'Occupy' types

[JoeRedskin]

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

You know why it's not clear? THE MEDIA. They don't want to make it clear. They want to make it look like they are some rambling idiots just protesting just to protest.

One, all I have heard from the media is sympathy for the OWS movement - how they are a populist movement striving to focus their outrage. All sorts of little guy v. big bad corporations. At the same time, I am sure that media from the right is doing as you say. I am equally sure that left leaning media is portraying them as modern day evangelists/heros - little Davids against big bad Goliaths. Sunday OWS Notes - NYTimes.com; Occupy Wall Street reacts to Goldman Sachs pay - Oct. 20, 2011; Occupy Wall Street shows muscle, raises $300K - US news - Life - msnbc.com

The typical preachers are talking to the typical choirs. The facts are out there and being reported. Depending on which channel you listen to, the space between the facts is filled with red or blue spin.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

It's simple.

1) Criminally charge those who ran the economy/banking industry into the ground.

2) Remove corporate/wall street ties with government.

3) Tax corporations appropriately.

I get it. You hate corporations and rich people. The OWS movement must just have you salivating like crack to an addict. However, if what you say is truly "the message", than the OWS is just plain dumb and is exhibiting a fundamental failure to understand economics and criminal law 101.

(1) Cite me the specific criminal statutes violated by specific individuals. Not some generic bull sh**. Facts & laws - specifics. When, where and how? Who, specifically, committed what specific crimes? Before you start depriving individuals of their liberty, I would suggest they are entitled to a little due process of the law.

If those "who ran the economy/banking industry into the ground" did so out of epically bad judgment rather than through specific criminal actions - does the OWS still support criminal sanctions? I, for one, don't support a movement that would suggest we allow the retroactive imposition of criminal penalties for actions not deemed criminal at the time they were taken. Seems to me a bad, bad precedent.

(2, 3) So tax corporations and take property from their investors but don't let those self-same investors have a voice in government through the corporate entity. More simply, tax but allow no representation - seems to me that was the underlying theme of some other revolution in history.

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

There is no ****ing way that those assholes that ran this economy into the ground should be walking away with hundreds of millions of dollars, while sticking the American people with the bill. **** that. Arrest the criminals and send them to jail. Liquidate ALL of their assets and give it back to the people/government.

And it was allllll "the corporations" fault - not all those taking advantage of easy money, applying for loans with inflated home values and false income information or purchasing homes on speculation.

BTW - Is the same govt in which you have no faith that you would have collecting and performing the wealth distribution?

Originally Posted by NC_Skins

The reason they aren't being tried and convicted is, they are in bed with the politicians. They are major contributors and basically set the policy at hand. The politicians aren't going to take a stand because it's biting the hand that feeds them, and many of them are making huge gains off of the very stuff they let slide.

No. The reason they aren't being tried and convicted is, to my knowledge, they have not done anything criminal but, rather, made dumb/bad investments and used traditionally accepted, but risky, accounting procedures to inflate values in an effort to create the most wealth for their investors.

Ultimately, with corporations, there is inherent conflict/disconnect between the need for and purpose of a corporation's legal existence and the proper functioning of a free market. Corporations exist to pool resources and protect individuals from personal liability which allows for greater risk and larger investment. At the same time, in doing so, the corporate entity shields managers from suffering the same penalty the corporation suffers for bad investments - loss of value. It is this disconnect that allows these large corporations to make dumb, risky investments while having the managers profit regardless of whether or not the corporation wins or loses.

If the OWS really wants to change things then, as the Tea Party has done, create a specific agenda that addresses the real inequities and market dysfunction of corporate law as it applies to large corporations. Find a way to preserve the real and needed protections of the corporate structure while at the same time creating a practical market accountability for managers who exercise poor judgment. I suggest to you that the devil is in the details and that screaming "Corporations are bad" is ineffective, counter-productive and, mostly, just plain stupid.