JamesAndTheGiantHead
Well-known member
I'm still not sure what a church has to do with economics.
Got something to say or just want fewer pesky ads? Join us... 😊
Kicking off in NYC
- Thread starter The Merry Prankster
- Start date
DanielT
Well-known member
look at their bank statements/assets/property. not suggesting this is why the protesters took up camp there, but the church does have a lot to do with economics!
JamesAndTheGiantHead
Well-known member
Surely setting up shop some multi-billion pound corporation would make sense? Like HMV.
JamesAndTheGiantHead
Well-known member
Hmv..multi-billion..They're nearly bankrupt aren't they?
Yeah but you get to listen to the latest pop hits if you're camped outside there.
Brian Potter
Well-known member
The set up camp there primarily because it was the nearest suitable open space to Paternoster Square (where the London Stock Exchange is based). They were banned from the square by in injunction on behalf of Mitsubishi Estates (who own the land the square is on). Many "public areas" in London are actually privately owned. For example, the entire Canary Wharf area is private land and merely open to public access under license.
Lyndhurst 14
Well-known member
- Jan 16, 2008
- 5,243
New Yorkers are pretty tolerant. What finished off the OWS camp was the protestors crapping everywhere and threatening passers by and businesses. Bloomberg had to act after that started to happen. The courts have ruled that their right to protest is protected under the First Amendment but they cannot camp overnight as that interferes with the right of people to enjoy the park.
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,207
And f*** everybody else!
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,207
If you don't know this then you really have not been paying attention. I can't believe this line is still being trotted out after so long. IF you would like to know what they are protesting about then check any one of the occupy movements web pages or facebook pages or even go to a protest and ask them. It really is pretty simple.
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,207
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/news/more-news/ceos-stuff-their-piggy-banks/story-fn7x8me2-1226194962390
CHIEF executives of the big four banks got more than $1000 an hour in pay and perks last year, it has been revealed in a report
These people earn in 7 days what I earn as a teacher per year. There in a nutshell is what the occupy protests are about.
CHIEF executives of the big four banks got more than $1000 an hour in pay and perks last year, it has been revealed in a report
These people earn in 7 days what I earn as a teacher per year. There in a nutshell is what the occupy protests are about.
Last edited:
Tyrone Biggums
Well-known member
Not completely. Plenty can be done within ones own community.
In fact i'd say more will be done and achieved in local communities by average people than will ever be achieved by these protests.
Helping out at the local sporting club or Lions club or protesting against a world system. I know which one is more beneficial and will achieve more come the end of the day.
Last edited:
Tyrone Biggums
Well-known member
But isn't that your choice? People can choose whatever path in life they like.
I find these protests slightly hypocritical in that they overlook other areas of life where people make massive amounts of money.
I've not yet seen an anti-Michael Jordan,Tom Hanks,Lionel Messi sign amongst these protestors.
They are people who earn insane amounts of money too.
Half these people have no great desire to achieve anything in a career. Ther protest is against people who did.
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,207
Of course it is my choice and I love my job, but if they earn 40 times more money than me. Does that mean their job is 40 times as important as mine? Do they work 40 times as hard as me?
The point is while I understand that people will earn more than me and accept that, surely this is taking things too far and the gap is too wide.
Michael Jordan et al don't use their money to influence government policy but i am sure all would agree that they earn a disproportionate amount of money.
Last edited:
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,207
These are band aid solutions to the problems the occupy people are attempting to change core problems causing these localised issues. I agree that it has little chance of making any real difference but I would rather stand up and state my case than succumb to apathy as the world around me falls to shit. Not doing something because it is hard or not very likely to succeed is not a reason i can accept, i respect you as a poster on here but that is just piss weak.
"And if it don't work at least we say we tried" - Paul Weller
- Jul 7, 2003
- 47,639
That's fair enough, we all make our choices.
But what do the protestors expect is going to happen? The banks pay the money they do to attract the so-called top people in their field. We may not like it but that's the way it is. I'm pretty sure that under European law, the government can't put restraints on what they're allowed to earn any more than they could impose a maximum wage on footballers or musicians. And the banks themselves are never going to vote for pay cuts. So I suppose what I don't fully understand is what the protests are aiming to achieve, in a tangible sense rather than just an awareness context (we're all well aware of what bankers can earn).
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,207
One of the aims of the orgaization is to cut the link and the power that banks and large corporations have within governments around the world. This would at least provide a level playing field for discussions to be had about legislation that could be bought into provide viable alternatives for the customer. I claim to have the answers and I don't think the occupy movement do either but the odds are increasingly stacked in the favour of banks big business and government and the link between them must be cut. The government represent us, the people not the global corporations and banks.
1st solution would be to cut corporate donations to political parties.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,019
or its been communicated really poorly. you cant blame failure of a political movment to gain widespread support on people not paying attention. they either arent interested, dont understand or arent affected. since the most must have an interest and are affected in general economics, they arent understanding, shirley? Hatterlovesbrighton point hits the nail on the head, is it capitialism or greed? for some in Occupy is very much the former, for others its the latter. some have other agendas or are their for the experience/rite of passage. for all the objectives (rather than the complaints) are vague and fuzzy.
Last edited:
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,207
There are none so blind as those who will not see.
beorhthelm
A. Virgo, Football Genius
- Jul 21, 2003
- 36,019
i will point out that you have highlighted exactly what im talking about. within a few post you have noted the cause is against banker pay "in a nutshell" and then that one aim is to "cut the link and the power that banks and large corporations have within governments". i dont question the validity of either, but they are seperate issues and i might say very narrow too. if there is a theme it seems to be simply anti-banking industry.
BadFish
Huge Member
- Oct 19, 2003
- 18,207
So a protest movement cannot protest on more that one issue?
I was using the Bank CEO pay as an example of the disparity between the rich and the rest of us.
The movement is about the disparity between the richest people in the world and the rest of us. Those richest people also have connections with world government to ensure that they stay the richest people. So to me those two separate issues you agree with are anything but seperate.