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.
Regarding the last sentence, yeah, I don't think you quite understand the math, but when you give away 99%, or even "99+"%, of 76 billion dollars...his kids may in fact be super-wealthy. If he keeps .01% of his wealth, his kids will be wealthy, and in my opinion, "super-wealthy". All this because he happened to be in the right place at the right time (read "Outliers" by Malcolm Gladwell for more information about Gates' luck...the 10,000 hour rule chapter specifically).
I am not exactly sure if I would consider Gates truly an "outlier" with the 10,000 hours of practice but you are right. The better example with that rule are athletes, actors and musicians. The more often you do things, the better you get at it. Michael Jordan became a good basketball player because he played every night in his driveway shooting free-throws. The Beatles became a great band by playing the Hamburg, Germany club scene for several years even before breaking it big in England.
Media did not cover it well because the owners of the media were not fond of the message.
It didn't turn into a tea party movement because no one dropped 100's of millions into forming a political movement. The current Tea party in my opinion is a corporate funded construct.
The thing is though....its message REALLY did strike a nerve, both with the 99%, and the 1%. This was a warning that this issue is not going to go away, its just going to get worse.
Location: East of Seattle since 1992, 615' Elevation, Zone 8b - originally from SF Bay Area
44,585 posts, read 81,206,701 times
Reputation: 57821
very simply that movement is not the 99%. If each big city has 2,000 protesters, it would amount to about 3/10 of one percent. Of those, most were in it for the fun of causing trouble. The hard working people that are in the 98.7% were inconvenienced and annoyed by the protests, there was no real public support.
At our May Day March last Thursday the Occupy Seattle people could barely muster a few hundred (10 arrested).
We all know the famous slogan of the occupy movement. The argument is that the movement represents the 99%. There was a lot of buzz in the media. Finally the 99% had their own "tea party movement".
So why the OWS began after the tea party and ended earlier? Why didn't the American public pour more support to OWS? Where did the 99% go?
A lot of people who were involved have gotten involved in projects, but they aren't running for political office. some things that have come out of it are groups that are developing new types of banks or financing methods. also it started a larger conversation on income inequality which has spawned the local movement on changes to minimum wage. just because it's not as in your face or extreme as the tea party candidates who run for office doesn't mean it's gone away.
it took a while for the media to pay any attention to it in the beginning, then when they did, they focused on people camping out instead of the mini projects people were working on, and now they all act like it has vanished. it's still a movement, it's just not a vocal in your face movement. and it's not just in the united states either.
So why the OWS began after the tea party and ended earlier? Why didn't the American public pour more support to OWS? Where did the 99% go?
Because the OWS "movement" was largely comprised of disenchanted uni students living off daddy's trust fund, and they either finally woke up to the hypocrisy they were spewing, or were told to get back to class unless they wanted to find themselves on the cold, hard streets. "Real" people that may have provided fuel for the OWS movement in its early stages can only hang out in parks for so long before they need to start making money to support their families.
Seriously... You simply cannot fight any kind of battle without money, and having no money was the cornerstone that OWS was built on in the first place. As such, how long would you expect such a flimsy house of cards to stand for?
1) No money to be made off of it. The Tea Party has survived because it has tapped into deep-set hatred, bigotry, and ignorance, and there's a lot of money to be made off of that. Of course, that all happened after the Tea Party was bought up by corporate interests. Keep in mind that the Tea Party was originally started as a protest against corporate Bailouts in late 2008. Funny how it is how now morphed into a pro-corporate movement... all thanks to corporations buying up the Tea Party while still convincing people it is a "grass roots" movement by "real 'mericans!" Even if OWS did represent 99% of the people, nobody cares if there's no money to be made from them.
2) Bad behavior: We all saw scenes of OWS protesters leaving behind total messes where they were located, which didn't sit well with the public. Some of this may have come about from people being planted in the OWS movement to make a mess, but it still looked bad.
3) Lack of a clear message: No sane person can deny the absurd influence of the elite in this nation, or that the rich are growing richer while the middle class vanishes. Unfortunately, while those are statements of fact, it is not a policy on which one can act. That was part of where OWS hit the wall. You could ask them what was wrong, but when it came to a solution, they ranged from logical to crazy, and (of course) the powers that be focused on the crazies to discredit the movement.
4) "I've got mine, so to heck with you!" This is now one of the driving ideas in America, and when the OWS people brought up valid points regarding economic injustice, all that did was enrage people who declared them all "lazy" and brought up useless stories about how "back in my day, I worked 60 hours a week at the steel mill, so you people are bums if you're not willing to do the same." Nevermind that the steel mill is long gone, as are countless other good jobs, no - it's clearly the fault of the unemployed if they are out of work. This ties into the Just World Fallacy which dominates American thinking. In short, far too many Americans honestly believe that "everyone gets what they deserve in life." This insane Just World viewpoint is used to bash the poor and unemployed and worship the rich. Obviously, the rich support it since it allows them to claim they "deserve" their wealth, and far too many people buy into it. So, valid discussions about economic problems fall on deaf ears because in the eyes of a Just World loon, the world is always exactly as it should be.
Nice overview, Rambler.
I'd like to add to that.
A. My impression is that OWS hoped for a serious ongoing commitment, devoting much more time than the TP, thus making it harder to be a dedicated participant. That in turn led to the probability that people at sit-ins would be unemployed, and opened the door to a scruffier bunch of people.
B. I think that OWS was attacked and harassed by law enforcement to a far greater degree than the TP people. I also suspect they were infiltrated.
C. Although I think the seeming lack of a clear message was actually a brilliant idea - it made it harder for conservatives to attack - it also fed into the disorganization. Remember, traditionally, liberals are far more open to ideas and how they're expressed. Right-wingers tend to be much more narrow and regimented and on-message.
D. It seemed to me that OWS got much worse treatment in the media. The TP events may have been slightly mocked but were overall covered more respectfully. The OWS coverage was far more negative.
We all know the famous slogan of the occupy movement. The argument is that the movement represents the 99%. There was a lot of buzz in the media. Finally the 99% had their own "tea party movement".
So why the OWS began after the tea party and ended earlier? Why didn't the American public pour more support to OWS? Where did the 99% go?
When reports asked "What do they want Changed?" They had NO Clear answer! They had no Clear message. They had No Leader! I was so happy when they started protesting but I quickly knew they were a lost cause when I saw they had charismatic Leader!
Because the OWS "movement" was largely comprised of disenchanted uni students living off daddy's trust fund, and they either finally woke up to the hypocrisy they were spewing, or were told to get back to class unless they wanted to find themselves on the cold, hard streets. "Real" people that may have provided fuel for the OWS movement in its early stages can only hang out in parks for so long before they need to start making money to support their families.
Seriously... You simply cannot fight any kind of battle without money, and having no money was the cornerstone that OWS was built on in the first place. As such, how long would you expect such a flimsy house of cards to stand for?
This is a good point, and one thing which seems to have been forgotten is this Occupy movement is almost to the letter the Poor Peoples Campaign Martin Luther King had organized right before his death (and perhaps finally got him killed). There were people camped out for weeks on the National Mall after his assassination, but it quickly fizzled without his presence. And he raised money for it to happen (thanks to Harry Belafonte & others), and it still occurred after his death thanks to donations which poured in from mourners.
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.
