This has some good educational points, especially at the end. It is a great commentary on why people need to research and learn about what it is they are protesting. The video is a little heavy-handed on some of the editing, but otherwise I found it worth a few minutes of my time.
Thanks +Kevin C and +Chris Smith for the post.
EDIT: Per conversing a bit with +Steven Sudit I feel the need to say I don't endorse or agree with everything in this video. I still think it is worth watching and used as a jumping off point for discussion. Whereas, at this writing, my conversation in comments here and on another post about this video are ongoing, perhaps I will change my mind and either endorse or condemn this video. Either way, I'm learning and talking and the video did accomplish that — which I thought one of it's points was to research and learn.
Reshared post from +Kevin C
Google+: View post on Google+
Post imported by Google+Blog. Created By Daniel Treadwell.
This is libertarian bullshit that is an attempt to co-opt OWS.
+Steven Sudit I've been in comment conversation with you prior to this so I'm very curious to learn more about what you are saying beyond your short comment here. I thought the video had some good points; the banks, creation of money, taxation, the Hegelian Dialectic. They even warned against co-opting. Bring me some meat to the table, Steven. I don't want to be co-opted by a slick video, and maybe I'm a libertarian and don't even know it if I agreed with more than I disagreed. I hope from previous posts of my own, you can see I'm for the OWS and open-minded.
+Scott Cramer If you support this video, you oppose OWS. The thrust of OWS is that we need a fair society. Libertarianism is incompatible with this.
+Steven Sudit Well, I don't oppose OWS and that is something I can put out there as fact. I neither support nor condemn this video; perhaps the fact that I said I thought it had some interesting points and was worth watching is implicit support, so I give you that, true. However, and I will read up on my Libertarianism to make sure I'm not speaking out my ass, can you tell me what it is I must be missing here? If I'm being duped and falling prey to some evil logic or ignorance on my own part, I would like to correct that; or at least to understand if and why we might have differing views. I'm feeling like I'm somehow on the wrong side of an argument unexpectedly…
+Scott Cramer Well, you do oppose OWS if you believe that the solution is to end all taxation. That would only make the 0.1% richer.
+Steven Sudit I did not say that I supported an effort to end all taxation. I agree that attacking only taxation is not going to fix the problems at hand.
+Scott Cramer It's not sufficient, but it's necessary.
This narrative is the closest thing to a Hayekian critique of the matters at the center of the current fiscal crisis, propaganda style. The author understands with some clarity the extent to which taxation is coercive force, and he understands how banks have Washington over a barrel. But he only goes on to discuss what's potentially next rather than what started it all, which was deficit spending in support of entitlements, absurdly low interest rates and a failure to properly regulate banks. Perhaps he goes out of his way not to use the words 'deficit spending', 'welfare state' or 'entitlement programs', the terms of outrage that regularly spew from Republican pie holes. But the point doesn't change, and perhaps that will become obvious over time.
Revolution? Not necessary. Starve the government. Necessary.
The other leg of the stool that the narrator implies but doesn't make explicit is what the effect of low interest rates has been. If the Federal Government guarantees that it will not default on its bond guarantees (which it does implicitly) and the Federal Reserve keeps 'lending' money at close to zero percent, then any entity that can get money at that very low percent can buy those Federal bonds and be guaranteed a profit. Guaranteed. This is the policy (Quantitative Easing) that is supposed to be the great stimulus to the economy, but as far as I know, the class of investors who stand to make the most money are only those who qualify to get money directly from the Federal Reserve, ie banks.
There was never any stipulation (and how could there be) that the banks immediately loan out that money to other businesses and let the Easing trickle down. After all, it was bank liquidity and toxic assets that were the huge problems. That the Administration after three years has done essentially nothing to change the policy of QE, means effectively that it always been and only was going to go to the banking industry. So it's fair to say that the only businesses that have been bailed out as far as economic stimulus is concerned are the big banks. But implicitly the Federal Government is bailing out itself by having buyers of Treasuries guaranteed. Over and over the debt ceiling has been raised. Over and over the Federal budget has not been reduced. And of course, the Supercommittee has failed.
So what will break first? Well, the consent of the governed is practically broken. And as soon as the OWS crowd starts chanting 'Taxation Without Representation', they will merge with the Tea Party and real democratic change will become inevitable. I see it. Can you?
+Steven Sudit OWS is clearly in league with anarchists, who are even less responsible to society than libertarians. Only anarchists could want a revolution, unless people are taking seriously the idea of a government takeover of certain banks, which is hardball socialism.
+Michael DC Bowen The problem is that "entitlements" aren't entitlements. They're benefits that people receive for paying into the system. What actually got us in the hole was the practice of waging war without raising taxes to cover the expense. Either way, starving the government will actually only starve the poor; austerity programs are a tool of the 1%. The Tea Party is astroturf created by the Koch's and the more conservative parts of the GOP, so you can rest assured that nothing coming out of there will do anything but help the already-rich become much richer.
Thank you, however, for confirming what I said about this video being an attempt to co-opt OWS towards libertarian ends. I rest my case.
+Michael DC Bowen Funny, you don't look like Marc Copage. (http://www.imdb.com/title/tt0062575/)
Occupy cannot be co-opted. It's not organized well enough for anybody to say what is and what is not Occupy doctrine. The founding documents are not specific enough not to be libertarian.
Copage's dad had connections.
+Michael DC Bowen It's not easy to co-opt, but it can still be co-opted. And, in fact, many are trying to do so.
Why not? It's a media sensation.
Well, +Steven Sudit, you come out swinging. I still espouse that the video was worth watching — and I'm not saying "watching" equals implicit "agreeing" or "believing" but in my opinion, you watch and then you go learn, not take it as gospel. I didn't expect the direction and intensity of the commentary I received, but I believe putting ideas out there and standing behind them with reasoning is what it's about. You are so entrenched in your beliefs that I think, perhaps, it is hard for you to step down to (my level?) someone coming at it from not the same level as you. You do stand behind what you believe. I just wish I understood all of your reasoning more than I do.
+Michael DC Bowen, I appreciate your comment and the time you took to add to the discussion. It is greatly appreciated.
So, to all, and I ask this sincerely, was there absolutely nothing of merit in the entire video? I got the impression from Michael that the narrator would touch on certain topics but either take them not far enough or in the wrong direction in your opinions?
What do you think of the following video I saw floating across the streams a little while back:
The Collapse of The American Dream Explained in Animation
THE JOOOS!
You'd think people would get tired of blaming the evil Jewish Banking Conspiracy. I had enough at minute 14. At that point it became irredeemable.
It's a useful piece of propaganda for the Ron Paul crowd, who for the most part have no concept of the value of money outside of mercantilism. It's not easy to understand fractional reserve banking but the principle is sound and the implication is actually quite simple. If you don't have it, and peg currency to something that already exists, you essentially cannot fund things that don't. Let's put it another way. Instead of gold, use cows, sheep and goats as your currency. Can anything on the planet be worth more than all the cows, sheep and goats? Not if you have a 10th century mentality. So that's your quick way to disable any gold standard arguments. Just think 'goat standard'.
Up until the 14th minute, the first video does the disservice of not quantifying what percentage of people have been foreclosed on, nor actually what percentage of people are out of work today. These are very small percentages, meaning for certain things to fall out of balance there are only very small margins of error. Managing risk and playing the odds on default need to be a part of any good primer on the economy, because American banks are very good at that business, which is why so many Americans have orders of magnitude more credit than their parents.
—
As to the first video, I think it's generally on target. But the problem with all of these videos and shortcuts is that they're trying to reduce everything to the POV of consumers. I have yet to see one of these explanations that consider where businesses fit in, which is perfectly rational when you're anti-business.
If you look at http://www.waitingforthestorm.com/, you get a wonderful list of libertarian propaganda videos. Here are the recent titles:
Know Thy Enemy
The OWS Will Fail – Here's Why
Why Paying Taxes Is Immoral
Occupy Wall Street & The TeaParty Unite!?
Why a Dollar & Euro Collapse Is Guaranteed
Unify Against the Central Banker Mafia
I think this speaks for itself.
+Scott Cramer I stand by what I said.
+Steven Sudit Good catch. Eewww. That's a libertarian for you.
+Michael DC Bowen And, for the record, OWS isn't anarchistic in particular, but libertarianism is just low-grade anarchism.
To the extent that Occupy is connected to Anonymous, it has a militant anarchist wing. It all slops over until somebody takes names and declares who's in and who's out.
+Michael DC Bowen Anonymous is opportunistic. It's not in charge of OWS.
Whew. Had to be away from G+ for a while so just got caught up.
In the end I see some of your reasoning why you are anti-this-video, but I'm having a hard time dissing it 100%. Don't get me wrong, I appreciate passion and conviction but I approached conversing on this subject as if I were walking into a lecture hall or coffee shop but felt +Steven Sudit met me in the ring with gloves on and suddenly, by virtue of my willingness to give the video a chance or not immediately condemn it, then I went from OWS supporter to being the enemy and anti-OWS; my hesitance to comment on issues I'd like to learn about first only condemning me further as ignorant and seemingly contemptible.
I'm passionate about my opinions too, and approaching an argument with someone who lies closer to you politically than not, with such adverse reactions as what I received is a turn-off. I know a lot of folks who are not as willing to face such criticism so not only do attitudes such as this disenfranchise them from the discourse, it's turning down potential allies. Educate, don't alienate.
Steven — I never tried to refute anything you said so not sure what your "I stand by what I said" statement is referencing.
+Michael DC Bowen I appreciate you playing the middle ground and providing more information; I was a bit concerned I was going to get tag-teamed and knocked over the head with a folding chair. 😉 Though, perhaps you could have knocked any libertarian tendencies out of me?
Comments are still open, but unless you have something specific for me, I think I am going to move on to the next thing. The conversation was a learning experience for me, which I am happy to be a part of any time. I don't wish to be put into an adversarial position, however for perceived beliefs or put down for willingness to look at information, whether it be Democratic, Republican, Libertarian, Conservative, or Elven for that matter. ;-D
+Scott Cramer I stand by what I said regarding the video being a blatant attempt by libertarians to co-opt OWS into a platform that is contrary to its goals.
Pardon any belligerence on my part, but I have little patience with libertarianism, and less with attempts to sneak it in. I don't blame you for posting the video or giving it a chance. I do condemn the video, however.
+Steven Sudit No problem, understood. Maybe it's the scary gaunt avatar you use. Ever think of switching to a bunny? 😉
+Scott Cramer I wouldn't want to mislead people. Better to err (slightly) on the side of being too threatening rather than not threatening enough. Apparently, my avatar is some sort of psychotic vampire; sounds about right.
I'm a blogger with eight years, and have been online since '93. So what I consider a long and/or contentious discussion is probably very different from most. I'm very Long Now, and I think of all discussions online as something to be archaeologically dug up at some point in the future. I am figuring out how to best utilize G+ and I expect that to take a year or so. I never intend to clobber anyone although I do have a closet full of folding chairs, but do intend to get everything out there and referable for the day when the better tools come around.
That said, I think the greatest value of G+ is to get people saying what they think about things as they are happening and to give some notion of where they get their ideas from. But I expect very little to get resolved in real time.
What would be a great deal more interesting to me right about now is to find out where Cindy Sheehan is. And just behind that, where are all the activists who remembered that the President said he was going to bury the energy companies in his campaign, prairie dogged up when BP's platform exploded in the Gulf of Mexico. Where are they now and why are they so quiet?
—
I happen to believe that zone of quiet is were OWS is going to be next Christmas and all the talk about how the internet will empower a new generation of whatever will be snuck away from. There's a great deal to recommend centralized command and control, especially when human nature wants to ask, what did you know and when did you know it – of those who misstep. So at most, OWS is going to help inform some people by giving them a couple months to think about where they fit into the economy…but they've already said they don't want to be a political party. So that puts them one step below Ralph Nader, Ross Perot, George Wallace and Lyndon LaRouche with regards to brokering political power in America.
Speaking of which, remember all the people power talk from the Obama supporters? He raised more money than any candidate in American history by using the 'netroots'. Does anybody still believe that it went anywhere other than the Democrat Party? So my question is, into whose pockets is the money raised on behalf of OWS going? (and if they're not raising any money, who cares?)
+Michael DC Bowen will digest that later… 😉 didn't want to appear inattentive