In retrospect, the Occupy movement totally succeeded.

[Hog-train]

yeah it succeeded in making me want nothing to do with that side of the Left.

a bunch of dirty college graduates who picked sociology or race theory as their majors and quickly realized all that crap adds nothing of value to the economy.

all they were left with was sleeping in the bushes, shitting in the corners, and gathering around dumpsters fires at night.

all while regurgitating the lessons of their leftist professors - who had also never held a real job. this is why, no matter what school they went to, they all walk in lock step with the same narrative : 99% v 1%, white privilege, social justice, blah blah blah.

seeing those bums cry and complain provides more motivation than any Anthony Robbins type speaker can give you. i will NEVER end up alongside those hippies

Generalize much?

That's like saying all conservative voters are inbred Bible thumpers.

I have a job, pay taxes, watch football, play fantasy, not a hipster and live like any other person in NYC.

Yet I support many of Bernie Sanders stances - the most important of which - he wants to get money$$$ out of politics.

That is the #1 problem with the country. The undue influence of money in politics- doesn't matter what party you are. Nothing will be fixed until that issue is resolved.

 

[Forkfoot]

Occupy deserves no credit. The movement only started because the income inequality issue had been pushed to the forefront of public consciousness after the economic crisis. The crisis deserves the credit, not the unorganized hippies who tried to piggyback on the topic and utterly failed.

Occupy deserves credit for bringing the severity of income inequality to public consciousness. You can say everyone was well aware of ideas like "the one percent" before OWS, but it requires revisionist Orwellian doublethink to actually believe such a thing.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Occupy deserves credit for bringing the severity of income inequality to public consciousness. You can say everyone was well aware of ideas like "the one percent" before OWS, but it requires revisionist Orwellian doublethink to actually believe such a thing.

I agree that Graeber is more responsible than anyone for the use of "1%" in the discourse now. And that framing has had an impact on the way people look at the issue. One of the ways that the right had tried to deal with rising inequality politically was to frame it as a skills-gap issue, but when you look higher up (above 1%, actually), it's really about capital gaining a larger share of national income, which obviously has nothing to do with a skills gap.

 

[panamaican]

Occupy deserves credit for bringing the severity of income inequality to public consciousness. You can say everyone was well aware of ideas like "the one percent" before OWS, but it requires revisionist Orwellian doublethink to actually believe such a thing.

Actually, it only requires an understanding of timelines and a memory.

Income inequality was all over the news before OWS. OWS didn't start until 2011. Inequality was being covered in significant levels even while Obama's healthcare law was being discussed in 2010.

For example, a 2010 HuffPo article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/22/income-inequality-america_n_772687.html

A 2010 article in The Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/08/income_inequality

The reason people mocked the OWS movement was, in part, because they were responding to a well addressed issue without any plan as to what they wanted to do about it. Their only idea to address the serious issue everyone else was already discussing was to camp out like homeless people and disappear before it got too cold.

 

[Forkfoot]

Actually, it only requires an understanding of timelines and a memory.

Income inequality was all over the news before OWS. OWS didn't start until 2011. Inequality was being covered in significant levels even while Obama's healthcare law was being discussed in 2010.

For example, a 2010 HuffPo article: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2010/10/22/income-inequality-america_n_772687.html

A 2010 article in The Economist: http://www.economist.com/blogs/freeexchange/2010/08/income_inequality

The reason people mocked the OWS movement was, in part, because they were responding to a well addressed issue without any plan as to what they wanted to do about it. Their only idea to address the serious issue everyone else was already discussing was to camp out like homeless people and disappear before it got too cold.

No that's all definitely nonsense. It's one thing for articles to be written about something and quite another for it to change social awareness altogether. Most people were completely unaware of how bad wealth inequality was prior to Occupy but after 2008. Here's an article on a survey taken in 2011, for those of you suffering from ideologically convenient amnesia:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/economic-inequality-it-s-far-worse-than-you-think/

 

[Jack V Savage]

No that's all definitely nonsense. It's one thing for articles to be written about something and quite another for it to change social awareness altogether. Most people were completely unaware of how bad wealth inequality was prior to Occupy but after 2008. Here's an article on a survey taken in 2011, for those of you suffering from ideologically convenient amnesia:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/economic-inequality-it-s-far-worse-than-you-think/

I think people would get that wrong today, too. Did you see this?:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/econ...uggle-to-pay-a-400-emergency-expense-20150528

The report found that only 45 percent of those surveyed had emergency or rainy-day funds to cover their expenses for three months, and 53 percent said they could handle a hypothetical emergency that costs $400 by using cash, money in checking or savings accounts, or a credit card they would pay in full on their next statement.

 

[Forkfoot]

I think people would get that wrong today, too. Did you see this?:

http://www.nationaljournal.com/econ...uggle-to-pay-a-400-emergency-expense-20150528

Ouch. Yeah I'm sure the numbers would still be off, but they'd have to be WAY better in an America where "the one percent" is now a household term.

 

[panamaican]

No that's all definitely nonsense. It's one thing for articles to be written about something and quite another for it to change social awareness altogether. Most people were completely unaware of how bad wealth inequality was prior to Occupy but after 2008. Here's an article on a survey taken in 2011, for those of you suffering from ideologically convenient amnesia:

http://www.scientificamerican.com/article/economic-inequality-it-s-far-worse-than-you-think/

You didn't read that did you? According to that link, people are still unaware of the extent of the difference. They referenced a 2011 and 2014 study and in both studies people grossly underestimated the extent of the inequality. The 2011 study would be data collected before OWS and the 2014 study would be data afterwards...same results.

OWS did not influence anything. They didn't make people more aware of the problem and they didn't educate people as to the extent of the problem either.

The economic crisis and Obama's push of healthcare reform made economic inequality part of the public conversation. OWS was a sideshow in the larger public discourse. Trying to credit them for making fools of themselves doesn't make any sense to me.

Some more pre-OWS links for you enjoyment:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/14/income-inequality-is-at-a_n_259516.html
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

 

[ultramanhyata]

Trying to credit them for making fools of themselves doesn't make any sense to me.

Do you see all organized protests as examples of the participants "making fools of themselves" on the basis that none of the protest movements' objectives were met?

Are you one of those "if you try and don't win you're just a loser" kind of guys? Are you one of those dads - like Jimmy Harrison - who strips his kids of their participation trophies because they "didn't earn them"?

 

[Forkfoot]

You didn't read that did you? According to that link, people are still unaware of the extent of the difference. They referenced a 2011 and 2014 study and in both studies people grossly underestimated the extent of the inequality. The 2011 study would be data collected before OWS and the 2014 study would be data afterwards...same results.

OWS did not influence anything. They didn't make people more aware of the problem and they didn't educate people as to the extent of the problem either.

The economic crisis and Obama's push of healthcare reform made economic inequality part of the public conversation. OWS was a sideshow in the larger public discourse. Trying to credit them for making fools of themselves doesn't make any sense to me.

Some more pre-OWS links for you enjoyment:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/14/income-inequality-is-at-a_n_259516.html
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

Okay cool, so we agree that your assertion that "everyone" knew about income inequality before Occupy was nonsense. It takes a real man to admit he was wrong. My point, as I stated in the OP, was that Sanders' surging popularity indicates that awareness of his platform is garnering sympathy. Prior to Bernie, there has been no bigger voice in decrying income inequality than OWS. I don't think Bernie could be pulling the numbers he's pulling without them.

 

[ultramanhyata]

Found this great clip of Ralph Nader while watching a clip from another thread. He's explaining the content of a book he wrote about how to organize effectively. It speaks pretty directly to this discussion about the significance - or lack thereof - of OWS. (You get John Lennon, too, you lucky bastards!) Starts at about :30



"If students aren't organized, they don't have their full time professional lawyers and scientists and organizers. And they don't participate themselves in it. It's going to be a lot of talk. A lot of idealism. Ups and downs and nothing really solid and continual."

 

[Hog-train]

You didn't read that did you? According to that link, people are still unaware of the extent of the difference. They referenced a 2011 and 2014 study and in both studies people grossly underestimated the extent of the inequality. The 2011 study would be data collected before OWS and the 2014 study would be data afterwards...same results.

OWS did not influence anything. They didn't make people more aware of the problem and they didn't educate people as to the extent of the problem either.

The economic crisis and Obama's push of healthcare reform made economic inequality part of the public conversation. OWS was a sideshow in the larger public discourse. Trying to credit them for making fools of themselves doesn't make any sense to me.

Some more pre-OWS links for you enjoyment:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/14/income-inequality-is-at-a_n_259516.html
http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2011/02/income-inequality-in-america-chart-graph

You are completely minimizing the impact of OWS relegating it to a local hippie protest when the impact is far greater.

It spontaneously spawned other movements across the country AND ABROAD ACROSS THE WORLD - (i.e. Oakland, Chicago, San Francisco, Portland, to Spain and many other countries)

Obviously, income inequality and corruption by a small number of people hit a chord with many, many people.

It brought income inequality to the forefront of the average citizen's mind.

 

[panamaican]

You are completely minimizing the impact of OWS relegating it to a local hippie protest when the impact is far greater.

It spontaneously spawned other movements across the country AND ABROAD ACROSS THE WORLD - (i.e. Oakland, Chicago, San Francisco, Portland, to Spain and many other countries)

Obviously, income inequality and corruption by a small number of people hit a chord with many, many people.

It brought income inequality to the forefront of the average citizen's mind.

You are arguin

My point is that they did not bring it to the forefront of the average citizens mind. I'm not claiming they didn't inspire other groups or that they didn't address the issue. I'm simply stating that by the time OWS made it's debut, the issue was firmly in the average citizen's mind.

OWS followed the national trend, they did not create it. Credit them for contributing to it but not for mainstreaming it.

 

[panamaican]

Do you see all organized protests as examples of the participants "making fools of themselves" on the basis that none of the protest movements' objectives were met?

Are you one of those "if you try and don't win you're just a loser" kind of guys? Are you one of those dads - like Jimmy Harrison - who strips his kids of their participation trophies because they "didn't earn them"?

I saw OWS as making fools of themselves as a result of their inability to articulate a goal or demonstrate significant organization for their protest. I also consider them as making fools of themselves because once the winter rolled around, OWS packed up and went somewhere warmer.

The issue was certainly important but I don't give OWS any credit for making the public aware of the issue. OWS piggybacked on the existing public sentiment and didn't go very far with it.

 

[panamaican]

Okay cool, so we agree that your assertion that "everyone" knew about income inequality before Occupy was nonsense. It takes a real man to admit he was wrong. My point, as I stated in the OP, was that Sanders' surging popularity indicates that awareness of his platform is garnering sympathy. Prior to Bernie, there has been no bigger voice in decrying income inequality than OWS. I don't think Bernie could be pulling the numbers he's pulling without them.

What? You're definitely not reading your links. A lack of understanding as to the extent of income inequality is what was addressed in your study. The knowledge of the extent of income inequality is not the same thing as knowledge of income inequality.

I said that the subject was already a large part of public discourse then included links. You linked to studies that said Americans don't grasp the full extent of the inequality, before or after OWS. Failing to grasp the extent of a problem does not mean an unawareness of the problem.

You're demonstrating a pretty severe causality bias. You're attributing Bernie Sander's popularity in 2015 with a movement from 2011 that didn't even survive 6 months in a meaningful way. You're doing this because it's the biggest thing that you can remember. Simultaneously, you're ignoring all of the information that says the subject was being discussed at least a full year earlier in media. It's the logical equivalent of starting the alphabet with "E" because it's the letter that comes right before the "F" in Forkfoot.

Bernie Sanders was the 3rd most popular senator in the country in early 2011...before OWS. He had wide public support for his positions on finance even in 2008. Barack Obama campaigned for him in 2006.

http://mic.com/articles/122011/watch-young-senator-barack-obama-campaign-for-bernie-sanders-in-2006

Basically, you're confusing Sanders' popularity over the last decade as attributable to a short public movement on economic inequality. It's actually kind of sad, Sanders' political movement has been legitimately growing for years, although it seems you were only paying attention to OWS.

 

[Forkfoot]

What? You're definitely not reading your links. A lack of understanding as to the extent of income inequality is what was addressed in your study. The knowledge of the extent of income inequality is not the same thing as knowledge of income inequality.

I said that the subject was already a large part of public discourse then included links. You linked to studies that said Americans don't grasp the full extent of the inequality, before or after OWS. Failing to grasp the extent of a problem does not mean an unawareness of the problem.

You're demonstrating a pretty severe causality bias. You're attributing Bernie Sander's popularity in 2015 with a movement from 2011 that didn't even survive 6 months in a meaningful way. You're doing this because it's the biggest thing that you can remember. Simultaneously, you're ignoring all of the information that says the subject was being discussed at least a full year earlier in media. It's the logical equivalent of starting the alphabet with "E" because it's the letter that comes right before the "F" in Forkfoot.

Bernie Sanders was the 3rd most popular senator in the country in early 2011...before OWS. He had wide public support for his positions on finance even in 2008. Barack Obama campaigned for him in 2006.

http://mic.com/articles/122011/watch-young-senator-barack-obama-campaign-for-bernie-sanders-in-2006

Basically, you're confusing Sanders' popularity over the last decade as attributable to a short public movement on economic inequality. It's actually kind of sad, Sanders' political movement has been legitimately growing for years, although it seems you were only paying attention to OWS.

Well, I guess that's one way of looking at it.

 

[Corin7hian]

I just found this video from youtube and i will admit that i am uninformed when it comes to the economy and a lot of politics but i am trying to learn. Either way in my uninformed opinion this guy Peter Schiff kinda makes sense but does any one disagree with what he is saying?
[YT]kGdH7iGNqlY#t=593[/YT]

 

[Hog-train]

My point is that they did not bring it to the forefront of the average citizens mind. I'm not claiming they didn't inspire other groups or that they didn't address the issue. I'm simply stating that by the time OWS made it's debut, the issue was firmly in the average citizen's mind.

OWS followed the national trend, they did not create it. Credit them for contributing to it but not for mainstreaming it.

Well that's just really your opinion and conjecture on your part.

The average citizen is very apolitical and generally doesn't know anything about politics.

They may have had a general sense of dissatisfaction and life being harder, but the OWS movement kind of crystallized their frustration and helped them find a target for their anger.

Your under-exaggerating the impact of OWS by painting it as some hippy BS with zero impact.

Simply by the raw number of different places it spawned, that is not true.

 

[Jonesisinnocent]

Who exactly are these people referring to when they curse the "top 1%?" They say that they're just cursing the "super-rich" but I'm going to tell you what they really mean. What they are really cursing is the number One. They hate One. What these people are actually cursing is monotheism, they are cursing Abraham, they are cursing Judeo-Christianity, they are cursing Islam, they are cursing Judaism, they are cursing Western civilization, they are cursing authority, they are cursing strength. This is paganism. They might not call it that, they might not even realize it, but they are nothing but a bunch of filthy booty shaking paganists.

 

[Jack V Savage]

Who exactly are these people referring to when they curse the "top 1%?" They say that they're just cursing the "super-rich" but I'm going to tell you what they really mean. What they are really cursing is the number One. They hate One. What these people are actually cursing is monotheism, they are cursing Abraham, they are cursing Judeo-Christianity, they are cursing Islam, they are cursing Judaism, they are cursing Western civilization, they are cursing authority, they are cursing strength. This is paganism. They might not call it that, they might not even realize it, but they are nothing but a bunch of filthy booty shaking paganists.

Not sure if this is too crazy to respond to, but I'll note that no one is "cursing" the top 1%. People just think that if our distributive institutions enrich the top 1% at the expense of everyone else, they are not functioning as well as they should be.