Occupy cprogamming.com!

**MK27** · 10-17-2011

Just kidding.

I live near Toronto, and if I did not have commitments preventing me, I'd be happy to be taking part. Altho the protest here is small, I'm impressed by the form and -- surprisingly, since T.O. is a conservative place with a (recent) history of animosity and violence toward leftist protest -- the media coverage of the event.

By "impressed by the form", I mean that the purpose is ambiguous (beyond a general concern about current global economics) and it has been left up to the actual participants to decide what it is they want to say and how they will say it.

By "impressed by the media coverage", I mean that for the most part, they have not towed the simple (right wing reactionary) line and said, "This is too ambiguous, these people don't have their tish together and do not deserve an audience." Instead (for the most part), they seem to be intrigued by the ambiguity and giving some credulence to the form. Now that is evolutionary social progress!

So I thot I'd start this thread looking for comments by people in other "occupied" cities. A few of them (sadly, IMO) have clearly become oppositional, but my feeling is that the peaceful, small scale, diffuse and heterogeneous T.O. protest is typical.

Tangential observation: I notice a lot of the masks worn by Anonymous (the h/cracker collective) supporters here and internationally. Personally, I think that is a negative thing, as however noble the goals of Anonymous are, their tactics IMO are terrorist tactics. However, I do recognize that Anonymous can be a clever bunch with (presumably) a serious, significant global presence whose interests are not necessarily cyber-terrorism, but cyber-savvy, and wonder what role they have played in the "Occupy" movement.

**AndrewHunter** · 10-22-2011

Originally Posted by MK27

I live near Toronto, and if I did not have commitments preventing me, I'd be happy to be taking part. Altho the protest here is small, I'm impressed by the form and -- surprisingly, since T.O. is a conservative place with a (recent) history of animosity and violence toward leftist protest -- the media coverage of the event.

Wow, violence towards events?

Originally Posted by MK27

By "impressed by the form", I mean that the purpose is ambiguous (beyond a general concern about current global economics) and it has been left up to the actual participants to decide what it is they want to say and how they will say it.

Honestly though, what is the message of the protest then?

Originally Posted by MK27

By "impressed by the media coverage", I mean that for the most part, they have not towed the simple (right wing reactionary) line and said, "This is too ambiguous, these people don't have their tish together and do not deserve an audience." Instead (for the most part), they seem to be intrigued by the ambiguity and giving some credulence to the form. Now that is evolutionary social progress!

IMO, that is just the media being the media. The whole "whatever makes the headlines" thing.

Originally Posted by MK27

So I thot I'd start this thread looking for comments by people in other "occupied" cities. A few of them (sadly, IMO) have clearly become oppositional, but my feeling is that the peaceful, small scale, diffuse and heterogeneous T.O. protest is typical.

It certainly makes traffic worse......

Originally Posted by MK27

Tangential observation: I notice a lot of the masks worn by Anonymous (the h/cracker collective) supporters here and internationally. Personally, I think that is a negative thing, as however noble the goals of Anonymous are, their tactics IMO are terrorist tactics. However, I do recognize that Anonymous can be a clever bunch with (presumably) a serious, significant global presence whose interests are not necessarily cyber-terrorism, but cyber-savvy, and wonder what role they have played in the "Occupy" movement.

Definitely a tangential discussion.

**~~CommonTater~~** · 10-22-2011

Originally Posted by AndrewHunter

Honestly though, what is the message of the protest then?

"People not Profit". For the most part it's an outcry against corporate greed and service cutbacks in governments.

In Canada the degredation of government funded health care is a big one, as is the reduction in pension plans by corporations where CEOs take more home in a week than their workers do in a year... You know the usual... a bunch of people (correctly) screaming for a fair deal.

**AndrewHunter** · 10-22-2011

Originally Posted by CommonTater

"People not Profit". For the most part it's an outcry against corporate greed and service cutbacks in governments.

It sounds like socialism to me.

Originally Posted by CommonTater

In Canada the degredation of government funded health care is a big one, as is the reduction in pension plans by corporations where CEOs take more home in a week than their workers do in a year... You know the usual... a bunch of people (correctly) screaming for a fair deal.

You guys have a government run healthcare, we (in the US) do not. I can see the argument for the degredation of something already in place, however I do not see the point for the "fair wage" ideology.

**~~CommonTater~~** · 10-22-2011

Originally Posted by AndrewHunter

It sounds like socialism to me.

In some aspects... but that may not be entirely a bad thing if it results in some redistribution of wealth to those who need it most.

You guys have a government run healthcare, we (in the US) do not. I can see the argument for the degredation of something already in place, however I do not see the point for the "fair wage" ideology.

There were a rash of news stories a couple of years back that have probably shaped Canadian opinion very strongly... one in particular was a story about a large corporation up here who less than a week after defaulting on pension plans for nearly a thousand workers gave it's CEO a million a month salary.

Another big part of the Canadian "Occupy" position is that we are fed up with crap products manufactured off-shore while Canadian workers sit on welfare.

**Elkvis** · 10-22-2011

Originally Posted by CommonTater

In some aspects... but that may not be entirely a bad thing if it results in some redistribution of wealth to those who need it most.

yes, there is plenty of greed at the top of large corporations, but I don't see how it's the government's responsibility to redistribute wealth. if they take it away from the wealthy, it won't go directly to the poor. it will go through numerous, horribly inefficient government programs, and (if US history is any indicator) less than half of it is likely to make it to the people who "need" it. in any case, you're from canada, so I don't know what the illegal immigration situation is like up there, but here in the US, there's an estimated 13 million illegal immigrants working at jobs that they don't deserve, simply because of the fact that they came here illegally. kicking out all the illegals, not legalizing them, would go a LONG way in recovering our economy, and getting all of our unemployed back to work.

**jwenting** · 11-02-2011

Originally Posted by CommonTater

In some aspects... but that may not be entirely a bad thing if it results in some redistribution of wealth to those who need it most.

so you think there's nothing wrong with wholesale theft?

Which is all that that "redistribution" really is. Take things from productive people, people who actually work for a living, and give them to slackers who refuse to put in any effort to generate their own income, the professional unemployed and unemployable who deliberately make it so that they will never get accepted for a job.

All it does is destroy resources, drive jobs away from the country as people who can fund investment, can hire people to do jobs, take their money overseas to where it won't get stolen.
Heck, if I could do so I'd take my meager savings elsewhere as well, as well as myself, to be away from such people.

**MK27** · 10-24-2011

Originally Posted by AndrewHunter

It sounds like socialism to me. I do not see the point for the "fair wage" ideology.

Fair enough -- you are well off to the right side of the political spectrum. It looks to me (via news coverage of Toronto and New York) as if "the goal" is more about bringing like minded people together than arguing with people who hold diametrically opposed political views, or trying to sell them something they are never going to buy.

Not to say that arguing is a always waste of time, lol, but... I think an analogy to the tea party is fair; I do not believe that the tea party in America (I was living there until this year) changed anyone's mind about anything*; it simply gave a bunch of like-minded people a collective focal point. Of course, the scale here may be different, and the form: right wing people tend to prefer vertical hierarchies and "strong leadership", whereas left wing people tend to favor horizontal integration and a very restrained/limited leadership.

* and I don't think the "occupy" protests will either. However, it may provide some people an opportunity to network, learn from others, think about their own ideas, etc.

**Elkvis** · 10-24-2011

Originally Posted by MK27

left wing people tend to favor horizontal integration and a very restrained/limited leadership.

but the further left you go, the more they seem to want the government to control everything, to the point of taking all of everyone's money, so that everyone is equally impoverished, and then doling out what they think people "need" to live on. the trouble with this is that the government then has the power to deny service to individuals or groups who they deem unworthy, leaving them (potentially, quite literally) out in the cold.

it's really a double standard. the same people who want the government to redistribute the wealth of the wealthy, still want the ability to accumulate wealth of their own without interference.

even if you were to set the marginal tax rate for persons making over 1 million dollars per year at 100%, that would put a very small (nearly invisible) dent in the national debt, at least in the US. the real trick is creating an environment where businesses can thrive and generate revenue, employing people, who spend money, generating revenue for other businesses, so that there is lots of money in the economy to be taxed. then the tax rates need not be as high, and the government can have all the money it needs (within reason), and people don't feel like they are being screwed every time they get a paycheck. most americans feel that their tax dollars are being wasted, so controlling government spending is important too. accountability is the key. most government agencies are given carte blanche to set their own spending limit, and so you have lots of offices whose work could be done by half the staff or less. as an employee of a government contractor, I see this firsthand every day. in general, government employees in the US are lazy, and do as little as they can to satisfy their job requirements, because there is no motivation to work harder, and no motivation to serve the customer (taxpayer). if all government agencies at all levels were required to provide a dollar-by-dollar accounting of their expenses, and a minute-by-minute accounting of their time, and the results were made public, I think the public outcry would completely overshadow any movement on wall street or anywhere else they are protesting large corporations.

**Mario F.** · 10-22-2011

Originally Posted by MK27

So I thot I'd start this thread looking for comments by people in other "occupied" cities. A few of them (sadly, IMO) have clearly become oppositional, but my feeling is that the peaceful, small scale, diffuse and heterogeneous T.O. protest is typical.

It died very quickly here. The next day in fact, meaning they just resisted one night until they felt bored and arranged through iPhone for another manif to take place in a month or so.

There was a people's assembly. But the only conclusion it must have reached is that people aren't being serious about their protesting, prefer the comfort of the night bars, it was too hot anyways and their iPhones battery couldn't resist a week if they didn't stop taking photographs of each other smiling during a demonstration of people's anger against the system.

**Elkvis** · 10-25-2011

all of that aside, the original issue raised by this thread was corporate greed and the protests against it, no?

the simple explanation is that businesses exist to produce revenue, and make a profit. providing jobs and benefits is a side effect. a business is responsible to its owners and shareholders first, and to its customers second. employees and everyone else come somewhere after that. a business cannot survive under any other conditions. many businesses claim to put customers first, but if they truly did that, they would sell their products and services at cost, with no markup, and therefore, generating no profit. from a business standpoint, that would be utterly pointless.

**Neo1** · 10-26-2011

Originally Posted by Elkvis

all of that aside, the original issue raised by this thread was corporate greed and the protests against it, no?

the simple explanation is that businesses exist to produce revenue, and make a profit. providing jobs and benefits is a side effect. a business is responsible to its owners and shareholders first, and to its customers second. employees and everyone else come somewhere after that. a business cannot survive under any other conditions. many businesses claim to put customers first, but if they truly did that, they would sell their products and services at cost, with no markup, and therefore, generating no profit. from a business standpoint, that would be utterly pointless.

I think the protests are not so much about the corporations themselves, rather the greed of the people in charge of most of them.

Corporations firing employees with one hand, and handing out million dollar bonuses to the CEO with the other hand.
Banks receiving multi-billion dollar bailouts (Funny how "personal responsibilty" only applies to poor people eh?), then spending some of it on bonuses for the CEOs that got the bank in trouble in the first place.

**Mario F.** · 10-26-2011

Originally Posted by Neo1

Corporations firing employees with one hand, and handing out million dollar bonuses to the CEO with the other hand.

If there is some sort of contract this companies have with the society as a whole, let's hear it. Otherwise, while certainly unscrupulous, I think people should stop complaining against that which they will do in their lives (and have on occasion) on a daily basis if they have an opportunity. Companies and their financial practices have been historically very easy targets of hypocrisy and populism.

And if those companies have been the subject of government bailouts, one more reason to stop this whole Government-based economy.

**Neo1** · 10-26-2011

Originally Posted by Mario F.

If there is some sort of contract this companies have with the society as a whole, let's hear it.

Unfortunately there is no law that forbids companies or individuals from acting like ..............s, that doesn't mean we shouldn't protest against such behaviour though.

Otherwise, while certainly unscrupulous, I think people should stop complaining against that which they will do in their lives (and have on occasion) on a daily basis if they have an opportunity. Companies and their financial practices have been historically very easy targets of hypocrisy and populism.

The thing is, these people don't just make alot of money, they hoard obscene amounts of wealth, more than they could ever spend in a lifetime, while millions of people live in trailer parks and can't afford things like healthcare or education. The way i see it, the protesters are just trying to draw some kind of line, how much more do these people really need? Should we just sit idly by until a few thousand people control 95% of the wealth?

And if those companies have been the subject of government bailouts, one more reason to stop this whole Government-based economy.

Agreed. Stop bailing out banks.

**Mario F.** · 10-26-2011

Originally Posted by Neo1

Agreed. Stop bailing out banks.

I was trying to draw a line between businesses and financial institutions. Guess it was missed.

Thread: Occupy cprogamming.com!

Thread Tools

Search Thread

Display

Hybrid View

Occupy cprogamming.com!

Similar Threads

do arguments passed into a function always occupy contiguous memory?

Integer and the no. of bits it occupy