Worldwide Occupy Movement?

I was going to post quotes of what the representative is saying (live from ODS) but I'll sum it up by saying the words ignorant, arrogant, and asshole.

Cringeworthy! They'll be there for "as long as possible." As for the businesses who are being negatively affected, "Sure this was never a shopping hub...we're in a global recession."

hatrickpatrick

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

What does it mean to "earn it"? Are we just saying allowing banks to profit at all is inherently evil?

If they're surviving on taxpayer bailouts? YES!
They should be paying us back before they pay their managers an extra cent on top of their salaries. I have heard no talk whatsoever of our Anglo bailout being a loan. They should be required to pay us back with interest, seeing as that's the business model they operate on when they give other people money.
We are effectively GIVING them money to pay for their f*ck ups without any expectation that they repay it. It's lunacy.

Once you're owned by the state, making a profit should not be your priority, repaying the taxpayer should be. They shouldn't have been given our money in the first place, they'd damn well better focus on paying us back rather than paying themselves.

hatrickpatrick

Godge wrote: »

Reading that piece in bold, I am drawn to the conclusion that your views are that:

(1) Bankers who genuinely and legally earned bonuses under the terms of their contracts should be paid those bonuses;
(2) Bondholders who made a decision to invest in Ireland and purchase bonds that were guaranteed by the FF government should be repaid what they are owed as they have legally earned that return;

Or is there a difference in your mind between legally and honestly and how can you tell the difference and who decides if you are correct?

1) Bankers who directly presided over the policies which led to the collapse we're in should have been sacked for incompetence a long time ago.

2) Bondholders should never have been guaranteed in the first place and that decision should be revoked and investigated. I do not believe it was taken for honest reasons, nor was it made through honest means. the constitution states that the cabinet is the ultimate decision making body in government, yet the cabinet were barely consulted except for a phone call at 4 o clock in the morning.

With regard to #1, we now own those banks. The taxpayer. We own them, therefore we do in fact have the power to investigate and get rid of the incompetent buffoons who led us to where we are today, and we do have the power to restructure them without the insane pay levels they have now.
Once you have been nationalized, your priority should be to pay back the taxpayer first and foremost. Profits are for successful businesses.

Godge

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

1) Bankers who directly presided over the policies which led to the collapse we're in should have been sacked for incompetence a long time ago.

2) Bondholders should never have been guaranteed in the first place and that decision should be revoked and investigated. I do not believe it was taken for honest reasons, nor was it made through honest means. the constitution states that the cabinet is the ultimate decision making body in government, yet the cabinet were barely consulted except for a phone call at 4 o clock in the morning.

With regard to #1, we now own those banks. The taxpayer. We own them, therefore we do in fact have the power to investigate and get rid of the incompetent buffoons who led us to where we are today, and we do have the power to restructure them without the insane pay levels they have now.
Once you have been nationalized, your priority should be to pay back the taxpayer first and foremost. Profits are for successful businesses.

(1) You have no proof of incompetence of any individual banker below the top level who have already been replaced.
(2) You have no proof at all that the decision to guarantee the bondholders was anything other than a monumentally stupid idea dreamed up by McWilliams and badly implemented by Lenihan.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

hatrickpatrick

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

So we're just giving them 80 odd billion with no expectation of it ever being repayed?
Therein lies the inherent lunacy in this whole situation. They never give money away for free, why should they be given it for free? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

hatrickpatrick

Corkblowin wrote: »

As an aside, hatpatrick : while I fundamentally disagree with you on pretty much all youve posted (although you do have a point about the disconnect between the people and the parliament) I do admire the fact that you have stayed with all the threads & fought your corner tenaciously and without much rancour - unlike most of the others than ran away and now only post in places where they won't get any dissenting voices. Kudos.

Cheers
Sure I'm an Irishman, isn't it a national characteristic that we enjoy debating? :P
My dad has an old Scrap Saturday tape and one of the running jokes on it is that when Haughey is having his New Year's Eve party, they hire Eamon Dunphy for the specific purpose of wandering around arguing with guests in five minute time slots

Joking aside for a moment, could I ask what you fundamentally disagree with about what I've posted?
You suggest that you DO recognize the disconnect between parliament and people, so is your disagreement with the reforms I've proposed to deal with them, with my assertion that a more accountable system is in fact desirable, or on a totally different aspect of my argument such as reforming the monetary / financial system and refusing to accept cronyism / bailouts for buddies / etc?

I'm genuinely curious about the arguments of those who oppose such restructuring, is it due to fear of the unknown, a disagreement that the situation we have now is as bad as protesters argue it is, or a resignation that while it's bad, it's impossible for us to come up with a better system and we should just learn to live with it, broken as it is?

I think one of the areas we lock horns is that sometimes we're on different pages with regard to scale. While it seems many opponents of such a revolution / reform argue on the smaller scale of the negative effect it will have on existing institutions and systems, my argument is that the scope of reform must be so large that those very systems and institutions themselves are also replaced. I'm not sure if I've made that point clearly enough in the past. To reference the collapsing edifice argument put forward earlier in the topic, my position is that instead of propping up a dangerous structure, often a council or government will decide that if the building is fundamentally unsound to its core, it should be demolished entirely in the interest of public safety. I wrote a more detailed argument about this several weeks ago in response to an earlier post, but my browser crashed during writing it, I didn't have the energy to type it all out again but I will revisit it in a day or two, have the beginnings of redrafting the post on my HD now, and I refuse to type long responses inside a browser window anymore

PeadarCo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

So we're just giving them 80 odd billion with no expectation of it ever being repayed?
Therein lies the inherent lunacy in this whole situation. They never give money away for free, why should they be given it for free? It makes absolutely no sense whatsoever.

You do realise that many businesses rely on bank overdrafts for basic working capital. Given the recession I'd imagine many businesses rely heavily on this to stay afloat. Given that many of them give out about a lack of credit facilities from banks, if there was no banks, there would be no credit facilities for companies. That would mean even more job losses as many viable businesses would go to the wall. The banks weren't saved for the hell of it. Any country that aspires to having any reasonably sized private sector needs a functioning banking system(Ours is still on life support). That's the reason the industry as a whole was bailed out. Its a different and ultimatley completely academic debate if the way it was done was the right way.

On the subject of Occupy they don't seem to care about the local businesses in the area. The group had more than enough time to make their point what ever that is.

hatrickpatrick

PeadarCo wrote: »

You do realise that many businesses rely on bank overdrafts for basic working capital.

You do realise that when you have an overdraft, you eventually have to repay it, right? Doesn't justify giving banks an indefinite payment instead of a long term loan.

Given the recession I'd imagine many businesses rely heavily on this to stay afloat.

It's been stated time and again that the bailouts haven't eased the credit crunch all that much. How about attaching a condition to bank bailouts that the funds must be used to actually provide customers with credit?

Given that many of them give out about a lack of credit facilities from banks, if there was no banks, there would be no credit facilities for companies.

As I've stated many times already, this is what needs to be changed. The system must be redesigned so that funding for business does not rely on private companies being perpetually successful, to the point that when they f*ck up we have to bail them out. If banks are fundamentally necessary to our economy, then they should be public companies whose sole purpose is to facilitate money distribution, and not profit making entities.

That would mean even more job losses as many viable businesses would go to the wall. The banks weren't saved for the hell of it. Any country that aspires to having any reasonably sized private sector needs a functioning banking system(Ours is still on life support). That's the reason the industry as a whole was bailed out. Its a different and ultimatley completely academic debate if the way it was done was the right way.

Anglo was not ans is not functioning, it should not have been saved no matter what extenuating circumstances existed as a pretext for saving AIB and BOI.

Any country that aspires to having any reasonably sized private sector needs a functioning banking system

Why? Why does it have to exist in the form that it does, why can't we redesign it exactly? Why are you so adamant that we have to keep shorin up a collapsing building instead of demolishing it and building a new one in its place?

On the subject of Occupy they don't seem to care about the local businesses in the area. The group had more than enough time to make their point what ever that is.

It's not about making a point, it's about changing things.
The general idea of a protest is to fight on until change is achieved. Would you have said to the Irish independence fighters half way through the war "Sure you've made your point, go home now you're just being a nuisance"?

Would you have said that to Martin Luther after the million man march? "You've made your point, nothing has changed but you've made your point so go home"?

PeadarCo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

You do realise that when you have an overdraft, you eventually have to repay it, right? Doesn't justify giving banks an indefinite payment instead of a long term loan.

You do understanding I was referring to one of the functions of banks not how they were bailed out. This was a reason they were bailed out. The aim of the government is that the banks be ultimately self supporting and leave government ownership.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's been stated time and again that the bailouts haven't eased the credit crunch all that much. How about attaching a condition to bank bailouts that the funds must be used to actually provide customers with credit?

Question what do you think would happen if there was no banks? Business are recieving credit not as much as they would like or need but many of them still have access. If there was no banks none of them bar the foreign owned(Which weren't bailed out by the Irish Taxpayer) and they would probably face even further tightening due to a bigger collapse of the economy

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

As I've stated many times already, this is what needs to be changed. The system must be redesigned so that funding for business does not rely on private companies being perpetually successful, to the point that when they f*ck up we have to bail them out. If banks are fundamentally necessary to our economy, then they should be public companies whose sole purpose is to facilitate money distribution, and not profit making entities.

How would you go about changing it. Do you have anything approaching a taught out plan that you could show other people for them to citique.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Anglo was not ans is not functioning, it should not have been saved no matter what extenuating circumstances existed as a pretext for saving AIB and BOI.

Thats a purely academic arguement (One for academics to investigate)I don't thing anyone would argue the banks were dealt in the best way but unfortunately we don't have a time machine. The government going forward can't change the past. They need to make the best of what they've got.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Why? Why does it have to exist in the form that it does, why can't we redesign it exactly? Why are you so adamant that we have to keep shorin up a collapsing building instead of demolishing it and building a new one in its place?

Because no one has put further a better suggestion. The most prosperous countries in the world use various froms of state managed capatilism.

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's not about making a point, it's about changing things.
The general idea of a protest is to fight on until change is achieved. Would you have said to the Irish independence fighters half way through the war "Sure you've made your point, go home now you're just being a nuisance"?

Would you have said that to Martin Luther after the million man march? "You've made your point, nothing has changed but you've made your point so go home"?

You can't change anything unless you put further an alternative/solution and as some other proponents of Occupy have said it doesn't do solutions. The people you mention were working towards clearly defined goals. Occupy only protests it doesn't seem to have any other purpose. Its protested, now its time to go home or actually start doing something constructive. Which can be done without destroying other people livelyhoods.

timesnap

I hate to get involved with threads that run to loads of pages because i cannot be sure i will be able to find time to argue my case(as is required in the politics charter) or repeat something that has been said already by another poster.

I do not understand why the various occupy groups are criticised so much.
it has always been a feature of a democratic country to allow protest.
often these groups are students who have strong objections to what their Govt are up to.

more than anything else it was student protest that brought an end to the vietnam war, sadly it took students being shot dead on campus by their own home guard to cause much of the outrage that led America to pull out.
many of these students went on to become *pillars of society*.
not forgetting the much more open press the US had then compared to now.

My point is leave them alone,more often than not they see things more clearly than when they fall into societies *norms*.
bring on the revolution,but not just yet!:)

PeadarCo

timesnap wrote: »

I hate to get involved with threads that run to loads of pages because i cannot be sure i will be able to find time to argue my case(as is required in the politics charter) or repeat something that has been said already by another poster.

I do not understand why the various occupy groups are criticised so much.
it has always been a feature of a democratic country to allow protest.
often these groups are students who have strong objections to what their Govt are up to.

more than anything else it was student protest that brought an end to the vietnam war, sadly it took students being shot dead on campus by their own home guard to cause much of the outrage that led America to pull out.
many of these students went on to become *pillars of society*.
not forgetting the much more open press the US had then compared to now.

My point is leave them alone,more often than not they see things more clearly than when they fall into societies *norms*.
bring on the revolution,but not just yet!:)

If you want to know why the Occupy movement faces a whole lot of critisism read the whole thread. Look at the answers of the groups supporters to fairly basic questions; what are your aims, what do you stand for etc. The Occupy Galway thread would also be another eyeopener.

Protesting is perfectly fine but so is the right to critisise those protesting.

timesnap

PeadarCo wrote: »

If you want to know why the Occupy movement faces a whole lot of critisism read the whole thread. Look at the answers of the groups supporters to fairly basic questions; what are your aims, what do you stand for etc. The Occupy Galway thread would also be another eyeopener.

Protesting is perfectly fine but so is the right to critisise those protesting.

and so it should be ,but often people who mean only to protest in a peaceful manner are hijacked by groups with a much more sinister agenda.

PeadarCo

timesnap wrote: »

and so it should be ,but often people who mean only to protest in a peaceful manner are hijacked by groups with a much more sinister agenda.

True but how does an outsider looking in know that? It could easily be seen as a simple change in objectives.

The other thing you should understand ordinary businesses in the area are suffering because of the ODS site given the economy they have enough troubles.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

timesnap

PeadarCo wrote: »

ordinary businesses in the area are suffering because of the ODS site given the economy they have enough troubles.

No argument from me on that PeaderCO,that is just plain wrong!

oscarBravo

timesnap wrote: »

No argument from me on that PeaderCO,that is just plain wrong!

Someone ought to explain that to the Occupy movement, whose attitude appears to be that it might not be their fault, and therefore it isn't.

FreudianSlippers

Permabear wrote: »

This post had been deleted.

I'm of a slightly more left-wing view than you on this one; in that I believe we should have guaranteed or bailed out... not both.

hatrickpatrick

Peader I'll reply later when I have time to read it fully but just skimming through on my way home, one thing to clear up: I'm not arguing against state managed capitalism, as you say. I'm not suggesting that's the issue, the issue is with the instruments (banks) which we use to facilitate it. State managed capitalism can exist with or without the gatekeepers of artificial currency (the oil on the wheels) being private, for profit institutions.

Banks should exist to serve a function, nothing more.

FreudianSlippers

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Peader I'll reply later when I have time to read it fully but just skimming through on my way home, one thing to clear up: I'm not arguing against state managed capitalism, as you say. I'm not suggesting that's the issue, the issue is with the instruments (banks) which we use to facilitate it. State managed capitalism can exist with or without the gatekeepers of artificial currency (the oil on the wheels) being private, for profit institutions.

Banks should exist to serve a function, nothing more.

So you believe that there should only be one state bank for each country? As in no private banks?

hatrickpatrick

PeadarCo wrote: »

If you want to know why the Occupy movement faces a whole lot of critisism read the whole thread. Look at the answers of the groups supporters to fairly basic questions; what are your aims, what do you stand for etc. The Occupy Galway thread would also be another eyeopener.

Protesting is perfectly fine but so is the right to critisise those protesting.

Well I've been answering those questions the entire time but you seem to be ignoring the answers. Along with my response to your points later on, I will also post some photos I've taken of ODS which show the most prominent posters displayed at the camp - all of which relate to the banking system and how fundamentally ridiculous its current incarnation is.

hatrickpatrick

FreudianSlippers wrote: »

So you believe that there should only be one state bank for each country? As in no private banks?

It's an idea, isn't it? And what about credit unions, why is it that they have largely escaped from causing the havoc the big banks have?

It's very simple: If a company or institution has the power to, through incompetence, completely and utterly screw up society, then society itself should be in control of it. The banks are basically in a position to say "We're going to have our fun regardless of who we hurt, but if it goes wrong for us it becomes your problem and we won't have to pay for our own mistakes".

There is a fundamental problem with that, do you honestly think it's a good system? If something is "systemic" to the function of society then it should be run solely for the benefit of society.

EDIT: I don't necessarily mean no private banks, but they should be structured in such a way that if one of them collapses, the only people it hurts are the investors in that bank, rather than the apparent situation today wherein one bank collapse can cause an entire economy to implode. It's utterly moronic.

Permabear

This post has been deleted.

PeadarCo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

It's an idea, isn't it? And what about credit unions, why is it that they have largely escaped from causing the havoc the big banks have?

Sorry to dissappoint but Credit Unions haven't avoided it. They have also recieved money from the government.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/regulators-fear-chaos-if-credit-unions-rush-to-merge-3026944.html

PeadarCo

hatrickpatrick wrote: »

Well I've been answering those questions the entire time but you seem to be ignoring the answers. Along with my response to your points later on, I will also post some photos I've taken of ODS which show the most prominent posters displayed at the camp - all of which relate to the banking system and how fundamentally ridiculous its current incarnation is.

Thats the typical Occupy response. Blame the person asking the question rather than ask why do people have issues understanding their message. Occupy seem to make their demands deliberately ambigous so that they can't be critiqued and that they can change what they mean using the room their ambiguos terms give them.

What alternative do you have, how would it be structured in what exact way would it be better than a properly regulated version of our current model? How would it prevent a property bubble?(even if in the short term that what people want) How would it ensure bad loans aren't given out?

K-9

PeadarCo wrote: »

Sorry to dissappoint but Credit Unions haven't avoided it. They have also recieved money from the government.

http://www.independent.ie/business/irish/regulators-fear-chaos-if-credit-unions-rush-to-merge-3026944.html

Many estimates are suggesting they'll need about a Billion. There total losses are obviously nowhere near AIB et al but given the scale of their loans and business, not to be sneezed at or dismissed lightly.

Some judgments recently in the €100's of Thousands in individual cases, shocking considering their mantra.

If they had their way 5/6 years ago, the losses would have been even higher, they were actively seeking to higher their lending limit and go into other areas, going on the figures mentioned, some may have regardless.

Dr Galen

Apparently, the camp on Dame st was removed by the Gardai, sometime around 3am. Looks like everything passed off nice and peacefully.

Hifiman

Dr Galen wrote: »

Apparently, the camp on Dame st was removed by the Gardai, sometime around 3am. Looks like everything passed off nice and peacefully.

No surprises there. It was inevitable. They really were their own worst enemies, the place looked absolutely awful and was undoubtedly dangerous from a health and safety point of view. My guess is that they were looking for a way out and this suits them perfectly. Can't wait to hear the mock indignation and cries of "police brutality" from the Fionns, Rossas and Aoifes later today!

firedancer

Quote on Morning Ireland from protester at Dame St, says this is not the end of Occupy , that it is a concept not about their 'camp' and its physical presence which has now been removed, well, 'hello?''!!!.. We who support the movement have been saying that all along,the concept didn't need a bunch of self serving dropouts on the dole to contaminate the movement.
Now that the Occupy Galway have got their walking papers as well thankfully, the movement can continue without these 'pretenders' who have jumped on the bandwagon of 'Occupy' to promote their own agenda.
What have Occupy Galway achieved?
I know one thing for sure, many people in Galway that I have spoken to who were up for taking to the street in protest, wouldn't be seen dead with most of those 'Occupying' in Eyre Square who hijacked that whole scene.
Let's wait now for their cries of 'police brutality' , surprising as up until now they were literally bedfellows with an Garda Siochana..'we have made Eyre Square safer'...
Safer?? passing God knows what sort of bacteria, viruses, onto unsuspecting public being offered 'cups of chai tea' from a place with absolutely no cleaning facilities whatsoever!
Shouldn't be too difficult moving empty tents anyway....

Who's gonna pay for the clean-up bill??