Occupy Wall Street 3: Now What?

Stimulus money paid for that sod. Really. I read someone grumbling about that.

Well that changes everything. Hoos, you and your people are going to have to exercise your freedom of speech somewhere that taxpayers don't somehow support/pay for, I'm afraid. That should only rule out...streets, sidwalks, parks, town halls, squares, greens, school properties, government buildings and properties, libraries, national parks, state parks...did I forget any?

Seriously though, it's pretty amazing how quickly they can throw down new sod. They'll be in and out in an hour. nbd.

Insider Trading is basically the "dope on the table" of financial crime, imo. xposts

more praise for the Occupy the SEC group:

http://www.businessweek.com/finance/occupy-the-sec-weighs-in-on-the-volcker-rule-02142012.html

Occupy Maine is no more

:(

the VP of development for the right-wing Tax Foundation, writing to the National Park Service in November:

Sounds to me like you don’t recognize who votes for you — and who butters your brad (sic) with their labor. It isn’t Occupy DC — it isn’t the new generation of class warfare you are propping up — it is me. I am disgusted. I am angry and want this to end. Yesterday I read that the Occupy DC residents at McPherson Square expect to go home and have someone else support them if they are not willing to work. I have no desire to pay for this via my tax dollars you take from me in so many ways. They do not have a permit and it is unlawful for them to be there. If I tried to camp in one of these parks you would make me leave.

http://dissenter.firedoglake.com/2012/02/14/emails-on-occupy-dc-show-how-opposition-to-national-park-service-escalated/

more graeber
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR37.1/david_graeber_debt_economics_occupy_wall_street.php
http://www.bostonreview.net/BR37.1/david_graeber_debt_economics_occupy_wall_street_part2.php

di we already post aaron bady's badass review of debt itt?

http://thenewinquiry.com/blogs/zunguzungu/david-graebers-debt-my-first-5000-words/

love Graeber

DG: It would have been perfectly feasible to take the trillions of dollars that they essentially printed to bail out the banks and give it to mortgage holders, because what the banks had were mortgage-based securities that were no good anymore. If they just paid the mortgages using the same money, that in effect would have bailed out the banks.

DJ: That wouldn’t have been a debt cancellation.

DG: Well, I’m just giving an example. It would have had the same effect as a debt cancellation, because they would have printed money to pay the debts. The irony is that they chose instead to give the money directly to the banks and not bail out the mortgage-holders. Which is a pattern that you see over and over again in world history—one of the more dramatic consistencies I’ve noticed in the history of debt: debts between equals are not the same as debts between people who are not equals.

Debts between either poor people or rich people, that they have with each other, can be renegotiated or forgiven. People can be extraordinarily generous, understanding, forgiving when dealing with others like themselves. But debts between social classes, between the rich and the poor, suddenly become a matter of absolute morality. And that’s what we saw; it’s a very, very old pattern.

ha ha best lead-in ever

In the second part of our interview with David Graeber, he explains how student loan debt is perverting the value of education, how those who break windows aren’t necessarily the true barbarians, and how academics are a lot like hunchbacked dwarves.

haha, tune in tomorrow!

First off, they didn't just give most of this money to the banks. They lent it and got paid back. Lots of other "printing" happened in various ways, and in a sense even the lending was a giveaway because the rates were crazy low, but that's a more complicated story because the money "given away" didn't come directly from any govt. account. So there's a real truth to the fact that the govt engineered the banks making lots of money to "bail them out". There isn't as much truth to the idea that the govt actually took money it had and permanently transferred that same money to the banks.

Second, even if the govt had just handed $ to the banks, that still wouldn't have been the same as handing $ to the mortgage-holders who would then hand it to the banks, because in that scenario the banks would no longer be owed the mortgages. In fact, generally, banks don't like it when ppl prepay their mortgages too much, because that means that now they're sitting on cash in a (typically) low rates environment, while they had locked in the mortgages for however many years at a higher rate.

All of this is not an argument to make any particular party sound better in what it's been up to over these past years. Rather, it's an argument that Graeber eclipses the real way things work in the service of very exciting sounding bullet points, and this makes me dubious about how clear he is w/r/t many things he talks about.

It's also silly to say that debts between unequal parties become a matter of absolute morality. In fact there are and have been lots of loan modifications, partial balance reductions, so on across the subprime world. These haven't necessarily gone to the people that need them most. They've gone to the people that banks most thought such modifications would help to in the long run pay the banks the most money.

But the issue isn't that the debt is treated (by the banks at least -- by the politicians and press, whatever) as some sort of absolute moral obligation that must be paid in full for society to not crumble or you know w/e. The issue is that in this particular nexus of legal obligations and profit interest, the holders of certain obligations are seeking to extract as much value from them as they can, which sometimes means changing terms in flexible ways, and sometimes means foreclosing on everything in sight.

Again, which isn't a moral justification for anything in particular, but just an argument that Graeber likes making sweeping statements that sound really awesome but have f-all to do with how things have actually been playing out.

this is all true and there are def moments when graeber's 'well, I'm not an economist' get in the way of his capability of understanding policy details. otoh I think the push for a big social reframing of the idea of 'debt' is actually matters more than being right on certain details.

er delete that 'is'

like I think graeber misses a lot of nuance. frequently. but the theme 'social attitudes towards debt get in the way of effective policy' is so huge that we really do need a public cheerleader out there on it, esp when we're at a trillion dollars of student debt. in any case this guy is 100x better as a face of the far left than zizek or chomsky or whoever. affable, 'on subject', not narcissistic...I dunno, I'm willing to forgive his oversights...

Is he even right that social attitudes on debt get in the way of policy? I'm serious here. I'm pretty sure that whatever the obstacles to debt relief are, the amt of people for it pretty much dwarfs the amount of people (albeit perhaps more prominent ppl) saying "if you tolerate this, a mad-max postapocalyptic barbarian wasteland will be next."

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=or-EKjfVCoA

I mean you're right in that the 'prevent society from collapsing' thing happens 'in the end'. but there's nothing that prevents shitty social attitudes from making it an unnecessarily miserable and painful process. see: europe, right now

i've seen roombas on fire off the shoulder of orion

again, I think the problems in europe aren't necessarily a result of shitty social attitudes per se. certainly not a result of a belief in the inviolability of debt. really, the issue is that a greek default means greek euro exit means lots of instability everywhere, so the can keeps getting kicked down the road because ppl don't want to make the expenditures for greece *not* to default. in the meantime, they've really torn up any notion of debt as a moral obligation already with all the nonsense about a a "voluntary" reduction that's not really voluntary and etc. etc. and "social attitudes" in general really don't matter that much here in that this is really playing out between various high-ranking politicians and bankers, who seemingly no matter what they do are going to be more unpopular than not in this situation (not shedding tears for them, just sayin')

that's the big EU picture, and yeah we're pretty far into the game by now, but throughout the process the EU has to work within the boundaries of european domestic politics, in which the story has always been about national debts and "responsibility." do you think this kinda counterproductive 'shame the greeks' german politics really wasn't related to social attitudes towards debt? :
http://www.guardian.co.uk/business/2010/mar/04/greece-sell-islands-german-mps

I mean when you say 'they're going to be more unpopular no matter what they do' - that's in large part due to domestic social attitudes on debt.

at the same time british (et al) austerity can be more easily sold to a public that believes that the national debt is, on some level, a morally bad thing.

First off, they didn't just give most of this money to the banks. They lent it and got paid back.

Conflating two entities here. The TARP program was run by the federal treasury department and funded by US taxpayers. This program was designed by congress and it was a program of loans, along with certain strings attached. The banks grabbed this money fast when they needed it desperately, then repaid it as soon as they could to avoid complying with the strings, which mostly consisted of not paying massive bonuses.

The mass "printing" of money was done by the Federal Reserve. I forget the acronym for that program. It was usually coded as quantitative easing (QE) only discussed on business pages. The program consisted of lowering interest rates almost to zero, allowing banks to borrow hundreds of billions at the "discount window" without a peep of disclosure about which banks were borrowing and how much, and most importantly, the Fed bought mortgage backed securities from the banks.

This last measure was key and urgent. First, the Fed bought a couple trillion dollars worth of bonds, thus moving them off the bank balance sheets. The purchase price was undoubtedly the face value that the banks were carrying them at when the market collapsed, not the near-zero value that they would have fetched in an open market. So, right there the Fed was running a bigger bailout than the TARP, by about 3X. Lastly, you should understand that when the Fed buys an asset, it simply reaches into a magical bag and pulls money out of it. It creates the money by fiat (thus the big flap among Ron Paul supporters about fiat money). This is what is meant by people who speak of just "printing more money".

So, this money really WAS printed, then given to the banks, to bail them out of owning worthless securities. The Fed doesn't have to make all the details public, either. They let some of it out of the bag, to promote "confidence", but they have a very privileged status and only need to tell us what they feel like telling us about these machinations.

NB: offsetting those many trillions of dollars of new money the Fed created out of air is the fact that the market collapse in mortgage-backed securities in 2008 vaporized many trillions of dollars, too.

What's amazing is that this whole process of manipulation is described as a necessary part of the operation of "free markets".

Aimless: fair enough. it seemed Graeber was mainly talking about TARP, and so I did too. I'm not trying to say that money wasn't transferred to the banks. Just that the story was more complicated than the fed simply outright making good on failed bank investments, which was the story Graeber was telling.

Just to be clear, QE was essentially just the purchasing programs, not the interest rate stuff (which is more considered conventional monetary policy), and the bulk of QE purchasing was treasuries. But yes, they bought a bunch of mortgage backed securities and so propped up the market. You also don't need to speculate as to what the "purchase price was undoubtably" because all the transactions, who they were with, for how much, and at what price, are all on the fed website: http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsevents/reform_mbs.htm

We should also be clear that those purchases were of "agency-backed" MBS, which is to say MBS that is not subprime, and is in fact insured by fannie & freddie & the like so that if it defaults either the government or a government-sponsored entity is on the hook for it anyway.

Which is different from the really rotten subprime stuff.

Again, reiterating, none of which is to say that what the govt did was not about giving money to the banks just for the heck of it almost. Just that this happened by a more complex and circuitous route, and it's worthwhile to try to tell the real story.

iatee: I sort of think that the attitude towards greek debt on the part of the german population has (again) less to do with views about debt in general and more to do with the situation being presented (not necessarily honestly so) as the greeks as a whole owing money to the germans, french, etc. as a whole, and so there being a common german national interest in forcing greece to pay up. So not morality, but perceptions of self-interest and identification. also an outrageous proposal by a few publicity-seeking rightwing politicians can be expected these days about most any issue in most any country -- it hardly indicates anything other than how the political game is played. If such politicians had kept their yaps shut, I doubt it would have made much difference to the course of events, which had been set in motion way before 2010.

Protest dwindles after bid to 'occupy' Wall Street
Sep 19, 2011

NEW YORK (AFP) - Hundreds of people spent the night sleeping in New York's Wall Street district after failing to occupy the heart of global finance to protest greed, corruption and budget cuts.

Hundreds of demonstrators, who descended on Lower Manhattan on Saturday with the aim of staying at least until the open of the New York Stock Exchange on Monday, had planned to turn the area into an 'American Tahrir Square.'

They were, however, thwarted when police blocked all the streets near the New York Stock Exchange and Federal Hall in Lower Manhattan. By Sunday, only about 200 demonstrators remained, having spent the night at Trinity Place some 300m from Wall Street.

It was a sobering reality for organizers who had hoped to see over 20,000 people 'flood' the neighbourhood for a months-long occupation. The protest came as the United States struggles to overcome an economic crisis marked by a huge budget deficit that has triggered cuts in the public service sector while unemployment hovers stubbornly above nine per cent.

http://www.straitstimes.com/BreakingNews/World/Story/STIStory_714121.html

MSM = our own speculative-history fiction

http://baselinescenario.com/2012/02/23/why-wont-the-federal-reserve-board-talk-to-financial-reform-advocates/#more-9890

Honestly, I do not understand the Fed’s attitude and policies – if they are really serious about pushing for financial reform. No doubt they are all busy people, but how is it possible they have time to meet with JP Morgan Chase 16 times (just on the Volcker Rule) and no time to meet Anat Admati – not even for a single substantive exchange of views?

http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2012/feb/26/us-left-home-occupy-middle-america

http://i.imgur.com/hit7r.jpg

so today:

Demonstrate Tuesday February 28 – Stop the Suppression of Occupy

No Rubber Bullets – No Beatings – No Tear Gas – No Mass Arrests

Drop all charges against the Occupiers.

New York City: Union Square 4 pm Gather – 5 pm Rally — 6 pm March
Chicago: LaSalle & Jackson 4 pm-Gather & Rally 5 pm March
Cleveland: Public Square 3 pm Gather & Rally 4 pm March
Minneapolis/St. Paul: Peoples’ Plaza 300 S. 6th 4:30 pm Rally & March
Hollywood, CA: Hollywood & Vine Metro 4 pm – Assemble 4:30 pm March

Will try to head up to Union Sq after work.

huh, did not know about the mpls deal

http://www.washingtonpost.com/local/freddie-mac-to-work-with-bowie-homeowner-after-occupy-protest/2012/02/27/gIQAuQ6OeR_story.html

we're keeping the pressure on, because this isn't over.

but it feels good to get a win, even if it's a wait and see win.

heyooo

I got to Union Sq tonight just as a tape from Chomsky was played, how serendipitous.

March to Zuccotti began, I stayed in it for about a half-hour (the route was damn circuitous). No unusual incidents or acts by anyone.

(refraining from a kurt loder joke here)

there are such?

hey y'all. finally read all occupy threads back-to-front and hoos, dlh and others i <3 you. brb tho, bought a copy of das kapital to keep my going now i have none of these threads left.

http://i41.tinypic.com/255qhpg.jpg

this book is the size of my head and i'm still on the introduction but lol capitalists amirite

lol @ capitalism

ps david graeber's books worth reading imo

also, not sure if i've mentioned it in these threads but as a dude playing at anarcho organizer i'm finding this book relatable, moving, and more than a little resonant

http://images.betterworldbooks.com/160/Black-Flags-and-Windmills-9781604860771.jpg

memoir of one of the cofounders of an anarchist relief group that formed in the aftermath of katrina

(who happens to be from texas and came out of the austin radical scene, so like, hi really-close-to-home i didn't see you there)

also the darbyrat is a supporting character which is kinda fascinating, a picture of him before he knelt at the altar of breitbart & the FBI

yeah, I saw the documentary about that guy, amazing

man i'd never heard of that darby guy

i'll never really get my head around ppl who switch sides so extremely

totes. I'd never heard of him either

i knew people in austin that knew him before he went turncoat, and while people definitely felt betrayed no one was really shocked to see his movement to the other side. he always had a reputation for being an authoritarian misogynist jerk, and being buddy buddy with breitbart was right in line with his character.

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/opinion/will-wall-street-ever-face-justice.html?_r=1

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/03/02/opinion/no.html?_r=1