Occupy Cleveland To Occupy Lakewood This Saturday

[Jim O'Bryan]

FWIW




.

[sharon kinsella]

Jimmy, I can't ride the regular busses, too hard for me to get onto even when the kneel.

I take paratransit most of the time when I take the bus, but you have to book a week ahead of time. I love it though. Anywhere in Cuyahoga County for 2.50 with some of the nicest drivers I've ever experienced. Very organized operation. It's enabled me to go back to my old doc at Ridge and Denison. Wonderful doctor.

I've been doing as much walking as I can, so I might be able to be there. If I'm there, I made it, if I'm not, I didn't.

[John LePlae]

Stephen,

Letting the banks fail isn't a solution. In fact, I think it's the last thing both parties seemed to agree upon. The problem is we have allowed them to become too big to fail. Letting the largest banks fail would have been catastrophic. Capitalism is working just fine, as there have been hundreds of bank failures in the last couple of years. Banks that were poorly run. I think we can all agree that we should never have to bail out a bank or corporation, but it was necessary.

[Roy Pitchford]

Just wanted to make sure I clarify that my comment about First Federal was meant to be taken sarcastically.

Jim,
In my opinion, I would say you are partially correct with your initial assessment. I think some in the Occupy movement do have a legitimate gripe.
However, they are:

• as you alluded to when mentioning the colleges, directing their energies towards the wrong institutions.
• not giving a good impression of themselves by defecating on cop cars or defying the law to the point of being arrested.
• making temporary alliances with others that the Tea Party would never do. The communists are out in force. The anti-Semitic crowd is there.
• not sure why they are there. There are some that think its just the "cool" thing to do and have no stake in it at all.

[Stephen Eisel]

Stephen,

Letting the banks fail isn't a solution. In fact, I think it's the last thing both parties seemed to agree upon. The problem is we have allowed them to become too big to fail. Letting the largest banks fail would have been catastrophic. Capitalism is working just fine, as there have been hundreds of bank failures in the last couple of years. Banks that were poorly run. I think we can all agree that we should never have to bail out a bank or corporation, but it was necessary.

We will have to agree to disagree.. True Capitalism is not about taking tax payer's money to bail out a corporation that competes in a "free market". Too Big to fail is a myth.

http://thestandard.org.nz/the-too-big-to-fail-myth/

[Jim O'Bryan]

Just wanted to make sure I clarify that my comment about First Federal was meant to be taken sarcastically.

Jim,
In my opinion, I would say you are partially correct with your initial assessment. I think some in the Occupy movement do have a legitimate gripe.
However, they are:

• as you alluded to when mentioning the colleges, directing their energies towards the wrong institutions.
• not giving a good impression of themselves by defecating on cop cars or defying the law to the point of being arrested.
• making temporary alliances with others that the Tea Party would never do. The communists are out in force. The anti-Semitic crowd is there.
• not sure why they are there. There are some that think its just the "cool" thing to do and have no stake in it at all.

Roy

In fact I do not see trying to pinpoint any institution, but the entire mess, and many
institutions, that are responsible in part or in whole for a great many of the issues they
care about. A great many of the more knowledgeable organizers can clearly draw the line
from school loans, to credit card abuse from the institutions, to the government rolling
over for Wall Street and businesses that are truly ruining this country and world. Outside of
that many are there for one simple reason. Things are really screwed up, and they feel
government is not protecting their interest.

This again reminds me of the earliest days of the Tea Party, where their message was really
fragmented and unorganized. One would say guns, another would say, government, another
would say something else. It was not until the Koch Brothers and others co-opted the
protesters did a manifesto emerge.

As this is a more Democratic/Independent group, it might never find central rallying points
as the Democratic party is made of of hundreds of special interests group that get together
or not each election cycle to defeat Republicans, or at least get their viewpoint heard. With
that said, I do see organizers emerging willing to take "the lead" even if the lead is not there
to be given.

"not giving a good impression of themselves by defecating on cop cars or defying the law to the point of being arrested."

Roy, there are willing to be arrested for their cause. I have not seen wide spread or even
one case of them "defecating on cop cars" and I am sure you have an example. I would
say that with the widespread nature of the group and the message, anything is possible.
While I was there I was amazed at how much the police supported the protesters, many
even saying if they were not in uniform they would join in. I imagine this is also true for
the Tea Party movement.

"making temporary alliances with others that the Tea Party would never do. The communists are out in force. The anti-Semitic crowd is there." This comment is delusional.
The Tea Party has made and is now underwritten by the very people they were protesting
against in the early days. Much of it has been co-opted by special interest that no longer
represents any of the concerns they have. As for the antisemitism, I have not seen it, and
was actually standing with some Jewish friends in Cleveland the night of the arrests. Let's
not go David Icke or Alex Jones and instantly say that anti-banking is antisemitism.

"not sure why they are there. There are some that think its just the "cool" thing to do and have no stake in it at all." Also true of the Tea Party movement. Also another troubling
fact is that both can draw crowds based on false information, and outright lies.

These are just my observations and this week I am meeting with a fellow Observer that
has been to 6 different "Occupy" cities, and his Observations are far, far different than mine.
New York, Chicago, and Toronto are highly organized, and moving in the same direction
and growing hourly, while Cleveland, seems to have a harder time getting totgether.

.

[Roy Pitchford]

See for yourself:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2046586/Occupy-Wall-Street-Shocking-photos-protester-defecating-POLICE-CAR.html
Photo is there. Choosing not to post the actual picture.









Let me know if you want more...

[John LePlae]

Stephen,

I'm not sure what you mean by "True Capitalism". It sounds like you're referring to "Pure Capitalism" with no government interference. The USA has plenty of experience with Pure Capitalism and myriad examples of how it failed. The oil and steel industries in the early part of the 20th century come to mind, as well as the communication industry. Look what happened when these industries were allowed to operate unfettered. I think the best thing about the Occupy movement is it opens a dialogue about these things. What about industries like postal service, hospitals, fire and police departements. These are all examples of Socialism at work. Should we make those free market too? Of course not.

Also, I feel the Ireland analogy is a poor example. The USA is the major trading partner of most countries in the world. Can you imagine the consequences of allowing our currency to be devalued by 58%? It would be a worldwide catastrophy.

Roy,

I'm not sure what the point of your post is. That the picture of one person deficating on a police car represents the entire movement? The one comment I hear that really amuses me is, "why don't these people get a job?". If they had jobs, they wouldn't be out there because then they would be risking losing their so called job. This movement is much larger then the people you see protesting on TV. They have tremendous support from people who work in banks and on Wall Street. The average worker is the one who is getting shafted. This thing is only going to grow. After all, it's only 5 weeks old.

Occupiers, don't let the media or people try to limit this protest to "one thing". It's about many, many things.

[Stephen Eisel]

The USA is the major trading partner of most countries in the world. Can you imagine the consequences of allowing our currency to be devalued by 58%? It would be a worldwide catastrophy.

Of the 196 Nations of the world, the US has about 15 major trading partners. On average, the US runs a trading deficit with 11 of those countries and that also has an impact on the value of the US Dollar. The value of the US Dollar has been in steady decline for the last century. I am not sure how a 58% devalued US Dollar would impact other currencies other than give them a better exchange rate. Had the US Government not got involved with the Mortgage Industry then we would not be in this mess right now.. It was the US Government that wanted to artificially increase home ownership by 10% and by making banks change the way they do business..

[Stephen Eisel]

The USA has plenty of experience with Pure Capitalism and myriad examples of how it failed. The oil and steel industries in the early part of the 20th century come to mind, as well as the communication industry. Look what happened when these industries were allowed to operate unfettered.

Did you forget about the Telecommunications Act of 1996?

[John LePlae]

Again, both parties agreed, not bailing out the banks would have had a tremendous negative effect on the economy. GW started it and Obama continued it. I think they all paid back TARP with interest, but i'll leave that to you to look up. Also, many of the banks were forced into taking the bailouts to improve their capital ratios.

The devaluation of our currency is just one effect it would have had. There are many more negative consequences. I do agree with you about the mortgage industry. The policies of both parties over the last 20 years encouraged that bubble. Unfortunately, it doesn't seem like much has changed since the crisis occurred, except for dropping real estate values that further complicates the problem.

[Brian Pedaci]

Maybe this has been blown a little out of proportion.

Members of the movement will set up an information table in front of Marc’s Plaza on Detroit Avenue this Saturday from 8 a.m. to 5 p.m.
[...]
“I just want to be very clear: we are not occupying Lakewood,” said Anthony Hayne, who is organizing the information session.

quote from here.

[Jim O'Bryan]

Brian

Who said differently?

The title is correct, How can you be at "Sinagra Park" though the city will never call it that again, without occupying Lakewood?

"This Saturday from 8am - 6pm Anthony Hayne, and Peter Arian will be occupying what
used to be called Sinagra Park to bring the protest and the discussion to Lakewood, Ohio. "

I also know other people going down to talk and show support.




peace

[Tim Liston]

John LePlae says....

"Again, both parties agreed, not bailing out the banks would have had a tremendous negative effect on the economy. GW started it and Obama continued it. I think they all paid back TARP with interest, but I’ll leave that to you to look up. Also, many of the banks were forced into taking the bailouts to improve their capital ratios."

John, I’m very sympathetic to the motivations of the Occupy movement. The entire FIRE economy (finance, insurance, real estate) is deeply embedded in our government and receives very favorable treatment as a result. Some of the consequences, intended or not, are much to the detriment of our younger citizens. Our sick care industry also enjoys the same status as a quasi-governmental entity.

John it is true that a lot of the TARP money was repaid. But a big chunk of the “bank bailout” was not by way of TARP, it was by way of the bailout of AIG. AIG had sold credit default swaps to ensure the par value of $182 billion in bank assets, mostly mortgages I believe. Of course AIG was highly leveraged, so when the value of those bank assets plummeted, AIG was nowhere near able to make good on the CDSs. At that point, in the real world, AIG would have been shuttered, its assets sold off to the banks (and other) creditors, and the banks would have taken a huge haircut. That’s called counterparty risk. Instead, the government stepped in, and paid off the CDSs at 100 cents on the dollar! That $182 sent to Goldman Sachs, Merrill Lynch, J.P. Morgan and other domestic and foreign banks. A stealth bailout if ever there was one, because to this day it’s still referred to as “the AIG bailout.”

I remember a long time ago when someone told me “if you owe the bank a little money, you’re in trouble, and if you owe the bank a LOT of money, the bank is in trouble." That’s no longer true I guess.

“Stealth” bank bailouts continue to this day. The Fed, which is owned by the banks, has reduced interest rates to zero, and now lends the banks as much as they care to borrow, much of which is used to purchase treasury securities, which guarantees instant and sure profitability. Would that I could do likewise. The biggest effect that zero interest rates have on me is to clobber my savings and delay my retirement. And the government, and especially the SEC, permits the banks to engage in “investment” activities that would get you and me thrown in jail: high frequency trading, frontrunning, stuff like that. I’m sure there are other stealth bailouts taking place. I’m no expert on the subject.

I don’t agree with anybody that the failure to bail out the banks would have had a negative effect on the economy. The only substantial negative effect would have been to the banks themselves. Back then, the “too big to fail” banks should have been allowed to fail, the assets sold off and the depositors made whole by way of the FDIC . Just like what happens when little banks fail. The FDIC would have needed to be bailed out, that that bailout would have been far less expensive than the series of bailouts that still has not ensured bank solvency. That’s what Iceland did, I believe, and Iceland is well on the way to recovery, while here in the U.S. we still wallow around in an unsound economy, and continue to prop up banks that are still insolvent.

One mandate of the Fed is to initiate “prompt corrective action” when banks are presumed to be insolvent. But it seems this only applies to little banks.

[Stephen Eisel]

http://www.mediabistro.com/fishbowlla/i ... ers_b43318

This is so sad on so many different levels.. Watch what happens after people try to come to assist Scott after he has fallen to the ground...