The "Occupy" Movement

[The Bread Guy]

Interesting (related?) development in Greece:

In a surprise development, Panos Beglitis, Defence Minister, a close confidante of Mr Papandreou, summoned the chiefs of the army, navy and air-force and announced that they were being replaced by other senior officers.

Neither the minister nor any government spokesman offered an explanation for the sudden, sweeping changes, which were scheduled to be considered on November 7 as part of a regular annual review of military leadership retirements and promotions. Usually the annual changes do not affect the entire leadership.

“Under no circumstances will these changes be accepted, at a time when the government is collapsing and has not even secured a vote of confidence,” said an official announcement by the opposition conservative New Democracy party.

“It has no moral or real authority any more, and such surprise moves can only worsen the crisis currently sweeping the country”.

The party said it will not accept the new nominations and will take its own decisions on armed forces changes if it comes to power at the general elections that are expected to take place in Greece if the government loses the vote of confidence on Friday night ....

The Telegraph (UK), 1 Nov 11

 

[Old Sweat]

Interesting (related?) development in Greece:The Telegraph (UK), 1 Nov 11

There was a comment on Sun News this afternoon that rumours of a coup are flying all around in Greece.

 

[a_majoor]

Here is something to tie back to the OWS movement's characterization of education; see how children respond to real instruction. They can get away with that in a school perhaps, but real world employers tend to ask questions, have employees work in teams and be prepared for their tasks....

http://taxprof.typepad.com/taxprof_blog/2011/11/prof-denied.html

Prof Denied Tenure for Using Socratic Method
Inside Higher Ed, Socratic Backfire?:

Some students didn't take well to Steven Maranville's teaching style at Utah Valley University. They complained that in the professor’s “capstone” business course, he asked them questions in class even when they didn't raise their hands. They also didn't like it when he made them work in teams.

Those complaints against him led the university denying him tenure – a decision amounting to firing, according to a lawsuit Maranville filed against the university this month. ... [T]he allegations in the lawsuit raise questions that have been raised and debated about the value of student evaluations and opinions, how negative evaluations play into the career trajectory of affected professors and whether students today will accept teaching approaches such as the Socratic method. ...

A twist in Maranville's case is that he gave up tenure at the University of Houston to come to Utah Valley, with the expectation that he would be awarded tenure there after a year. He is now an associate professor at Westminster College, in Salt Lake City, and his suit says that he earns considerably less than he did in his previous position. ...

The Socratic style of teaching that Maranville used is hardly novel. But experts say that while it remains popular in law schools, there are reasons many faculty members have never used it extensively with the current generation of students. ... Walter Parker, a professor of education at the University of Washington, said he teaches using the “Socratic seminar” method. He cautioned against stereotypes of the Socratic method, namely the depiction in the 1973 movie The Paper Chase, which shows a professor giving harsh evaluations to a student, leaving the students embarrassed. "That is not the Socratic method," he said. ...

Students did not want to work in teams and did not want Maranville to ask questions. “They wanted him to lecture.” They also complained, according to the suit, that he did not know how to teach because he is blind.

The department chair –- Scott Hammond, who is named in the lawsuit –- apparently agreed with how Maranville taught his courses and called him a “master teacher,” according to court documents. Hammond visited his class, and so did an associate dean.

But a few months later, during the spring semester, Maranville received a letter from university president saying that his classroom behavior was not suited to his being granted tenure.

 

[a_majoor]

:rofl:

http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/02/nyc-arrest-records-many-occupy-wall-street-protesters-live-in-luxury/

NYC arrest records: Many Occupy Wall Street protesters live in luxury
Published: 12:45 AM 11/02/2011 | Updated: 12:21 PM 11/02/2011
By Will Rahn
Bio | Archive | Email Will Rahn  Follow Will Rahn

Get Will Rahn Feed
Will Rahn is a political writer at The Daily Caller. Will previously worked as an online editor at TheDC and a researcher for MSNBC's Morning Joe.

NEW YORK, NY - OCTOBER 15: Demonstrators associated with the 'Occupy Wall Street' movement protest in Times Square on October 15, 2011 in New York City. (Photo by Mario Tama/Getty Images)
Many “Occupy Wall Street” protesters arrested in New York City reside in more luxurious homes than some of their rhetoric might suggest, a Daily Caller investigation has found.

For each of the 984 Occupy Wall Street protesters arrested in New York City between September 18 and October 15, police collected and filed an information sheet recording the arrestee’s name, age, sex, criminal charge, home address and — in most cases — race. The Daily Caller has obtained all of this information from a source in the New York City government.

Among addresses for which information is available, single-family homes listed on those police intake forms have a median value of $305,000 — a far higher number than the $185,400 median value of owner-occupied housing units in the United States.

Some of the homes where “Occupy” arrestees reside, viewed through Google Maps and the Multiple Listing Service real estate database, are the definition of opulence.

Using county assessors and online resources such as Zillow.com, TheDC estimated property values and rents for 87 percent of the homes and 59 percent of the apartments listed in the arrest records.

Even in the nation’s currently depressed housing market, at least 95 of the protesters’ residences are worth approximately $500,000 or more. (RELATED SLIDESHOW: Opulent homes of the ’99 percent’)

The median monthly rent for those living in apartments whose information is readily available is $1,850.

Of the 984 protesters arrested, at least 797 are white. The median age of “Occupy” protesters taken into custody is 27 years.

Ten demonstrators were arrested more than once. The vast majority of the arrests, it should be noted, were for nonviolent offenses.

The arrest intake documents show that arrestees came to New York from all over the country but particularly from the Northeast.

Criminal charges ranged from “loitering while wearing a mask” and “failure to move along” to “violent behavior” and other more serious charges such as “assault 2 [second-degree assault] caus[ing] physical injury to police [or] firemen.” There was also one charge of “sex abuse 3 [third-degree].” Hundreds were arrested on October 1 for obstructing traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge.

While it would not be fair to conclude that the arrested protesters are fully representative of a movement that is not completely understood, this information forms the most complete snapshot yet of the demonstrations’ more militant participants.

It also reinforces the persistent critique of protesters as entitled, upper-class agitators with few legitimate grievances.

London’s Daily Mail newspaper, for example, recently highlighted signs of wealth among the throngs in Zuccotti Park.

“Sleeping beside the hardcore activists are increasing numbers of wealthy students turning up to make the most of the party atmosphere, drugs and free food,” reporters Paul Bentley and Micela McLucas wrote in October. “While they dress down to blend in, the youngsters’ privileged backgrounds are revealed by glimpses of expensive gadgetry or the absent minded mention of their private schools during heated political debates.”

“I think that it’s accurate to say that our supporters come from all backgrounds,” Patrick Bruner, the operator of OccupyWallStreet.org, a website dedicated to help organize and spread information about the protests, told TheDC when asked about participants from wealthier backgrounds. “That said, a (non-random) survey on our site revealed that our visitors literally are the 99% in regards to economic realities.”

The national median home value of $185,400 reflects U.S. Census statistics from the years 2005 through 2009, the last year data were available.

TheDC was able to estimate home values and apartment rents for 659 of the 972 residences. Thirteen were in university dormitories; six were post office boxes; four were addresses in foreign countries. Many addresses proved to be nonexistent, and a few were not provided to police.

TheDC has elected not to publish personally identifying information.

Gracie Ferrell and Meg Gasvoda contributed reporting to this story.



Read more: http://dailycaller.com/2011/11/02/nyc-arrest-records-many-occupy-wall-street-protesters-live-in-luxury/#ixzz1caadOlAZ

 

[Brad Sallows]

>In the US, like pretty much every where else, recession hit the whole country (to one degree or another). Gov't responded by "encouraging" banks to loan more money to, in essence, add to the already considerable funds they (the gov't) had already provided in order to "stimulate" the economy.

No, the US government policies aimed at broadening home ownership among people who ordinarily would not qualify for a mortgage started long before the recession (decades, in fact).  That contributed to the real estate "bubble": more money chasing the available real estate.  But while government was happy to pressure lenders and government agencies (ie. FNMA=Fannie Mae, FMLHC=Freddie Mac) to take more risks, non-governmental institutions were not content to just suck up the risk.  They set their minds to the problem and figured out how to launder that risk by packaging up mortgages and selling them to third parties, and also by taking out "insurance" (credit default swaps), and God knows what other schemes.  All within the rules, and predictable: there are more bright young people working longer hours to figure out ways to protect their employers' investments than there are politicians and mandarins in government (who are less motivated, and for the most part not as bright).  Think Germans versus French, 1940, with "government" in the role of the French: hopelessly outclassed with outmoded plans and a glacial decision cycle.  Plus, as soon as government enacts regulations it tends to move on to something else, whereas the private sector tends to focus attention more diligently than my husky looking for a way out of the yard.

The ratings assigned to the mortgage bundles containing shitty mortgages were in no way accurate.  When the bubble popped and people started defaulting, it was hard to measure losses.  Not knowing how far their necks were stuck out, lenders stopped lending and hung onto their cash in case they had to make good on various payments.  People saw the trend, and worried people tend to spend less and try to pay down their debt.  Add it all up, and there was a massive reduction in the number of transactions (in rough terms, the amount of money changing hands).  That means less tax revenue for government (fewer sales taxes, less sales volume meaning layoffs and salary reductions meaning less incomes taxes, etc).  (And the Obama administration has spared almost no effort to pursue policies which tend to hinder rather than encourage economic activity.)  So the government response is to go to the Keynesian playbook which suggests increased government spending to pave over potholes (recessions) by taking on government debt.

There are a couple of reasons "stimulus" was doomed from the get go:
1) The recession has to be brief, which a bubble deflation is not.  The hole is too big (a cliff, in fact; there is no far side).
2) Most of the stimulus was used to prop up public service payroll to forestall layoffs and cutbacks, rather than infrastructure investment which might have prompted economic growth.

So now the feds, states, and many municipalities are right back to where they were in 2008: they need to make cuts they should have made immediately, but they are deeper in debt so even more money gets flushed out in debt charges.  A colossal and critical failure on their part.

The loss in Canada was not as severe because there simply wasn't the same government-backed money pump pushing funds into real estate; we had rapid growth in real estate prices (low interest rates) but it was more moderated, and property values haven't fallen much.  I doubt my own home is much below what I paid for it just before the recession.

Overseas as well as here, the fundamental problem is too much spending.  The years 1997-2007 were very healthy years for revenue in most countries, and most countries got accustomed to spending at those abnormally high levels.  In fact, most were spending not only all their income in their "best earning years", but going into debt to spend more.

Think what would happen to you if you had salary "X". Suddenly this year, there is a lot of opportunity for overtime, and you gross 20% more (1.2 times "X").  You change your spending habits to spend it all.

Next year arrives, and the economy is bad, so your employer cuts back hours.  Now you are at 0.9 times "X" income, but still at 1.2 times "X" spending.  You can use your credit to cover the gap, but once your credit runs out you still have 0.9 times "X" income, 1.2 times "X" expenses, plus some amount of interest on your debt.  You're screwed.

Bottom line: for many years, most governments have spent every dime they took in, plus many of the expected future dimes.  The proper solution is to simply abrogate most of the stupid promises (overgenerous public compensation packages and entitlement and other benefit payouts).  People have pointed out for years that these things were unsustainable; there is no excuse for anyone not knowing it.  Those who demanded something undeliverable - especially making commitments on behalf of people not yet born or old enough to vote - have no reasonable right to expect it to be delivered.

 

[Wookilar]

Think Germans versus French, 1940, with "government" in the role of the French: hopelessly outclassed with outmoded plans and a glacial decision cycle. 

Brilliant, thank you. Exactly what I needed.

Think what would happen to you if you had salary "X". Suddenly this year, there is a lot of opportunity for overtime, and you gross 20% more (1.2 times "X").  You change your spending habits to spend it all.

Next year arrives, and the economy is bad, so your employer cuts back hours.  Now you are at 0.9 times "X" income, but still at 1.2 times "X" spending.  You can use your credit to cover the gap, but once your credit runs out you still have 0.9 times "X" income, 1.2 times "X" expenses, plus some amount of interest on your debt.  You're screwed.

So...like someone thinking LDA (for example) is part of their salary and crying wolf when they are posted to a school?

Wook

 

[Jungle]

Sweet irony:

Occupy Wall Street kitchen staff protesting fixing food for freeloaders

Read more: http://www.nypost.com/p/news/local/manhattan/zuccotti_hell_kitchen_i5biNyYYhpa8MSYIL9xSDL#ixzz1cdIOBfyX

The Occupy Wall Street volunteer kitchen staff launched a “counter” revolution yesterday -- because they’re angry about working 18-hour days to provide food for “professional homeless” people and ex-cons masquerading as protesters.

For three days beginning tomorrow, the cooks will serve only brown rice and other spartan grub instead of the usual menu of organic chicken and vegetables, spaghetti bolognese, and roasted beet and sheep’s-milk-cheese salad.

They will also provide directions to local soup kitchens for the vagrants, criminals and other freeloaders who have been descending on Zuccotti Park in increasing numbers every day.

To show they mean business, the kitchen staff refused to serve any food for two hours yesterday in order to meet with organizers to air their grievances, sources said.

As the kitchen workers met with the “General Assembly’’ last night, about 300 demonstrators stormed from the park to Reade Street and Broadway, where they violently clashed with cops.

Officers made at least 10 arrests when rowdy demonstrators refused to get out of the street and stop blocking traffic. A dozen cops on scooters tried to force them back to the sidewalk.

There were no reported injuries.

The demonstrators said they were angry over the violence in Oakland.

After making their way to Union Square, many of the protesters returned to Zuccotti.

The Assembly announced the three-day menu crackdown announced earlier in the day -- insisting everybody would be fed something during that period.

Some protesters threatened that the high-end meals could be cut off completely if the vagrants and criminals don’t disperse.

Unhappiness with their unwelcome guests was apparent throughout the day.

“We need to limit the amount of food we’re putting out” to curb the influx of derelicts, said Rafael Moreno, a kitchen volunteer.

A security volunteer added that the cooks felt “overworked and underappreciated.”

Many of those being fed “are professional homeless people. They know what they’re doing,” said the guard at the food-storage area.

Today, a limited menu of sandwiches, chips and some hot food will be doled out -- so legitimate protesters will have a day to make arrangements for more upscale weekend meals.

Protesters got their first taste of the revolt within the revolt yesterday when the kitchen staff served only peanut butter and jelly sandwiches and chips after their staff meeting.

Organizers took other steps to police the squatters, who they said were lured in from other parks with the promise of free meals.

A team of 10 security volunteers moved in to the trouble-prone southwest section of Zuccotti Park in a show of force to confront them.

“We’re not going to let some members of this community destroy the whole movement,” a volunteer said.

Some arguments broke out as the security team searched tents -- but no violence erupted.

Overall security at the park had deteriorated to the point where many frightened female protesters had abandoned the increasingly out-of-control occupation, security- team members said.

Rumors swirled that one homeless man had pulled a knife in a dispute the night before -- and that there had been yet another case of groping.

But protesters and a cop on duty told The Post that most of the crime goes unreported, because of a bizarre “stop snitching” rule.

“What’s happening in there is staying in there,” said the cop.

Additional reporting by Josh Saul, Erin Calabrese and Julia Marsh

I guess the homeless are not part of the "99%"...  :

 

[Infanteer]

Oh the irony.  We're here to protest the system and support the downtrodden, but we don't want to feed homeless people....

 

[vonGarvin]

They don't seem to understand it, but they have become a microcosm of human society, complete with servants, security, leeches and providers.  But since they think they are better different than the rest of us, they don't have leaders.  In the end, they are no different, really.  But in the larger society, they are the leeches.

 

[The Bread Guy]

From the Halifax Chronicle-Herald and other papers this week.....

 

[IBM]

:remembrance:

 

[Journeyman]

:remembrance:

Oh those PsyOps guys are such jokesters   

 

[Edward Campbell]

Here, reproduced under the Fair Dealing provisions of the Copyright Act from the Globe and Mail, is a column with which I (mostly) agree:

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/news/national/british-columbia/gary_mason/this-occupy-protests-in-danger-of-fizzling-out/article2223220/

This Occupy protest’s in danger of fizzling out

GARY MASON
From Thursday's Globe and Mail

Published Thursday, Nov. 03, 2011

Is the Occupy movement growing or dying? Are groups such as the one that set up camp on the grounds of the Vancouver Art Gallery hurting the cause or helping it? Does a leaderless protest organization have any promise of forcing change?

If you talk to the person considered largely responsible for the whole thing, the amorphous, anti-hierarchical nature of Occupy is part of its mystique and will eventually be the reason for its success. And if you’re tempted to ask Adbusters co-founder Kalle Lasn how a protest group that doesn’t have a specific set of demands can accomplish anything, he’ll tell you that you don’t get what’s really going on.

“People expect this to be the old-style revolution,” says Mr. Lasn, whose counterculture magazine sparked the movement. “They expect it to be one that is vertical, that has demands, that has a leader who will tell you what’s going on so it’s crystal clear. But this movement is horizontal. It grew out of the culture of the Internet and learned something from the encampments in Spain and some of the anarchism going on in Greece.”

Instead, Mr. Lasn told me, Occupy is egalitarian and doesn’t like leaders or demands. It’s trying to create a new model for democracy, transcending failed revolutions of the past and eschewing simplistic left-wing slogans such as Tax the Rich.

Perhaps. But Occupy has certainly relied on catchphrases of its own – “the 99 per cent,” “the 1 per cent” – to convey its anti-establishment message. Not that there’s anything wrong with that.

I think what many people are struggling with is where Occupy goes from here. Does it have any hope of building on the early momentum it had behind the message that corporate greed, represented by the obscene profits and bonuses seen on Wall Street, symbolizes a world fundamentally out of sync?

The first protests at Zuccotti Park in Lower Manhattan appeared to give voice to a growing feeling that inequality, not prosperity, had become the hallmark of our modern society. And that crony capitalism had corrupted democratically elected governments around the world to the detriment of a stagnating middle class whose needs were not being met.

But now I watch the 75 or so people occupying the grounds of the Vancouver Art Gallery and question whether there’s any hope for the movement. The spirit of optimism that imbued the site early on has dissipated. Many campers have left, frustrated by the clash of varying ideologues and agendas. It seems to exist with no purpose.

Meantime, entreaties by City Hall to end the occupation have been ignored. And outside supporters of the noble sentiment that formed the basis of the movement have begun to question the occupiers’ true goal.

Is there one? Or is it just anarchy dressed up as something else?

For his part, Mr. Lasn isn’t worried that the various occupations across North America will produce a public backlash that could erode the support the movement enjoyed. That conflict over the encampments will effectively kill the national conversation the movement sparked.

On the contrary, Mr. Lasn says, infighting is normal. As the movement moves into its “second phase,” trouble is to be expected. Revolutions, after all, are a messy business.

“In Egypt, there is going to be a slugfest for many years to see who finally controls the country and what kind of system they give birth to,” he says. “I think the same thing will happen to this movement. There’s going to be a lot of grief, a lot of pain, possibly a lot of violence, but somewhere down the road, I hope a new system will be born.”

Not to be a killjoy, but I don’t see it happening. Not unless the Occupy movement can produce some type of political manifesto that ordinary people can understand and relate to and that offers legitimate hope of beneficial change. In other words, it needs more than just emotion to sustain itself and to result in something.

Because right now, for all its good intentions, this protest campaign is in danger of fizzling out.

I do think that the original intent of Occupy Wall Street was to highlight the problem - a problem I think is real - of inequality. The inequality is not that between the to 1% and the bottom, say, 5% - that will always exist and will never be anything except HUGE. The inequality that is a problem is between then top 15% and the middle 60%. At its extreme that inequality might be, sensibly, as high as about 40:1; the problem is that the inequality now exceeds 100:1, maybe it is even higher. The simple fact is that the top 15% are not "worth" 100 times the middle class, they don't "earn" 100 times the middle class but they are getting paid 100 times what the middle class earns.

But the greater "occupy" movement is not about inequality. In fact it's not about anything. There may be some violence before the "occupy" whatever it is fizzles and dies, but not much and it, like the movement itself, will be pointless.

 

[The Bread Guy]

Guys, guys, guys, you're forgetting the big picture.  What about the plight of those indebted to the tune of $35K from getting a degree in puppetry?:

A few years ago, Joe Therrien, a graduate of the NYC Teaching Fellows program, was working as a full-time drama teacher at a public elementary school in New York City. Frustrated by huge class sizes, sparse resources and a disorganized bureaucracy, he set off to the University of Connecticut to get an MFA in his passion—puppetry. Three years and $35,000 in student loans later, he emerged with degree in hand, and because puppeteers aren’t exactly in high demand, he went looking for work at his old school. The intervening years had been brutal to the city’s school budgets—down about 14 percent on average since 2007. A virtual hiring freeze has been in place since 2009 in most subject areas, arts included, and spending on art supplies in elementary schools crashed by 73 percent between 2006 and 2009. So even though Joe’s old principal was excited to have him back, she just couldn’t afford to hire a new full-time teacher. Instead, he’s working at his old school as a full-time “substitute”; he writes his own curriculum, holds regular classes and does everything a normal teacher does. “But sub pay is about 50 percent of a full-time salaried position,” he says, “so I’m working for half as much as I did four years ago, before grad school, and I don’t have health insurance…. It’s the best-paying job I could find." ....

The humanity!  When will his oppression end?!?!?!?!?!?
:sarcasm:

 

[Journeyman]

....he writes his own curriculum....

Interesting concept, and if true, speaks volumes about the current generation's level of education.

 

[cupper]

Wook:

Brad gives a good summary of the real estate bubble and the financial crisis.

For a "Dummies" version, NPR's Planet Money in cooperation with RPI's This American Life did an excellent hour long radio broadcast going into detail on how the whole thing worked, who was doing what, and how they gamed the system.

Best thing about it is they do it in a manner that anyone can understand, even if you have no clue how what a credit default swap is, or even operate an ATM.

http://www.thisamericanlife.org/radio-archives/episode/355/the-giant-pool-of-money

There were several follow-up shows and stories that cover other aspects of the meltdown and subsequent recession also.  Check out the archives on teh Planet Money site:

http://www.npr.org/blogs/money/

 

[a_majoor]

Well, now we all know which President to blame for the inequality mess, and what political party supports economic policies that increase inequality. Funny what happens when facts are introduced to the debate... >:

http://news.investors.com/Article/590383/201111030805/Income-Inequality-Rose-Under-Clinton-Obama.htm

Income Inequality Rose Most Under President Clinton
By JOHN MERLINE, INVESTOR'S BUSINESS DAILY
Posted 08:05 AM ET

In his weekend radio address, President Obama decried that "over the past three decades, the middle class has lost ground while the wealthiest few have become even wealthier." Although he was trying to leverage the Occupy Wall Street movement, the income gap has been a longstanding concern of his.

During the 2008 campaign, Obama said, "The project of the next president is figuring out how do you create bottom-up economic growth, as opposed to the trickle-down economic growth that George Bush has been so enamored with."

But it turns out that the rich actually got poorer under President Bush, and the income gap has been climbing under Obama.

What's more, the biggest increase in income inequality over the past three decades took place when Democrat Bill Clinton was in the White House.

The wealthiest 5% of U.S. households saw incomes fall 7% after inflation in Bush's eight years in office, according to an IBD analysis of Census Bureau data. A widely used household income inequality measure, the Gini index, was essentially flat over that span. Another inequality gauge, the Theil index, showed a decline.

In contrast, the Gini index rose — slightly — in Obama's first two years. Another Census measure of inequality shows it's climbed 5.7% since he took office.

Meanwhile, during Clinton's eight years, the wealthiest 5% of American households saw their incomes jump 45% vs. 26% under Reagan. The Gini index shot up 6.7% under Clinton, more than any other president since 1980.

To the extent that income inequality is a problem, it's not clear what can be done to resolve it. Among the contributing factors:

Economic growth. Strong economic growth, rising stock prices and household income inequality tend to go hand in hand.

Technology. Tech advances have put a premium on skilled labor, according to a Congressional Budget Office report . Because the pool of skilled workers hasn't grown as much as demand, their wages have climbed faster.

Free trade and immigration. Cheap labor abroad and an influx in low-skilled immigrants can depress wages at the bottom, according to the CBO.

Women in the workforce. As the CBO put it, "an increase in the earnings of women could boost inequality by raising the income of couples relative to that of households headed by single people."

Tax policy changes don't explain the widening income gap. The CBO found that, by one measure, "the federal tax system as a whole is about as progressive in 2007 as it was in 1979."

Of course, all this assumes there's a problem at all. As University of Michigan economist Mark Perry notes, while the income gap has grown since 1979, almost the entire increase occurred before the mid-1990s: "There is absolutely no statistical support for the commonly held view that income inequality has been rising recently."

A similar analysis found that income inequality has fallen among individuals since the early 1990s, but risen among households due to factors such as more marriages of people with similar education levels and earnings potential.

Others argue that income mobility matters more than equality.

One study found that more than half of the families who started in the lowest income bracket in 1996 had moved to a higher one by 2005. At the other end of the spectrum, more than 57% of families fell out of the top 1%.

A survey by the Economic Mobility Project found 71% said it's more important for the country to focus on improving upward mobility. Just 21% prioritized reducing inequality.

 

[a_majoor]

Perhaps the best possible answer to the OWS supporters:

http://searchingforliberty.blogspot.com/2011/11/ultimate-irony-99-have-created-monster.html

The Ultimate Irony: The 99% Have Created the Monster

Capitalism is the ultimate democracy.

Read that again.

No where else do we exercise our free agency more independently that how we choose to spend our pay cheques.

Think about the decision-making process of a consumer.

You deposit your pay cheque and then you make a decision, completely independent of any Wall Street clowns, about what you are going to do with it. 

You decide you are going to buy some groceries.

Where do you go to get them - democratic decision number 1.  Safeway, WallMart, the local farmer's market, the corner store.. it's completely up to you.

Once you arrive, now the democratic process really takes over.  What do you buy?  Doritos?  If so, what flavor?  Nacho Cheese, Buffalo Wing, Ranch, Onion Rings and Ketchup.. the choices abound.  And not so much as a soft hand on your shoulder as you vote for your favorite. 

And so it goes.  Do you buy Kraft dinner, or do you go with the generic brand of mac n' cheese.  Or do you make it from scratch yourself, and buy a bag of elbow macaroni, a block of cheddar, some milk and floor?

Note, again, no one telling you what choice you have to make. 

By the end of the shopping experience, you've made, perhaps, a hundred choices - all by your big boy self - with nary a government employee or evil corporate magnate compelling you to make any of them..

Oh sure - they market and advertise and, to some extent, brainwash you into thinking that this brand or that brand will make you happier, sexier, more fulfilled - but at the end of the day, you are a complete free agent in how you choose to spend your dollar.

And so goes virtually all of our decisions on spending our dollars - the sole exception being income tax.  That is the least democratic expenditure you make..  no control there.  The government tells you to hand over your money - and only in the most oblique way, do you have any impact on how they spend it.

How ironic, then, that the call from the "Occupiers" is for higher tax.

Because what they conveniently forget, is that massive gap between the wealthy and the not-so-wealthy, is a product, for the most part, of the democratic process inherent in capitalism.

No one forced any of us to purchase the new iPhone.

And yet we did.  And Apple suddenly earns billions of dollars - and becomes part of the hated "1%".

Likewise with almost all major corporate giants - from Microsoft, to Coca-Cola, to Time-Warner, to Anheiser Busch. 

They earn billions of dollars, not because they are able to force you to buy their products, but because you CHOOSE to buy their products.

This is the great failing of the anti-corporate anarchist types.

Because while they may capture the angst and, yes, envy, of the masses that they don't have what the wealthy have - what they can't do, in any meaningful way, is convince the marchers at OWS to throw away their iPhones.

To NOT shop at WallMart.

To NOT go see the latest piece of garbage from Michael Moore, or Sandra Bullock.

To NOT, effectively, hand over their hard-earned money to Michael Vick and Ben Roethlesberger.

To NOT invest their savings in marginal return, but very safe, GIC's, and Term Deposits.

We want what we want.  And while many of us may feel a certain sense of unfairness in the wealth of corporate giants - we're not prepared to vote against them en mass with our pocket books.

And maybe we should.

And THAT is the message that these Occupy clowns aren't getting out.  Because that would require work and sacrifice. 

If you really want to benefit the small guy, if you really want to turn the tables - stop shopping at WalMart.  Go to your local grocer, to your local produce market.  Stop going out for dinner at Wendy's or McDonald's, and go to your local burger joint, or your local restaurant instead of Chili's and Tony Roma's and Olive Garden.

If you are tired of unheard of profits going to greed-heads at Goldman-Sachs - well, put your money in savings.  Make lump-sum payments on your mortgage.  Or invest in a local business that you can see and touch. 

Will it happen?

Don't hold your breath.

Because while the "99%" like to talk the talk, they aren't ever going to walk the walk. 

Certainly, some people can't afford to make those capitalist distinctions.  The difference between buying $100 worth of groceries which would cost $125.00 locally may be too painful for those at the low end of the income scale.

But WallMart isn't making their billions from low-income families.  They are making the vast majority of their money from the burgeoning middle class - who could choose to spend a little more to help the little guy - but don't.

So.

Want to change the gap between the 99% and the 1%?

Who's stopping you?

 

[Jungle]

Perhaps the best possible answer to the OWS supporters:

http://searchingforliberty.blogspot.com/2011/11/ultimate-irony-99-have-created-monster.html

I really like the conclusion of the comment below the article:

Stop buying the d*mn stuff from these corporations and then maybe I will listen to a few of them. Stop going to the store and purchasing things that only arrived there via big trucking companies and I might listen. Stop trying to force us all to hate the rich people while being employed by them, directly or indirectly, and I might listen. Stop clapping for the sickeningly rich celebs that show up at Occupy protests to show their 'support' before jumping in their hundred thousand dollar vehicles to drive back to their private jet and return to their multi-million dollar homes, and I might listen.

But that's just not going to happen, is it?

 

[PMedMoe]

Oakland protests turn violent, 80 arrests