Occupy Wall Street started as a response to the economic recession that is believed to have been caused by the abundance of power of major banks and corporations. The movement has spread like a wildfire and now has supporters globally. Unhappy with the status quo, people everywhere are taking to the streets to fight for democracy. Is it really necessary for us to physically protest or can we make the change with our actions?
The main issue is that the people are no longer in charge of democracy. Over the years we have seen oil companies, manufacturers, insurance companies, and giant corporations trample our livelihood. In 2010 the Supreme Court blocked the ban on political spending by corporations in candidate elections. Now, corporations can spend as much money as they want, handpicking lawmakers and telling us who to vote for. The people have have had enough.
Many of the protesters couldn't tell you why they're out there. Some of the more active ones are being hurt by police. I think if the same people who occupy the streets took it upon themselves to make an active effort in making things happen, for example signing the petition for a constitutional amendment reversing the decision made in the Citizens United vs. F.E.C. court case, getting signatures in their community, and writing Congress, then it would make more of an impact than shouting. If the goal is to expose corruption, then support the Federal Reserve Transparency Act to audit the Fed. Democracy is for citizens not corporations. The only way to take back control of democracy is to take back control of democracy.
Friday, October 28, 2011
Friday, October 14, 2011
5 Good Reasons Why Wall Street Breeds Protesters
To touch on the subject of the recent Wall Street protests, I read an article published in the editorial section of USA Today on October 12th titled 5 Good Reasons Why Wall Street Breeds Protesters. The article tells us 5 good reasons why the protesters have the right to be angry.
The author agrees that the protests are over the top. Protesters have been fairly quiet except for during corporate bailouts of 2008. While the author agrees that they offer no substantial solution, he claims that "financial institutions that should be the enablers of economic growth have become, at least in part, destructive".
Reason #1: Economic Recession- caused by reckless mortgage lending, the consequences of which are still being felt today.
Reason #2: Bonus Excess-staggering bonuses paid to New York City-based securities industry employees paid out in this time of economic need.
Reason #3: Brain Drain- Entrepreneurs are lured to jobs at banks where they are focusing on trading rather than building businesses and creating jobs.
Reason #4: Too Big to Fail- Failure of any of the largest banks would be too damaging for leaders to allow it. Recent bank reform gives CEOs incentive for risky behavior.
Reason#5: The Washington Racket- With a history of help from big government, as well as extensive tax breaks, why would banks expect any other but their own way of doing things?
The author here is obviously on the side of the protesters, but not outwardly so. I believe he is trying to make light if the situation and make some valid points as to why there is a problem. The author offers relevant statistics as well as a link to the oppositions view on the subject. He makes some very good points and I agree that there is a reason for action.
The author agrees that the protests are over the top. Protesters have been fairly quiet except for during corporate bailouts of 2008. While the author agrees that they offer no substantial solution, he claims that "financial institutions that should be the enablers of economic growth have become, at least in part, destructive".
Reason #1: Economic Recession- caused by reckless mortgage lending, the consequences of which are still being felt today.
Reason #2: Bonus Excess-staggering bonuses paid to New York City-based securities industry employees paid out in this time of economic need.
Reason #3: Brain Drain- Entrepreneurs are lured to jobs at banks where they are focusing on trading rather than building businesses and creating jobs.
Reason #4: Too Big to Fail- Failure of any of the largest banks would be too damaging for leaders to allow it. Recent bank reform gives CEOs incentive for risky behavior.
Reason#5: The Washington Racket- With a history of help from big government, as well as extensive tax breaks, why would banks expect any other but their own way of doing things?
The author here is obviously on the side of the protesters, but not outwardly so. I believe he is trying to make light if the situation and make some valid points as to why there is a problem. The author offers relevant statistics as well as a link to the oppositions view on the subject. He makes some very good points and I agree that there is a reason for action.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)