Occupy Wall Street better defend its identity

[Snide]

Originally Posted by Stout

http://i290.photobucket.com/albums/l...0426463_n1.jpg

One big strawman there.

[MaGZ]

Originally Posted by Emperor_Gestahl

Be careful of special interest groups hijacking the message. That's what happened to the Tea Party leading them to be co-opted into the Fox News GOP. Even if people show up who you agree with on some political issue, ask yourselves if that issue is actually related to what the protest is about. There will be, and probably already are, many factions who want nothing more than to turn the entire movement into a DNC fundraiser. Suddenly it will be about collective bargaining for teachers or something else that doesn't involve a corporation at all, let alone Wall Street. The partisans on both sides will try and expand their trenches such that your movement falls into them. Keep an eye out, don't be the next Tea Party.

DNC fundraiser? Better to keep it a Marxist /Anarchist gabfest.

[MaGZ]

Originally Posted by NWO Sentryman

Yeah, it's basically:

Phase 1: Protest Wall Street
Phase 2: ????
Phase 3: Revolution!

And a prediction of my own: this will have blown over by November 2011 at the earliest.

They are all a bunch of sunshine revolutionaries.

[MaGZ]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Capitalism is permissible in a rational society. The capitalists just have to know what their job is and do it. The dirtbags running the financial sector now have forgotten or don't care that they are supposed to be moving money to places where tangible products are produced.

The world lived quite well without capitalists before and can, for a brief period, do so again, if need be.

The unions are actually capable of running the factories, if it comes to that.

Half the suits have no idea what makes their products work any way.

Lefty, keeping the 30s alive.

[Stout]

Originally Posted by Snide

One big strawman there.

Well then maybe you could point me in the direction of some #occupywherever dialogue that says corporations are good and we can clear this up.

[MaGZ]

Originally Posted by Checkmite

Didn't take long.



The wants of the unions don't have much in common with the "message" of this protest, such as it is, and their presence seems rather incongruous.

It'll be downhill from right about here.

My bet is these union members are Reds, not rank and file.

[MaGZ]

Originally Posted by Malcolm Kirkpatrick

So, unions aren'tcapable of running the factories, then?

In any system, someone supplies tools (capital) and someone supplies skilled labor. Finance is a tool, and the skilled labor that wields it is called "management" and sometimes "the investor class". As the United Airlines dispute between the pilots' union and the machinists' union (the owners), on the one hand and the flight attendants' union, on the other, over the appropriate shares of UA revenues indicates, unionization does not confer any special wisdom regarding how to resolve the disputes over "just" compensation.

As an aside, I read that the "Occupy Wall Street" website has posted a recommendation against making lists of demands, after critics used one list to paint them as loons. Yah, they're morons. I reacll one demand: forgiveness of all debt. Personal, corporate, and sovereign. Wipe the slate clean and start from today. Well, who owns any tangible asset that's partially paid for, like a house with a thirty-year mortgage or a hospital's new emergency diesel-electric generator? Does "debt forgiveness" mean that corporations don't have to keep pension promises? Does forgiveness of sovereign debt mean that the US government gets to discount to zero its Social Security obligations? Morons.

The protestors are stupid frontmen for a union-orchestrated pressure play. It's extortion, behind the scenes. "Give us money and we'll call them off".
Just a guess.

I don’t think the unions are behind this, just a few who want to get in on the action. Those pushing this has to be the Hard Left, envious of what the Tea Party did the last few years.

[Stout]

This just in

Day three of our local occupation and, of course, a day three video. Days one and two were pretty much about nothing but today's is all about chemtrails. Crowed has swelled though, we're up into the double digits now

So..where are the other 98.9779654 % ? It was a nice day out, saturday to boot.

[MaGZ]

Originally Posted by Drysdale

This Wall Street protest just seems fishy.

Almost like they were called to protest by somebody/some entity and would be filled in on the details later.

Just really odd.

They were all told to show-up and would be provided with free pizza.

[Emperor_Gestahl]

respect, Taibbi does provide evidence/examples of complicity at the SEC, and explains precisely why bank talent would outclass SEC talent, not to mention those things aren't mutually exclusive so what you meant by "totally changes gears" is a mystery to me.

But whatever, perhaps some further blatant criminality with 0 indictments will change your mind.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...-u-s-deal.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...e-1921918.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/business/28bank.html

[Orphia Nay]

Originally Posted by Snide

One big strawman there.

No, just a whole lot of inconsistency on the part of the protesters.

[Emperor_Gestahl]

More fraud for you too if you're among the apparent minority who still believes that fraud is a crime:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...y-as-2006.html

Quote:

During yesterday’s session, the panel was told Citigroup routinely bought mortgages that violated the bank’s own standards. Richard Bowen, former chief underwriter for Citigroup’s consumer-lending group, said he determined in mid- 2006 that more than 60 percent of mortgages bought from other firms and sold to investors such as Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac were “defective.”

Now tell me how it's not fraud if you were aware (they were) in 2006 that the majority of the mortgages you were selling violated your company's stated credit standards, but you went on offloading them for 2 more years while continuing to represent said make-believe credit standards.

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Originally Posted by Drachasor

Do we need to revisit the 19th and early 20th Centuries?

You're thinking of private sector unions.

Quote:

You takes your political allies wheres yous can gets them.

Why didn't they all just go straight to the DNC then? Why waste all this time when the DNC already holds rallies and fundraisers they could attend? Glomming onto the first massive political organization that came along is more or less what the Tea Party did.

Quote:

Right, so Unions shouldn't work with people they agree with. Those people shouldn't work with Unions they agree with. That doesn't seem to make a lot of sense.

No to the first, yes to the second. The unions have every motive to be there, it's good strategy for both them and the democratic party. They've got republicans to defeat. The protesters however had better be perfectly comfortable becoming part of the DNC and therefore allied with Wall Street before they get too cozy with these partisans.

Quote:

Oh, so what do you suggest their recourse should be if the Government doesn't treat them well and they have no power?

If you read the FDR piece you'd understand that "the government" is in fact us. Also it's them. We're not talking about faceless unelected officials here, if the people feel that teachers or firemen or whoever is downtrodden it's quite simple to fix legislatively.

Quote:

If you don't have collective bargaining or the power to strike, then what's the point of a union?

Uh.. to advocate on behalf of the union's constituents? PAC money? Pretty much what they do now minus the collective bargaining. It's generally already illegal to strike, though that didn't stop some WI teachers (who ought be fired).

Quote:

And I disagree. I don't see how any of that necessarily protects government workers from unfair working conditions, bad training, or the like. They have a right to protest that.

They should protest and advocate all they want, FDR said that was only natural. Not a rights issue, the 1st amendment has them covered.

Quote:

I suppose you might be able to get around that by having laws allowing government employees to sue the government if something bad is going on. That has its own problems, however.

If something "bad" is going on, that's the state legislature's fault. In other words, our fault.

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Not only perjury, but apparently even getting caught hasn't stopped them:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...76H5XX20110718

Quote:

Documents and statements made to courts that are found to be false can amount to crimes under state and federal laws. Daniel Richman, a Columbia University law professor and former federal prosecutor, said such acts can be perjury, and preparing fraudulent documents can be prosecuted under federal mail and wire fraud statutes. The Sarbanes-Oxley Act makes it a crime punishable by up to 20 years in jail to file false documents in a bankruptcy case, including foreclosures.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by Brainster

What do I expect to happen? I expect the Democrats to lose the next election. Nothing much more dramatic than that.

Thanks - I can see now why you prioritize gossip!


~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~


'Occupy Wall Street: No Demand is Big Enough'

[respect]

Originally Posted by Emperor_Gestahl

respect, Taibbi does provide evidence/examples of complicity at the SEC, and explains precisely why bank talent would outclass SEC talent, not to mention those things aren't mutually exclusive so what you meant by "totally changes gears" is a mystery to me.

The only "evidence" he provides are one sided anecdotes, hardly enough to secure a conviction, and considering that he seems to make no attempt at all to get the other sides of these stories, it looks like propaganda.

Originally Posted by Emperor_Gestahl

But whatever, perhaps some further blatant criminality with 0 indictments will change your mind.

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...-u-s-deal.html

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/bu...e-1921918.html

http://www.nytimes.com/2006/09/28/business/28bank.html

So the Treasury, FBI, ATF, DEA, European banks and Warren Buffet are also in on the conspiracy? All we need is vague claims of a plot to take over the world and we will be in Alex Jones la la land.

You might want to read your articles again, they do mention some cases where charges were brought. But I suspect it is that big shot executives haven't been indicted that has you upset. Fining banks for such actions is one thing, bringing criminal charges against individual employees is much more difficult. To get a conviction, prosecutors would almost certainly have to prove that individuals were knowingly, not unwittingly, involved in money laundering. You might also want to consider that your articles mention changes that banks have made to make it more difficult to launder money through them.

[respect]

Originally Posted by Emperor_Gestahl

More fraud for you too if you're among the apparent minority who still believes that fraud is a crime:

http://www.bloomberg.com/news/2010-0...y-as-2006.html


Now tell me how it's not fraud if you were aware (they were) in 2006 that the majority of the mortgages you were selling violated your company's stated credit standards, but you went on offloading them for 2 more years while continuing to represent said make-believe credit standards.

Perhaps, more details are needed.

[respect]

Originally Posted by Emperor_Gestahl

Not only perjury, but apparently even getting caught hasn't stopped them:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/...76H5XX20110718

Good, give it time.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by respect

Perhaps, more details are needed.

[respect]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

How were they advertised, packaged etc? What are these credit standards on? Lending or investing?

There are a lot of types of mortgages and investments based off of them, as well as differences between lending a person money and investing in an existing loan. It isn't made clear by that article what it means when it says that the mortgages violated the company's internal standards (which would not necessarily be fraud anyway). Are they loans that the company wouldn't have lent out themselves but was willing to invest in, and so on? A lot more information and clarification is needed to accurately comment on that passage in the article.

[Emperor_Gestahl]

Originally Posted by respect

So the Treasury, FBI, ATF, DEA, European banks and Warren Buffet are also in on the conspiracy? All we need is vague claims of a plot to take over the world and we will be in Alex Jones la la land.

We'd also need you to point out where I said any of that. I don't see what the FBI, ATF, DEA, European Banks, or Warren Buffet have to do with anything. SEC and DOJ seem to be negligent, and perhaps the Treasury has some notion what the banks are/have been doing (being mostly from those same banks).

Here's today's criminal allegation:

http://online.wsj.com/article/SB1000...990479090.html

Quote:

J.P. Morgan Chase & Co. ignored or dismissed warning signs about the Madoff fraud even as it earned hundreds of millions of dollars from its relationship with his firm, according to a lawsuit unsealed Thursday.

[Drachasor]

Originally Posted by Emperor_Gestahl

You're thinking of private sector unions.

I don't think there's any particular reason why a government can't be abusive towards its employees. In fact, historically there's a lot of evidence that governments can treat people unfairly.

What do you think the proper recourse is if a government employee is experience unsafe working conditions and his immediate boss and their bosses can't or won't do anything about it?

Originally Posted by Emperor_Gestahl

Why didn't they all just go straight to the DNC then? Why waste all this time when the DNC already holds rallies and fundraisers they could attend? Glomming onto the first massive political organization that came along is more or less what the Tea Party did.

Frankly, the Tea Party allied itself largely with the people/party that supported most of their (anti-government) views.

Originally Posted by Emperor_Gestahl

No to the first, yes to the second. The unions have every motive to be there, it's good strategy for both them and the democratic party. They've got republicans to defeat. The protesters however had better be perfectly comfortable becoming part of the DNC and therefore allied with Wall Street before they get too cozy with these partisans.

The GOP is even more allied with Wall Street. I agree both OCW and the Tea Party are missing the point regarding what's going on (e.g. unseemly corporate influence on the government). Unfortunately, the current level of outrage being shown isn't far too small to really shake things up.

On the other hand, they might get some people they like elected, like the Tea Party. Some good might come out of it, depending on how things go. They do seem unlikely to elect anyone that's going to try to stop the government from doing anything, which is a plus.

Originally Posted by Emperor_Gestahl

If you read the FDR piece you'd understand that "the government" is in fact us. Also it's them. We're not talking about faceless unelected officials here, if the people feel that teachers or firemen or whoever is downtrodden it's quite simple to fix legislatively.

Tyranny of the majority? Ever heard of it?

The current situation in government is actually a good example of how it is NOT easy to fix these things. A corrupt government is hard to influence unless you are one of the corrupting forces. People generally do feel education is in trouble, yet more often than not we get total crap for legislation IF ANYTHING. Unions have a place.

Originally Posted by Emperor_Gestahl

Uh.. to advocate on behalf of the union's constituents? PAC money? Pretty much what they do now minus the collective bargaining. It's generally already illegal to strike, though that didn't stop some WI teachers (who ought be fired).

Talking without almost anything to back it up? Fund raising? That's it? Pretty weak.

Originally Posted by Emperor_Gestahl

If something "bad" is going on, that's the state legislature's fault. In other words, our fault.

Placing blame doesn't stop a problem though.

[stokes234]

Originally Posted by Emperor_Gestahl

Uh.. to advocate on behalf of the union's constituents? PAC money? Pretty much what they do now minus the collective bargaining. It's generally already illegal to strike, though that didn't stop some WI teachers (who ought be fired).

I have to ask - if trade unions don't have the power to strike, why exactly should employers give a damn about their advocating for anything?

[Drachasor]

Originally Posted by stokes234

I have to ask - if trade unions don't have the power to strike, why exactly should employers give a damn about their advocating for anything?

To be clear, he's talking about public sector unions. I think the same principle still applies, of course. Just because it is in the public sector doesn't mean employee rights can't get abused.

[Virus]

Damn corporations...sitting in their corporation buildings...being all corporationy.

[Drachasor]

Originally Posted by Virus

Damn corporations...sitting in their corporation buildings...being all corporationy.

Making sure medicare can't negotiate on for cheaper drug prices and other kinds of ridiculous favoritism that costs tax payers.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by respect

How were they advertised, packaged etc? What are these credit standards on? Lending or investing?

There are a lot of types of mortgages and investments based off of them, as well as differences between lending a person money and investing in an existing loan. It isn't made clear by that article what it means when it says that the mortgages violated the company's internal standards (which would not necessarily be fraud anyway). Are they loans that the company wouldn't have lent out themselves but was willing to invest in, and so on? A lot more information and clarification is needed to accurately comment on that passage in the article.

'FBI warns of mortgage fraud 'epidemic'' (CNN, September 17, 2004).


'The Two Documents Everyone Should Read to Better Understand the Crisis ', - William K Black, 2009:

Control (adjective) fraud:

"...the S&P document demonstrates that the investment and commercial banks that purchased nonprime loans, pooled them to create financial derivatives, and sold them to others engaged in the same willful blindness. They did not review samples of loan files because doing so would have exposed the toxic nature of the assets they were buying and selling.

The entire business was premised on a massive lie -- that fraudulent, toxic nonprime mortgage loans were virtually risk-free. The lie was so blatant that the banks even pooled loans that were known in the trade as "liar's loans" and obtained AAA ratings despite FBI warnings that mortgage fraud was "epidemic."

The supposedly most financially sophisticated entities in the world -- in the core of their expertise, evaluating credit risk -- did not undertake the most basic and essential step to evaluate the most dangerous credit risk. They did not review the loan files. In the short and intermediate-term this optimized their accounting fraud but it was also certain to destroy the corporation if it purchased or retained significant nonprime paper."

[Snide]

Originally Posted by Stout

Well then maybe you could point me in the direction of some #occupywherever dialogue that says corporations are good and we can clear this up.

Sweet. A false dichotomy thrown in, too!

[Snide]

Originally Posted by Orphia Nay

No, just a whole lot of inconsistency on the part of the protesters.

I don't think inconsistency is the word you were looking for, at least not if you were referring to just the picture.

[Ziggurat]

Originally Posted by Virus

Damn corporations...sitting in their corporation buildings...being all corporationy.

For those who didn't get the reference:

YouTube Video This video is not hosted by the JREF. The JREF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

[WildCat]

Originally Posted by stokes234

No, you didn't. You linked me to some articles (one of which says "read the other editorial" on a page with about 50 links) saying that illinois was tens of billions in debt and had tens of billions of pensions obligations (doesn't specify over how many years those will be paid out), and then added the figures in yourself. You then peppered this with a few examples, and left completely alone the issue of how much an average pension was or anything along those lines.

Illinois state pensions are $85 billion underfunded right now, and that number is going up. We're already borrowing money to pay current retirees, even after huge tax increases.

Originally Posted by stokes234

I'm not purely partisan, if you can show me that average pensions in illinois are higher than elsewhere, or higher than can be argued fair or neccessary, i'll concede the point (that collective bargaining for pensions is badly handled in some situations, not that public sector unions are inherently a bad idea). But you haven't done that yet.

The amounts really don't matter. What matters is that workers aren't paying enough to cover the cost, nor is the state. This leaves everyone else to make up the difference.

It was the political influence of unions that got the state to make deals they couldn;t keep. They knew it, the unions knew it. But they figure (probably correcty) that it will be Illinois taxpayers paying for their pensions. And frankly, the unions don't give a damn about how many elderly are thrown out of nursing homes to keep their pensions and health care coming, so why should anyone give adamn about them?

Originally Posted by stokes234

Then look around the world at the public pension funds that are being handled well. This Grauniad page discusses future funding for UK public sector pensions - as a percentage of GDP, they are projected to fall, and that's before the tory contribution hikes are implemented (though I think after their retirement age hikes - bit cloudy). The Norwegian Pension Fund is doing pretty well too.

This is the USA politics section. And damn near every single public pension in the USA is underfunded. They certainly are in Illinois.

Originally Posted by stokes234

I'm not calling you a liar, but you can see why I might have trouble taking these statistics at face value. Can you back them up?

“A 33 percent daily absentee rate has put the city in the position that it’s making choices between services it need not make. . . . That’s unacceptable to the city,” Emanuel said then.
http://www.suntimes.com/news/metro/7...ion-crews.html

Here's a link to the Chicago Inspector General's report on garbage collection: http://newsblogs.chicagotribune.com/...on_10.7.08.pdf
Sample quote: "...during the entire ten weeks of observations, the investigators did not see a single laborer doing a full day's work".

Originally Posted by stokes234

If they're taking the free healthcare, they're saving money by not using the state healthcare at the same time. I know private healthcare is expensive, but surely its not that much more expensive that switching to it for 1% of the population would bankrupt the state.

What are you talking about? They're not saving money, they're sucking us dry. I know of no health care plan except for state employees who are 100% covered from the day they retire until the day they die.

Originally Posted by stokes234

If public sector workers make up 1% of the population, exactly how much are you paying them in order to bankrupt the state? 50 times average wage?

We pay them to work 20 years, then they retire early and collect pensions and health care benefits for the next 30-40 years. Oh, and if they suck up to their boss or political patron maybe they get a fat raise the last week on the job, then guess what happens... their pension is based on the pay from that last raise! Never mind that they made no pension contributions based on that last raise. I think we have 3 retired state workers for every one working.

Originally Posted by stokes234

Again, some sources would be nice, along with any kind of analysis of how much average public sector workers get as pensions, how long they worked, typical private sector pensions, anything like that. On its own, these statistics don't mean much.

Private sector pensions! Those went out with the dinosaurs, and for good reason. Pensions require predicting the future, and as it turns out people can't actually do that. The private sector switched to defined contribution plans many years ago, pensions are almost entirely creatures of government employees now.

Originally Posted by stokes234

That's some screwed up democracy, but you can't blame all that on public sector unions. More like america needs to have a quiet word with itself about political corruption.

And the unions are only too happy to contribute to that corruption.

[technoextreme]

Originally Posted by JihadJane

Nice, reactionary, fart poetry.



I asked a question, above:



Have you got an answer, Brainster?

Well it sure as hell isn't these protests. Quite honestly they seem to think that implementing a form of government even more horrible than the one we have no seems to be a good idea. In another forum I basically said that a lot of these policies are really dumb and seem to be an indication of what is generally wrong with direct democracies.

[Stout]

Originally Posted by Snide

Sweet. A false dichotomy thrown in, too!

It's a simple concept, really.

The corporations grew rich and powerful because "the 99%" gobbled up and continue to gobble up, their goods. If you want to bring the corporations to their knees, simply refuse to buy their goods.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by technoextreme

Well it sure as hell isn't these protests. Quite honestly they seem to think that implementing a form of government even more horrible than the one we have no seems to be a good idea. In another forum I basically said that a lot of these policies are really dumb and seem to be an indication of what is generally wrong with direct democracies.

What form of government are "they" suggesting?

Originally Posted by Stout

It's a simple concept, really.

The corporations grew rich and powerful because "the 99%" gobbled up and continue to gobble up, their goods. If you want to bring the corporations to their knees, simply refuse to buy their goods.

Th financial/banking sector doesn't produce "goods".

[Drachasor]

Originally Posted by Stout

It's a simple concept, really.

The corporations grew rich and powerful because "the 99%" gobbled up and continue to gobble up, their goods. If you want to bring the corporations to their knees, simply refuse to buy their goods.

Ridiculous, unworkable, and it does nothing to change the great influence corporations have over our government.

[Stout]

Originally Posted by Drachasor

Ridiculous, unworkable, and it does nothing to change the great influence corporations have over our government.

Yes, I understand it can be challenging and inconvenient to act at the grassroots level and reject corporate produced goods on principal. It's way easier to consume and complain.

As a member of the "99%" whose had his voice usurped by these activists I feel it's my duty to point out their inconsistencies and aid them in their quest from the bondage of corporate consumerism.

need I mention that this whole thing started with Ad-busters, those very same people who sponsor buy nothing day.

Until OWS can actually figure out a demand ( might I suggest advocating for national health care plan in the U.S ? ) absolutely everything is on the table so far. Of course, this is all part of their marketing plan, this mysterious one demand. Come one come all and bring your favourite issues. It's all about the numbers.

Have they even made up 1% of the population yet? I guess we'll see on the 15th.

[JihadJane]

Originally Posted by Stout

Yes, I understand it can be challenging and inconvenient to act at the grassroots level and reject corporate produced goods on principal. It's way easier to consume and complain.

As a member of the "99%" whose had his voice usurped by these activists I feel it's my duty to point out their inconsistencies and aid them in their quest from the bondage of corporate consumerism.

How, exactly, have they "usurped" your voice? Were you planning to go and sleep in a park or on the sidewalk?

Quote:

need I mention that this whole thing started with Ad-busters, those very same people who sponsor buy nothing day.

Until OWS can actually figure out a demand ( might I suggest advocating for national health care plan in the U.S ? ) absolutely everything is on the table so far. Of course, this is all part of their marketing plan, this mysterious one demand. Come one come all and bring your favourite issues. It's all about the numbers.

There are numerous links posted in this thread outlining demands that protestors are making.

Ending the corruption of the political system by corporate money is one of the primary ones.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by leftysergeant

Actually, I'm closer in most regards to Islam and the Baha'i Faith.



Not sure what you mean by that. A rational society would include some elements of socialism, but only as regards the ecconomny and providing social services.

The Mondragon collectives of Spain look like a good model by which to transition a country away from pure capitalism.

When you can show me any country that uses pure capitalism, call me

PS: Mondragon, and Distributism, are somewhat related.

[Darth Rotor]

Originally Posted by WildCat

It works for what they do, much like the Amish making furniture. But it's tough to scale up in that model.

Correct.

[Drachasor]

Originally Posted by Stout

Yes, I understand it can be challenging and inconvenient to act at the grassroots level and reject corporate produced goods on principal. It's way easier to consume and complain.

As a member of the "99%" whose had his voice usurped by these activists I feel it's my duty to point out their inconsistencies and aid them in their quest from the bondage of corporate consumerism.

need I mention that this whole thing started with Ad-busters, those very same people who sponsor buy nothing day.

Until OWS can actually figure out a demand ( might I suggest advocating for national health care plan in the U.S ? ) absolutely everything is on the table so far. Of course, this is all part of their marketing plan, this mysterious one demand. Come one come all and bring your favourite issues. It's all about the numbers.

Have they even made up 1% of the population yet? I guess we'll see on the 15th.

Wow...bunch of strawman arguments there. Maybe you should start your own group so your complaints will work. While I am sure some protesters dislike all corporations, most of the complaints seem to be regarding how corporations get bailed out and a lot of favoritism from the government while the average person is passed over.