Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Actually, the value of that home isn't really that much: It's worth $915,000, which may be a lot for Michigan, but it's not that much in NYC. I'm sure a lot more than 1% of NYC residents live in $1,000,000 + homes (I'm not saying that it's a very large percentage, but definitely more than 1%)
We live in the United States of Amnesia. This protest will fade away. Some major event will happen and this will take the backburner. Unless, the protest turn violent.
Big banks, Corporations and Politicians are in bed with each other. The protest will not achieve anything. I see the political debates to be pro-little guy, anti-big banks/corporations (since this is what is IN), etc. As soon as, the new president/senators/congressman enters office they will develop amnesia and forget their promises.
As long as people are unemployed, afraid to lose their jobs or are being foreclosed upon, then people and politicians will not forget. I agree with your assessment that banks, corporations and politicians all influence each other--and that is not *always* a bad thing. However, things always change when the consequences of one sided policy decision start to bear fruit.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sith Klato
My point is that Wall Street is integrated with a lot of different types of businesses. If you're against wall street than you're against Apple, Microsoft, Mc Ds, Time Warner, etc. Since all those companies conduct business with financial companies.
If you want to affect the big banks/corporations then:
Stop buying products that are not NECESSATIES. Forget the new iphone, ipad, droid, tv, etc. Every major corporation deals with an aspect of wall street.
Stop shopping from major corporations instead buying locally.
Limit or refrain from luxury entertainment. Eg - Movies, Sports events, etc. Instead travel domestically or internationally since it will open your mind and you get to see the world.
Limit your investing
Put your money in a local bank
You are making too wide of a generalization here I believe. What does it mean to be "against" Wall street? Do you believe that the protesters and the people who support them want to end trading activities in the financial district? That is not the case. I hope that Wall street flourishes and makes tons of money for investors and fuels the economy. However, government policies have allowed these institutions to malfunction and engage in very risky and damaging activities. It has gotten to the point that a company can go bankrupt, receive a bailout and yet still pay executives millions upon millions of dollars to retain their "talent". Income distribution has become skewed to a lucky small minority of people who live very extravagantly while the middle class shrinks. These are very bad developments.
As for the companies whose stocks are traded on the exchanges, no one wants to shut them down. It is not necessary to boycott their products (unless they are harmful to the environment, or produced by slaves).
A revolution does not need to happen here--we need some much needed tweaks to our system and I think life will improve substantially over time.
Actually, the value of that home isn't really that much: It's worth $915,000, which may be a lot for Michigan, but it's not that much in NYC. I'm sure a lot more than 1% of NYC residents live in $1,000,000 + homes (I'm not saying that it's a very large percentage, but definitely more than 1%)
That is his home probably to get of paying NYC taxes. He owns a penthouse in Manhattan, too.
As long as people are unemployed, afraid to lose their jobs or are being foreclosed upon, then people and politicians will not forget. I agree with your assessment that banks, corporations and politicians all influence each other--and that is not *always* a bad thing. However, things always change when the consequences of one sided policy decision start to bear fruit.
You are making too wide of a generalization here I believe. What does it mean to be "against" Wall street? Do you believe that the protesters and the people who support them want to end trading activities in the financial district? That is not the case. I hope that Wall street flourishes and makes tons of money for investors and fuels the economy. However, government policies have allowed these institutions to malfunction and engage in very risky and damaging activities. It has gotten to the point that a company can go bankrupt, receive a bailout and yet still pay executives millions upon millions of dollars to retain their "talent". Income distribution has become skewed to a lucky small minority of people who live very extravagantly while the middle class shrinks. These are very bad developments.
As for the companies whose stocks are traded on the exchanges, no one wants to shut them down. It is not necessary to boycott their products (unless they are harmful to the environment, or produced by slaves).
A revolution does not need to happen here--we need some much needed tweaks to our system and I think life will improve substantially over time.
Then we should occupy the White House and Congress and not wall street.
Then we should occupy the White House and Congress and not wall street.
Protesting in front of the White House and Congressional buildings is a great idea. However, part of this protest is about accountability and making a direct statement to the finance industry itself.
It's easy for a banking executive to chuckle and change the channel when a story comes on about protesters in front of the White house. It is not easy at all to ignore hundreds or thousands of people camped out near his office. There is something to direct contact and experience that is much more effective at communicating a message.
If you're not making a 6 or 7 figure salary--you have more in common with the protesters than you may care to admit. They want you to have at least the *opportunity* to have health care, affordable housing, and a job that pays enough to support your family and provide some modest luxuries. Why is that such a bad thing? Isn't that worth speaking our for?
Protesting in front of the White House and Congressional buildings is a great idea. However, part of this protest is about accountability and making a direct statement to the finance industry itself. ?
Washington DC makes the law which corporations run their businesses with so if you want change we need to occupy DC. A big bank/corporation can buy a congressman/president to pass a law that would benefit them.
Quote:
Originally Posted by barkomatic
It's easy for a banking executive to chuckle and change the channel when a story comes on about protesters in front of the White house. It is not easy at all to ignore hundreds or thousands of people camped out near his office. There is something to direct contact and experience that is much more effective at communicating a message.?
There doing the same thing with these occupy wall street protesters. It's an inconvience but they could care less. The cops are there to protect them from the protesters.
If you're not making a 6 or 7 figure salary--you have more in common with the protesters than you may care to admit. They want you to have at least the *opportunity* to have health care, affordable housing, and a job that pays enough to support your family and provide some modest luxuries. Why is that such a bad thing? Isn't that worth speaking our for?
I understand what they're doing but i believe they're going about it in the wrong way. If you want change we need to fix the government.
Washington DC makes the law which corporations run their businesses with so if you want change we need to occupy DC. A big bank/corporation can buy a congressman/president to pass a law that would benefit them.
Yes, of course they know that. So many protests take place in D.C. that they just meld together. How many Million person marches have taken place? This one is unique and you can't argue with the result--daily media coverage and celebrity endorsement. I'd say the message is getting out.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Sith Klato
There doing the same thing with these occupy wall street protesters. It's an inconvience but they could care less. The cops are there to protect them from the protesters.
Hey, I think this is great. Drinking champagne while people huddle in tents below just plays into the protesters mission. It makes these people look arrogant and insensitive to whats going on with rank and file citizens. Smarter executives are absolutely cringing at this video because its horrible PR for an industry already struggling with a poor public image.
I understand what they're doing but i believe they're going about it in the wrong way. If you want change we need to fix the government.
Nope, this is a *part* of doing it *the right way*. Do you think women would have gained the right to vote without protests or that the civil rights movement would have occurred if people just stayed home?
Yes, of course they know that. So many protests take place in D.C. that they just meld together. How many Million person marches have taken place? This one is unique and you can't argue with the result--daily media coverage and celebrity endorsement. I'd say the message is getting out.
How many Million person marches have taken place? And what happens..usually nothing. Sitting in a park while not fix anything. The news are covering this instead of informing the public of laws that are being passed in congress which affect all of us. Daily news coverage of crimes, rapes, robbery and drug use in OWS. I would not be suprise if CIA operatives are or have infiltrated or running OWS. Giving people the illusion that their voices matter.
Hey, I think this is great. Drinking champagne while people huddle in tents below just plays into the protesters mission. It makes these people look arrogant and insensitive to whats going on with rank and file citizens. Smarter executives are absolutely cringing at this video because its horrible PR for an industry already struggling with a poor public image.
Not really. Executives are probably disgusted in how these protesters are protesting. THere is already a lot of bad PR regarding the OWS. (rape, assualt, robberies, defecation, quality of life issues, etc)
"horrible PR for an industry already struggling with a poor public image" What? Do you know how many kids are majoring in accounting, finance, management science, etc. Can't hate the players you have to hate how the game is set-up. If i could be one of the 1%, i would.
Quote:
Originally Posted by barkomatic
Nope, this is a *part* of doing it *the right way*. Do you think women would have gained the right to vote without protests or that the civil rights movement would have occurred if people just stayed home?
Doing it the right way would be to boycott their products and services since hitting them in their wallets ($$) is the only way to affect the big banks/corporations. People want change but they don't want to change themselves.
It has actually become a tourist attraction. People have never seen a tent city in Manhattan.
So in a way, it's become an economic booster for NYC.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
