The Occupy Movement's Common Denominator?

ericharrisonriddle — Sat, 04 Feb 2012 13:45:00 -0500

The Occupy Movements have been creating quite a commotion, as of late. Groups are mobilizing across the United States, and even in other parts of the globe, with increasing force. News medias, politicians, businessmen, and commentators have made varying statements about the movement, but no one seems to be addressing the question: does the movement have a legitimate fundamental complaint? Of course, this is to be expected considering the group’s absence of leadership and synergism. Keeping this in mind, a cautious analysis of the above question follows.

[I had originally intended to go into a full economic analysis of the groups tenants, but after reviewing the few official substantive statements, I realized this was a not a possibility.]

A TELLING QUOTE:

These men and women represent the 99% with the goal of ending the greed and corruption of the wealthiest 1% of America.

[http://www.occupytogether.org/occupy-wall-st/]

This quote has been rehashed and reproduced a number of times, and in various places but the bolded terms remain constant; it will be the basis of our analysis. Within this statement, we have a few things being said:

There is a drastically skewed wealth distribution
The wealthiest 1% are greedy and corrupt
A goal of ending said greed and corruption

Let us first look at the true income distribution in the United States:

Even a casual person, with a casual view, would notice that the separations of income classes are not merely segregated into two vastly different groupings. Wall Street may contain portions of the highest earning 1%, but certainly not the majority; entrepreneurs, investors, entertainment professionals, politicians, lawyers, and the ”Rockefellers” share this bracket as well.

(Source: U.S. Census Bureau)

Now, perhaps you have noticed that the above is in regard to income, not wealth, “the wealthiest 1% of America”. Though the more relevant and reflective economic measure is income, because this contains only current inflows in the present climate, we will nevertheless discuss wealth.

We are growing change in the shadow of the wealth, greed, and thievery that is Wall Street.

[http://occupywallst.org/article/ows-snapshot/]

Despite the indiscriminate use of both terms, they are not the same.

Income = Revenue - Expenses
Wealth = Equity = Assets - Liabilities

In essence, wealth refers to real ownership. If the ‘Occupants’ are in fact concerned with wealth, then we are dealing with a discussion outside the scope of this article. I will not debate the proponents and components of Socialism, Communism, Marxism or any “ism” which regulates and controls wealth, at least not in this article.

Likewise, an uneven wealth distribution is quite common across the world, and almost intuitively makes sense. American materialism and inflated standards of living are the roots of our currency of debt. Moreover, America is a net-spending (opposed to net-saving) country, and debt is the fabric of our consumption. [End digression now]

Regardless of whether the address is to income or wealth, the distributions do not merit complaint in and of themselves, nor are they revolution stimuli. The point of this is that of the lot of high income earning and wealthy individuals, financial professionals only make up a small pool, and yet the twenty five thousand ‘Occupants’ all want to swim in this pool.

Granted, this does not refute their overarching “goal” of “ending” the greed and corruption of the wealthiest 1%, it does, however, reveal the depth in thought of the whole idea, or lack thereof rather. The movers behind this are running the machine on whiskey. The sad part is seeing the number of concerned citizens who have been motivated by this ignorance. We do not live in a feudalistic, aristocratic, or communistic state- we live in a relatively diverse and dynamic economic environment. Yes, social mobility is currently in a trough, but blaming Wall Street and Corporations is not even remotely, the answer.

GREED AND CORRUPTION:

Greed: a selfish and excessive desire for more of something than is needed*
Corruption: impairment of integrity, virtue, or moral principle

Greed is essentially what drives socioeconomic movement in a capitalistic society. At the most basic level, the market allows humanity’s inherent flaw of self-interest to propel economic advancement, as a result of the temporary happiness induced by exchanges of resources. This is what makes free-market systems superior to the alternatives; humans will never be perfect, wholly efficient, sustainable, and most importantly, monotonous: the paradigm of allowing nature to manifest its imperfections into marginally better constructions.

From a secular standpoint, there is nothing to be said of greed, and from an evolutionary standpoint, greed is good. The only standpoint, in a position to ridicule, is a personal religious/moral one. Inasmuch that many people would agree unilaterally that greed is bad, but disagree on the implications of how and where it becomes bad. If the ‘Occupants’ expect to influence legislation to regulate greed, they should probably consult the First Amendment, first and foremost.

It is crucial to separate greed from success, and it is immature jealousy that motivates the correlation of greed and success. Greed is more closely related to materialism, the “bread and butter” of America’s pop-culture. Kanye West.

Additionally, it is a terrifying thought that people would will the government to define when a person or thing possesses more of something than is needed, *(a definition of how much constitutes “necessary”), which is a prerequisite component of greed’s definition.

In fact, even considering the government to do such would disagree, philosophically and fundamentally, with our whole country’s existence:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the pursuit of Happiness.

The Declaration of Independence

As Americans, we believe that this right to pursue “Happiness”, and more historically precise, “Capital”, is unalienable; it cannot be taken away. These protestors need to ask themselves, where they position their entitlements, and what their philosophical belief is in regards to human rights.

Corruption cannot be asserted without a normative standard. The normative standard most practicable is typically the law, which has overall been upheld by the professionals on Wall Street. This means that the ‘Occupant’s’ accusation of corruption would necessarily be based on a different standard altogether. Being that they have not articulated any set of standards, it would be reasonable to assume that their bases are personal standards, which reduces their accusations to the equivalent of “I don’t like the way you act”. Unfortunately for the ‘Occupants’, and fortunately for the rest of the country, criminal prosecution is not based on whimsical-personal-moral-principles.

Considering this, it would be safe to say that the ‘Occupants’ have no valid basis for their allegations of greed and corruption.

At this juncture we have realized that, their target is a very small group of people, Wall Street is not by and large corrupt based on any normative standard, and greed is a matter to be dealt with through religious practice- not the state. In other words, the protestors have picked a small group of people to attack, slander, and blame on grounds of personal standards and misconception.

I would love to see a poll of how many ‘Occupants’ had heard of the Sarbanes Oxley Act of 2002, or any other major regulatory act which precedes the precipice of the financial downturn. Why were these government regulations insufficient, and could they be modified?

THEIR APPROACH:

The ‘Occupants’ have been seeking government to intervene and meet their “demands”. The irony of this is twofold: a) as already mentioned, unless these Wallstreeters are Bernie Madoff, The Lehman Brothers, or some other fraudster, they likely have broken no laws (the laws government put in place), and b) seeking a government to essentially repossess earned profits, is greedy in itself.

Restated: the ‘Occupants’ are protesting, physically and directly, to Wall Street, in hopes of impressing the government to punish and regulate this industry, for succeeding and following the rules government implemented; a real brow-furrow(er) indeed. One cannot help but wonder why the group has not localized in Washington, after all we pay those fellows up there large sums of money to take care of these issues. Instead they are interfering with progress, production, and operations in an industry which comprises, somewhere around, fifteen percent of our economy. Personally, I have always despised that obnoxious person who insists on making everyone’s day around them, as miserable as their own.

The protestors have also been heard objecting to the disbursement and use of funds through the financial bailout of 2008; this kind of reminds me of the unruly customer who ostracizes the low-end employee, for the company’s policies. The government collected the funds, distributed them accordingly, and set the rules for the subsequent use of funds distributed. Yet, the protestors want to object to Wall Street. Naturally, the firms accepted funds, and only four of the eighteen firms “bailed-out” have not repaid back these distributed TARP (Troubled Asset Relief Program) funds.

The beauty behind America has always been the incentive and opportunity; ambition is rewarded. The financial sector is overflowing with brilliant minds, work ethic, and fuel to the American economy. It is not fair to assume shady behavior because the process is complex and not understood, or to generalize because of outliers.

The average salary of a person who works in the financial sector is, $67,690, upper middle class white-collar workers; not everyone gets to be the Chief Executive Officer. The world is undeniably infected with greed and corruption- but the ‘Occupants’ shallow understanding of the economy and hastiness has led them to approach the issue in a ridiculously inappropriate manner.

SOME OF THE PARTICULARS:

Political Contributions, Really?

Once again, why are they waging their complaint regarding legislation to Wall Street? Everyone is always concerned about political contributions, this is no novelty. Additionally, the ‘Occupants’ are sadly misled if they believe corporations and financial professionals are the only power-groups lobbying congress.

The Glenn Greenwald quote:

Does anyone really not know what the basic message is of this protest: that Wall Street is oozing corruption and criminality and its unrestrained political power—in the form of crony capitalism and ownership of political institutions—is destroying financial security for everyone else?

And again with “criminality”, if these perpetrators are “criminals”, perhaps try the respective existing executive agencies, the FBI, SEC, etc. A decent number of people look to the stock market as a general indicator of overall economic health, Wall Street, respectively and trustfully, protects this. Though, the media could help stabilize the weather by restricting the outlandish temper-tantrums and hyperbolized forecasts, speculation, “is destroying financial security for everyone else”.

THEIR SOLUTION:

Ideals are great, but in order for them to be useful they must be articulated and yet practical. Without practicality the reality of the ideal becomes a dream. In addition to their complaints being unfounded, they have no answers. But once again, this is no surprise because you cannot regulate greed, you cannot prosecute corruption based on personal standards, and we will not allow radical wealth redistribution.

THE RICH AND THE POWERFUL:

The funny thing about money is that it will always be directly related to power. This is intrinsic to its functional definition: intangible right to possession. It makes no difference what governmental system you choose, those with more money will always have more power than those with less money. There is no way to guarantee social equality without compromising opportunity, and historically this country has guaranteed the latter rather than the former.

So now that we’ve crossed out the major components of the Occupy Wall Street movement, there is no room left to establish The Fundamental, which yet again results in unfounded-incongruent beliefs. As to the question about the cohesion and centrality of the movement- there is none. The common denominator is confusion, with multiples of complaint. And as to the original question of legitimate complaint: with careful consideration we regret to inform you that confusion is not a legitimate complaint.

An old book once wrote:

“Where there is no vision, the people will perish: but he that keepeth the law, happy is he”

-Proverbs 29:18

====================================================================

PLEASE NOTE: Given that this movement is still festering, the contents of the article are organic; if there is anything unmentioned that you would like to be, please feel free to contact us.

Filed Under: <Commentaries & Specifics – II. §1>

test

ericharrisonriddle — Fri, 13 Jan 2012 03:00:40 -0500

test

The Conservative Man

The Occupy Movement's Common Denominator?

A TELLING QUOTE:

GREED AND CORRUPTION:

THEIR APPROACH:

SOME OF THE PARTICULARS:

THEIR SOLUTION:

THE RICH AND THE POWERFUL:

test