Occupy Wall Street - Spreading. Check your town.

[Silas]

A stock is a portion of ownership in a company. If I have X% of a corporation's stock, then by definition I have X% ownership of that corporation. So why wouldn't I expect to see X% of the corporation's profit? If I manage to buy all of Corporation Z's stock, I now own Corporation Z. All of it. So why can't I do whatever I want with the thing that I entirely own?

I'm still catching up on this thread, but I can address this particular point. Even if you own every outstanding share of a corporation, you can't direct the corporation's assets for your own personal use, for reasons originating in tax and liability law. You can hire yourself, for whatever salary you choose, or issue a dividend in whatever amount you choose (subject to some limitations to keep you from cheating your corporation's creditors), but if you spend the corporation's money as if it were your own, you may risk losing its protected limited-liability. If you do, and the corporation incurs debts it can't pay, you may be on the hook for them.

[Okita]

Sort of an attempt at a re-rail even if this is on topic...

After work today I went down to Wall Street to go investigate the protest. What follows are my impressions. I only spent an hour listening and talking to people so it's only first impressions.

Spoiler:

Zucotti Park isn't that big of a place. It's a good size for a city farmer's market or maybe a quartet to play some Mozart while office workers listen towith their lunch. Edit: What, didn't you know office workers get their advice from their sammiches?

Currently it's holding something like 300-400 people. Maybe less, maybe more. I'm not that amazing with estimation. Maybe 5-10% of that number are people just poking around (workers after-hours like myself) or journalists scoping the gig. To be fair, this was around 6-7pm. Perhaps there were commuting protesters who went home. There's food, airbeds, music, and mattresses. People are all about doing various things (mostly listening to the music). I saw a whole bucket full of corn which I found hilarious because there didn't seem to be any way to cook it... There's some organization but mostly as loose collaborations. A group of people decide to collaborate on a subject and talk about it. Someone I spoke to quoted Friday as a day for a list of demands. Others stated their own demands to me/ journalists in the area. I've heard things ranging from encouraging maglev trains to punishing corporations and CEO's. Not much finance talk although there's an actual finance group floating around somewhere (presumably though they are handling donations as opposed to discussing real finance).

Honestly, the place is what I would imagine a hipster commune to be like. Or maybe a college campus protests. People playing didgeridoos and chilling out. Painting out signs.

There are actually too many signs. People write their own signs on cardboard and try to find a place to display them but there isn't enough space to display on the floor. I found several piles of them. Some of them don't make sense... One of them just listed a whole bunch of mispelled medications the writer takes (including aspirin, ibuprofen, and anti-histamines alongside percocet) and a footnote that some of them were left at home. I suppose maybe it was a plea for needed drugs the writer forgot? Or perhaps drugs that the writer has and could potentially supply. I'm not really sure.

There were maybe 20 cops total hanging around the area. They stand around in twos or threes watching the proceedings. Half of them are wearing community outreach shirts. Their tone is mostly one of bemusement and confusion in a "Seriously, kids these days?".

I wasn't really impressed with the proceedings. Maybe I'm just a cynic but it looks like your typical mix of really passionate people who waft from cause to cause, needing to feel like they were a part of something, with a smattering of people who will actually have some plan for change. It's a bit over-hyped by everyone involved. I do appreciate though effort taken into trying to keep the place garbage free (although frequently "garbage" gets re-used to say...tie a sign to a tree or whatnot). I keep thinking though the whole protest is going to accidentally get wiped out due to diarrhea from foodborne illnesses which would be very unfortunate but kind of funny.

Oh and one more thing which I had forgotten until I revisited the area. The streets around Wall Street are terribly narrow. So if you have a protest march with people marching around, you're really going to disrupt the traffic (of which there is a lot). It will definitely spill into the streets unless you are amazingly disciplined. Something to keep in mind anyway.

Tl;Dr - Went to the protest, found it to be what I expected (ie. overhyped by supporters but not like... 20 people standing around). There's no message and it's about as directionless as you can expect. It really does remind me of the West Wing episode in which Toby gets to hang out with WTO protestors. I don't really see a reason to go look again.

[Velict]

Tl;Dr - Went to the protest, found it to be what I expected (ie. overhyped by supporters but not like... 20 people standing around). There's no message and it's about as directionless as you can expect. It really does remind me of the West Wing episode in which Toby gets to hang out with WTO protestors. I don't really see a reason to go look again.

So I shouldn't put my classes on hold, sell my worldly possessions, and drive up to Dallas to join the revolution? Darn.

[Okita]

Maybe by Friday, it will have coalesced into something.

Right now it's more like... a meeting of like minds/networking event. Lots of e-mails exchanged I think.

[folkhero]

Thanks for the report. It was an interesting read.

[TheGrammarBolshevik]

A stock is a portion of ownership in a company. If I have X% of a corporation's stock, then by definition I have X% ownership of that corporation. So why wouldn't I expect to see X% of the corporation's profit? If I manage to buy all of Corporation Z's stock, I now own Corporation Z. All of it. So why can't I do whatever I want with the thing that I entirely own?

I'm still catching up on this thread, but I can address this particular point. Even if you own every outstanding share of a corporation, you can't direct the corporation's assets for your own personal use, for reasons originating in tax and liability law. You can hire yourself, for whatever salary you choose, or issue a dividend in whatever amount you choose (subject to some limitations to keep you from cheating your corporation's creditors), but if you spend the corporation's money as if it were your own, you may risk losing its protected limited-liability. If you do, and the corporation incurs debts it can't pay, you may be on the hook for them.

Ah, I think I was misunderstanding Dauric's point.

[Princess Marzipan]

I still can't quite figure out what the ideology is here.

I get the "we don't like rich people and big corporations!" bit, but there just doensn't seem to be much substance here. If the call to action was to strengthen Dodd-Frank, reinstitute Glass-Steagal, or something along those lines,

Some perspective from #occupyboston.

Why would we camp out to demand some of the same old thing? No, this is bigger than a single piece of legislation. This is about the fact that this doesn't country doesn't actually represent its people anymore. It represents only those who fund campaigns, and rewards them with real action on their behalf, while we the people languish, ignored.

And when you ask someone else to confirm, they'll give a different answer. Because guess what? There is a LOT wrong our country and the entire world right now. If it takes people camping out together in 60 cities (yes 60 have now begun organizing) to spread that single message, so be it.

Maybe I'm just a cynic but it looks like your typical mix of really passionate people who waft from cause to cause, needing to feel like they were a part of something, with a smattering of people who will actually have some plan for change.

Now that I've finally actually felt what being "a part of something" is...if you had any idea, you would not utter that phrase in scorn or disdain.

I was at #occupyboston's second General Assembly tonight. I met, truly MET, more people tonight than I have in the past five years or more. I've met people through xkcd, and let me tell you. It's one thing to have a comic in common. It is just on an entirely different level to have this movement in common.

I saw a really great point in one of the many articles I read today. If you have criticisms or critiques of these movements, why are you going to stand on the sidelines and yell from there? You can get involved. Find your closest meeting, go there, hear *your community's* answers to these questions.

[Zamfir]

Maybe I'm just a cynic but it looks like your typical mix of really passionate people who waft from cause to cause, needing to feel like they were a part of something, with a smattering of people who will actually have some plan for change.

Now that I've finally actually felt what being "a part of something" is...if you had any idea, you would not utter that phrase in scorn or disdain.

I was at #occupyboston's second General Assembly tonight. I met, truly MET, more people tonight than I have in the past five years or more. I've met people through xkcd, and let me tell you. It's one thing to have a comic in common. It is just on an entirely different level to have this movement in common.

I saw a really great point in one of the many articles I read today. If you have criticisms or critiques of these movements, why are you going to stand on the sidelines and yell from there? You can get involved. Find your closest meeting, go there, hear *your community's* answers to these questions.

Hope you'll forgive me for not getting on a plane to tell the community in person... You and Okita sound if you're describing the same thing, just from the inside and from the outside. What feels like a warm bath when you're in it might well appear a closed-off community for outsiders. Though as long as you're attracting new people you don't have to worry much about that.

[Okita]

Maybe I'm just a cynic but it looks like your typical mix of really passionate people who waft from cause to cause, needing to feel like they were a part of something, with a smattering of people who will actually have some plan for change.

Now that I've finally actually felt what being "a part of something" is...if you had any idea, you would not utter that phrase in scorn or disdain.

I was at #occupyboston's second General Assembly tonight. I met, truly MET, more people tonight than I have in the past five years or more. I've met people through xkcd, and let me tell you. It's one thing to have a comic in common. It is just on an entirely different level to have this movement in common.

I saw a really great point in one of the many articles I read today. If you have criticisms or critiques of these movements, why are you going to stand on the sidelines and yell from there? You can get involved. Find your closest meeting, go there, hear *your community's* answers to these questions.

I'm not really sure what this means. Is it that if I found something that I truly felt a part of that I would understand how it feels to be a part of something? I don't think that my observation in this case is dependent on past experiences. I found people there to be really passionate about things. I don't really think that's anything to be ashamed of. The mix of people who are really passionate about a lot of subjects mixed together is... not something new to me though. So I suppose I was trying to say that I didn't find the protest to be that special. And perhaps you're right, maybe it's not special because I'm not a part of it nor am I a believer. But I'm pretty sure a lot of protests regardless of creed are the same way for people inside vs. outside.

Anyway, I do have criticisms and critiques of these movements. Which is why I physically went there. And I talked to people and observed and decided that I didn't have a reason to go back.

Edit: In other news, here's the list of grievances I just saw from Reddit.
http://www.scribd.com/doc/66751652/Grievances

Double edit: Tightened up some grammar.

[Garm]

I can echo what Okita and P. Marz. are saying. If you haven't been to a protest, have given it some thought before but never found the right cause until now, go see what this is all about. There's an energy that's totally different than just hanging out in a crowd at a concert. Remember: "There ain't no power like the power of the people cuz the power of the people don't stop."

[jareds]

Why would we camp out to demand some of the same old thing? No, this is bigger than a single piece of legislation. This is about the fact that this doesn't country doesn't actually represent its people anymore. It represents only those who fund campaigns, and rewards them with real action on their behalf, while we the people languish, ignored.

How is Dodd-Frank the same old thing? It was enacted two years ago. What campaign contributors was it rewarding? For that matter, but tangentially, is the Affordable Care Act chopped liver? Evidence suggests our government is not fundamentally incapable of passing major legislation as recently as 2009. That legislation is perhaps more centrist than you would like, but that is to be expected given that this is a democracy. Obviously it has been in partisan gridlock since the 2010 elections, but the gridlock is a result of the government's structure, not a reward to contributors, and if you want to get rid of gridlock with sweeping political change, the way to go is to switch to a parliamentary system or something, not reform campaign finance (this is simply to say that campaign finance reform will not remove gridlock).

I'm sorry if relatively centrist suggestions strike you as not good enough to camp out about, but if you're going to dismiss them for that reason, you can hardly claim to be representing "the 99%".

I saw a really great point in one of the many articles I read today. If you have criticisms or critiques of these movements, why are you going to stand on the sidelines and yell from there? You can get involved. Find your closest meeting, go there, hear *your community's* answers to these questions.

Because taking vacation time and traveling over 100 miles to criticize and critique people seems nuts. Furthermore, the reality is that if Okita, e.g., talks to them and still doesn't think that occupying Wall Street makes sense, it's entirely unreasonable to expect him to stay with them in order for them to reflect his view.

[Czhorat]

Has anyone seen their principles of solidarity?

They seem to be a work in progress, but their hearts are in the right place, and they're trying. That's more than many can say.

[Dark567]

Has anyone seen their principles of solidarity?

They seem to be a work in progress, but their hearts are in the right place, and they're trying. That's more than many can say.

Redefining how labor is valued

Scares the living shit out of me.

[Czhorat]

Has anyone seen their principles of solidarity?

They seem to be a work in progress, but their hearts are in the right place, and they're trying. That's more than many can say.

Redefining how labor is valued

Scares the living shit out of me.

Can you elaborate on that?

[Dark567]

Has anyone seen their principles of solidarity?

They seem to be a work in progress, but their hearts are in the right place, and they're trying. That's more than many can say.

Redefining how labor is valued

Scares the living shit out of me.

Can you elaborate on that?

It sounds like they want something like this(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value), which when attempted always has less then stellar results. Objecting to the current way we value labor(using market prices via supply and demand) is boarderline economic denialism.

I can echo what Okita and P. Marz. are saying. If you haven't been to a protest, have given it some thought before but never found the right cause until now, go see what this is all about. There's an energy that's totally different than just hanging out in a crowd at a concert. Remember: "There ain't no power like the power of the people cuz the power of the people don't stop."

I've been to protests in my college day and the energy really is something... but its a mind killer. You make friends with fellow protesters and get sucked into groupthink, losing rationality and objectivity. For somethings that I am fairly certain on, lets say gay rights, I am okay with getting sucked in because I am convinced enough in the cause. For anything dealing with econ and finance though, I am not nor am I convinced almost anyone else is. Economics is a changing field in which we still have limited knowledge, anyone who is convinced enough in a certain prescription or even that our current system is broken is overconfident in their beliefs.

[Princess Marzipan]

The mix of people who are really passionate about a lot of subjects mixed together is... not something new to me though. So I suppose I was trying to say that I didn't find the protest to be that special.

The uniqueness of this movement is anything to do with the New York group itself, but rather the burgeoning worldwide aspect of it. Much of the energy from the Boston assemblies comes from knowing that we are but one of many.

Economics is a changing field in which we still have limited knowledge, anyone who is convinced enough in a certain prescription or even that our current system is broken is overconfident in their beliefs.

If economics is just a study of human interaction, is not a valid critique that we don't like what our current system has turned human interaction into? We don't need to know jack squat about theory models to look at the suffering multitudes in the country and world and finally decide to stand up and say ENOUGH. This model of existence and interaction has had its run, and we are DONE allowing megalithic institutions to reduce us to numbers and risk variables and decide the course of lives based on their abstract calculations.

[Dark567]

We don't need to know jack squat about theory models to look at the suffering multitudes in the country and world and finally decide to stand up and say ENOUGH.

Yes, in fact you do have to know about theory and models, alternatives may very well lead to more multitudes suffering. Just being pissed and guessing at ways to fix it very well can make it worse.

[Whimsical Eloquence]

If economics is just a study of human interaction, is not a valid critique that we don't like what our current system has turned human interaction into? We don't need to know jack squat about theory models to look at the suffering multitudes in the country and world and finally decide to stand up and say ENOUGH. This model of existence and interaction has had its run, and we are DONE allowing megalithic institutions to reduce us to numbers and risk variables and decide the course of lives based on their abstract calculations.

Right...

But aside from emotionally charged zeal, what exactly do you mean by that in terms of actual propositions?

As far as an employee affects a large employer, it can, on average, be appraised by numbers and risk variables. I mean it's a bit like going "...we are DONE allowing ourselves to be reduced to simply constituent atoms by those Scientists". I recognise fully the difference between Economics in its normative and descriptive capacities but the fact that employer-employee interaction can be assessed like that is pretty factual.

[hawkinsssable]

Has anyone seen their principles of solidarity?

They seem to be a work in progress, but their hearts are in the right place, and they're trying. That's more than many can say.

Redefining how labor is valued

Scares the living shit out of me.

Can you elaborate on that?

It sounds like they want something like this(http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Labor_theory_of_value), which when attempted always has less then stellar results. Objecting to the current way we value labor(using market prices via supply and demand) is boarderline economic denialism.

The labor theory of value has never been and can not be 'attempted', because it's an EXPLANATION of how capitalism works, not a blueprint for reforming it. I mean, some of Marx's contemporaries recommended tying wages to 'value produced', but the idea was slammed by Marx and a bunch of others as hopelessly impractical and nonsensical, and I don't think it's resurfaced in a serious way since.

In any case, small-scale solidarity economies operating within the capitalist system have worked very, very well for those involved. Maybe ask around in Brazil, Colombia, India, and Mozambique (to use the case studies in the book I just linked) before asserting that alternative ways of valuing labour have "always had less than stellar results".

I've been to protests in my college day and the energy really is something... but its a mind killer. You make friends with fellow protesters and get sucked into groupthink, losing rationality and objectivity. For somethings that I am fairly certain on, lets say gay rights, I am okay with getting sucked in because I am convinced enough in the cause. For anything dealing with econ and finance though, I am not nor am I convinced almost anyone else is. Economics is a changing field in which we still have limited knowledge, anyone who is convinced enough in a certain prescription or even that our current system is broken is overconfident in their beliefs.

Alternatively: Economics is a changing field in which we still have limited knowledge, anyone who is convinced enough in a certain prescription- say, free market capitalism- or even that our current system is working is overconfident in their beliefs.



EDIT: This all seems a little irrelevant to the principles of solidarity document anyway, which only has one incredibly brief and vague reference to valuing labour, presumably added by somebody belonging to a socialist organisation and accepted by the larger movement because it's wonderfully non-specific? I'm not exactly sure how the other elements- like "direct and transparent participatory democracy" or "the belief that education is a human right"- are supposed to lead to inevitable economic doom.

Spoiler:

Through a direct democratic process, we have come together as individuals and crafted these principles of solidarity, which are points of unity that include but are not limited to:

Engaging in direct and transparent participatory democracy;
Exercising personal and collective responsibility;
Recognizing individuals’ inherent privilege and the influence it has on all interactions;
Empowering one another against all forms of oppression;
Redefining how labor is valued;
The sanctity of individual privacy;
The belief that education is human right; and
Endeavoring to practice and support wide application of open source.


We are daring to imagine a new socio-political and economic alternative that offers greater possibility of equality. We are consolidating the other proposed principles of solidarity, after which demands will follow.

[Dark567]

The labor theory of value has never been and can not be 'attempted', because it's an EXPLANATION of how capitalism works, not a blueprint for reforming it. I mean, some of Marx's contemporaries recommended tying wages to 'value produced', but the idea was slammed by Marx and a bunch of others as hopelessly impractical and nonsensical, and I don't think it's resurfaced in a serious way since.

In any case, small-scale solidarity economies operating within the capitalist system have worked very, very well for those involved. Maybe ask around in Brazil, Colombia, India, and Mozambique (to use the case studies in the book I just linked) before asserting that alternative ways of valuing labour have "always had less than stellar results".

When I said attempted, I meant economies based of the labor theory of value... obviously the theory itself cannot be attempted. Brazil, Colombia, India, and Mozambique, are not shining examples of prosperity...Mozambique in particular is really really poor. I am not sure where you are going.

Alternatively: Economics is a changing field in which we still have limited knowledge, anyone who is convinced enough in a certain prescription- say, free market capitalism- or even that our current system is working is overconfident in their beliefs.

Sure. At least as far the free market capitalism goes. "Working" is a relative term, so it would be easier to convince me of that, simply because you could define its limits in such a way that I could be convinced of.

[Princess Marzipan]

If economics is just a study of human interaction, is not a valid critique that we don't like what our current system has turned human interaction into? We don't need to know jack squat about theory models to look at the suffering multitudes in the country and world and finally decide to stand up and say ENOUGH. This model of existence and interaction has had its run, and we are DONE allowing megalithic institutions to reduce us to numbers and risk variables and decide the course of lives based on their abstract calculations.

Right...

But aside from emotionally charged zeal, what exactly do you mean by that in terms of actual propositions?

As far as an employee affects a large employer, it can, on average, be appraised by numbers and risk variables. I mean it's a bit like going "...we are DONE allowing ourselves to be reduced to simply constituent atoms by those Scientists". I recognise fully the difference between Economics in its normative and descriptive capacities but the fact that employer-employee interaction can be assessed like that is pretty factual.

Scientists don't use our atomic breakdown to psychologically and behaviorally manipulate us and find every means of monitoring and enforcement to ensure that productivity is exuded at a constant high level rate regardless of the long term impact on individual health, well being, and happiness.

So no beef with scientists.

I've stated it before but maybe not here, we aren't at the point of actual propositions. Just fully pointing out the wide variety of circumstances people go through to end up undeservedly at the same situation: financial destitution and personal hopelessness.

[Velict]

Alternatively: Economics is a changing field in which we still have limited knowledge, anyone who is convinced enough in a certain prescription- say, free market capitalism- or even that our current system is working is overconfident in their beliefs.

You're so close to some of the tenets of conservative mainstream economics that I find all of this somewhat hilarious. If you accept the bolded as true - that we don't completely understand markets - it follows that we probably don't fully understand how markets interact with or react to government policy. If we don't understand that, then policies we implement aren't necessarily going to do what we think they will, and we may even see adverse effects from government actions intended to help our economy, or we may see government policies intended to do one thing that actually manage to do quite the opposite. At the end of the day, it turns out that it's harder to get the economy to do what we want it to do than you might actually think. An example might be the price of used cars rising after Cash for Clunkers melted down a fair share of the supply, or even just the basic principle behind Cash for Clunkers; many purchases would have otherwise been made earlier or later in the year, resulting in an estimated 125,000 net increase in sales out of the 700,000 cars sold under the program (or roughly $24,000 per car).[source].

More "liberal" schools of thought in economics, from the branch of Keynesianism of DeLong, Yglesias, Krugman et. al. to socialism and communism, tend to posit that the economy can be more easily manipulated through government policy. In short, the schools of thought you'd be more likely to agree with actually support the opposite claim - that our knowledge isn't quite so limited after all.

[hawkinsssable]

The labor theory of value has never been and can not be 'attempted', because it's an EXPLANATION of how capitalism works, not a blueprint for reforming it. I mean, some of Marx's contemporaries recommended tying wages to 'value produced', but the idea was slammed by Marx and a bunch of others as hopelessly impractical and nonsensical, and I don't think it's resurfaced in a serious way since.

In any case, small-scale solidarity economies operating within the capitalist system have worked very, very well for those involved. Maybe ask around in Brazil, Colombia, India, and Mozambique (to use the case studies in the book I just linked) before asserting that alternative ways of valuing labour have "always had less than stellar results".

When I said attempted, I meant economies based of the labor theory of value... obviously the theory itself cannot be attempted. Brazil, Colombia, India, and Mozambique, are not shining examples of prosperity...Mozambique in particular is really really poor. I am not sure where you are going.

Remember the part where I said "SMALL-SCALE ECONOMIES OPERATING WITHIN THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM"? These small-scale enterprises exist in Brazil, Colombia, India, and Mozambique largely BECAUSE these countries are not shining examples of prosperity. And nor, obviously, do those countries have macroeconomic policies based on solidarity. What they DO have are small-scale enterprises and movements based on solidarity that exist within the context of capitalism, usually with the workers all being equal shareholders in a given company, that are doing very well for their members.

Anyway, when you say that economies 'based of the labor theory of value' have been 'attempted', you're presumably referring to how a grossly distorted form of Leninism, itself a distortion of Marxism, failed in Soviet Russia, and conveniently ignoring how the introduction of free-market capitalism has screwed the country over to an even greater extent. But the example is moot, anyway, because an economy that recognises the labour theory of value doesn't inevitably take one specific shape any more than an economy that recognises the supply and demand theory of labor value inevitably takes one specific form. Again: The labour theory of value is a way of understanding how the world works. It does not, in any way, prescribe changes to it, and it definitely does not imply a specific economic model.

[Garm]

Interesting development:
http://idealab.talkingpointsmemo.com/2011/09/occupy-wall-street-protests-poised-to-grow-rapidly-with-union-support.php

From what I can tell from Twitter (first time I've really looked at it, it's like a foreign world, so weird) they're trying to get a cohesive strategy going. Nice to see. Non-violence is being taken extremely seriously, also very nice to see. I don't put a lot of stock in this but it's nice to see. I remember the WTO protests in Seattle. I hope this doesn't get out hand that way. The last thing we need is for more paramiliterized police.

Looks like there's an Occupy Denver. I wish they had a website or something that says what they need. I don't really feel like poring through all the tweets and retweets.

[Dark567]

Remember the part where I said "SMALL-SCALE ECONOMIES OPERATING WITHIN THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM"? These small-scale enterprises exist in Brazil, Colombia, India, and Mozambique largely BECAUSE these countries are not shining examples of prosperity. And nor, obviously, do those countries have macroeconomic policies based on solidarity. What they DO have are small-scale enterprises and movements based on solidarity that exist within the context of capitalism, usually with the workers all being equal shareholders in a given company, that are doing very well for their members.

Yeah, those exist in the US too, one of the things about free-markets is your allowed to organize yourself with others a bunch of different ways. The thing is I assume these protests are aimed at the large US economic policy, which I hardly think we should be basing off the policy of Mozambique.

Anyway, when you say that economies 'based of the labor theory of value' have been 'attempted', you're presumably referring to how a grossly distorted form of Leninism, itself a distortion of Marxism, failed in Soviet Russia, and conveniently ignoring how the introduction of free-market capitalism has screwed the country over to an even greater extent. But the example is moot, anyway, because an economy that recognises the labour theory of value doesn't inevitably take one specific shape any more than an economy that recognises the supply and demand theory of labor value inevitably takes one specific form. Again: The labour theory of value is a way of understanding how the world works. It does not, in any way, prescribe changes to it, and it definitely does not imply a specific economic model.

There are multiple prescriptions you can base of the labor theory of value, just like there are multiple prescriptions you can base of the supply and demand theory of labor. But, there are certain economic theories that each one prohibit. And it seems that the ones that look at labor in the context of supply and demand do better.

(I mean, honestly, I don't understand how you can look at the empirical evidence, think about it for more then two seconds, and still believe in the labor theory of value)

[Kayangelus]

We don't need to know jack squat about theory models to look at the suffering multitudes in the country and world and finally decide to stand up and say ENOUGH.

Yes, in fact you do have to know about theory and models, alternatives may very well lead to more multitudes suffering. Just being pissed and guessing at ways to fix it very well can make it worse.

Those theory are models are wrong anyways, and they DO lead to multitudes suffering.

alternatives may lead to more suffering, but they may lead to less suffering. Since our position is really crappy anyways, and theories and models are just making a wild guess in the dark look fancy anyways, what is wrong with trying change to see if it makes life better?

[Velict]

We don't need to know jack squat about theory models to look at the suffering multitudes in the country and world and finally decide to stand up and say ENOUGH.

Yes, in fact you do have to know about theory and models, alternatives may very well lead to more multitudes suffering. Just being pissed and guessing at ways to fix it very well can make it worse.

Those theory are models are wrong anyways, and they DO lead to multitudes suffering.

alternatives may lead to more suffering, but they may lead to less suffering. Since our position is really crappy anyways, and theories and models are just making a wild guess in the dark look fancy anyways, what is wrong with trying change to see if it makes life better?

Because the bolded isn't obviously true, or true at all for that matter. It's a big leap from "sometimes we get economic policy wrong" to "let's just ignore economics and do random shit that sounds good."

[hawkinsssable]

Remember the part where I said "SMALL-SCALE ECONOMIES OPERATING WITHIN THE CAPITALIST SYSTEM"? These small-scale enterprises exist in Brazil, Colombia, India, and Mozambique largely BECAUSE these countries are not shining examples of prosperity. And nor, obviously, do those countries have macroeconomic policies based on solidarity. What they DO have are small-scale enterprises and movements based on solidarity that exist within the context of capitalism, usually with the workers all being equal shareholders in a given company, that are doing very well for their members.

Yeah, those exist in the US too, one of the things about free-markets is your allowed to organize yourself with others a bunch of different ways. The thing is I assume these protests are aimed at the large US economic policy, which I hardly think we should be basing off the policy of Mozambique.

Now you're just being obtuse. Maybe the third time will be the charm: THIS IS NOT THE POLICY OF THE STATE OF MOZAMBIQUE. Social movements in Mozambique are just one of the examples of how alternative systems of production work just fine.

Yes, of course these protests are aimed at US economic policy. Yes, this is a much larger project than any of the small-scale solidarity economies I mentioned earlier. The reason these smaller economies matter is that they prove alternative ways of production are possible- that you can have economies based on solidarity, rather than the profit motive, and they can do a better job meeting people's needs than raw capitalism.

Sure, centrally planned soviet-style command economies had less than stellar results. (Although it's worth mentioning again that the result of free-market capitalism in most post-soviet countries has been even worse). This does not prove that all forms of production other than free market capitalism are also dire. Small-scale solidarity economies are a nice little example of how well, in at least some contexts, one radically different alternative can work. The implication, of course, is that this might be true on a larger scale.

IMO, trying to find out if this is true is a goal worth fighting for.

There are multiple prescriptions you can base of the labor theory of value, just like there are multiple prescriptions you can base of the supply and demand theory of labor. But, there are certain economic theories that each one prohibit. And it seems that the ones that look at labor in the context of supply and demand do better.

(I mean, honestly, I don't understand how you can look at the empirical evidence, think about it for more then two seconds, and still believe in the labor theory of value)

Once again: the labour theory of value is DESCRIPTIVE, not PRESCRIPTIVE. The very, very most it can say about an economic arrangement is: "this economic arrangement does not adequately reflect the true value of the workers' labour." The next step- "therefore, we should try to make sure wages more adequately reflect the value of labour" is completely outside of its scope.

And I honestly, genuinely, don't understand how you can look at the way surplus value is produced, at least for the vast majority of goods, think about it for two seconds, and disbelieve the labour theory of value. So there.

[folkhero]

Sure, centrally planned soviet-style command economies had less than stellar results. (Although it's worth mentioning again that the result of free-market capitalism in most post-soviet countries has been even worse).

You keep saying this. The struggles in the post-Soviet countries is largely due to tremendously corrupt government cronyism, which is pretty far removed from an actual free-market. Additionally, I'll take all the economic-induced suffering from all the post-Soviet countries since the 90's over the Holodomor any day of the week.

[Princess Marzipan]

Looks like there's an Occupy Denver. I wish they had a website or something that says what they need. I don't really feel like poring through all the tweets and retweets.

They'll probably get one up eventually. Keep an eye out. Or offer to create it.

[Czhorat]

They have demands! https://www.occupywallst.org/forum/deta ... ics-for-d/

This is how I introduced them on my various social media:

, the movement's been growing rapidly over the past few days, with support from unions (including SEIU, Teamsters, ant others) and sister "occupations" in other cities (Boston, Chicago, DC). I visited a friend at the protest last week, and found them to be surprisingly organized and well-behaved for a self-described anarchist collective.

Think about it. Read their demands and realize this: unless you're one of the wealthiest percent of Americans, they're fighting for you.

Spread the word.

Spoiler:

---- BELOW THIS BRIEF INTRODUCTION is a numbered "LIST OF PROPOSED DEMANDS" we would make in DC. These would not be empty demands. They would be made in the context of engaging in non-violent direct action / peaceful non-resistance, proven tactics that produce real results. Clearly the language would need to be edited and certainly grow more specific (hoping you'll help with that), but you get the idea.
TACTICS: WHY DIRECT NON-VIOLENT ACTION?

It's pretty simple. It works. It's worked for MILLIONS OF PEOPLE. Non-violent direct action is what made the civil rights movement and Indian independence from the British possilble. Martin Luther King, Jr. once said: "The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation."

We should make the demands below very publicly at a press conference a few days after arriving in DC. When doing so, we should give a clear deadline of 3 days for a firm written commitment with signatures from at least 60% of members of House and 60% of the members of the Senate to pass these bills by the end of the year. If this commitment on the full slate of demands is not met by midnight on the 3rd day (which it won't be) we should be prepared to non-violently block access to all or part of the Capitol complex the next morning by traditional proven non-violent tactics. The purpose is to bring the leaders of the House and Senate to the negotiating table.

NOTE: There are always entrances because there is always a point where people who work there have to leave the public street and enter secure space. We should focus our non-violent direct action and civil disobedience on those entrances no matter where they move them because these are, by definition, always accessible.

----- LIST OF PROPOSED DEMANDS -----

CONGRESS PASS HR 1489 REINSTATING GLASS-STEAGALL ACT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act --- Wiki entry summary: The repeal of provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks. Most economists believe this repeal directly contributed to the severity of the Financial crisis of 2007–2011 by allowing Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in commercial banks owned or created by the investment firms. Here's detail on repeal in 1999 and how it happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act#Repeal . If we wanted to have a BIG IMPACT and we were able to have only one slogan that we could paint on signs and chant during marches within earshot of press, it would be "PASS HR 1489. REINSTATE GLASS-STEAGALL" or "RE-IN-STATE the ACT GLASS-STEAGALL. IT MAKES THE WALL STREET GAMES ILLEGAL"

USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis in the following notable cases: (insert list of the most clear cut criminal actions). There is a pretty broad consensus that there is a clear group of people who got away with millions / billions illegally and haven't been brought to justice. Boy would this be long overdue and cathartic for millions of Americans. It would also be a shot across the bow for the financial industry. If you watch the solidly researched and awared winning documentary film "Inside Job" that was narrated by Matt Damon (pretty brave Matt!) and do other research, it wouldn't take long to develop the list.

CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION which essentially said corporations can spend as much as they want on elections. The result is that corporations can pretty much buy elections. Corporations should be highly limited in ability to contribute to political campaigns no matter what the election and no matter what the form of media. The Supreme Court decision is really weird. Read it when you have a chance. The justices who argued for unlimited corporate contributions thought that wouldn't have an adverse effect on democracy and wouldn't undermine the citizen's view of legitimacy of elections. I'm not sure there's a word for that it's so strange.

CONGRESS PASS THE BUFFETT RULE ON FAIR TAXATION SO THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE & CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOP HOLES AND ENACT A PROHIBITION ON HIDING FUNDS OFF SHORE. No more GE paying zero or negative taxes. Pass the Buffet Rule on fair taxation so the rich pay their fair share. (If we have a really had a good negotiating position and have the place surrounded, we could actually dial up taxes on millionaires, billionaires and corporations even higher...back to what they once were in the 50's and 60's.

CONGRESS COMPLETELY REVAMP THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION and staff it at all levels with proven professionals who get the job done protecting the integrity of the marketplace so citizens and investors are both protected. This agency needs a large staff and needs to be well-funded. It's currently has a joke of a budget and is run by Wall St. insiders who often leave for high ticket cushy jobs with the corporations they were just regulating. Hmmm.

CONGRESS PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATING THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATION THAT ENDS UP ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS.

CONGRESS PASSING "Revolving Door Legislation" LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED. So, you don't get to work at the FDA for five years playing softball with Pfizer and then go to work for Pfizer making $195,000 a year. While they're at it, Congress should pass specific and effective laws to enforce strict judicial standards of conduct in matters concerning conflicts of interest. So long as judges are culled from the ranks of corporate attorneys the 1% will retain control.

ELIMINATE "PERSONHOOD" STATUS FOR CORPORATIONS (Sorry Mitt Romney)

RE-ESTABLISH THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES IN THE U.S. SO THAT POLITICAL CANDIDATES ARE GIVEN EQUAL TIME FOR FREE AT REASONABLE INTERVALS IN DAILY PROGRAMMING DURING CAMPAIGN SEASON. The same should extend to other media.

Be sure to see "Why We Fight" and "Inside Job" if you haven't already.

And keep one thing in mind. This is from Martin Luther King, Jr.:

"Nonviolent direct action seeks to create such a crisis and foster such a tension that a community which has constantly refused to negotiate is forced to confront the issue. It seeks to so dramatize the issue that it can no longer be ignored. My citing the creation of tension as part of the work of the nonviolent-resister may sound rather shocking. But I must confess that I am not afraid of the word "tension." I have earnestly opposed violent tension, but there is a type of constructive, nonviolent tension which is necessary for growth. Just as Socrates felt that it was necessary to create a tension in the mind so that individuals could rise from the bondage of myths and half-truths to the unfettered realm of creative analysis and objective appraisal, we must we see the need for nonviolent gadflies to create the kind of tension in society that will help men rise from the dark depths of prejudice and racism to the majestic heights of understanding and brotherhood.

The purpose of our direct-action program is to create a situation so crisis-packed that it will inevitably open the door to negotiation. I therefore concur with you in your call for negotiation."

Here's the entire "Letter from the Birmingham Jail": http://abacus.bates.edu/admin/offices/d ... etter.html . It's a treasure and is as timely as ever.

Also, here's a short video from BBC to inspire you. It gets pretty extraordinary about halfway through: http://youtu.be/lqN3amj6AcE

[jareds]

Read their demands and realize this: unless you're one of the wealthiest percent of Americans, they're fighting for you.

That's quite an arrogant view. Obviously they do not have 99% support, so you're left to argue that they know better than those who disagree what's good for those who disagree. I for one am not among the wealthiest one percent and have perfectly intelligent and informed reasons for disagreeing with about half their demands.

[Dark567]

Yes, of course these protests are aimed at US economic policy. Yes, this is a much larger project than any of the small-scale solidarity economies I mentioned earlier. The reason these smaller economies matter is that they prove alternative ways of production are possible- that you can have economies based on solidarity, rather than the profit motive, and they can do a better job meeting people's needs than raw capitalism.

Where is the proof that they scale? The evidence is pretty clear that the profit motive has been the primary factor of making the developed world developed. The idea that we want to get rid of it, without substantial proof that scales and can provide more prosperity then we currently have(which your examples don't show), they are a much greater risk to our well being then the status quo.

Sure, centrally planned soviet-style command economies had less than stellar results. (Although it's worth mentioning again that the result of free-market capitalism in most post-soviet countries has been even worse). This does not prove that all forms of production other than free market capitalism are also dire. Small-scale solidarity economies are a nice little example of how well, in at least some contexts, one radically different alternative can work. The implication, of course, is that this might be true on a larger scale.

Every attempt on a larger scale has been pretty bad. Its also worth noting that the most free market economies coming from the Soviet Union, the Baltic States like Estonia and Lithuania have had massive growth after leaving the USSR.

Once again: the labour theory of value is DESCRIPTIVE, not PRESCRIPTIVE. The very, very most it can say about an economic arrangement is: "this economic arrangement does not adequately reflect the true value of the workers' labour." The next step- "therefore, we should try to make sure wages more adequately reflect the value of labour" is completely outside of its scope.

And I honestly, genuinely, don't understand how you can look at the way surplus value is produced, at least for the vast majority of goods, think about it for two seconds, and disbelieve the labour theory of value. So there.

The labor theory of is descriptive, but if its true there are certain prescriptions that align with it and certain ones that don't. If you were to believe the labor theory of value, there wouldn't be a need for a market system for labor as an example.

As far as surplus value its easy, the surplus value was added by the organizational properties of capital flow. Easy. It's absolutely clear by the modern economy that value isn't soley determined by the labor of something, and in fact is mostly determined by how much value people place on the product or services. Adam Smith still said it best " If there is no use for a buggy whip then the item is economically worthless in trade or in use, regardless of the all the labor spent in its creation." This should be obvious, it doesn't matter if you spend a lot of time and effort creating something. If no one wants it, it is worthless.

Read their demands and realize this: unless you're one of the wealthiest percent of Americans, they're fighting for you.

That's quite an arrogant view. Obviously they do not have 99% support, so you're left to argue that they know better than those who disagree what's good for those who disagree. I for one am not among the wealthiest one percent and have perfectly intelligent and informed reasons for disagreeing with about half their demands.

Yeah. As an example getting rid of corporate personhood would make me liable for the hundreds of different stocks I own through my mutual funds and ETFs. I would no longer feel safe in investing in them and have to save all my money and forgo those returns. I may no longer be able to retire. Corporations may not longer have the capital because all the investors like me pull out. Because we don't have corporations to organize the mass manufacturing and distribution of goods prices skyrocket. Poverty then skyrockets. Demand weakens due to high prices, and unemployment rises etc. etc.

Not necessarily a guaranteed outcome, but is completely conceivable that the lack of corporate personhood could destroy the developed worlds economies, hurting nearly everyone.

[Mambrino]

Yes, of course these protests are aimed at US economic policy. Yes, this is a much larger project than any of the small-scale solidarity economies I mentioned earlier. The reason these smaller economies matter is that they prove alternative ways of production are possible- that you can have economies based on solidarity, rather than the profit motive, and they can do a better job meeting people's needs than raw capitalism.

Where is the proof that they scale? The evidence is pretty clear that the profit motive has been the primary factor of making the developed world developed. The idea that we want to get rid of it, without substantial proof that scales and can provide more prosperity then we currently have(which your examples don't show), they are a much greater risk to our well being then the status quo.

Sure, centrally planned soviet-style command economies had less than stellar results. (Although it's worth mentioning again that the result of free-market capitalism in most post-soviet countries has been even worse). This does not prove that all forms of production other than free market capitalism are also dire. Small-scale solidarity economies are a nice little example of how well, in at least some contexts, one radically different alternative can work. The implication, of course, is that this might be true on a larger scale.

Every attempt on a larger scale has been pretty bad. Its also worth noting that the most free market economies coming from the Soviet Union, the Baltic States like Estonia and Lithuania have had massive growth after leaving the USSR.

I'd like to remind that in Estonia the social inequality is pretty enormous compared to Finland or Sweden (...at least that's what the Finnish newspapers tend to say).

[Dark567]

I'd like to remind that in Estonia the social inequality is pretty enormous compared to Finland or Sweden (...at least that's what the Finnish newspapers tend to say).

It is, but your still better off with the high inequality there, then you would be in the lesser inequality but greater poverty areas in many of the other former Soviet states. It is also worth noting Estonia has only been a market oriented economy for about 20 years. Finland and Sweden have been market oriented for a long time.

[Okita]

I'm pretty sure eliminating Corporate Personhood overall is something that's not really on the table.

If we completely got rid of it, then companies wouldn't be able to do things like... own property or employ people. While I think Dark567 is going a bit too much on the slippery slope for the disastrous effects of getting rid of corporate personhood, removing corporate personhood overall would severely impact well... everything. If we had to get into legal mumbo jumbo, it's all about expanding the points where you can "pierce the corporate veil" as it is called. Certain protections in the Constitution/Bill of rights are not extended to Corporations already and presumably, people want to expand on that. That's a discussion that should (and does!) happen frequently.

[Other things Corporate "People" don't get: The right to vote, the right against self-incrimination (through handing subpoena'd documents)]

[Jessica]

I think the citizens united case is more of a problem then corporate personhood in general. But, that's me. If that isn't something that can be overturned, then maybe other laws which can deal with the large amount of money which can be poured into advertising for certain politicians.

[Arrian]

I think we're witnessing the birth of the liberal version of the Tea Perty here, and that makes me giggle just a little bit.

Alternatively: Economics is a changing field in which we still have limited knowledge, anyone who is convinced enough in a certain prescription- say, free market capitalism- or even that our current system is working is overconfident in their beliefs.

“The curious task of economics is to demonstrate to men how little they really know about what they imagine the can design.” F. A. Hayek

You are so close to Austrians, and even that arch-capitalist Milton Friedman (watch his "Free to Choose" TV series) that it's almost painful.

In response to Princess Marzipan's statement that "We don't need to know jack squat about theory models to look at the suffering multitudes in the country and world and finally decide to stand up and say ENOUGH," is that when you do know the theory and models and the history of the study of economics, you'll not have to reinvent the wheel finding what works and what doesn't work to make peoples' lives better. There's also the side bonus that you might realize the people who developed these theories which you so demonize, often did so because felt the EXACT SAME WAY YOU DO about human suffering. See Esther Duflo, William Easterly or Muhammad Yunus in the development/international aid community for some examples.

Only the government has authorization to use force, so of course it's the government using force. But, who are they protecting? Not the common people who have no money and are just sitting, that's for sure.
...

It's been a wild week and I haven't had a chance to check out the links you referenced. I'll get back once I have, but I still hold that they're protesting the wrong place. It's easy to get Wall Street out of politics, just stop making politics so profitable. But that's entirely government driven. Protesting on Wall Street is sort of like trying to get sunflowers to stop following the sun by taping their leaves flat.

[Velict]

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national ... eet/43152/

The scrappy operation could gain thousands of bodies as unions join the protests on October 5. A slew of organized labor organizations has gotten involved in the planning, reports Crain's New York Business's Daniel Massey. "The United Federation of Teachers, 32BJ SEIU, 1199 SEIU, Workers United and Transport Workers Union Local 100 are all expected to participate. The Working Families Party is helping to organize the protest and MoveOn.org is expected to mobilize its extensive online regional networks to drum up support for the effort."

If this just turns into another pro-union rally, I think I've lost what little respect for the movement I had. The only significant difference between union and corporate money is the political party it goes to.

[Jessica]

http://www.theatlanticwire.com/national/2011/09/unions-start-paying-attention-occupy-wall-street/43152/

The scrappy operation could gain thousands of bodies as unions join the protests on October 5. A slew of organized labor organizations has gotten involved in the planning, reports Crain's New York Business's Daniel Massey. "The United Federation of Teachers, 32BJ SEIU, 1199 SEIU, Workers United and Transport Workers Union Local 100 are all expected to participate. The Working Families Party is helping to organize the protest and MoveOn.org is expected to mobilize its extensive online regional networks to drum up support for the effort."

If this just turns into another pro-union rally, I think I've lost what little respect for the movement I had. The only significant difference between union and corporate money is the political party it goes to.

-----------------------

Oh, and some left based criticism. Specifically on the whole "occupy" thing.