Almost Canadian

I agree. I assume that you will be redistributing your wealth to those with less than you in other countries. If you don't you are a hypocrite

Politicians? Maybe. All wealthy and powerful people? I don't agree with that.

Are you arguing for anarchy then?

Interesting, if somewhat hypocritical. It seems to me that the ones you dislike are the ones that have played the system better than you have.

Why does one have to have an account? If doing so is so offensive, do without it.

I haven't seen evidence of mass support at all.

There is a legal and constitutional way to bring about whatever change you feel is appropriate. Run for office, form your own party and, if enough of the electorate want what you want, they will vote you in and you will be able to effect change. But, what may surprise you, is that most are happy with the status quo. Who is correct, you or them?

Almost Canadian

They should and I have no idea why they are not. Even if the Governments don't want them to, one would think that prosecutors would do so.

Alan2005

Your examples are a bit hit and miss, but I'm sure you knew that

They do stand for something. They stand for fact the system has failed and is corrupt. If they start making demands about the specifics of wealth redistribution they will lose either their conservative or progressive support.

I also think that OWS has learned from how the tea-party was co-opted by the crazies in the republican party and fox news. Not officially speaking to the media grants some immunity to this.

Almost Canadian

This reminds me of a talk on, IIRC, Radio 1 some years ago.

A: We should gather up all the money in the country and distribute it evenly to everyone.

B: Why?

A: It would make things much more fair.

B: Why would it?

A: Because then everyone would have an equal chance in life and everyone would be the same.

B: No they wouldn't.

A: Why not?

B: Because, some people would go straight down to the airport and spend it all on a fantastic holiday; some would buy start a business and make lots of money; some would start a business and lose all their money; some would lie around all day and do nothing until all their money was gone. So, in a few years from now, there would be people with lots of money, there would be people with no money and there would be people in between those groups. What would you do then?

A: Then I would gather up all the money in the country ...

Pretty Flowers

I guess it all depends on how you measure success.... or not....

The Occupy Toronto folks clearly feel that their campaign for whatever, isn't just about raising awareness, I'd say that a good proportion of the population have heard about them, but they're still there, which means that they must want something to change. But what????

Alan2005

To be honest, I've got no idea what the canadian occupy movements are for. I can understand it in the US, but here not so much.

Alan2005

Watch this if have time. Bill Black isn't just some wacko, he was involved in successfully prosecuting banking fraud in the early 90's.

Almost Canadian

That was very interesting. Thank you. I take it that Obama's failure to take the necessary steps to punish the perpetrators will be punished come election time

Lemonfish

Are those actually successful movements though?

Suffrage, I'll grant you. However:

- Ban the Bomb - we still have the bomb(s)

- Jarrow March - they made it to London, but nothing practical was done about their grievances

- Luddites - failed to stop the march of technology. Some were hanged

- Pilgrimage of Grace - ended in failure (mostly). Leaders executed, rising quelled.

Not good odds for the 99%, based on all of this.

Guess it depends on whether you take the long view of history though.

I think things like the Iraq War protests appear to achieve nothing at the time, but make governments think very hard before they do it again.

Could be the same for the Occupy 'movement'?

helcat12

I cannot believe that in your previous post you say that I personally am a hypocrite if I do not give my 'wealth' (such as it is) to others.
Individual action from someone like me would obviously be a futile gesture - it is a crass comment and so I will assume you meant it as a joke

Wealth redistribution is not about making everyone equal repeatedly.
Surely no intelligent person holds this simplistic and flawed logic.

It is certainly not fair to take money from a hard-working person who has earned it and give it to a layabout, but then no sensible person is saying we should.

But we have the situation in which rich, powerful people are skewing the wealth increasingly towards themselves at the expense of the normal man.

It cannot have passed anyone by that the senior members of certain industries, most notably the bank and investment sector and politicians are lining their own nests massively by exploiting both the public purse and individuals' private finances.

They have built up a mutually beneficial network of powerful individuals who scratch each other's backs.
They give each other big bonuses, give one another jobs for favours done while in public office and keep their own jobs and huge salaries while making others redundant and cutting services to the public in areas such as schools and health services - these are all things which do seriously affect people's lives

Of course, they also using their considerable power to cheat the populace out of money directly in ways such as reducing interest on their savings.

I did not say that movements like the Occupy... had mass support, but they clearly do have some support from normal people.
Now it is recognised where things have gone wrong but normal people have no power to change things because in the end, everyone at our end of things needs what money they have to live, eat, clothe themselves and make sure they do not become a pauper in their retirement, so they have to play by the rules made and enforced by people who do not have to worry about those things and who can splash the cash to keep things the way they want them.

Anarchy?
Well, maybe that will be the only way to change and start again but Revolution is a painful route.
Historically, it has several precedents and successful ones.

Alan2005

He did already when many tea party candidates got elected; but they turned out to be hypocrites as well.

Interestingly (from a timing perspective) brokerage firm MF Global just went bankrupt. There are reports that the company used money in client accounts to shore up it's own balance sheet - something that is obviously illegal. The CEO used to be the governor of new jersey and something to do with goldman sachs, so he's definitely "connected". Will he get thrown to the wolves or not? A cynic would say that this is only coming to light now so that the attorney general in the US can be seen to be doing something while the greater theft is still going on (and that really is the kind of thinking that leads to buying tin foil hats).

(http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/10/...-mf-global/?hp)