I support the occupy movement and what they are doing. I must admit my real interest is in some kind of control over "Wall Street" and the way they can take chances for big wins that when they go wrong affect the 99% and the "Street" really does not get any punishment or a piddling little one The news tonight mentioned CITI and a penalty the SEC gave them that the judge threw out as being ridiculously to low. I don't mind sinking or swimming on my own but fear someone else blowing my plans out of the water and it wasn't my fault.
Go occupiers!

I think that this article misses the point as much as most of the occupiers do. The prime mover behind crony capitalism is government. The people in government are power brokers. Timid big business interests, afraid to compete in the marketplace, line up to buy a chunk of the power brokers' power. When government has so much power that it can pick winners and losers in the economy, it has too much power. More government and more regulation are not going to solve that problem, they are going to exacerbate it. The "10 ways the Occupy movement changes everything" cited by the authors are just so much Powerpoint presentation doublespeak, viz. - "Because leadership is everywhere and new supporters keep turning up, there is a flowering of creativity and a resilience that makes the movement nearly impossible to shut down."Or: "Slow, patient decision-making in which every voice is heard translates into wisdom, common commitment, and power.

Sorry, no sale.

This is by and large an exercise in narcissism. These protesters aren't changing anything. They're just engaged in "protest theater" and talking to each other in their own echo chamber about what a Grand Revolution they're fomenting. Those of us "99 percenters" working and living and contributing in the real world see their protests as at best annoying; at worst openly hostile. If these people want to have a real impact, here's a suggestion: Buy a few shares of stock in the companies they find most egregious. Show up at the stock holder's meetings. Hold your demonstrations there. Put forward an alternate slate of directors that isn't made up of government supplicants and rent seekers. Make a difference. You may fail at first, but over the course of years, you will build a base for reform. This problem has been brewing since the New Deal. It's not going to go away in one year. A generational problem will require a generational solution.

Drum circles, chants of "Eat the Rich" and appeals for more government won't provide that solution.

In his blog, Adam Curtis gave his take on the seeming vaguery of the Occupy Agenda, and it connects with remarks as "The movement is sometimes criticized for failing to issue a list of demands, but doing so could keep it tied to status quo power relationships and policy options." The mass protests of the 1960s were large co-opted by the corporations of America and Western Europe, or so they were in the minds of the protesters. In another work, The Century of the Self, Curtis demonstrates how the idealism of the 1960s counter-cultural revolution gave way to the cynical '70s, during which time the Baby Boom generation turned inward, seeking to change and express themselves. There also occurred a revolution on Madison Avenue, which turned the suffocating conformity of the 1950s on its head and learned how to market to a generation seeking self-fulfillment. On the political scene, it was Ronald Reagan, of all people, who was the first national politician in the US to campaign effectively among the new generation. Thus the Reagan Revolution, more than anything else, must be regarded as the prime accomplishment of the Boomers.

I suspect that those in the Occupy movement are aware, at least subconsciously, of this history and fearful of being co-opted. But I don't think that co-option is really the right fear. Quite the opposite of a failure, I think that the above shows that the last great wave of protest was largely a success, though success came in a form that was never imagined or intended. It remains an open question whether the Occupy movement will end before having an appreciable impact on society, but the bigger question is what that impact would be, and if it could in any way resemble what is now intended.

To answer that, we have to go back to the '70s again, though this time the 1870s. A great movement was under way in American society to reform the spoils system. First systematically developed under Andrew Jackson, the spoils system attracted an enormous amount of criticism following the corruption of the Grant administration, and the assassination of President Garfield in 1881 finally created a sufficient impetus for Congress to pass the Pendleton Act, which required civil service appointments to be made according to merit (though there were loopholes, the Pendleton Act turned out to be an effective and important reform). But reform of the civil service eliminated the incentive for large numbers of people to volunteer for campaigns, forcing candidates to turn to big money to win elections. Thus the era of money-dominated elections began.

The history of civil service reform and other reform movements indicates that major changes to a process, though perhaps beneficial, never have the dramatic impacts promised and often bring about major unintended consequences. So it is likely to be the case with any effort, should it be successful, to reform campaign finance. After all, look at what the McCain-Feingold bill did for the growth of PACs. I can envision several such consequences. First, with candidates less able to get their own messages out, the press will be better able to obfuscate political issues, a job that they already do to great effect. Second, the assumption that liberal policies will naturally rise to replace weakened business interests is hardly warranted; one could just as easily imagine a brand of ultra-libertarianism, or a return of racial politics, or other things instead.

Here's an effect I think The Occupiers are having: They are helping expose the role public employee unions (and tenured academia) play in our political system and government. In marching alongside OWS, Public Employee Unions have illustrated the two groups' co-dependency. The Occupy crowd wants more service, the Public Employee Unions want more clients. I think OWS will open a lot of eyes to America's entitlement mentality and the forces that nurture and profit from it.

Ask an Occupant: Who buys elections?

I bet they won't say Public Employes Unions.

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB10001424052702303339504575566481761790288.html

BlueLight -

Your comment is so indicative of people who couldn't possibly be more clueless about the status of the corporate takeover of our government. It's open, legalized bribery in DC. Wall Street is nothing more than a Casino, except when they lose, you get the bill. Apparently, you couldn't be happier about it.

Read this article from Bloomberg news about how the banking industry was secretly given $13 BILLION by the Federal Reserve.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2011-11-28/secret-fed-loans-undisclosed-to-congress-gave-banks-13-billion-in-income.html

The Unions are to blame for all of this? Are you absolutely clueless?
The next time you hear your news sources and talk show hosts quack about the 'free market', just know they are laughing in your face because you're the only one that believes it. They're happy to take your tax money and feed off the federal government and tell people like you about the wonders of the free market while they laugh all the way to the bank.

Occupy hasn't change anything. It has no real political power, granted it has a lot of noise, but it's mostly a mindless drone. What are they going to do if they don't get their way? Get angry? Be there done that didn't work. Next.

If they really were a force to be reckoned with, there'd be emergency legislative sessions across the nation with the occupiers occupying a seat at the table. Hold your breath waiting for that to happen. There's a large number of the 99% who are organized and making themselves felt, that would be the dreaded and evil tea party people. They did it through the elective system. So short of armed revolt, which sounds like what some occupiers are promoting, elections are how change happens in this nation and right now the occupiers haven't quite grasped that concept.

The article is a wish list, not an itemization of accomplishments. The Occupy movement is the seed of change, not change itself. Not to throw cold water on the party, but a lack of realism about the vastness of the process serves no useful purpose. This is likely the beginning of a very big social wave, but it's one that will take years to develop and crest.

As usual, dbreneman has it exactly right.

I note the hypocrisy of Point 8. On a global basis, the Occupiers are virtually all in the top 1%. The Big Government, pro-union policies that they promote certainly have the effect of keeping the Global 99% in abject poverty, with reduced opportunity to move into the 1%.

The Occupiers are disorganized, and if they think the general public, or anyone else, thinks their messages are effective, being heard, or will impact any kind of change, they are exposing just how disconnected they are from the middle.

The top 1% and the Occupy 1% are both equally disconnected from the middle. It's bizarre how both sets cannot see the forest thru the trees.

Here's a message that I have heard. I have yet to hear anyone who disagrees with it:

"The wealthiest elements of our society have a disproportionate influence over the government and they are using that influence to further enrich themselves."

We have devolved from the idea of one person-one vote to one dollar-one vote. As bad as that may be, it gets worse. The millions of dollars that are winning the vote are voting more millions of dollars for themselves at grave cost to our economy, our quality of life, and our society.

Cool papa. You are 100% right on correct. Everyone knows the wealthy (and wealthy corporations) own DC and the elected officials who reside there. The corporate media is at the top of the pyramid of problems and it needs to be fixed first.

Anonymous commenters like PJS who post propaganda with no sources or references are simply irrelevant in this debate. Political debate requires transparency and those who don't provide it should be viewed as not credible.

People like Jon Stewart and David Letterman are even saying 'tax the rich' on their shows. Like many wealthy people, they do want to be wealthy in a poor society. That's what the Middle East has and look how those countries are in turmoil.

Countries where thousands of people own the wealth and millions of people have very little money simply cannot function. It's simple math.

We do not live in a free country. We live in a governed country. If you want complete freedom, go to Iraq or Libya or some other country with 'small government'.

From RB
"Everyone knows the wealthy (and wealthy corporations) own DC and the elected officials who reside there. The corporate media is at the top of the pyramid of problems and it needs to be fixed first."

Then why pray tell does Seattle continue to send McDermott back to D.C. every two years and Patty back each 6 years? Sounds like King County is the biggest problem area in the state. And if you want functional government with high taxes and free healthcare, go to Greece or Spain or Italy or Great Britain or Ireland or any number of civilized Western Nations. I like the endorsement by Jon Stewart and David Letterman, sorta renders you whole argument worthless.