The Future of the Occupy Movement
http://thedianerehmshow.org/shows/2011-11-16/future-occupy-movement
Occupy Wall Street activists vow protests will persist. Yesterday New York City police in riot gear evicted hundreds and razed the city of tents where some in the group had been living for close to two months. The Occupy Wall Street movement seeks to highlight income inequality and has inspired hundreds of similar protests around the country and the world. Most have been small and some have been marred by violence, but participants claim, despite evictions in New York and elsewhere, it’s an idea that will continue to gather momentum: Join us for a conversation on what the Occupy movement has accomplished and its future.
Guests
Jim Tankersley
reporter, National Journal
Michael Premo
participant, Occupy Wall Street
Legba Carrefour
participant, Occupy DC
Lawrence Lessig
professor of law at Harvard Law School and director of the Edmond J. Safra Center for Ethics at Harvard University
author of “Republic,Lost: How Money Corrupts Congress — and a Plan to Stop It”
Tyler Cowen
general director, Mercatus Center
professor of economics, George Mason University.
Comments
Please familiarize yourself with our Code of Conduct and Terms of Use before posting your comments.
But trying to force this progress artificially is not possible. We have to evolve, not be "led to happiness with an iron fist."
______
I am curious what Iron fist you are referring to?
People wishing to have more say in their government and what it does and how their lives are ruled hardly seems like an iron fist.
And I disagree. Progress is mostly artificially forced.
The reality that is the United States is a prime example of forced Progress.
People decide they don't like the natural order of how things are and make a change. Nothing more artificial than that.
People have the right to self determination. That is at the foundation of the principles of our country.
We can make our world in the best way we know how. That is why this is a country and our principles have stood the test of time and spread over the globe.
The American constitution has served as the biggest revolutionary force for change all over the globe and is largely responsible for the stability that has accrued. But the enlightenment principles have not been fully realized so the constitution is not done transforming things and more needs to be done.
The constitution is about people and their relationship to their government.
The self serving forces set against the constitution are great and corrupting.
The communists of the 1917 and until approximately the end of WWII truly believed that a man's nature could be changed. They deliberately exterminated the rich and the nobility and established a system under which, they hoped, a "new man" will be born. A man who will not care about the material things, a man who will have no possessions, a man who will be cared for by the government and give everything to the government. No money, no possessions, no unsatisfied needs, no inequality, no strife. A paradise.
----------------
Yep.... Marx's biggest problem was he didn't consider human nature.
I agree with you entirely.
But what the other leaders did was harness the worst of human nature to consolidate their own power. It had nothing to do with creating a new man.
So, private enterprise was punished, services portioned and regulated, rights for basic needs (home, job, medical care) enshrined as government's responsibility and any striving for more strictly prohibited.
Within years all production shriveled, food shortages appeared and the infrastructure crumbled: People did not have the incentive to work if everything was taken from them and only basic equal portions handed back by the government. All worked equal hours, all got exact same amount of money that could buy exact same amount of staples. Thus, the greed and inequality were eliminated.
Then the Military Communism era began.
-----------
What you describe is totalitarianism. The entire thing describes shrewd use of power in a vacuum to eliminate all threats to ones own power.
It has nothing to do with constitutional republicanism. As long as the constitution is in place such a thing will never happen here.
The OCCUPY WALL STREET MOVEMENT and the TEA PARTY are expressions of citizen action or reaction to perceived problems of our functioning democracy. They are channeling political energy for making a change. They are working within the system.
This seems to be something very healthy and I for one am really glad to see such citizen action. It has been a long time in coming and people are beginning to wake up to the fact that the American Dream is being destroyed by global corporatism.
The part where I diverge with the Tea Party is that they are assisting the further erosion of the American Dream and subjugation of American Middle Class by the blind corporate machines.
paikinator:
I actually agree with your several last posts.
I may have a few things to add/argue about tomorrow, but those are probably the minor things.
Good discussion overall, thank you!
BP, Massey Energy, Goldman Sachs, AIG, Toyota, and Johnson & Johnson have all provided
extraordinarily dramatic and shocking examples of big business failure and breakdown in productive function.
Some have argued that these represent “Black Swan Events,” but now more such as those in the street with “Occupy Wall Street” are protesting what they consider
serious and major defects and flaws in modern corporate capitalism.
There have been demands for more and better government regulation and it does seem such regulation
may be forthcoming, despite Republican efforts to kill government action.
However, please let me suggest that for capitalism to serve the public and
“to work” our future business leaders must be better prepared. We must call on our schools of business and finance to teach and emphasize the importance of social values and responsibility
and the critical role of “captain of industry.”
“Captain of industry” was a term originally used in the United Kingdom during the Industrial Revolution describing a business leader whose means of amassing a personal fortune contributes positively to the country in some way. This may have been through increased productivity, expansion of markets, providing MORE JOBS, or acts of philanthropy. This contrasts with robber baron, a term used to describe a business leader using political means to achieve their ends.”
We must have business leaders who
are “captains of industry” and whose character. commitment, and
vision extend beyond just maximizing profits!
Such leaders might model a great football coach such as Alabama’s own Paul “Bear” Bryant who played to win but also to protect, promote. and develop the INTEGRITY of the game itself.
Please see:
http://blog.locustfork.net/2010/09/alabama-football-coach-paul-bear-brya...
paikinator:
"I am curious what Iron fist you are referring to?"
It is a slogan that an unknown Bolshevik had created at the beginning of the Revolution in Russia: "We will corral the humanity to happiness with an iron hand!"
It has become since then a catchphrase among Russians, signifying an idealistic vision of communists that a man must be led to happiness despite his own (flawed) will by those who know better.
houblon, this is home for short sighted liberals who truly do not have a stomach for hardship or any discomfort whatsoever. They are incapable of understanding the sharp knives that await them if they were to get their way. Thank you for your efforts.
Quoting houblon: "The communists of 1917 and until approximately the end of WWII truly believed that a man's nature could be changed."
I agree that they were mistaken in this. However, this nature includes greed and, if allowed to go unchecked as the laissez-faire mentality believes, it becomes rampant and disrupts society. Your former country saw the consequences in 1917.
Fortunately, there's a mechanism for keeping rampant greed in check. Broadly, it's called civilization; in particular, it's called democracy. The Occupy movement was a long time coming but it was bound to come. Ironically, mayors around the country like Bloomberg have helped show why Occupy is necessary to give our democracy a nudge; they have demonstrated beyond doubt how the free speech of common people peaceably assembling is constrained, while the free speech of corrupt oligarchs showering corrupt politicians with mountains of money is unlimited.
Quoting monte: “this is home for short sighted liberals who truly do not have a stomach for hardship or any discomfort whatsoever”.
Sounds exactly like the description of those “haves” who, despite being taxed at their lowest rate in decades, squeal against the slightest hint that they might help their country if they paid more. Just cut everything (which translates to jobs - other people’s of course), just leave me alone.
mancuroc:
Alright, partial disclosure: I am an engineering professor.
What do I see these days around the campus? Throngs of students, who are in such fields as fine arts, psychology, international studies, women's studies, English, literature, history, theater, other humanities. Needed fields? Undoubtedly. But in what quantities?
Let me give you an example: In the US, the percentage of students getting their undergraduate degrees in engineering/sciences is 5%. That's right: 5%. The rest? Business takes about 20% and the rest are social science, history, education, psychology, visual arts, etc.
Let's look at the statistic of the international students' fields of study. Business is still around 20%. But engineering, physical sciences, math and computer sciences take 36%. Fine and applied arts? 5% total.
Did you also know that the number of all graduates in all engineering disciplines COMBINED (that is: electrical, computer, mechanical, chemical, nuclear, civil, etc) in the US is less than the number of graduates in psychology or social sciences/history or visual and performing arts and is approximately equal to the number of graduates in communications and journalism?
Did you also know that it is far harder for the graduates in these humanities fields to find jobs than for engineering graduates, among whom unemployment is around 4-5% (half the nation's average)?
So, to me, it is not the Wall Street that is the real reason behind the plight of OWS protesters. It is the protesters' choices in life that is the culprit. They do not want to not go to college and get vocational training, but they also do not want to get a really useful degree from college. So, they go to college in droves to be in fields that experience glut of graduates, then complain about the high debt and lack of job prospects.
And you sympathize with them?
houblon wrote:
" It has become since then a catchphrase among Russians, signifying an idealistic vision of communists that a man must be led to happiness despite his own (flawed) will by those who know better."
houblon,
It has been an absolute delight watching you handle the folks on this board today. You have completely encapsulated the view of the left ... no, better, the statist, in this country. They cannot accept the concept of inequality for anyone but them (the ruling class). Your very first post says it best. Every society has a choice to make; whether everyone is treated the same and the state is responsible for maintaining their standard of living, or each man is responsible for his own standard of living and has the opportunity to improve his station with his own work and ingenuity.
The health-care issue is the perfect example. The statists will maintain that they want everyone to have good health care, controlled by the state, and somehow, this will make healthcare costs come down. That's absurd of course. But the true motive has never been to get everybody good care, but the SAME care. You'll never be able to convince them of that - not when their motto seems to be is "you are entitled to my opinion".
But, anyway, thanks for doing yeoman service for the cause of freedom and self-determination today. It was fun to see the frustration it invoked. Does that make me a sadist?!
"Angry Pancho wrote:
Prof. Lessig, currently cut off from the discussion, is exactly right: the corruption is rampant starting with the bargain priced purchase of Congress"
Hey Panchito:
Did the honorary Prof. mention Obama. He was bought by the unions and left wing money interest. And there are big money interest on the left side.
ecgberht,
Thank you for the support.
The one thing I am absolutely terrified about is to see the US go the way Russia did. My rational mind tells me it cannot be so, yet when I hear familiar phrases about "right to a home", I get (perhaps, irrational) feeling of fear. I want to shout out "We've been through this!" I don't want to be given an apartment in the industrial zone. I don't want to be given a doctor with minimal qualifications whom I will have to see once a year. I don't want to wait for a government-appointed plumber for a week while my apartment in the industrial zone is flooded with excrement. Yet I know that it is precisely where this desire for government-controlled life will lead us.
Someone here is scared of a big bad capitalist who earns big bucks?
Try being scared by a government-appointed "troika" official, who will decide whether you will live.
(And, as it happened with my grandfather - the decision was negative).
"Rubybird wrote:
Is there a strategy being attempted to pit young people against elders?
Seems the two groups have many interests in common to me. I know of no senoir citizens who do not support education, reasonable student loan policies, and environmental policies suppoting clean air and water for those who come after us on this planet."
Rubybird:
That is partly true until they see how much it will cost them. They will even have second thoughts about young people expectationsl being that they (elders) struggle so much more and accomplish what they had on their own efforts not the taxpayer.
Houblon,
The one thing I am absolutely terrified about is to see the US go the way Russia did. My rational mind tells me it cannot be so, yet when I hear familiar phrases about "right to a home", I get (perhaps, irrational) feeling of fear.
------
I think you can be assured that nobody can go the way Russia did. First of all Marxist theory is a non-starter. In Russia it was used to rile up the masses that they could somehow have a life better than the one under the Czars. That was a pretty easy sell to a bunch of ignorant peasants. And it allowed another group of totalitarians to get into power.
The US does not even come close to being the equivalent of where Russia was at the time.
Firstly we have the constitution which pretty much has made our country and everywhere in the world it has truly taken root to be relatively stable.
As long as the constitution is in place we will not be taken over by communism since it is a flawed ideal that can't actually function. I hear this fear all of the time, but it is largely not based on anything which is actually happening now.
We won't have government appointed plumbers or any such non-sense because most people simply like the market system. By far the giant majority prefer some sort of market system.
We are in no danger of anyone Abolishing the constitution, taking over all means of production, or taking everyone's land. So in that sense your fears are unfounded.
ecgberht wrote:
Every society has a choice to make; whether everyone is treated the same and the state is responsible for maintaining their standard of living, or each man is responsible for his own standard of living and has the opportunity to improve his station with his own work and ingenuity.
-------------
Hmmm really????
Every society basically has 2 choices is what you are saying from what I glean?
That would seem to run counter to the hundreds of blended systems which comprise the governments of the world.
Even our own government is somewhat blended and it is by choices of the people over time that we got to the point we have. The changes in our country continue and adapt with the times and the desires of the population.
Black and white thinking is too pervasive in my estimation. In life there is little that is black and white when given the entire panoply of the human condition. The world is a complex place.
ecgberht wrote:
The health-care issue is the perfect example. The statists will maintain that they want everyone to have good health care, controlled by the state, and somehow, this will make healthcare costs come down. That's absurd of course. But the true motive has never been to get everybody good care, but the SAME care. You'll never be able to convince them of that - not when their motto seems to be is "you are entitled to my opinion".
------------
I know very few statists. What exactly is your definition of a statist?
Our society has wealth beyond any nation in the history of the world. The type of society we would like would seem to dictate taking care of our children the best we can, taking care of the elderly the best we can, and having a good health system which all citizens have some access to.
Other nations have various degrees of universal health coverage for their citizens and it has given them a competitive advantage. Germany and Japan come to my mind first. Japan's system is a government system ( hospitals owned by the government) which costs 1/2 as much as the US and many of their health metrics are far ahead of the US system. Germany uses a semi-socialist approach where the government offers a health plan but hospitals and doctors are privately owned. Their system costs only 75% of what ours does with better metrics.
The system that Obama has jammed in place relies most heavily on the private sector and actually has not really been implemented until 2014 so we don't know what it will do.
There is no mandate to force people to get the same care. Could you elaborate on what you mean by this?
paikinator:
"The world is a complex place."
It is a complex place, but I think you are confusing the decisions that we make with the considerations that go into the decision-making process. The latter may very well be complex, but the decisions themselves are not. In fact, I dare you to think about the decisions you made in your life and realize that most of them were quite simple - binary even.
Let me give you an example. You come to an intersection. There is a lot of factors to consider: Is there a streetlight? If there is - what color is it now? Is there a stop sign? Is is a 4-way stop sign? Are there other cars at this intersection? Did they arrive earlier or later than you? If there is not a light and you are unsure who arrived first - is the next car to your right or left? Do you think its driver sees you or is he too busy talking on the phone? If he doesn't see you - will you have enough time to stop? Etc, etc.
So, yes, the world is complex and there are many factors that go into your decisions every day.
But, in the end, the decision itself is quite simple: Do you cross the intersection right now, or not?
paikinator:
"Our society has wealth beyond any nation in the history of the world."
Sorry, but this is a very dangerous phrase. "Society" is not a person. It is not even a corporation. By implying that it has a lot of wealth you implicitly dilute the role of an individual (who actually has the wealth) and assign his wealth to a "common pot" of the society.
"Germany and Japan come to my mind first."
In my opinion, both are poor examples.
German health care is efficient because it is cost-effective. What is really means is that basic care is widely available and is cheap, whereas specialty care - especially such expensive treatments as heart surgery, or hip replacement - is not nearly as available as here and, in terms of quality, it is simply inferior to what people with good insurance here can have (as far as I know). So, if you are lucky enough to go through life with only minor ailments, then yes, German health care will be better and cheaper for you, in general. However, if you happen to need high quality care for a serious illness, then you are way better off here in the US. On average, of course, Germany wins in terms of cost and health metrics. But do you really care about the averages, or about your own chances for surviving longer?
Japan is a bankrupt country which had not seen growth in quite awhile. Their health metrics are better simply because of the homogeneity of the population and their diet.
Houblon:
In fact, I dare you to think about the decisions you made in your life and realize that most of them were quite simple - binary even.
------------
In the minutia of day to day things may be apparently binary. But we are not binary beings we are analogue and the complexity of the world reflects this. Biology reflects this.
The example you have chosen is a classically binary one. Traffic signals are not a great example of complex decision making and by an large people process all of what you detailed in less than a few seconds largely without thinking about it.
The result is entirely binary because a traffic signal is binary.
As far as deciding which health care is best it is a much more complex issue and largely tailored to the society. What works in Japan would never work hear, What works in china would not work here. What works hear is a very organic series of complex choices.
It is not simply a black and white thing is my point. It is not all or nothing... something in between. And it will evolve.
For now I think most people would agree that 40-50+ million people going largely to the ER which causes my families health care bill to rise is not ideal. Also since we spend double what many other top tier countries pay and get worse care over-all is indicative of a problem.
If it were just a problem the market could take care then it would have already been taken care of. But the issue is more complex than 'We need a total state run system or we need a health care system devoid of all government"
Neither of those solutions is pragmatic. Neither will happen in our country. We have to find the great in between where we take care of the problem (aka distortion) in our current system and climb back to the top of the heap in health care.
There is no reason we should have bad metrics since we have more money.... the problem is systemic and the system needs tweaking.
Houblon:
Sorry, but this is a very dangerous phrase. "Society" is not a person. It is not even a corporation. By implying that it has a lot of wealth you implicitly dilute the role of an individual (who actually has the wealth) and assign his wealth to a "common pot" of the society.
---------
Semantics
ok if you prefer.... our civilization has wealth beyond all other civilizations which have existed.
Or I could say the US has wealth beyond all other countries in the history of the world.
I don't really think it is dangerous. Perhaps it sends up red flags of society, socialism, communism for you.
For me the word has a different meaning and for lots of people it does. There is no danger in the word and it is like calling toast toast.
Madness does not need a reason but it often has a goal.
paikinator,
If you notice, I did not talk about a traffic signal. I talked about an intersection. It is a lot more complex than a binary traffic light. And, yet, the decision that you make after analyzing the scenario, is a binary one. It must be.
Houblon:
In my opinion, both are poor examples.
----------------
They are not poor examples. There are at least 2 dozen countries with largely better health care than the US. They have made their health care priorities and their businesses have a more stable foundation to work with. I don't say that the US should institute any of those other countries health systems, but there are pieces we could implement to become more efficient and cut our costs. Right now we have a race to evermore expensive healthcare and this will destroy businesses in the US.
In the US ... the attitude of we can give everything to everyone has driven the costs so high that they are now an escalating medical cost path. Giving everyone everything even if they can't afford it is just shoveling excessive burdens on the job creators in this country. It is great for the healthcare industry as they make more and more money and have a nuclear arms race by building more building, more wings, more beds, more treatments, more CT and MRI machines. Then we have to fill them to justify having them and this all drives costs where a simpler approach is actually better.
When I was a med student I felt that many procedures were done largely to pay for the hospital and its bottom line. This is just not a good approach and will end at some point.
We need to get healthcare under control or it will sink our economy no matter how innovative we are or how technologically advanced we are.
Japans health care system is not what bankrupted or contributed to the bankrupting. You are correct that they can keep their costs low because of homogeneity, but even with that, I give you that as an example because the approach to healthcare and good healthcare is not a black and white issue. In Japan at least an entirely state run system functions well for them. Wouldn't here in the US, but that was not my point.
paikinator,
"Or I could say the US has wealth beyond all other countries in the history of the world."
This sounds a bit like that story about a boy who had heard that London is a rich city and was very much surprised to realize that the streets in London are not paved with gold.
Wealth is not an attribute of a society or a civilization. When Madonna relocated to the UK and took her wealth with her - did that mean that you and I got poorer, as members of the society that she left behind?
paikinator,
If you notice, I did not talk about a traffic signal. I talked about an intersection. It is a lot more complex than a binary traffic light. And, yet, the decision that you make after analyzing the scenario, is a binary one. It must be.
-----
Perhaps it could have been binary... or even an erroneous assessment.
But Crossing intersections with no sign, or with a sign or intersections with lights is fundamentally binary.
Cross or don't cross.
Car there, or car not there.
Most people cross intersections without thought. It is mostly automatic after the age of 14 or so.
paikinator,
"Most people cross intersections without thought."
Without a conscious thought. But your unconscious still processes all of that plethora of information.
Wealth is not an attribute of a society or a civilization. When Madonna relocated to the UK and took her wealth with her - did that mean that you and I got poorer, as members of the society that she left behind?
--------
Really,
What is wealth attributed to?
The wealth of the US is attributable to whom then?
Didn't Adam Smith title his book "The Wealth of Nations"
Surely I am not the only one who looks at societies, countries, nations and assesses the overall wealth of them.
As to the boy going to London and not finding gold streets. All that shows is a lack of proper education which reflects more on the fantasies of a child and the negligence of his elders.
I believe, in disagreement with some of the comments below, that the spirit and the energy of OWS is great. For the first time in a long time, some have the courage to speak out against the wrongs of our government. Without such protest, nothing will change. However, I also believe that Lawrence Lessig is one of the (if not THE) clear voices about our current situation and, as I listened to this broadcast, I found myself wishing that the OWS panelists would just sit quietly on their idealism long enough to listen to this man's intelligence. As with most movements you follow on the internet, OWS began with a surge of indignation against wrongs - REAL WRONGS - in our society. But the indignation is vast and the ideas about it's source myriad. And soon the movement is riddled with factions inside, the disgruntled who don't think they're being heard, and the aggressive who insist that the only way to change is with violent revolution. There are far too many things to attend to and we cannot take care of everything in one fell swoop. What Lessig is trying valiantly to say to everyone is that we are unlikely to be able to take care of ANYTHING until the government is back in the hands of the People where it should be. The forces who control out government are strong and will not take our efforts lying down. Look at what has already happened in Oakland and in New York. The politicians and the controlling corporations will fight - and fiercely. It is my belief that Lessig can show the way. It is my wish that everyone in OWS would take the time to sit down and read REPUBLIC, LOST, reflect on its content, and then apply its principles to the OWS movement. That would be an UNBEATABLE COMBINATION, a force to be reckoned with. I am grateful to Lessig for continuing to try and to Diane Rehm for providing the forum for these issues to be heard.
Without a conscious thought. But your unconscious still processes all of that plethora of information.
-----------------
hmmmm perhaps we have fallen down the sink hole of arguing minutia and semantics on this one.
Obviously lots of processes are going on in our Analogue brain. If we were binary, we could come to the same thing through a series of binary decisions. But our brains are more nuanced.
What I say is that your example is fundamentally a binary choice.
Cross the street or not.
Many of the decisions of our life are binary, but most binary decisions are also relegated to simple unconscious decisions. I want that coffee this morning or I don't.
I will put my coat on or I won't.
three comments of mine that did not make it through yesterday. Is there a problem with your filter?
At the LA Occupy Wall Street Teach In. Professor William Black focused on why not one person who brought the US economy to the brink has been prosecuted? He said that during the Savings and Loan debacle they made 10,000 criminal referrals and over 1000 individuals were prosecuted.
Will the Occupy Wall Street take up the lack of prosecutions in a serious way? Where is the Department of Justice?
Mayor Bloomberg sent the NYC police to arrest and prosecute the wrong people