March on Koch offices. Really guys? Koch? Are you getting your talking points from the Democratic Party? Not GE? Not BOA? Not Dept. of Treasury? Not the Whitehouse?
    http://occupydc.org/
    Our demands are many but one issue stands. We want corporate person hood revoked. We no longer want to vote with our dollar. Each of us already has a vote. It's time for it to count.
    http://www.facebook.com/OccupyDC#!/OccupyDC?sk=info
    Not leftists, huh?
    Plenty of union support.
    March on K street rather than the Whitehouse - less racist I guess.

    Yeah, these guys are really libertarians at heart.

  • JD the elder||

    "We want corporate person hood revoked"

    This one seems to be huge with the OWS crowd. Unfortunately, virtually none of them actually seems to have thought about what it actually means. At The Atlantic website, one guy put it like this: "OK, what if a Whole Foods delivery truck backs into your car? Who do you sue for damages? Can't be Whole Foods, because they're not a person any more." Mostly the OWSers just seem to mean "don't let corporations speak or lobby or donate money or do other bad corporationy things." No word on how they think this should apply to corporations like the New York Times...

  • Explain the absence of...||

    "Stop the Wars -- Impeach Obama" signs.

  • Tony||

    College students don't deserve grievances. Only multimillionaire and billionaire bankers have real grievances, because they might have to comport themselves as if they live in a civilization, not that anyone's making them do that yet.

    Making money off of money is the hardest work imaginable; the evidence is in just how much money it generates. And as we all know profits = hard work.

    Also, those good hard working guys who drill the planet's fossil fuels then sell it back to us? If they are not allowed to radically alter the chemical composition of the atmosphere, they too are being burdened, nay oppressed, by mere talk of making them pay for the damage their product causes.

    But college students with no future thanks to massive malfeasance in the financial sector--their grievances are petty and worthy of mocking.

  • yup||

    Yeah, the financial sector's malfeasance is why those Medieval Literature and Gender majors can't get jobs.

  • Tony||

    Just the other 15 million jobless.

  • yup||

    Hey what happened to these goalposts? How did they get moved waaay over there?

  • Tony||

    Suck my dick, anonymous coward. After you're done with the financial elite, that is.

  • yup||

    I'm sucking the dick of logical argumentation, statist sockpuppet. You made a claim about the plight of these under/unemployed college grads due to wall street malfeasance. I made a counter-claim that employment prospects for many types of college degrees - certainly the ones represented by OWS - are unemployable for reasons having nothing to do with the recession or wall street. You then changed the subject to the "15 million other unemployed" - the aggregate number of unemployment in the US, among all 18+ age groups.

    Try argueing in good faith for once. I know it's hard with Obama's black penis jammed in your ear and your hands are probably busy stroking off Van Jones and Nancy Pelosi, but maybe, someday, but if you ever finish them off, it might be possible. Reach for the rainbow!

  • sevo||

    Hey, shithead, cut your welfare payment, did they?

  • yup||

    You know, for what it's worth, I would be more sympathetic to these protestors if they were ONLY demanding investigations into the top finance firms. But they had to tack on a bunch of idiotic statist nonsense. My sympathy quickly ran out.

  • seguin||

    That really doesn't sound like it'd work. I mean, I don't see how doing that would move a set of goalposts.

  • ||

    Tony|10.5.11 @ 1:43PM|#
    Suck my dick, anonymous coward.

    Oh, the irony.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Suck my dick, anonymous coward.

    With Obama's unit already being securely lodged in your own throat down to the root, that'd make for one freaky daisy chain.

  • o2||

    holy shit and i thought i was stoopid this is even stoopider i can only dream of one day achieving such stoopidity

  • ||

    see what happens when you major in Medieval Women's Art Studies?

  • KDN||

    This is even less coherent than usual.

  • Loki||

    As somebody working in the oil & gas industry, let me just offer up a rousing "fuck you" to Tony.

    It's not like oil companies just walk up to a plot of land, look around, scratch themselves, and say "yup. time to start a-drillin'." We enter into contracts with prviate land owners and compensate them for the use of their private property.

    I'm sick of this notion that my industry just runs around poking holes in the earth with nobody's permission.

  • Tony||

    Nobody said you don't get permission. The question is whether you have the right to use up nonrenewable resources then radically alter the chemical composition of the atmosphere when they are burned. Who did you compensate for that?

  • yup||

    They were given the right to "use" the resources when the landowner - who also owns the resources on the land - said they could, as Loki already explained.

  • yup||

    And wait - why is it just the oil companies who get blamed for using resources? The end point for all that oil taken out of the ground is to be sold to a consumer. The individual at the pump is just as responsible for using those. precious non-reusable resources as the oil companies.

  • sevo||

    "The question is whether you have the right to use up nonrenewable resources"

    Quit 'using up' resources, shithead; quit breathing.
    No body gave you the right to breathe.

  • Fluffy||

    Oil was a waste product without any value at all before capitalists figured out how to use it.

    "Oh noes the nonrenewable resources!" They're only resources because we made them resources.

    And it is not possible for you to limit the behavior of oil companies without limiting the behavior of millions of poor and middle class people, too. That's because the producers of fossil fuels are only half the economic equation in any use of fossil fuels. When you set out to "punish" the producers of fossil fuels, it is impossible to do so without also punishing (for example) some grandmother on a fixed income trying to heat her home in New Hampshire, or some father making $10 an hour who has to commute to work.

    Rich people are harmed by $4 a gallon gas a lot less than people making $10 an hour. When you're making $10 an hour, if you get laid off you can't take another job if it's literally 20 minutes from your house - because your transportation expense will make it too expensive for you to afford.

  • Tony||

    I totally agree that consumers are every bit as much responsible. But individual consumers can't change the energy use status quo society-wide. Incentives from the top down must be changed, because there are more important things in this world than making sure oil companies continue to make historical profits as long as they can.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Have you given up using gasoline or any other petroleum derivative, Tony?

    Oh, and what are the profit margins of the oil companies?

  • ||

    But individual consumers can't change the energy use status quo society-wide. Incentives from the top down must be changed

    And the changing price of oil does exactly that.

  • ||

    The question is whether you have the right to use up nonrenewable resources

    This is a legitimate question. And, the answer is "yes, I do" if I have purchased said resources.

  • Tony||

    If a right exists to use up essential nonrenewable resources unchecked, the right is worth less than shit.

  • yup||

    It's not "unchecked" dumbass. If the supply of oil gets low, the price goes up, and magically, people use less oil/gas. And as fluffy pointed out, oil only became a precious, essential, non-renewable resource when greedy and terrible capitalists figured out an efficient use for it.

  • Tony||

    If it were checked by rational behavior, we'd have long ago begun implementing alternatives to oil.

    Instead, the oil industry seems to want to make maximum profits for the next 5 years or so, then I dunno what.

    Markets are not prone to long-term conservationist thinking, especially not lately.

  • ||

    If it were checked by rational behavior

    Whose "rational behavior" is that?

  • Tony||

    But...but...YOU'RE EVUUUUUUUUULLLLLLLLLLLL!!!!!!!!

  • Uhhh||

    Value does not necessarily equate with 9-5 backbreaking mind-numbing labor for 10-40 years. There is a reason for that.

  • Tony||

    I fail to see what value is provided by modern finance. I get the lending side, but the casino side seems to just funnel money upward and collapse economies.

  • yup||

    How do you think they get money for the lending side? How do you think they are able to build interest on savings accounts? You have no idea what you're talking about. Calling it "gambling" is nothing but a meaningless exercise in hindsight.

  • sevo||

    "I fail to see what value is provided by modern finance."

    Your Scrooge McDuck comix didn't cover that, shithead?
    Ah what a shame! Now you'll never figure it out.

  • KDN||

    In the last dark age usury was the cardinal sin of finance. Arbitrage will take its place in the next one.

  • ||

    I fail to see what value is provided by modern finance.

    I have no doubt of that.

  • ||

    It may involve gambling (risk) but it's not a system, like a casino, where the odds are stacked against you.

    It's possible to win at finance through sound industry analysis, rather than blind luck. And that's the essential part that allocates capital to productive uses.

  • Gilbert Martin||

    "Making money off of money is the hardest work imaginable; the evidence is in just how much money it generates. And as we all know profits = hard work."

    As we all know, how anyone else makes their money isn't any or yours or anyone else's business.

    One thing is for sure - you had absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with then making it.

  • Fluffy||

    It doesn't matter if "making money off of money" is hard or not.

    What matters is its contribution to the productive process.

    A human being randomly making motions with his arms and legs will produce no wealth. That is the value of pure labor for you right there. If I had to randomly move my arms and legs all day every day, I might think it was pretty "hard" to do. My perception of my effort would not be relevant to the question of how much value I had created.

    If a financier arranges enough capital for me, I can build myself a steel plant and make lots of steel. Know how much steel I can make right now using only my labor? None. That to me says that the contribution of capital to the productive process vastly exceeds that of labor.

    Also, many of the best-compensated people on Wall Street are essentially salesmen. They are so well compensated because landing a single underwriting deal can be worth tens of millions in fees, because the capital amounts being aggregated are so great that even a tiny fee in % terms generates a huge amount of revenue. If you have an employee whose personal contribution to your firm generates tens of millions in revenue, he deserves seven figure compensation. He certainly deserves it a lot more than some Eng Crit Lit jackass hanging out on the street outside.

  • Tony||

    Continuing to revert to stereotypes of college students is just an admission that you've turned your brain off.

    These productive capitalist heroes failed to properly assess the risk of the securities made of worthless mortgages and brought the entire global economy down with their cash grab. These events are an indictment of capitalism itself and its fundamental inability to handle the long-term.

    You people make noise about being against bailouts, yet here you are defending every ill-gotten cent on Wall Street. These gains were made from a massive instance of socialism for the rich, so why defend them? Surely the market has not righted itself after that distortion.

    If the type of productivity you're celebrating is that which leaves millions out of work and the middle class evaporating--but produces untold wealth at the top--then it's not any kind of productivity worth having. To which you would come full circle and say it doesn't matter, they "earned" it.

  • Fluffy||

    I'm sure I'm much more offended by TARP then you are.

    In real time in 2008 I opposed TARP while that asshole Obama and every congressional Democrat was supporting it.

    I would have been perfectly happy to see the money center banks crash and to see massive deflation.

    But I am singularly unimpressed by the argument that the banks "caused" the global economic meltdown because of their "greed".

    What happened is that the Fed and the Congress provided excessive stimulus to the economy, and as a result people engaged in speculation based on the resulting asset price inflation.

    When you create conditions that create incentives for speculation, you don't get to complain if people speculate. And if a bubble develops, it's YOUR fault, and not theirs.

    The reason I am in the position where I have to "defend Wall Street" is because these asshole punks really don't have the mental acuity to make any distinction between rent-seeking activity and "rich people have more money than me so I'm angry".

    And because every last Democrat policy douchebag that these assholes would support thinks the solution to the "welfare" going to Wall Street is "Set limits on compensation and raise taxes really high" which punishes earnings indiscriminately, and completely fails to hold to account the monetary and fiscal policy nexus that actually caused the bubble and subsequent crash.

    If the type of productivity you're celebrating is that which leaves millions out of work and the middle class evaporating--but produces untold wealth at the top--then it's not any kind of productivity worth having.

    How do we decide whose responsibility it is to produce employment and whose it isn't? 'Cause you've never described providing any employment for anyone to me.

  • yup||

    Where in fluffy's post is he "celebrating" their compensation? He's merely stating that there is logic behind why they receive the compensation they do, that they in fact DO create value, and are rewarded accordingly. No where is fluffy saying that this is the type of value that should be encouraged above all others, at any cost.

    Furthermore, capping the salaries and bonuses/raising the taxes of wall street execs isn't going to spontaneously raise the income levels of everybody else. The decline in manufacturing responsible for much income loss doesn't have a whole lot to do with the financial system.

  • ||

    Blaming "greed" is idiotic. It's like blaming gravity for the broken legs you got when you jumped out the window.

    Nobody is ever going to rid the human race of greed. What you do is you harness people's self interest towards producing useful things in a non-violent way. As long as people think "greed" is the problem, they will never understand the solution.

  • TANSTAAFL||

    +LOTS

  • Anonamoose||

    Apparently, continuing to revert to stereotypes of Wall Street workers is just fine though...

  • Nicholas Card||

    Oh shit, you've caught us! Take the money and run!!

  • Omni||

    You say

    "These events are an indictment of capitalism itself"

    And...

    "These gains were made from a massive instance of socialism for the rich"

    If it was socialism for the rich, then how can it be an indictment of capitalism?

  • ||

    These events are an indictment of capitalism itself and its fundamental inability to handle the long-term.

    You mean bubbles are made by capitalists? Isn't it Joe Sixpack who gets indebted because he thinks that by buying ('investing') in the current hot item (from tulip bulbs to houses) his greed will be satiated?

  • yup||

    No man, he's only FORCED to do it by the greedy, lying banks!

  • J_L_B||

    College students don't deserve grievances. Only multimillionaire and billionaire bankers have real grievances

    When you are the son/daughter of parental figures who have the financial wherewithal to support your participation in an incoherent protest for weeks on end, a millionaire who spends 16 hours days (or even a portion of that) attending to his/her business does indeed rank higher on the greivances list.

  • k2000k||

    No college students who have no job because of the educational-industrial complex of this country that mindlessly touted the benefits of recieving higher education without instructing those individuals on the reality of how you get employed. You get employed by having marketable skills in areas that demand them. Getting a piece of paper from an instition is no promise of a job if the market that you are trying to break into is over saturated. The only groups that benefited from this mindless idiocy are policy makers and coleges. I saw my own university tuition raise by $ 6,000 during my time there, sure as shit wasn't inflation, but the greed of academia.

  • Fluffy||

    The reason there's an educational-industrial complex in the first place is because the voters believed people like this the last time they demanded subsidized higher education.

    Are we supposed to believe that if more money was funneled to students, those students would somehow decide to study more marketable subjects as a result? How's that going to work?

  • ||

    I saw my own university tuition raise by $ 6,000 during my time there, sure as shit wasn't inflation, but the greed of academia.
    --------------------------
    and yet, no one bats an eye at that. But let BOA charge $5 A MONTH for a service and they lose their minds. Who will be the first elected official to ask just why in the hell college tuition can rise at a rate that would be unsustainable in any private industry?

  • ||

    Consider the large percentage (99%?) of the Occupy Wall Street crowd who are most certainly vehemently opposed the occupation of "Palestine" by the Israelis.

  • Warty||

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    Hope...coming...back...from...the...dead...

  • some guy||

    Here's how to get rid of the Occupy Wall St. (OWS) movement immediately:

    1. Obtain ~one mega-dollar in twenties (chump change for these banks)

    2. Dump said twenties out a 30th floor window over the protestors.

    3. Film ensuing greedy chaos and post on YouTube.

    4. Laugh as they try to explain their hypocritical behavior on MSNBC.

  • ||

    You don't even need 20s. Abby Hoffman, ironically on the NYSE floor, proved that one dollar bills could get you that kind of entertainment.
    http://www.fold3.com/spotlight.....monium_to/

  • some guy||

    One dollar bills it is, then.

    Big ole' silver dollars! Then we get to both hurt them AND watch them hurt each other...

  • ||

    I'm not sure what's ironic about stock traders scrambling after money, Rabbit.

  • ||

    I would pay to watch that, some.

  • ||

    That actually sounds remarkably similar to their demands already.

    I DEMANDS FREE MONIEZ!!

  • ||

    Fuckin' Fleabaggers

  • Juan||

    The majority of those marchers need to get a job. I mean really, the same thing happened in Spain for weeks, and it was people who were looking for a hand-out or way to get out of the debt that they had irresponsibly created.

    The fact that a grand number of these people can't agree on what they want changed is counter productive to initiating actual policy change. But more importantly, it is bad for the businesses in the wall street area who can't run properly with the protesters interrupting customer flow (mom and pop shops, restaurants, clothing stores, etc.).

  • Juan||

    If they really want to change something, they need to get their act together, create an organization, pool money (if you got 1 dollar from every protester, you'd have enough to start something decent), and begin making propaganda campaigns.

  • Drax the Destroyer||

    if you got 1 dollar from every protester, you'd have enough to start something decent

    So, what could they actually do with their $9,586?

  • Fluffy||

    With that much money and with all the fallow fine arts skills on display here, they could start a Brechtian People's Theater and People's Street Gallery and the good liberals on the Upper West Side would bury them in an avalanche of money in the next 48 hours.

  • Juan||

    They'd have enough money to print 200,000 propaganda flyers. For example.

    It's a start.

  • CE||

    Maybe we need to start a movement for the 1%.

  • Nicholas Card||

    Exactly. This whole movement is about how the 99% should have all the voice and the 1% shouldn't have a voice.

    The hypocrisy of the masses never ceases to amaze me.

  • Jersey Patriot||

    Like the Tea Party, OWS doesn't have a clear leader and doesn't have a clear agenda. The protestors are broadly left, just as the Tea Party was broadly right, but that's about where the unity ends. There is considerable (and richly due) disgust and frustration with Obama and the Democrats among the OWS folks, which is all to the good.

    OWS is the left-populist response to our broken system, just as the Tea Party is the right-populist response. OWS is focused on the failures of big corporations and finance; the Tea Party is focused on the failures of big government. Both are right. Each should see the other as an ally against a deeply corrupt corporations/government alliance that must be attacked as a whole.

  • ||

    Like the Tea Party, OWS doesn't have a clear leader and doesn't have a clear agenda.
    ----------------------
    so THAT'S how a rudderless organization managed to change the balance of power in the House of Representatives and even has its own Congressional caucus. Who knew so much could be done without a clear agenda or leader. On the other hand, it does explain Obama.

  • seguin||

    I've read the demands of Occupy Wall Street...I don't see how the Tea Party could ever agree to any of them.

  • Haunted Taint||

    The demands of one segment do not represent everyone associated with OWS. And anyone claiming to speak for the entire movement is lying.

    This is exactly the mistake that Serious Media Outlets loved to make when talking about the Tea Party, because it makes it easy to paint a large, disparate group as uniformly racist/hypocritical/etc.

  • marlok||

    The rallying moment of the tea party was a bunch of fogies yelling at their congressman over Obamacare. Then, they pushed for a roudier group of conservatives in the repub primaries.

    If I am to take the OWS demands seriously, their movement is based on overturning the laws of supply and demand. I see far less coherence here, and virtually no agreement with the tea party other than opposition to TARP (3 years late!)

  • OWS Street Puppets||

    their movement is based on overturning the laws of supply and demand.

    "We demand the absolute moral RIGHT to be Greece!"

  • Nicholas Card||

    But with a living wage, even if we aren't working!

    (Don't forget that last part, it's important)

  • Sandy||

  • Matrix||

    Demand one: Restoration of the living wage. This demand can only be met by ending "Freetrade" by re-imposing trade tariffs on all imported goods entering the American market to level the playing field for domestic family farming and domestic manufacturing as most nations that are dumping cheap products onto the American market have radical wage and environmental regulation advantages. Another policy that must be instituted is raise the minimum wage to twenty dollars an hr.

    No one is entitled to "a living wage" or any wage. You want a living wage? Get a job that makes the wage you feel you need. $20/hr minimum? That won't do anything but cause massive inflation. Imagine paying people $20/hr to flip burgers. How much will those burgers cost? Tariffs will ensure that people overseas won't buy our products because they will impose high tariffs in retaliation for your stupid idea. More jobs are lost to automation than to sending jobs overseas. Maybe you xenophobes should become Luddites and smash machines.

    Demand two: Institute a universal single payer healthcare system. To do this all private insurers must be banned from the healthcare market as their only effect on the health of patients is to take money away from doctors, nurses and hospitals preventing them from doing their jobs and hand that money to wall st. investors.

    You really have no clue what you are talking about, do you? Do you really think government will solve the problem? Try having underpaid staffs with long hours and endless lines of patients? Then you can also throw in cuts in budgets, so they will reuse supplies and not change bedding for each new patient.

    Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment.

    Get a ****ing job, you bum!

    Demand four: Free college education. What good will a college education do if everyone has one? Then you'll need a college education to flip burgers. Smart move, Einstein. They are seeing these problems in Europe because most people have college degrees, but have jobs that pay the equivilent of $8/hr.

    Demand five: Begin a fast track process to bring the fossil fuel economy to an end while at the same bringing the alternative energy economy up to energy demand.

    How about... let the market decide and get the government out of the way.

    Demand six: One trillion dollars in infrastructure (Water, Sewer, Rail, Roads and Bridges and Electrical Grid) spending now.

    Let private entities take care of that with incentives of making money or saving money by doing so.

    Demand seven: One trillion dollars in ecological restoration planting forests, reestablishing wetlands and the natural flow of river systems and decommissioning of all of America's nuclear power plants.

    You pulling that money out of your tuches? Where is it coming from? Why decommission all of America's nuclear plants? What will pick up the slack? We have nothing else except for the pollution plants you numbskulls hate! Should we run out poor farmers, burn their houses down, and murder their families like they are doing in Honduras and Africa so we can plant trees?

    Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment.

    We have those already.

    Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live.

    Finally, something we can finally find common agreement.

    Demand ten: Bring American elections up to international standards of a paper ballot precinct counted and recounted in front of an independent and party observers system.

    No problem here.

    Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. Debt forgiveness of sovereign debt, commercial loans, home mortgages, home equity loans, credit card debt, student loans and personal loans now! All debt must be stricken from the "Books." World Bank Loans to all Nations, Bank to Bank Debt and all Bonds and Margin Call Debt in the stock market including all Derivatives or Credit Default Swaps, all 65 trillion dollars of them must also be stricken from the "Books." And I don't mean debt that is in default, I mean all debt on the entire planet period.

    Great, so no one will ever lend to anyone else ever. So we will never again have a credit economy and never be able to gain capital because no one will lend money because debt can be easily wiped away with the stroke of a pen from an a-hole in a suit sitting in the Oval office.

    Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies.

    STFU

    Demand thirteen: Allow all workers to sign a ballot at any time during a union organizing campaign or at any time that represents their yeah or nay to having a union represent them in collective bargaining or to form a union.

    Perhaps for private sector employees. But then a private company should be well within their rights to tell them to "go to hell." In the case of public employees... "go to hell."

  • Nicholas Card||

    Well said!

    But I'm going to have to disagree with Demand Nine, and more strongly disagree with demand thirteen.

    Demand Nine: If we had completely open boarders, then we risk global collapse. In the US, open boarders works because all the states are more or less equal. Ditto in Europe. The US could easily sustain completely open boarders with Canada and Europe because, again we're all more or less equal economically. However, open boarders with a country like Mexico would be a nightmare. Millions, if not tens of millions, of Mexicans would flood into the United States. That would cause a massive run on basic supplies, such as food, water, and gas, sending those prices sky-high. The would cause even more families in the US to face dinners without enough food, as there wouldn't be enough money to feed everyone. Since the immigrants would be willing to work for minimum wage all the way up the food chain, wages in the US would plummet, putting many people out of work. I agree that we need more open boarders, but completely open boarders would do absolutely nothing to help anyone in the long run.

    Demand Thirteen: The idea of card check is horrible. Imagine card check as a form of national, or even local, elections. A candidate or his/her supporters could schmooze you until you sign your name. Secret ballots are the only way to go. And I agree that a company should be able to tell the union to "go to hell." If the employees are really valuable to the employer, then an employer would be willing to listen to a union. But today's unions so far outstep their bounds that unionized workers wages are way inflated. Fair employers will pay their workers fairly. If they don't, that's what unemployment insurance is for: aka go find a new job with a better boss.

  • ||

    Again, those are demands posted by one guy on a forum. They do not represent any consensus or "official" statement from the people at occupywallstreet.

    This is closer to official than that crap being circulated by Fox News and now Reason:

    http://coupmedia.org/occupywal.....mands-2009

  • Hector_Garza||

    Reason has been sh*tty lately.

  • Haunted Taint||

    To be fair to Reason, Harsanyi has always sucked.

  • ­||

    Is your taint really haunted?

  • ||

    Reason is almost always top-notch and everything.

    But this may be one of the greatest Reason articles that I've ever read.

  • The Notorious Tre'||

    Are you serious? By what logic are you 'guaranteed' a wage regardless of employment? Spoiled, rotten, stupid morons. I hope you get what you want because you'll find out just how fast your 'real' unalienable rights go out the window

  • Matrix||

    I'll give 'em a wage... I'll wage they better find themselves a job or find their @$$es out on the street... unless of course they can find some schmuck to bum off of.

  • ||

    This is why the involvement of the unions will kill the movement.

    As soon as they realize what a bunch of marxist twerps started it they are going to want to take it over so they can turn it to their own ends-and stop it from sounding like a gang of marxist twerps. They're going to send in their union organizers and start ordering people around, and what will happen is that will drive out the hipsters and progressives, and what you'll be left with is another bland union-run astroturfing project walking around with mass produced SEUI signage.

    You really think a bunch of anarchist progressive hipsters are going to mesh well with the SEIU?

  • JoJo Zeke||

    You really think a bunch of anarchist progressive hipsters are going to mesh well with the SEIU?

    This is one of those "trick" questions, isn't it...? ;)

  • RanDomino||

    So unemployed people should just die when there aren't enough jobs to go around. Got it.

  • ||

    Am I supposed to be afraid of these people? I'm not. In fact, I kind of wish they wouldn't just go home when it gets cold. And I would like to see the unions join them and turn it into a frightening movement. Maybe BHO can adopt their aimless drivel. Of course, he has already done so to some degree.

    We need a revolution and a backlash for my gold, guns and seeds program to have any meaning.

  • JoJo Zeke||

    The SEIU balrogs will almost certainly commence to noisily butchering and feasting upon the slower, more stupid trustafarians, once the overnight temperatures begin to dip.

  • Fluffy||

    What's really sad is that the energy, effort and initiative being expended here could have been devoted to some kind of productive enterprise - even a "worker's collective" or something similarly vomitous.

    But that would actually help solve their unemployment problem, and that wouldn't do.

  • ||

    Yes, whenever progressive start talking about how we should all be organized into worker's cooperatives, I like to ask "What's stopping you?"

  • A Serious Man||

    This organization is dangerous in the way that a mob of idiots that democratically decide gravity isn't real demands that everyone jumps off a cliff with them.

  • ||

    Love how everyone supporting this (for reasons you think you know but actually can't imagine) is "ignorant of the basics of economics and math." Must be nice to have such an aggressively juvenile view of the world.

    http://www.lcurve.org/

  • Fluffy||

    Must be nice to have such an aggressively juvenile view of income distribution.

    Seriously, dude. This is the kind of easily-exploded nonsense freshmen spout between puffs.

    Please go find a hippie jam session to attend. Thanks.

  • Third World Laborer||

    The US economy produces tremenodous poverty?

  • sevo||

    Goodness! Look there!
    Propaganda with shitty graphics!

  • Michael||

    Oh, look! Yet another worthless 9/11 truther seeking anyone that will give him the time of day.

  • ||

    Yes, these libertairians....I view them as overweight computer nerds that collect comic books and wear glasses. The comic book store owner form the Simpsons comes to mind. They have no concept of civilization and think a simple word "Liberty" is theirs to behold and defend, when the USA has been having this conservation without them for over 200 years - and they don't fit into society, and don't understand that society is moving on without them. Most of their arguments fall apart before anything tangible appears.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Hey! I don't wear glasses! Fuck you!

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Oh, wait. Do reading glasses count?
    Never mind.

  • yup||

    Except, no. All the major libertarian positions - economic freedom/low-government interference, anti-war, and pro-social freedoms - resonate with broad swaths of the American electorate. FAIL.

  • sven||

    They don't differentiate between income and wealth there. Bill Gates doesn't make $50 billion a year.

  • Shorter Internetguy||

    "Everything I ever needed to know, I learned from my Phish CDs."

  • Trench Report||

    Full of Win!

  • ||

    PS - The "DEMANDS" you linked to are just something a random guy, possibly a troll, posted on their public forum. The REAL official statement from the movement is here:
    http://www.dangerousminds.net/....._movement/

    Not that you'll like it better, but at least you'll have your facts somewhat straighter when misunderstanding them.

  • Fluffy||

    You're right - that one's no better.

    In some ways it's worse.

    Anyone who could compose that is contemptible scum.

  • T||

    At least that one isn't demanding anything yet, Fluffy. That's just a bitch list, so who cares? A bunch of crybabies don't think the world works the way they want it to.

  • Bradley||

    I thought the whole fucking point of being a grassroots, Anonymous-inspired social movement was that there was no REAL official anything?

    Anyway this stuff is less objectionable than "free university degrees now!" so, cool.

  • marlok||

    Define "REAL official statement".

  • sevo||

    Hmm.
    Propaganda with graphics not quite as shitty as the earlier pile of crap.

  • Michael||

    Those aren't even...like...uhh...real demands, man.

  • ||

  • cynical||

    Here's my list of demands:
    1. Separation of commerce and state.

  • Michael||

    Also, from their site's FAQ, more fun with spelling!

    We are not permitted to sleep on public property based on Chicago Ordnances.

    If only we were so lucky.

  • Michael||

    Damn squirrels. This was supposed to be in reply to my own post below.

  • ||

    My demand?

    Get off my lawn.

  • ||

    Look, these people are pissed off but the vast majority of them are not card carrying union thugs or marxists. I think we can neutralize this thing by emphasizing the points we agree with - no more bailouts, no more crony capitalism and solyndra type bs, etc. If we do nothing but make fun of the movement, we forfeit many of the people who sympathize with the passion of the movement but who could otherwise be persuaded to stand with us against distortion of the markets through government interference.

    Think about this: do you really believe most of these people have thought all the way through their participation in occupywallstreet and what exactly it is they're asking for? Or are they simply venting frustration with a government that is just plain stupid economically? I think we may be squandering an advantage by outright dismissing them.

  • Citizen Nothing||

    Sorry. You can't dangle this kind of comedy gold in front of us and not expect us to mine it. Sometimes the lulz must outweigh the long-term strategic planning.

  • cynical||

    I don't think we actually agree on that. They're fine with cronyism, as long as the crony pretends to be a pious company.

    And while they hate "privatize the gains, socialize the losses" as much as we do, that's only because they want to socialize the gains too.

    If they turn the movement into a way to purge the left political establishment of the politicians that supported the bailouts and make bank on their ties to business, then they might do some good. But it sounds a bunch of lazy, greedy assholes who've confused the social safety net for a hammock.

  • JD the elder||

    do you really believe most of these people have thought all the way through their participation in occupywallstreet and what exactly it is they're asking for? Or are they simply venting frustration with a government that is just plain stupid economically?

    No argument there. There's no question that the anger and pain are real enough. The main problem is that most of these people (like most people everywhere) are massively ignorant of economics, and they are looking for someone to blame. That's the scary thing. Unemployment is higher than it's been since the early 1980s, which was a time of much turmoil and reshaping of the political landscape. Now could be a similar time.

  • Tony||

    We have an entire political party, in power right now, who believe in the insanest bullshit you can possibly imagine with respect to economics. Can hardly blame average people for being ignorant on the subject.

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    We have an entire political party, in power right now, who believe in the insanest bullshit you can possibly imagine with respect to economics.

    Which party is in charge of the Senate and Presidency again?

  • Tony||

    You mean to say coalition building is more effective than preaching to the choir?

  • Michael||

    This is the people's sidewalk, dammit! We're the occupiers!

    http://occupychi.org/2011/10/0.....qus_thread

  • ||

    Yes, laugh at this all you want. It has been 3 weeks and finally Reason has responded....

  • sevo||

    "finally Reason has responded...."
    With laughter.

  • ||

    Slow news day...

  • Red Rocks Rockin||

    That's because the "I am the 99%" photos weren't posted until recently, confirming everything we ever thought about internet liberals.

  • kilroy||

    The OWS protest has more in common with these protests than the Arab Spring.

  • ||

    This is as stupid as those idiots that were protesting at the Lincoln Memorial by dancing and creating a public nuisance.

    ONly difference is that the voting block at the Wall Streets protests is probably twice as large on their own as the entire voting block for Lincoln Memorial Dancers. Rememer 2008. How did Obama get elected again?

  • GILMORE||

    Citytrekker|10.5.11 @ 3:07PM|#

    This is as stupid as those idiots that were protesting at the Lincoln Memorial by dancing and creating a public nuisance.

    ...

    No, its worse: the dancers were funny, and had a point.

    "Public nuisance"?...

    ...the irony is weak with this one.

    What would you want applied to their dancing 'public nuisance'? Tear gas? Arrest? Pepper spray?

    Because the right to dance is far more stupid than the urgent need to end capitalism, right? End capitalism, then we can sensibly regulate dancing... i see.

  • ||

    Rick Perry: A Manifesto

    REAL AMERICAN: I'm a real Texan farmer, unlike the last Texan that destroyed the USA. Forget the wars, i'm sure i won't start another one - depending on how many new orders my corporate sponsors need - okay just one new war...should we do the big one? North Korea...we'll see...depends.

    JOB CREATER: Vote for me and i'll convince all the banks to send back all their telemarketers and help line callers from India back to the USA to create more jobs.

    AMERICAN VALUES: Oil runs this country, Texas has oil, we will control oil and drill more, God bless.

    Well, the Wall Street protestors make some good points based on the article above, but i think Rick Perry is more convincing.

  • ||

    HEALTH CARE REFORM: OBAMAcare has destroyed this country and is illegal. Health care costs have been out of control over the past 20 years and Obamacare is to blame.

    SOCIAL SECURITY: It is a ponzi scheme and broken. There is no money in it. Even though it is solvent for the next 30 years minimum, we should take that money and invest it. If we then decide to make bad moves with the money and then it somehow disappears and we can only pay for the next 10 years, we then IT IS YOUR FAULT. YOU SHOULD HAVE SAVED FOR RETIREMENT. IDIOTS.

  • Bradley||

    There is no money in it. Even though it is solvent for the next 30 years minimum

    SS is solvent to the extent that the US government is. At this rate, that may not be for much longer.

  • ||

    I have Rick Perry's new platform:

    The USA GDP is the largest in the world by far, our military strength is 12 times more than our nearest competitors. We take half our nuclear arsenal and randomly assign a countries names to the nukes. We then threaten to annihilate the random country and say if they give us 500 billion per nuke with their name on it, we will decommission each of those nukes? This will only work for countries where our corporate interests have not planned on selling over 1 billion units, since the US consumer is dead and the real consumer of the future of america is not american.

  • Bradley||

    I hope you're not expecting H&R to defend Rick Perry. You're going to be disappointed.

  • ||

    Because the government has proven itself to be such a wise steward of other people's retirement funds.

  • ||

    MEDICARE: How do you expect the top 1% to make sure their grandkids grandkids can afford their own moon shuttles if you keep making us pay for some stupid city workers medical bills. Just because you decided to work hard all your life and raise a family doesn't mean you should just be able to keep your house and take care of your wife after you die.

  • sevo||

    Yep, grannies dying in the streets.
    How..................
    boring.

  • ||

    just because the govt FORCES you to pay into a horribly-managed scheme called Medicare is certainly no reason you should expect to ever get any of that money back.. THAT is the point you want to base your case upon? Please. Just say you hate rich people and ignore that most of the stuff you buy was made the companies they run. Peddle the leftist bullshit elsewhere. We pay plenty for "some city worker's medical bills". Some folks just think that worker should be contributing to the cost, too, unless he would like to pay a portion of our bills in return.

  • ||

    I want to stop paying for whatever road you drive on and hope that you hit a pothole and kill yourself, and then while your wife is crying for help and your kids are burning alive i want the Fireman that i am going to sponsor laugh at your wifes dying body and piss on your kids.

  • ||

    Then i want the carcasses of wareagles family to just stay there and rot, unless, it makes a good news story and the next of kin is notified by the 6:00 PM news that their family has died. Otherwise DONT TAKE MY MONEY TO PAY FOR YOUR SHIT

  • sevo||

    Hmm.
    Lefty propaganda with ALL CAPS!
    How............
    juvenile.

  • ||

    Yes, i am correct, it's definately The Simpsons comic book character. Do me a favor and say that with his voice and post a link, please?

  • sevo||

    "Yes, i am correct, it's definately The Simpsons comic book character."

    Somehow I have a feeling you're VERY familiar with comic books.

  • Citytrekker||

    Well, those four-year-olds certainly don't lure themselves into my basement crawlspace, goddammit!

  • ||

    This is why you don't get the point. Libertarians are not at all against people coming together to pay for things that help others. they simply demand that it is voluntary. You only make yourself sound like a moron here. I also do not believe that the government spends the money that effectively either, so there is no reason to view the government as this entity that one contributes to to show how much they care about society.

  • MattN||

    Citytrekker, I'd be glad to stop "tak[ing] your money to pay for [my] shit," but I can't... that's the whole point -- you're forced to subsidize me even though you'd prefer to not do so. The penalty for failing to do so is fines at a minimum, death at worst.

    See how that works?

    Moreover, to the extent that I partake of services that you help to pay for, I'm not taking your money, but rather getting whatever value I can out of the dollars that were extorted from _me_.

    But more to the point, your words betray a serious lack of understanding of the libertarian perspective. I'm not saying that you should _agree_ with any or all libertarian policies, but you should be able to confront the arguments without dehumanizing those who hold those views to the point that you wish them and their families horrible deaths.

    For example, to the extent that libertarians advocate market solutions, it's almost always because they truly believe that markets -- rather than government -- will solve a problem better, more cheaply, and for more people. That is to say, government actually creates more problems than it solves, and reducing its influence would benefit _everyone_. On the other hand, libertarians don't believe it's valid to use the threat of violence for their own gain. That is, even if a libertarian thought government might do a better job than markets at solving a particular problem or providing a particular service, they would be loathe to do it that way because of the inherent moral bankruptcy of using force to achieve ones desires -- or even needs.

    Finally, several of your comments rest on a severe ignorance of economics. Let me address a couple:

    (1) You presume that if there were no forced funding of roads, then there would be no roads or they would be falling apart. That simply doesn't logically follow. It presumes that government funding is the cause of roads... which isn't necessarily the case. Moreover, there are private roads for general use. They are paid for with tolls, and they are usually better quality and better maintained than state-funded roads. ON THE OTHER HAND, had there never been government funding of roads, AND government funding was in fact the causal link resulting in roads, and to the extent that atmospheric CO2 levels are in fact causing significant global warming, then it is your government-funded roads that are largely to blame for global warming. i.e. government has caused perhaps the biggest threat to life on the planet!
    (2) Same goes for medical assistance after an accident. The presumption that because government funds this service, a lack of funding would preclude the existence of the service, is simply not a workable argument. Post-hoc fallacy (look it up).
    Citytrekker, I'd be glad to stop "tak[ing] your money to pay for [my] shit," but I can't... that's the whole point -- you're forced to subsidize me even though you'd prefer to not do so. The penalty for failing to do so is fines at a minimum, death at worst.

    See how that works?

    Moreover, to the extent that I partake of services that you help to pay for, I'm not taking your money, but rather getting whatever value I can out of the dollars that were extorted from _me_. There is nothing inconsistent or hypocritical about this. I consistently vote for smaller government, but until that actually occurs, I'm going to continue to get value out of the system I'm forced to pay for.

    But more to the point, your words betray a serious lack of understanding of the libertarian perspective. I'm not saying that you should _agree_ with any or all libertarian policies, but you should be able to confront the arguments without dehumanizing those who hold those views to the point that you wish them and their families horrible deaths.

    For example, to the extent that libertarians advocate market solutions, it's almost always because they truly believe that markets -- rather than government -- will solve a problem better, more cheaply, and for more people. That is to say, government actually creates more problems than it solves, and reducing its influence would benefit _everyone_. On the other hand, libertarians don't believe it's valid to use the threat of violence for their own gain. That is, even if a libertarian thought government might do a better job than markets at solving a particular problem or providing a particular service, they would be loathe to do it that way because of the inherent moral bankruptcy of using force to achieve ones desires -- or even needs.

    When you use rhetorical tricks like the one you use in these posts, you simultaneously expose your ignorance of the opposing viewpoint, AND fail to reach the people you are trying to reach, because they don't remotely hold the selfish view that you think they do. Generally speaking, I think libertarians tend to be no less compassionate than any other non-libertarian group in general (perhaps more so). In fact, some libertarians explicitly predicate their libertarianism on the inherent compassion of their positions. See http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/ for some enlightenment.

    Additionally, several of your comments rest on a severe ignorance of economics. Let me address a couple:

    (1) You presume that if there were no forced funding of roads, then there would be no roads or they would be falling apart. That simply doesn't logically follow. It presumes that government is the cause of roads... which isn't necessarily the case. Moreover, there are private roads for general use. They are paid for with tolls, and they are usually better quality and better maintained than state-funded roads.

    Same goes for emergency medical assistance after an accident. The presumption that because government funds this service, a lack of funding would preclude the existence of the service, is simply not a workable argument. Post-hoc fallacy (look it up).

    ON THE OTHER HAND, had there never been government funding of roads, AND government funding was in fact the causal link resulting in roads, and to the extent that atmospheric CO2 levels are in fact causing significant global warming, then it is your government-funded roads that are largely to blame for global warming. i.e. government has caused perhaps the biggest threat to life on the planet!

    (3) "How do you expect the top 1% to make sure their grandkids grandkids can afford their own moon shuttles if you keep making us pay for some stupid city workers medical bills[?]"

    Putting the obvious sarcasm aside, no well-informed libertarian (nor even any rich person, I'd wager) has ever or would ever make an argument remotely similar to this, because it rests upon the idea of the economy as a fixed-size pie, where when one person gets a bigger slice, one or more people must necessarily get a smaller slice. That's simply not true -- the size of the pie can get bigger.

    Furthermore, even if a rich person did in fact buy their kids a moon shuttle, where do you think that money would go? Down a black hole? Of course not! It would pay the salaries and bonuses of the moon shuttle makers, it would pay the outstanding balances they have with their vendors, it would go into 401(k)s and IRAs and stock value and dividends (i.e. your retirement if you happen to work for the company or hold its stock)... and from there it would go into other uses... car purchases, groceries, insurance policies, home purchases, etc. etc. You should not fear rich people spending their money extravigantly -- you should embrace it!

  • MattN||

    CRAP -- that was annoying.

    Here's a non-mangled version of that post:

    Citytrekker, I'd be glad to stop "tak[ing] your money to pay for [my] shit," but I can't... that's the whole point -- you're forced to subsidize me even though you'd prefer to not do so. The penalty for failing to do so is fines at a minimum, death at worst.

    See how that works?

    Moreover, to the extent that I partake of services that you help to pay for, I'm not taking your money, but rather getting whatever value I can out of the dollars that were extorted from _me_. There is nothing inconsistent or hypocritical about this. I consistently vote for smaller government, but until that actually occurs, I'm going to continue to get value out of the system I'm forced to pay for.

    But more to the point, your words betray a serious lack of understanding of the libertarian perspective. I'm not saying that you should _agree_ with any or all libertarian policies, but you should be able to confront the arguments without dehumanizing those who hold those views to the point that you wish them and their families horrible deaths.

    For example, to the extent that libertarians advocate market solutions, it's almost always because they truly believe that markets -- rather than government -- will solve a problem better, more cheaply, and for more people. That is to say, government actually creates more problems than it solves, and reducing its influence would benefit _everyone_. On the other hand, libertarians don't believe it's valid to use the threat of violence for their own gain. That is, even if a libertarian thought government might do a better job than markets at solving a particular problem or providing a particular service, they would be loathe to do it that way because of the inherent moral bankruptcy of using force to achieve ones desires -- or even needs.

    When you use rhetorical tricks like the one you use in these posts, you simultaneously expose your ignorance of the opposing viewpoint, AND fail to reach the people you are trying to reach, because they don't remotely hold the selfish view that you think they do. Generally speaking, I think libertarians tend to be no less compassionate than any other non-libertarian group in general (perhaps more so). In fact, some libertarians explicitly predicate their libertarianism on the inherent compassion of their positions. See http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/ for some enlightenment.

    Additionally, several of your comments rest on a severe ignorance of economics. Let me address a couple:

    (1) You presume that if there were no forced funding of roads, then there would be no roads or they would be falling apart. That simply doesn't logically follow. It presumes that government is the cause of roads... which isn't necessarily the case. Moreover, there are private roads for general use. They are paid for with tolls, and they are usually better quality and better maintained than state-funded roads.

    Same goes for emergency medical assistance after an accident. The presumption that because government funds this service, a lack of funding would preclude the existence of the service, is simply not a workable argument. Post-hoc fallacy (look it up).

    ON THE OTHER HAND, had there never been government funding of roads, AND government funding was in fact the causal link resulting in roads, and to the extent that atmospheric CO2 levels are in fact causing significant global warming, then it is your government-funded roads that are largely to blame for global warming. i.e. government has caused perhaps the biggest threat to life on the planet!

    (3) "How do you expect the top 1% to make sure their grandkids grandkids can afford their own moon shuttles if you keep making us pay for some stupid city workers medical bills[?]"

    Putting the obvious sarcasm aside, no well-informed libertarian (nor even any rich person, I'd wager) has ever or would ever make an argument remotely similar to this, because it rests upon the idea of the economy as a fixed-size pie, where when one person gets a bigger slice, one or more people must necessarily get a smaller slice. That's simply not true -- the size of the pie can get bigger.

    Furthermore, even if a rich person did in fact buy their kids a moon shuttle, where do you think that money would go? Down a black hole? Of course not! It would pay the salaries and bonuses of the moon shuttle makers, it would pay the outstanding balances they have with their vendors, it would go into 401(k)s and IRAs and stock value and dividends (i.e. your retirement if you happen to work for the company or hold its stock)... and from there it would go into other uses... car purchases, groceries, insurance policies, home purchases, etc. etc. You should not fear rich people spending their money extravigantly -- you should embrace it!

    CRAP -- that was annoying.

    Here's a non-mangled version of that post:

    Citytrekker, I'd be glad to stop "tak[ing] your money to pay for [my] shit," but I can't... that's the whole point -- you're forced to subsidize me even though you'd prefer to not do so. The penalty for failing to do so is fines at a minimum, death at worst.

    See how that works?

    Moreover, to the extent that I partake of services that you help to pay for, I'm not taking your money, but rather getting whatever value I can out of the dollars that were extorted from _me_. There is nothing inconsistent or hypocritical about this. I consistently vote for smaller government, but until that actually occurs, I'm going to continue to get value out of the system I'm forced to pay for.

    But more to the point, your words betray a serious lack of understanding of the libertarian perspective. I'm not saying that you should _agree_ with any or all libertarian policies, but you should be able to confront the arguments without dehumanizing those who hold those views to the point that you wish them and their families horrible deaths.

    For example, to the extent that libertarians advocate market solutions, it's almost always because they truly believe that markets -- rather than government -- will solve a problem better, more cheaply, and for more people. That is to say, government actually creates more problems than it solves, and reducing its influence would benefit _everyone_. On the other hand, libertarians don't believe it's valid to use the threat of violence for their own gain. That is, even if a libertarian thought government might do a better job than markets at solving a particular problem or providing a particular service, they would be loathe to do it that way because of the inherent moral bankruptcy of using force to achieve ones desires -- or even needs.

    When you use rhetorical tricks like the one you use in these posts, you simultaneously expose your ignorance of the opposing viewpoint, AND fail to reach the people you are trying to reach, because they don't remotely hold the selfish view that you think they do. Generally speaking, I think libertarians tend to be no less compassionate than any other non-libertarian group in general (perhaps more so). In fact, some libertarians explicitly predicate their libertarianism on the inherent compassion of their positions. See http://bleedingheartlibertarians.com/ for some enlightenment.

    Additionally, several of your comments rest on a severe ignorance of economics. Let me address a couple:

    (1) You presume that if there were no forced funding of roads, then there would be no roads or they would be falling apart. That simply doesn't logically follow. It presumes that government is the cause of roads... which isn't necessarily the case. Moreover, there are private roads for general use. They are paid for with tolls, and they are usually better quality and better maintained than state-funded roads.

    Same goes for emergency medical assistance after an accident. The presumption that because government funds this service, a lack of funding would preclude the existence of the service, is simply not a workable argument. Post-hoc fallacy (look it up).

    ON THE OTHER HAND, had there never been government funding of roads, AND government funding was in fact the causal link resulting in roads, and to the extent that atmospheric CO2 levels are in fact causing significant global warming, then it is your government-funded roads that are largely to blame for global warming. i.e. government has caused perhaps the biggest threat to life on the planet!

    (2) "How do you expect the top 1% to make sure their grandkids grandkids can afford their own moon shuttles if you keep making us pay for some stupid city workers medical bills[?]"

    Putting the obvious sarcasm aside, no well-informed libertarian (nor even any rich person, I'd wager) has ever or would ever make an argument remotely similar to this, because it rests upon the idea of the economy as a fixed-size pie, where when one person gets a bigger slice, one or more people must necessarily get a smaller slice. That's simply not true -- the size of the pie can get bigger.

    Furthermore, even if a rich person did in fact buy their kids a moon shuttle, where do you think that money would go? Down a black hole? Of course not! It would pay the salaries and bonuses of the moon shuttle makers, it would pay the outstanding balances they have with their vendors, it would go into 401(k)s and IRAs and stock value and dividends (i.e. your retirement if you happen to work for the company or hold its stock)... and from there it would go into other uses... car purchases, groceries, insurance policies, home purchases, etc. etc. You should not fear rich people spending their money extravagantly -- you should embrace it!

  • MattN||

    OK, I give up -- I don't know why it keeps double-posting.

  • ||

    Safety comes from a clear understanding and execution of standards. This is true for roads. You cannot trust each state to build its own portion of a system that is supposed to work as one unit. This is a pure government purpose. It provides access which increases the defensive capabilities of the country.

    If you blame roads for CO2 emmissions and in turn blame the government, then you must also say that government has been the main driver of the economy in the USA in the past 70 years. WWII & the interstate highway created the modern economy in the USA.

  • ||

    And you people claim to believe in peace and love.

  • ||

    You can almost smell the hot metal odor of bloodlust coming off of this one.It's not about helping people, or even some misguided sense of social justice with someone like Citytrekker; it's all guns, guts and power.

    See how easily it slips into its pissing fireman fantasy, sadism and carnage are second nature to power hungry freaks like him.

    Would you like to kill someone, Citytrekker? Would you like power over people's lives? You could really give two shits about the poor, eh sport?

  • ||

    It's not a coincidence that most communist experiments have rapidly devolved into murderous police states.

    The rhetoric of hate and violence goes all the way back to Marx and Engels.

  • ||

    As history has shown over and over again, the more collectivist the ends the more murderous the means. I stopped thinking this was accidental or coincidental long ago.

  • ||

    There's obviously an infinite supply of medical services for everyone. No reason to think any of it will ever have to be rationed, ever.

    Immoratality for all!

  • ||

    Damnit ... I wrote Immorality, and was trying to correct it to Immortality.

  • ||

    Well, how else would one "be able to keep your house and take care of your wife after you die". Unless yer some kinda comic book reading zombie.

  • ||

    I love stupid talk like fake manifestos, the REAL truth really is that stupid.

  • ||

    Ooh - what a cute little Libertarian we have here.
    He's a spokesman for the "Greed Is Good" crowd -the 1% that is sucking up the wealth of other 99%.
    It's time to regulate the financial sector down to the size where we can drown it in a bath tub!
    Sound familiar?

  • sevo||

    "He's a spokesman for the "Greed Is Good" crowd -the 1% that is sucking up the wealth of other 99%."
    Yep, the economy is a zero-sum game; I got it, you starve. Well, at least we can hope.

    "It's time to regulate the financial sector down to the size where we can drown it in a bath tub!
    Sound familiar?"
    Very familiar. Brain-dead lefties spout the same nonsense regularly.

  • NotSure||

    Anyone who is arrogant enough to believe that they speak for 99% of the people is one of two things: the village idiot or tyrant at heart. In your case it is probably both.

  • Will Mruzek||

    I fear for the future of this country with the eruption of this movement.

    We need to educate them: http://pragmatocracy.com/2011/.....e-streets/

  • ||

    Will, that is not a good article.

    The housing market was not created by poor people defaulting on their loans. How do houses get built? Who does it and who pays for them? Who was investing in them? Did poor people say, "hey, i'm going to buy 5 units in that new condominum so that i can flip them right away?"

    Just more ignorance. The REAL truth is out there and anyone that says that poor people buying houses brought down the largest economy in the world is nieve.

  • sevo||

    "anyone that says that poor people buying houses brought down the largest economy in the world is nieve."

    That's nice. Now do you have any comment on the article, or just lefty propaganda?

  • ||

    Housing was over built. Hotels were overbuilt. This contruction fed the economy on numerous levels. There are thousands of trades that benefit from the construction industry. BEFORE poor people actually bought houses trillions of dollars had already exchanged hands, added to GDP. Little did we know that the economy was artificially being inflated because of a lack of job creation expected. Take away the Iraq war and the overinflated housing market and the USA would ahve been in a recession twice as bad as what eventaully happened in 2008.

  • ||

    The construction industry drives the economy. Anyone that claims they know anything about the economy knows that(reading this Mat?)Economists always say that, just watch Bloomberg. Yeah, we can look at iphone sales, and plane orders and consumer confidence indexes, retail sales, etc, but the construction industry is key. We overbuilt - too simple? Loam processors, banks, tree nurseries, nails to paint, count the hundreds of items in a house and trace it back to its origins. Everyone made money, and then we blamed the crash of the economy all on poor people?

  • NotSure||

    What brings any economy down no matter how big or small it is, is the belief that giving people something for nothing has no economic consequences. Believing "people before profits" and acting shocked that profits are not being generated. Believing that an American student with a sociology degree is more valuable than a Chinese student with an engineering degree.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    It was poor people being talked into buying homes they could not make payments for, Citytrekker.

    Arrange the syntax however you want... that's how I'm going to type it.

  • Tony||

    So if banks are willing to lend to people they have no business lending to, you blame the recipients for taking them up on it?

    Those people may have been opportunistic or even stupid, but the real stupidity was the banks giving the loans in the first place.

    That behavior was incentivized by a fraudulent accounting of risk due to the complexity of the financial instruments this risk was pooled into. Was that poor people's fault too?

  • GILMORE||

    Tony|10.5.11 @ 7:09PM|#

    So if banks are regulated into lending to people they have no business lending to...

    FIFY

  • Tony||

    You are LYING to support a theory that uppity poor people in the US destroyed the world economy. It is absurd and awful.

  • sevo||

    Tony|10.5.11 @ 7:30PM|#
    "You are LYING to support a theory..."

    Shithead, you are LYING because that's what you do.

  • ||

    Oh, poor dumb Tony. It's worse than that. Even if the lenders weren't coerced into making bad loans, even if they did make bad loans because of greed and stupidity (which I can get behind), WHO created that climate with monetary policy. WHO was taking on all comers wanted to sell those bad loans to get them off their books.

    Poor, sad, dumb Tony....

  • NotSure||

    Yes actually it was, sorry to touch your sacrosanct poor, but when they vote for politicians that declare housing a right, it actually has consequences. The poor should not have gotten the houses in the first place, banks got easy credit from where exactly, the free market, oh wait... actually it is government that produces the money.

  • Tony||

    You too. Government is at fault for allowing behaviors that led to system-wide risk, but banks were not being forced to make any loans they didn't want to. Government entities participated in the securitization game after the market invented it. The cash being shoveled into the pockets of bankers in this game they invented wasn't forced there by government.

    So I'm willing to say government was the entire culprit, in that it allowed too much risky behavior. Nowhere does it make sense to blame the poor. They didn't elect the politicians who favored unfettered behavior on Wall Street.

  • yup||

    Bzzzt. The banks made the loans because of the implicit understanding - made explicit in Greenspan's interest rates - that they would have unlimited liquidity from the Federal government. They took the risk because they knew Uncle Sucker would bail them out.

  • yup||

    And you're right, only rich people voted in incompetent Barney Frank to gloss over the Fannie and Freddie crisis, and to further encourage them to buttress a housing bubble.

  • yup||

    "Government entities participated in the securitization game after the market invented it."

    Epic fail, epic BZZZZT. Fannie Mae was created with the EXPLICIT PURPOSE of securitizing mortgages, waaay back in 1938.

    "We stand behind mortgage lenders – local and national banks, thrifts, credit unions, and other financial institutions in all 50 states – to securitize or buy the mortgage loans they originate, enabling them to replenish their funds so they can lend to other homeowners." From: http://www.fanniemae.com/porta.....t-fm.html?

    Fannie has been involved in Mortgage-Backed Securities long before Glass-Steagall was killed.

  • sevo||

    Tony|10.5.11 @ 7:34PM|#
    "You too. Government is at fault for allowing behaviors that led to system-wide risk, but banks were not being forced to make any loans they didn't want to."

    Shithead continues to ignore the obvious.
    When the coercive state *rewards* behavior with money, that behavior will happen, shithead.

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Yes, the banks WERE forced to make bad loans, Tony.

  • ||

    What about all the investors and new projects built and marketed to professionals that did not reach occupancy? What about the luxury hotels that were started and stopped in mid-construction? Was is "poor" investors that were suckered into building 5 star hotels? What about the condo buildings that have 20% occupancy that were going for 600,000 for a 1-bed? "Poor" people buying houses.....

  • ||

    What about half of Las Vegas being built in under 10 years and the dozen of projects that were3 planeed and failed, some started. Do you know there are 2 hotels in Las Vegas that look like they are completely done, yet they are totally empty? Who paid for all of that? "Poor people"?

  • JoJo Zeke||

    nieve.

    Better that than functionally illiterate.

  • ||

    Another person with nothing to say. Say that to my face when i tell you this story in person. Wait that will not make sense, just like you.

  • ||

    You know what I blame this on the break down of.....

    Society.

  • JoJo Zeke||

  • sevo||

    Linky no link....
    Did they give up?

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Let's try again. ;)

  • sevo||

    Got it.
    Satire couldn't touch this; sometimes, the jokes just write themselves.

  • ||

  • REAL OCCUPIERS OF WALL ST||

    WE DEMAND YOU STOP MAKING DEMANDS

  • GILMORE||

    Might we be able to use corporations for what works, and get them out of doing what doesn't?

    LOL

    the "use" was cute.

    because a committee of bureaucrats is *sooo* much better at allocation of capital than letting the market figure that out.

    http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/C.....SR#Results

  • KDN||

  • Angry Black Man||

    God I can't stand it when people refer to New York as "diverse", so what still the 3rd most segregated city in America http://www.huffingtonpost.com/.....3_New_York

  • NY'er||

    uh, diverse doesn't mean people all live in a fucking Benetton commercial/MTV 'Real World' episode.

    Its not like the poles in greenpoint, hasidim in crown heights, vietnamese in flushing, greeks in astoria, italians in bensonhurst, indians/bengalis in jackson heights, chinese in... you know... chinatown?, puerto ricans in spanish harlem, gays in chelsea, west indians in flatbush, etc are all bitching about how there's not enough *diversity* within their hoods. There are surprisingly few sit-ins at lunch counters around the area.

    You seem to think segregation when its *voluntary* is bad? Or is it just that until there's 50% black in every neighborhood, injustice endures?

    You really don't live around here, do you?

  • Fluffy||

    My favorite one may be "Outlaw all credit agencies."

    Because in practice that means "If Tony borrows money from Fluffy and doesn't pay it back, make it illegal for Fluffy to tell anyone about that."

    And these people think they occupy the moral high ground.

  • Tony||

    I better not see anyone singling out crazies to condemn the entire movement--if you bitched about that behavior with respect to tea parties.

  • sevo||

    Tony|10.5.11 @ 7:36PM|#
    "I better not see anyone singling out crazies to condemn the entire movement--if you bitched about that behavior with respect to tea parties."

    Shithead, where did you major in false-equivalences?

  • Tony||

    Did you major in anything, anywhere?

  • ||

    That wasn't a very good comeback.

  • sevo||

    "Did you major in anything, anywhere?"

    Yes, shithead, I did.
    Next question, shithead?

  • ||

    Ha ha.

    Theme of article: "Wall Street protests are unjustified".

    Number of times article mentions "subprime mortgage-backed securities": 0

    Number of times article mentions "deregulation": 0

    Number of times article mentions "lending fraud": 0

    Number of times article mentions "robo-signing": 0

    Number of times article mentions "ratings agency fraud": 0

    Number of times article mentions "appraisal fraud": 0

    Number of times article mentions the $316 billion in direct 2010 campaign contributions from Wall Street to Congress: 0

    Degree of interest article presents in discovering an accurate contribution dollar figure that accounts for Citizens United money flow: none

    Degree of cover article provides for Wall Street lending, marketing, packaging, influence purchase and its bailout: complete

    Number of mouthbreathing shills for big business found hooting approval in the comment section: dozens

    Number of persons on the streets utilizing civil disobedience against the system Reason.com endorses and protects: thousands and thousands

    Conclusion: Ha ha.

  • yup||

    Nope, this article isn't saying it's "unjustified", just that it's retarded.

    "Thousands and thousands"? Really? Maybe 3000 nationwide, oscillates between a few hundred and 1000ish in NYC.

    Orel Hazard's lack of reading comprehension: Infinity.

  • yup||

    And since when does Reason endorse the bailout and the federal reserve? Although, I get how you post: Make 1 or 2 comments vaugely relating to the article, then write a bunch of leftist non-sequiturs taken from The Nation, after you clean TEAM BLUE jizz off your face.

  • ||

    Nope, this article isn't saying it's "unjustified", just that it's retarded.

    Sense this sentence makes: none

    Nope, this article isn't saying it's "unjustified", just that it's retarded.

    Sense this sentence makes after reading it once again: still none.

    Nope, this article isn't saying it's "unjustified", just that it's retarded.

    Sense this sentence makes under any circumstances not involving profound THC intoxication: none whatsoever.

    Ways which defender of Wall Street-fellating article wishes to have it: both

    Ways defender may have it: only one

    Kind of shit that is: tough

  • sevo||

    "Kind of shit that is: tough"

    Kind of stupid that is oral horseshit: Tons

  • yup||

    ahahaha. Let me spell it out for you mouthbreather: Harsanyi isn't claiming that these protests aren't "justified" - i.e., that they shouldn't be criticizing wall street. He's pointing out that their specific aims/"goals" are retarded/don't have a lot to do with financial regulation. If you don't like the bailouts, fine, by all means protest - but not wanting government to give money to banks doesn't logically lead to "education is a human right/give me tons of free shit".

  • yup||

    Straight from Reuters: http://www.reuters.com/article.....0G20111006

    HOLY SHIT! 5000 people! Almost enough for a Jimmy Buffet concert! Those thousands upon thousands of soldiers for justice just will not be stopped! OMG OMG!!!

  • sevo||

    HOLY SHIT! 5000 people! Almost enough for a Jimmy Buffet concert.

    Hey, he's sort of last year:
    "The Toledo Mud Hens are pleased to announce that the crowd on Friday, May 14, 2010 established a new single-game record for attendance.
    A total of 13,200 fans..."
    http://www.oursportscentral.co.....id=4010071

  • ||

    Hm.

    First you said 3,000.

    Now you say 5,000.

    And we already know pro-big-business liberty pimps such as yourselves are congenitally full of shit, so we can be assured the real number is actually much higher than both.

    Higher than one nightstick can handle in front of a TD Ameritrade office, anyway.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded

    To recap:

    Leftists show up and get shit done while libertarians hang around on a petrochemical billionaire's pet website.

    Ha ha.

  • sevo||

    "Higher than one nightstick can handle in front of a TD Ameritrade office, anyway.

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded"

    Oh, oh. look! Oral Horseshit posts a video of cops misbehaving! And then claims that supports Oral Horsehit's horseshit "arguments".
    But of course, it does nothing of the sort, Oral Horseshit.

  • ||

    First you said 3,000.

    Then you said 5,000.

    How much is it now?

    Hm?

  • yup||

    I said 3000 as the daily, national average of all Occupy [x] protests. My exact statement: "Maybe 3000 nationwide, oscillates between a few hundred and 1000ish in NYC."

    It "oscillates" because people don't stay there all day - many come when they can, go home and night, only show up after work shifts, etc etc... This number is based on my own personal viewing of the NYC protests, as well as what I read - from both sympathetic sources and "MSM".

    The 5000 number from NYC today was due to a specific event during the "occupation" - a march joined by students and unions. This was expressed - by the protestors themselves - as the high-water mark for their cause: Now they have backing by MoveOn, students, unions, etc...

    However, these marches aren't planned for every single day from here out, and in between these large events, numbers in NYC tend to stay at about 1000. I hear there's a little less than that on average in LA, and most other cities don't get more than 50ish. So I came up with 3000 nationwide, on average.

    This is from the organizers themselves, on the very first day, September 17th: http://occupywallst.org/articl.....ll-street/

    "On September 17th, 2011, approximately 2,000 of us marched on the Financial District."

    If you read the second communique, you'll see that numbers dropped after that first day.

    Oh wait, I'm just trying to deflate the numbers because I'm SO SCURREEDD!!!!! Had enough shit-for-brains? I posted actual evidence - from both MSM and the protesters themselves. What have you done but conjectured and wasted breath?

  • yup||

    From the 2nd communique: http://occupywallst.org/articl.....ed-wall-t/

    "Before sunset 500 of us marched on the Financial District, where hundreds of onlookers joined us."

    After reading about the other cities, I actually will change my daily, average nation-wide estimate to 4000.

    So, to recap:
    -4000 is the average, daily nationwide estimate of Occupy [x] demonstrations.
    -The 5000 figure in the above reuters article was one specific march, meant to symbolize the "legitimacy" of the "movement" via the involvement of MoveOn, unions, students, etc... A mockable figure, far from the "thousands upon thousands" Orel ham-handedly suggested.
    -My sources are from the protesters themselves and the MSM.

    Fuck off orel you piece of leftist Chomsky dick sucking shit.

  • yup||

    Almost missed this gem: "Leftists show up and get shit done while libertarians hang around on a petrochemical billionaire's pet website."

    Yeah, they're really getting shit done. It's too bad none of them will actually vote. Fortunately, we live in a country based on rule by legislative process, not psychopathic "revolutionary" edict.

  • ||

    Where's Radley Balko on this?

  • Mr. FIFY||

    Did Orel say something?

  • sevo||

    Oral Horseshit delivers oh, so convincing argument:
    "Conclusion: Ha ha."
    Thanks, Mr. or Ms. Horseshit.

  • ||

    You win the internet. : ) fo real

  • ||

    Number of times "billion" should be "million" in previous post: 1

  • ||

    What a goddamn disaster you are Orel.

  • ||

    Yes, that really cripples my argument.

    No, stop. Please. Ouch.

  • sevo||

    "Yes, that really cripples my argument."
    What "argument", asshole?

  • ||

    I wasn't aware that you were making an argument; I was speaking generally.

  • ||

    Yes, that knocks down everything I'm saying. The whole bit about you hanging around on a enormously subsidized petrochemical billionaire's pet "free-market" website, high-fiving hit pieces on anti-corporate protesters: you sure addressed that.

    And the part where I show that you're helping provide the flimsy cover Reason routinely offers to the society's worst corporate abusers - yeah, you really disproved all of that. I see I'm wrong now: you've shown me the place devoted to "free minds, free markets" actually isn't a biased shitheap devoted to pimping liberty and freedom as smokescreens for covering big business's biggest crimes.

    Way to go. Really converted me, there.

  • ||

    time for some orel sex #winning

  • yup||

    What smokescreen is Reason offering? The one where they say the banks should not have gotten bailed out, repeatedly? The one where they constantly criticize and lobby against subsidies? Even the same oil-and-ethanol-industry subsidies the Koch's receive (thanks to Obama's stimulus and green jobs initiative!)?

    Fuck off.

  • ||

    Big Business' biggest crime was giving you a computer and internet connection.

  • ||

    All that you did was mention things that the article wasn't about in an attempt to smear.

    I could say:

    Number of times that article mentions child abuse by priests:0

    and it means nothing orel, Absolutely nothing. Additionally, your assertions don't count as any further evidence.

  • ||

    Deny all you want. Quote three week old numbers all you want.

    Doesn't change the fact that there are thousands and thousands of anti-Wall Street protesters in the streets. And the number is climbing.

    Genuinely grassroots protesters in serious numbers, not Dick Armey's flabby, illiterate Rascal-scooter pilots.

    All this while libertarians hang around a petrochemical billionaire's pet website, shitting on this development in the name of, get this, liberty. The same website that has protected Wall Street again and again and again for years and years.

    Hey, it's your life. You're the one who has to remember who you were and what you were all about when the whole thing hit the wall.

    We knew all along who you were: we read Reason.

    Ha ha.

  • yup||

    The Reuters article was from YESTERDAY you stupid fuck.

  • yup||

    http://www.reuters.com/article.....0G20111006
    "Wed Oct 5, 2011 8:57pm EDT"

    Yeah, we're criticizing all those people who want to completely nationalize banks, education, private property, etc etc... in the name of freedom. And sponsorship by Walmart funded-thinkprogress and corrupt SEIU - yeah, that's REAL grassroots.

  • yup||

    http://money.cnn.com/2011/10/0.....reet_park/

    Occupy Wall Street is currently "occupying" a private park, owned by the same property management company that gets tons of business from evil Wall Street firms. The fact that the park has amenities like power outlets - is because it is privately owned and maintained. You're right about the Tea Party mooching off Medicare/SS - but true to form, the OWS protests are only made possible by the largess of a large, PRIVATE company allowing them to use their land - including electricity that is not paid for by any of the protesters. Moochingdickheadchomskyietepieceofshitsayswhat?

  • Orel Hazard||

    I'm determined to make society pay for my daddy issues.

    Ha ha.

  • yup||

    If anybody is interested, Orel gets his Koch-brothers talking points from this ThinkProgress article (Thinkprogress, being a branch of the American Center for Progress, which receives large donations from WalMart):
    http://thinkprogress.org/econo.....h-welfare/

  • ||

    Say, anyone here ever heard the expression "whistling past the graveyard"?

    *cough cough Orel cough*

  • sevo||

    Number of times oral horseshit thinks:
    "Zero" should be "zero".

  • Larry David Sandwich||

    Fucking Freebaggers.

  • Nate||

    It's easy to focus on what we don't like about this movement. Hell, it's easy to paint them all as a bunch of typical leftists. But have any of you actually talked to any of these people? They bear more in common with the origins of the Tea Party than with typical socialists. Remember, it's the loonies that get media attention.

    What we need to do is unite with these people on common ground. We're both fighting the corporatist machine. Focus on those issues which we hold in common first, and worry about the rest later...the "divide and conquer" method has worked for the corporatists for too long.

    See here: http://www.reddit.com/r/occupy.....ormer_tea/

    And here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....Fz1VVXsWRU

  • Libertarian truth||

    You may be fighting the corporatist machine, but Reason is one of its premier mouthpieces.

  • ||

    corporatist machine: Definition, please?

  • Nate||

    As I define it, it would be the system under which corporations and the government work together to create legislation favorable to existing corporations. That can range from tariffs and entry barriers to more explicit means such as the TARP bailouts. This creates a market with less competition, fewer gains to the consumer, and little chance of survival for start-ups.

    From what I've seen of the Occupy people, they talk about being against pretty much that same thing. That's not really a far cry from some pretty mainstream libertarian positions. There are some that are trying to co-opt the movement into some sort of socialistic utopian movement, and time will tell whether or not they'll succeed and see this movement absorbed by the Democrats like the Tea Party was by the Republicans, but as it stands right now there's a lot of room for coalition building between the Occupy movement and libertarians. Rather than alienate them, we should work with them on the issues we share a common ground on. Prioritize that first, THEN fight about the other stuff. But from what I've heard so far from people actually attending these things, they want a lot of what we want: end the Fed, corporatist policies, socialized losses with privatized gains, run a balanced budget, etc.

  • ||

    Excellent post Nate. The lack of replies is telling.

  • yup||

    I guess I have to agree to disagree here. I can only ultimately offer anecdotal evidence from what I've seen/read, both personally and on the web. I'm friends with a few of the main organizers, who are committed leftists, 2 of them being self-identified marxists. I've seen, both personally and in pictures, Marxist organizations like the IWW participating in the marches.

    However, as that Stiglitz quote I posted below shows, maybe there is more diversity than I thought. If they do turn more focused on prosecuting for fraud/ending bailouts, then I give them my blessing. I have long since divested my business from the large banks. But my blessings ends at demands for nationalization and tax increases more than 5 percentage points, and at demands of a general sense of entitlement.

  • sevo||

    "You may be fighting the corporatist machine, but Reason is one of its premier mouthpieces"

    And, in your ignorance, I'll bet you thing that means something.

  • yup||

    Because Kock industries accepts subsidies from the government, anything Reason says is hypocritical and corporatist. Especially the articles criticizing subsidies and bailouts.

  • Nate||

    Reason is not owned by Koch Industries. Koch makes donations...as do we when we subscribe to their magazine. Should we not trust anything tainted with Koch donations? Boy, I hope if you get cancer the treatment you receive isn't funded by research paid for by Koch...that would be a little hypocritical!

  • yup||

    I was being sarcastic.

  • Nate||

    "You may be fighting the corporatist machine, but Reason is one of its premier mouthpieces."

    How so?

  • JoJo Zeke||

    Hell, it's easy to paint them all as a bunch of typical leftists.

    And whose fault is that...?

  • Nate||

    I'd put it on the more fringe parts of it. Michael Moore used the movement to get his face on TV, unions are joining up now, and that one guy's "list of demands" is being painted as representative of what everyone involved thinks. It's only a matter of time before they get absorbed by the Democratic Party, but as of RIGHT NOW they're not your typical left-wing hippies.

  • ||

    "What we need to do is unite with these people on common ground. We're both fighting the corporatist machine. Focus on those issues which we hold in common first, and worry about the rest later...the "divide and conquer" method has worked for the corporatists for too long.

    See here: http://www.reddit.com/r/occupy.....ormer_tea/

    And here: http://www.youtube.com/watch?f.....Fz1VVXsWRU"

    Exactly. The left may be trying to co-opt this movement, but that doesn't mean that most of the people in it agree with them. Desperate leftists just see this as their tea-party-answering salvation riding in to save the day, but we don't need to enable their delusions. What else are they gonna do? ...record unemployment, unprecedented deficits thanks to useless bailouts - they have to distract from the utter failure of their policies somehow; OWS seems like their last best hope to do it.

    We shouldn't let them.

  • yup||

    This is what Joseph Stiglitz said at a speech to the OWS crowd:

    Our financial markets have an important role to play. They’re supposed to allocate capital, manage risks. But they misallocated capital, and they created risk. We are bearing the cost of their misdeeds. There’s a system where we’ve socialized losses and privatized gains. That’s not capitalism; that’s not a market economy. That’s a distorted economy, and if we continue with that, we won’t succeed in growing, and we won't succeed in creating a just society.

    Gee Joe, thanks for the praise of libertarian economics!

  • sevo||

    Interesting!
    He does defend the market, and I'll bet it was lost on every one of the OWS crowd.

  • yup||

    What's even more interesting, is that with that last sentence, he's equating the "free-ness" of a market with a "just-ness" of society. It's completely topsy-turvy from anything else I've ever read by him.

  • sevo||

    "It's completely topsy-turvy from anything else I've ever read by him."

    Agreed on both points. And he did so in front of an audience organically opposed to those sentiments (and lacking a video, I'm guessing they didn't get it).
    Teleprompter malfunction? Freudian slip?

  • ||

    DoubleSpeak and the ability to say one thing to the masses and mean another thing to one's peers is the hallmark of the successful demagogue.

  • ||

    Who says anyone there is "organically opposed" to anything? oh, that's right, this article based on Fox News bullshit says it.

  • sevo||

    "oh, that's right, this article based on Fox News bullshit says it."

    Oh, that's right, stupid lefty invokes Fox News!
    Hey, stupid lefty, try a new mantra. It won't help your stupidity, but maybe someone as dumb as you are might believe it.

  • ||

    Number of reasontoids that don't know who David Harsanyi is : 1

    Number of sevos who get blue in the face and use puerile ad hominem attacks when someone call them on their willful ignorance : 1

  • That Skeptic Guy||

    "Number of sevos who get blue in the face and use puerile ad hominem attacks when someone call them on their willful ignorance"

    Now withstanding the fact that the only two types of argument you've utilized here were (a) ad hominem and (b) spam.

  • ||

    "Now withstanding the fact that the only two types of argument you've utilized here were (a) ad hominem and (b) spam."

    Regarding (a) you must not have read all my posts.

    Regarding (b) you have a funny definition of spam. I provided a link to *actual* demands being discussed by OWS to correct the misinformation in this article. In doing so, I did the author's job for him. He wanted to write about Occupy Wall Street so he went & copied pasted something from an internet forum where people post anonymously just like they do here in the Reason comment section. Lazy journalist is lazy, but anonymous reason comment troll asdkfjkwlejroij is not a spammer, TYVM.

  • sevo||

    asdkfjkwlejroij|10.6.11 @ 12:17AM|#
    "Number of reasontoids that don't know who David Harsanyi is : 1"
    Really? Who wouldn't know who that gas-bag is?

    "Number of sevos who get blue in the face and use puerile ad hominem attacks when someone call them on their willful ignorance : 1"
    I guess looking in that mirror must confuse you, asshole.

  • ||

    Oh, he's a gasbag?

    but he's not a Fox News gasbag who is associated with Glenn Beck's Blaze?

    I'm stoopidly invoking Fox News or am I schooling you on what a wonderful source of unbiased journalism this douche is?

    You don't make much sense, sevo. Where's that "logic" that you reasonbots esteem so highly? Yanno, the stuff that used to come with a college education (or some shit).

  • ||

    "David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Blaze. Follow him on Twitter @davidharsanyi."

    Oh, now THAT explains a whole lot. I knew you guys had Stossel on board but I didn't know you actually published pieces from douches associated with Glenn Beck. I'm gonna cancel my paid digital subscription to this rag now and just burn your bandwidth @ the website from now on.

  • sevo||

    "I didn't know you actually published pieces from douches associated with Glenn Beck."

    Oh, Oh! Asshole invokes hated name to, well, prove that asshole is asshole.
    Right, asshole?

  • ||

    asdkfjkwlejroij invokes name of self-described "rodeo clown", formerly of Fox News, who employs sevo-described "gasbag" author of this poorly researched Reason article that you been sitting here for three days applauding.

    Got it now?

  • ||

    "David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Blaze. Follow him on Twitter @davidharsanyi."

    Oh, now THAT explains a whole lot. I knew you guys had Stossel on board but I didn't know you actually published pieces from douches associated with Glenn Beck. I'm gonna cancel my paid digital subscription to this rag now and just burn your bandwidth @ the website from now on.

  • ||

    "David Harsanyi is a columnist at The Blaze. Follow him on Twitter @davidharsanyi."

    Oh, now THAT explains a whole lot. I knew you guys had Stossel on board but I didn't know you actually published pieces from douches associated with Glenn Beck. I'm gonna cancel my paid digital subscription to this rag now and just burn your bandwidth @ the website from now on.

  • sevo||

    Don't let the door hit you in the ass...

  • ||

    ... but he has his built-in echo.

  • ||

    that's right, I've got my trifold echo to keep me warm on those long cold nights

  • sevo||

    "that's right, I've got my trifold echo"

    Goody for you. Your assholery might do better.

  • ||

    aw, you are SO precious!

  • Skaught||

    Oh, it's totally GLEN BECK! Thanks! I knew I recommended that retardedly infantile sarcastic tone from somewhere.

  • ||

    Tarp! Tarp! Tarp!

  • AnarchoSyndicalist||

    What we need are sound alternatives to corporatism, the state, and capitalism.

  • ||

    ...such as?

    Your comment leaves little room for alternatives.

    For one thing, without a functioning state organization, a sense of anarchy would eventually run through the veins of society. That would lead to imminent chaos, and eventual collapse. Western Civilization would be on its knees, and that would be to the detriment of the global economy.

    For another thing, corporatism exists no matter where you go in the world. Where there is wealth, there is business, and environments suitable to conducting business. Whether or not corporations can have a say in how the country is run is dependent on which country to which you are referring.

    Lastly, Western Liberal Democratic Capitalism has dominated the global stage since the end of the Cold War in 1993. It has allowed globalization to spread at a rapid pace, and has allowed for the increasing interconnectedness of the planet. By most (if not all) accounts, this trend will continue into at least the forseeable future. Even communist countries like Russia and China are forced to bend their hard-line structures to capitalism to attract investment within their borders. While capitalism does mean that some will be poorer than others, I do not believe that it will be going away (or replaced) anytime soon.

    Very thought-provoking post though!

  • AnarchoSyndicalism||

    Anarchosyndicalism would be the alternative

  • ||

    This article is hilarious for so many reasons.

    For one thing, I love how it sarcastically mimics the letter sent out by Anonymous about shutting down the NYSE online.

    Coupled with that, I enjoy how the author exposes the mountainous hypocrisy which the Wall Street protesters espouse in excess quantities. The sheer short-sightedness is enough to make anyone wonder why those individuals are wasting their time.

    Honestly, it's about time that someone took the protesters to task on their public display of inanity. Bravo on a job well done!

    Chris Kasbohm

  • Skaught||

    After this, I would love to read your critiques of Dostoyevsky. So insightful.

  • MattN||

    +1

    [I don't think I've ever actually bust out laughing from a blog comment before; thanks]

  • ||

    How are Dostoyevsky's ideas similar (or not) to mine?

  • steve||

    Please tell me there's a "what we saw at ..." reason tv segment coming. Oh, the Matt Damon-esque answers to the questions would be so worth it.

  • Skaught||

    Is that you Herman Cain? The Kochs get more votes than us in this f-ed up democracy.

  • BeSerious||

    End The Fed! Reuter's: Europe market betting on future U.S. stimulus through our U.S. Federal Reserve!
    International Monetary Fund is going to re-route non-existent stimulus U.S. Federal Reserve dollars to bailout Europe market & trading, w...e taxpayers pay the interest on the debt because they draw it on our bank(U.S. Federal Reserve)! This is the biggest scam of all- The Fed & the IMF!! This is why our founding fathers were against a Central Bank! It was released on reuters.com 10-5-11
    Bonds fall on European moves, bets on Fed aid

    www.reuters.com/article/2011/1.....QQ20111005

    Betting on our future stimulus, bailing out world-wide banks! No way! End The Fed!!!

  • ||

    I'm for 'the cause' but how does ending the Fed Res tomorrow fix anything? Wouldn't it cause a collapse of world order? Just saying..

  • Christian Avenger||

    At least this crowd appears to be younger and more attractive than the almost exclusively white, middle-aged and above, over 250 lb crowd at certain other protests in recent memory. Have a blessed day.

  • ||

    At least this crowd appears to be younger and more attractive than the almost exclusively white, middle-aged and above, over 250 lb crowd at certain other protests in recent memory.

    So true; and the Hitler-Jugend was incomparably more photogenic than the Founding Fathers.

  • Christian Avenger||

    I am afraid I must disagree with you there, friend. Benjamin Franklin,was a dandy without equal. Have a blessed day.

  • ||

    guess you're from the South....(blessed day)

  • That Skeptic Guy||

    "At least this crowd appears to be younger and more attractive than the almost exclusively white, middle-aged and above, over 250 lb crowd at certain other protests in recent memory."

    You're referring to Jon Stewart's Rally To Restore Conformity?

  • ||

    "You're referring to Jon Stewart's Rally To Restore Conformity?"

    Now THAT was funny. See, who says we can't come together & unite for a common cause?

  • sevo||

    "At least this crowd appears to be younger and more attractive than the almost exclusively white, middle-aged and above, over 250 lb crowd at certain other protests in recent memory."
    Partial to smelly kids with a 'gimme' attitude, are you?

    "Have a blessed day."
    Stuff it up your butt.

  • That Skeptic Guy||

    "This is the fifth communiqué from the 99.9 percent."*

    *plus George Soros

  • Dave||

    The empty can rattles the loudest

  • sevo||

    I try to act like cartman from southpark and nobody likes me

  • sevo||

    Nice try, shitbag. No one is fooled.

  • ||

    Don't make fun of people who can't find decent work because their previous line of work has been outsourced by greedy corporations. Wall Street does not represent a "free" market, or even capitalism. At least, not to these protesters. It represents the tyranny of the corporations to manipulate the laws and the media in order to screw over the American People. These are not Marxists; they are concerned citizens who do not like the direction that this nation is headed in. Whether or not you agree, you must respect that.

  • sevo||

    "Don't make fun of people who can't find decent work because their previous line of work has been outsourced by greedy corporations."

    You're right. Make fun of them because they think it's 'not their fault'. That's a good reason right there.
    Oh, and those "greedy corporations" that would rather not go bankrupt? Those "greedy corporations"?

  • ||

    Quite selective in his criticism. Sees a lot of evil on the street but none on wall street. Waist of editorial space.

  • sevo||

    titus|10.7.11 @ 2:57AM|#
    "Quite selective in his criticism."

    From one not at all selective in his/her stupidity.

  • ||

    While I certainly don't agree with the downright socialist aspect of the manefesto, the anger per se of the individual protester is far from unjustified because anyone with at least half a brain knows that Wall Street far from innocent. I just believe their anger should instead be directed at this bloated monster called the government. They're the ones most responsible for all this grief.

  • ||

    <iframe width="640" height="360" src="http://www.youtube.com/embed/cZooDr36XHo" frameborder="0" allowfullscreen></iframe>

  • neocon supreme||

    All that cash in banks was printed by the war god Mars
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/rot.....rd239.html
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/rot.....rd163.html
    another masterpiece by glenn beck's polyp licker

  • neocon supreme||

  • neocon supreme||

    http://www.lewrockwell.com/north/north849.html
    also see: http://reason.com/archives/201.....l-delusion

    Five Polyps for supper
    Five Polyps for tea
    Five Polyps invested
    In Emperor, Me.

    Five Polyps to market
    Five Polyps in soil
    Five Polyps to bow down
    To Emperor, Koch.

    Five Polyps for gristle
    Five Polyps to see
    Five Polyps for worship
    Of Emperor, Beck.

  • ||

    lets try this again

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v.....r_embedded

    You kids might one day be curious as to why you were satisfied to smugly read the internet while they were being systematically sold into slavery...

  • sevo||

    Uh, that guy's a raving maniac: "Get Wall Street out of our universities"? There's enough in his rant to prove a broken clock is right twice a day, but nothing more.

  • ||

    Your for you.

  • Adam K||

    As a progressive with many libertarian beliefs, I've been reading Reason for years and even bought your best-of book when it came out 5 or 6 years ago. But after reading this antagonistic, straw-man garbage, I will *never* return to your site. The Chicago branch of the protest is located OUTSIDE OF THE FEDERAL RESERVE BUILDING and includes numerous libertarians protesting to end the Fed. You could have at least sympathized with the movement and gained progressive supporters of overlapping causes, but instead have chosen ridicule. With this attitude, libertarians are bound to remain obscure forever. BTW; in case you think I'm a Marxist--I'm not. I actively speak out against Obama (our worst president yet) and planned to vote for Ron Paul had he gained the support of the GOP. You have lost this reader. Absolutely shameful.

  • sevo||

    "You could have at least sympathized with the movement and gained progressive supporters of overlapping causes, but instead have chosen ridicule."

    There's a REASON for that. Progressives are ignoramuses.

  • FakePlastic||

    Harsanyi, you are among the 99% and profoundly misunderstand the Occupy Wall Street movement.

  • sevo||

    "Harsanyi, you are among the 99% and profoundly misunderstand the Occupy Wall Street movement."

    OK, explain it for us.

  • neocon supreme||

    movements like this are misplaced rage - just like the guys in the tea party who said "keep your government hands off my medicare"* - there is, in fact, a problem:
    http://lewrockwell.com/rep2/10.....onomy.html
    *if you believe they were referring simply to cuts in medicare required to finance Obamacare, read this:
    http://www.lewrockwell.com/spl.....think.html

  • J.||

    Ahh, more Personal Responsibility Crusade propaganda about how anyone who believes in social and economic justice or wants to do more with their lives than be a cog in one of our many multinational corporate conglomerates, or who understands that society and culture place true and real limitations and guidelines on the possible, is just being frivolous and immature. Instead of real critique of serious, systemic problems, we get ad hominem attacks about how all our social problems will magically go away if you would only *work harder*. Nevermind that American production and efficiency have been increasing steadily for the past decades, yet somehow wages never seem to keep up with the enormous inflation in education and health care. :/

  • Endif||

    Congratulations! You've won an honorary engineering degree from Bob Jones University for largest structure created entirely out of Strawmen!

  • HECM Calculator||

    A reverse mortgage is very different from the type of loan you might have used to buy your house—it actually bears more resemblance to a home equity loan than to what you might think of as a traditional mortgage. A reverse mortgage allows an older person to borrow against the value of their home.
    http://www.reversemortgagelend.....age-rates/
    http://www.reversemortgagelend.....gage-loan/

GET REASON MAGAZINE

Get Reason's print or digital edition before it’s posted online

  • Progressive Puritans: From e-cigs to sex classifieds, the once transgressive left wants to criminalize fun.
  • Port Authoritarians: Chris Christie’s Bridgegate scandal
  • The Menace of Secret Government: Obama’s proposed intelligence reforms don’t safeguard civil liberties

SUBSCRIBE

advertisement