Originally Posted by jimmac
I guess you just don't get it. You've already been disproven. The reason the other places turned violent was because of heavy handedness. The Portland police got the people out of the parks with no shots fired ( real or rubber ) no tear gas. There were about 50 arrests ( that's out of thousands ). You know the nut jobs who wanted to turn this violent.
So after this you're just typing for nothing. We already know you have a lot of anger and can't stand people with opinions different from yours. So much so you'd rather deprive them of their rights and just use a gun to get your subjective point across.
And really you seem to be going on the assumption that the protestors don't have a point as well.
It must be sad to be unable to comprehend reality because everyone you disagree with is wrong via bad intentions. He isn't wrong because of reality. Reality has more than proven him right. The media doesn't even want to report on any occupy problems and the protesters themselves are keeping them quite yet we have rapes, murders, drugs, disease outbreaks, you name it all occurring.
That wasn't a different approach. The Occupy protesters never left because the mayor there doesn't mind them there but wants to claim attempts at a solution so the city voters don't end up tossing the incumbents out in the next election.
Meanwhile here are four articles that note what I have mentioned and of course do a much better job of explaining it. This is about the gigantic pipe that feeds large portions of the blue coalition going broke, running on empty and causing them to rise up against the broken promises.Why Dems Can't Quit Occupy Wall Street
The Occupy protests are about jobs. The Occupiers are unemployed and they tend to have a certain class of college degree and cannot find a certain class of job. Anderson strikes close to the heart of the problem with Blue Inequality:
The lower tier is in a different situation and always has been. It is characterized by status-income disequilibrium, to borrow from David Brooks; it cultivates the sensibilities of the upper tier New Class, but does not have the ability to globalize its rent extraction. The helping professions, the professions of therapeutic authoritarianism (the social workers as well as the public safety workers), the virtuecrats, the regulatory class, etc., have a problem — they mostly service and manage individuals, the client-consumers of the welfare state. Their rents are not leveraged very much, certainly not globally, and are limited to what amounts to an hourly wage. The method of ramping up wages, however, is through public employee unions and their own special ability to access the public-private divide. But, as everyone understands, that model no longer works, because it has overreached and overleveraged, to the point that even the system’s most sympathetic politicians understand that it cannot pay up.
The upper tier is still doing pretty well. But the lower tier of the New Class — the machine by which universities trained young people to become minor regulators and then delivered them into white collar positions on the basis of credentials in history, political science, literature, ethnic and women’s studies — with or without the benefit of law school — has broken down. The supply is uninterrupted, but the demand has dried up. The agony of the students getting dumped at the far end of the supply chain is in large part the OWS.
The part Anderson likely gets wrong is the part about “everyone” knowing the model no longer works. As Mead wrote pre-OWS, the Blue Model was very much about selling people security within that model. And while it’s true that model has been crumbling for some time, the establishment was still selling gullible youngsters on the dream of permanent jobs, however much Matt Welch might be correct in calling them on it (the dysfunction of higher education fuels this phenomenon).
This group is exactly who's jobs were "saved or supported" by the Obama stimulus and why Obama was so desperate to go for round two. Now that he can't deliver it, all the folks earning their money telling us what to eat, yelling at us about our sensitivity levels and crafting posters reminding us to compost are increasingly out of jobs.
The previous article quoted a second article and within it is highlighted the plight of a typical OWS "victim."
Even more frightening is the young woman who graduated from UC Berkeley, wanting to work in “sustainable conservation.” She is now raising chickens at home, dying wool and knitting knick-knacks to sell at craft fairs. Her husband has been studying criminal justice and EMT — i.e., preparing to work for government in some of California’s hitherto most lucrative positions — but as those work possibilities have dried up, he is hedging with a (sensible) apprenticeship as an electrician. These young people are looking at serious downward mobility, in income as well as status. The prospects of the lower tier New Class semi-professionals are dissolving at an alarming rate. Student loan debt is a large part of its problems, but that’s essentially a cost question accompanying a loss of demand for these professionals’ services.
The OWS protestors are a revolt — a shrill, cri-de-coeur wail at the betrayal of class solidarity — of the lower tier New Class against the upper tier New Class. It was, after all, the upper tier New Class, the private-public finance consortium, that created the student loan business and inflated the bubble in which these lower tier would-be professionals borrowed the money. It’s a securitization machine, not so very different from the subprime mortgage machine. The asset bubble pops, but the upper tier New Class, having insulated itself and, as with subprime, having taken its cut upfront and passed the risk along, is still doing pretty well. It’s not populism versus the bankers so much as internecine warfare between two tiers of elites.
All those state paid documentary film makers, those receiving grants to spend years crafting art exhibits and models, those who run empowerment seminars based largely on self-esteem and disadvantaged groups, well they've got largely worthless degrees and a crapload of student loans. They were promised they could largely feed off the state teat and spread their good intentions and enlightenment forever and now, well they're 25, broke and living at home with the parents.David Brooks, who I seldom agree with gets is about three-quarters right as he weighs in here with "The Wrong Inequity."
These two forms of inequality exist in modern America. They are related but different. Over the past few months, attention has shifted almost exclusively to Blue Inequality.
That’s because the protesters and media people who cover them tend to live in or near the big cities, where the top 1 percent is so evident. That’s because the liberal arts majors like to express their disdain for the shallow business and finance majors who make all the money. That’s because it is easier to talk about the inequality of stock options than it is to talk about inequalities of family structure, child rearing patterns and educational attainment. That’s because many people are wedded to the notion that our problems are caused by an oppressive privileged class that perpetually keeps its boot stomped on the neck of the common man.
But the fact is that Red Inequality is much more important. The zooming wealth of the top 1 percent is a problem, but it’s not nearly as big a problem as the tens of millions of Americans who have dropped out of high school or college. It’s not nearly as big a problem as the 40 percent of children who are born out of wedlock. It’s not nearly as big a problem as the nation’s stagnant human capital, its stagnant social mobility and the disorganized social fabric for the bottom 50 percent.
If your ultimate goal is to reduce inequality, then you should be furious at the doctors, bankers and C.E.O.’s. If your goal is to expand opportunity, then you have a much bigger and different agenda.
Occupy Blue Street is a lengthy but insightful read.
What all three groups share is a burning desire for more: a hunger and demand for ever larger amounts of government revenue and power. Money and power for the government enable the upper middle class good government types to dream up new schemes to help us all live better lives and give government the resources for the various social, ecological and cultural transformations on the ever-expandable goo-goo to-do list that range from a global carbon tax to fair trade coffee cooperatives and the war on saturated fat. All these programs (some useful in the Via Meadia view, others much less so) require a transfer of funds and authority from society at large to well-socialized, well-credentialed and well-intentioned upper middle class types who get six figure salaries to make sure the rest of us behave in accordance with their rapidly evolving notions of correct behavior.
A bit more.....
Blue, government-oriented Wall Street; the professional do-gooders and the progressive intellectual and foundation establishment; the unionized government workforce; and the beneficiaries of social programs: this is the blue coalition. Many blue partisans don’t fully get this; they think of Wall Street as the enemy without fully grasping the essential role that the financial community plays in the creation and administration of blue policy. The participation in and support of blue social and economic policies by American finance both enables and shapes those policies, and it was the belief on Wall Street in the 1940s and 1950s that the blue social model provided the most effective path for national economic development that created the postwar commonwealth, which many blue activists today hope to restore.
That blue political coalition was the natural party of government of the United States between FDR’s inauguration in 1933 and Ronald Reagan’s accession to power in 1981. It remains the dominant force in most American cities and the deep blue states from New England to the Pacific, though from state to state and place to place the relative strength of the coalition members shifts.
In its earlier, more functional state, the blue political structure matched the economic structure of the United States reasonably well. The Depression and World War II created a situation in which a small number of large companies, pretty well tied into the government by regulatory controls and laws that kept competitors out of the marketplace, dominated the economy. With other world economies smashed flat by the war and the international financial system small and tightly controlled, the US government could control the macroeconomic environment much more effectively than it can now. Cheap foreign labor was not a factor – and immigration was, until the 1960s, still tightly restricted under the quota system.
Under those circumstances, the blue social model could satisfy key interests on Wall Street and in the general population, dividing the rents of monopoly (AT&T) and oligopoly (oil companies, airlines, television networks, money center banks) between management, shareholders and workers, with the government taking its share. These days the model doesn’t work as well, partly because of changes in the international and national economy that I’ve discussed in earlier posts.
But the key fact for places like New York today is that as the model falters, the constituencies who support it are turning on one another.
The Blue Model he writes about earlier and refers to is here as well.
Demanding an older model not crumble and that people raise their own taxes to fund a bad solution for a longer period of time simply won't happen.