In his column this week, Willie Brown, the former Speaker and former Mayor of San Francisco argues, “If the Occupy people really want to make a point about the 1 percent, then lay off Oakland and go for the real money down in Silicon Valley.” We argue that Mr. Brown both makes and misses crucial points.
Willie Brown makes what is essentially the correct point: “The folks who work on the docks in Oakland or drive the trucks in and out of the port are all part of the 99 percent. They take our goods from all over the state and export them.”
He adds, “The only thing those cats down at Apple are exporting are our jobs. Then they have the nerve to ask for tax breaks, and Washington obliges.”
Mr. Brown makes a critical point that shutting down the port may look good on TV, “but you are hurting the very people Occupy is supposed to be fighting for: the hourly worker trying to make his mortgage, the independent trucker trying to create his own business.”
“If Occupy wants to make a real statement, it ought to pick on a real target.”
But he then makes the point, “But then, it might prove a bit embarrassing. From what I’ve seen, half those Occu-cats have iPhones and iPads.”
Willie Brown does indeed make some interesting points, but at his core, he does not get it. And really, how could he? He’s been part of the one percent for a long time, even if at times he has operated on behalf of the rest of us.
Yes, the fat cats are the problem, but a point of the Occupy movement is to target things in the community, not some far-off venture.
Moreover, if people in the Occupy movement have iphones and ipads, all that illustrates is how far the 1% have permeated into society. We are slaves trying to overthrow our masters, trying to understand that for too long we have been complacent in the name of materialism.
In other words, Willie Brown fails to get the occupy movement, any more than other politicians. But Robert Reich gets it in ways that most simply do not.
Mr. Reich recognizes that Wall Street has, in fact, become its own worst enemy.
He writes, “It should have welcomed new financial regulation as a means of restoring public trust. Instead, it’s busily shredding new regulations and making the public more distrustful than ever.”
And really, how different is that than the University of California – flush in criticism that they were feeding their fat cat administrators at the same time they were jacking student fees? The same week that UC Davis exploded is the same week that business continued as usual.
Robert Reich is pointing out, “The Street’s biggest lobbying groups have just filed a lawsuit against the Commodities Futures Trading Commission, seeking to overturn its new rule limiting speculative trading in food, oil and other commodities.”
He adds: “The Street makes bundles from these bets, but they have raised costs for consumers. In other words, a small portion of what you and I pay for food and energy has been going into the pockets of Wall Street. Just another redistribution from the middle class and the poor to the top.”
The bottom line here is: “Wall Street’s shenanigans have convinced a large portion of America that the economic game is rigged.”
What is fueling the anger is not that the economy is down, it is the perception that many are making huge fortunes off the misfortunates of others. That sentiment fueled the backlash against the Wall Street bailout and the idea that corporate leaders – many of them responsible for the calamity that hit the US economy after September 2008 – were lining their own pockets with the bailout from the taxpayers.
Writes Mr. Reich: “Yet capitalism depends on trust. Without trust, people avoid even sensible economic risks. They also begin trading in gray markets and black markets. They think that if the big guys cheat in big ways, they might as well begin cheating in small ways. And when they think the game is rigged, they’re easy prey for political demagogues with fast tongues and dumb ideas.”
Mr. Reich continues: “Wall Street has blanketed America in a miasma of cynicism. Most Americans assume the reason the Street got its taxpayer-funded bailout without strings in the first place was because of its political clout.”
One needs only look at who the Obama administration hired to manage the economy to see the influence of Wall Street there.
And now that the economy has been slow to come around, there is a blame game going on and belief by many that the problems rest in Wall Street. That is where the Occupy movement was born.
As Mr. Reich notes, “That must be why the banks didn’t have to renegotiate the mortgages of Americans – many of whom, because of the economic collapse brought on by the Street’s excesses, are still under water. Some are drowning.”
He adds: “And why taxpayers didn’t get equity in the banks we bailed out – as Warren Buffett got when he bailed out Goldman Sachs. So when the banks became profitable again, we didn’t get any of the upside gains. We just padded the downside losses.”
“And why most top Wall Street executives who were bailed out by taxpayers still have their jobs, have still avoided prosecution and are still making vast fortunes,” he continues. “And why the Dodd-Frank financial reform act is filled with loopholes big enough for Wall Street executives and traders to drive their Ferraris through.”
There is a cost to these ploys.
“The cost of such cynicism has leached deep into America, finding expression in Tea Partiers and Occupiers and millions of others who think the people at the top have sold us out,” Mr. Reich writes.
“Every week, it seems, we learn something new about how Wall Street has screwed us,” he argues. “In coming months and years, the American public will weigh the social costs and social benefits of Wall Street itself. And it wouldn’t surprise me if we decide the costs of the Street as it is far outweigh the benefits.”
“The biggest Wall Street banks are now bigger than they were before the financial crisis of 2008. Congress is now considering a bill to break them up and cap the size and leverage of all banks. Support for the Safe Banking Act, as it’s called, is growing,” he continues. “The Street has only itself to blame.”
And yet people wonder why movements like the Occupy movement have grown in size and force. I just wonder why it didn’t happen sooner – then again, maybe I don’t.
—David M. Greenwald reporting
A bunch of baby boomers set aside our distrust of the system, played by the rules, made cannon fodder for Bush’s war and got screwed as we reached retirement age . Our kids get screwed in the job market and on education, (You know, tuition that cost more than your first house, usurious loans, futures as barristas…) and the ones who already have all the money get the bail out . These things lead to such disaffection that movements like Occupy are inevitable !
If the Occupy movement wants to be taken seriously they need to occupy the White House and the capital in Washington D.C. because that’s where most of these policies that they abhor originated. Why haven’t they done that yet?
rusty49
I think your point is well taken. My daughter, who just graduated from Berkeley, made the same point that Elaine has made in several different ways. My daughter sympathized with the protesters intent and goals, but a few weeks away from graduation, just wanted to get to her classes so she could finish up.
I think the point in “Occupying” where you happen to be is a product of several factors:
1) Think globally, act locally as a tactic
2) Many of these protesters are students, have jobs and responsibilities. These are not organized, professional
agitators or provocateurs. But they want to use their spare time to call attention to what they see as inequities.
3) These are not rich people who can make substantial campaign contributions or buy air time. They are using the
resources they have available.
Unfortunately, as Elaine and my daughter pointed out, this sometimes has adverse consequences for those who are just going about their lives, trying to earn a degree or make a living.
However, as I pointed out to my daughter who has the advantage of having a mother who will be able to afford her tuition without selling the house or compromising my retirement, the greater harm is not caused by those who are protesting, but by those who created the economic mess we are in and those who are refusing to fund the public education system that was promised, not by those on the street corners and campuses.
And I also feel the negative outcomes projected by those who dislike the temporary disturbances created by the protesters are sometimes exaggerated. My daughter graduated on time, without difficulty ,despite missing a few classes. That will not be the case for some who genuinely cannot afford the increasing fees or who are displaced by
out of state or foreign students.
[quote]He adds: “The Street makes bundles from these bets, but they have raised costs for consumers. In other words, a small portion of what you and I pay for food and energy has been going into the pockets of Wall Street. Just another redistribution from the middle class and the poor to the top.”[/quote]
Hmmmmmmmm. Isn’t it true that most pension funds, IRAs, 401Ks are invested in the stock market, and benefit from it when Wall Street is humming along and doing well? Or am I missing something? Reich doesn’t have this quite right I don’t think. He acts as if only the wealthy benefit from investments in stocks, but that is just not reality. The problem I see is that when a company is NOT doing well, it is essentially looted by its upper mgt, that receives bonuses while the shareholders are left with the losses, many of those shareholders being pension funds, IRAs, 401ks. Also, subprime mortgages are bundled with prime mortgages into an investment product, sliced and diced, the pieces sold off to investors. When the sub-prime loans go unpaid as a bad investment, the originator of the bad loan is never held accountable. That originator was able to get rid of the bad loan like a hot potato and pass it along to someone else while collecting a fat profit. The last investor holding the hot potato, like a pension fund, is the unlucky one to get stuck with the loss. These are the basic underlying problems w Wall Street that are not being addressed by the federal gov’t nor by the Occupiers as they try and shut down businesses that are providing employment at a time of job scarcity…
[quote]And I also feel the negative outcomes projected by those who dislike the temporary disturbances created by the protesters are sometimes exaggerated. My daughter graduated on time, without difficulty ,despite missing a few classes. That will not be the case for some who genuinely cannot afford the increasing fees or who are displaced by
out of state or foreign students.[/quote]
Don’t ever underestimate the damage that can be caused by missing a class or exam. One missed class or exam could cause a lower grade, which could make a difference in GPA and where you get into graduate school or get a job in this competitive day and age. There is no excuse trampling on others’ rights to make your point, when your point could be made in a way that doesn’t bother anyone else. I guarantee the Occupy movement would have had far more success in reforming the banks had they convinced everyone to pull their money out of the banks and put their money in local credit unions. But trying to shut down ports and the business of running the university is not appropriate nor productive conduct. Honestly, how much has the OWS accomplished in reality? Have the banks or Wall Street changed their practices one iota for the better bc of the OWS movement? If yes, give me a single example…
“If the Occupy movement wants to be taken seriously”
I think you inadvertently hit on a critical point which is:
(1) do they embody to be as you suggest “taken seriously” and (B) are not not in fact being taken seriously? Certainly serious people are taking note and writing about them. Therefore (C) what does it mean to be taken seriously and by whom?
Perhaps “taken seriously” was the wrong term. “Effective” might be a better term. For example, you could say the “Ebonics” effort in Oakland was taken seriously, but was not effective by any measure.
Sure, some people take the occupy movement seriously. So far, it hasn’t been effective in brining about any sort of change in the areas they are seeking change.
Willie Brown does indeed make some interesting points, but at his core, he does not get it.
Willie Brown got it perfectly. The vanguard doesn’t get it.
and writing about them.
they are being written about and covered because they create a three-ring circus (I’m sorry mr Bozo I didn’t mean to offend) which generates sensatioal headlines…
We are slaves trying to overthrow our masters, trying to understand that for too long we have been complacent in the name of materialism.
let me tell you something boy, you don’t know the first damned thing about slavery.
We are slaves trying to overthrow our masters,
and hurting a lot of innocent people in the process…
Ah, but Willie Brown did come up from street politics in the segregated South. I dare say he knows a little something about “Takin’ it to the Man.”
Which is what occupying Silicon Valley headquarters would be about. Talk about a photo op: Scruffy Occupiers engaged in dialogue about oh I don’t know, outrageously high executive perks, salaries and bonuses, with narcissistic Silicon execs trying to enter the front door to their gleaming office buildings. That’s one type of photo op we haven’t seen much of in all the mainstream Occupy coverage (which includes Vanguard commentary on a SF Chron column): face-to-face confrontation. With which I’ll wager, Willie Brown engaged occasionally in on the streets of Mineola, Texas as a lad.
As respectful of Willie Brown’s toughness as I am, I can guarantee you he didn’t go face to face with ” The Man” in Mineola, TX in as a lad . What he did was use his personality and initiative to take advantage of what opportunities he was offered, giving shoeshines and performing other menial jobs during the frequently racially turbulent 1940s until he graduated from segregated McFarland High School and moved to San Francisco in 1951 and scrambled to make it through a probationary year at S.F.State . He continued to support himself and pay for his studies by working as a janitor and doorman until he graduated Hastings and became one of a very few African American attorneys practicing in San Francisco in the late 50s . He has used his considerable intelligence, charm and tenacity to achieve his goals, becoming “The Man” so as to serve others rather than be confrontational .
Of course, Willie Brown was no Black Panther. However, he was no Uncle Tom either. I am sure he worked for The Man in those menial jobs as, as you say, a janitor and shoeshine person, not as an Uncle Tom, but maintained his self-respect. Otherwise he could not have gone on to do what he has done in California politics.
Elaine
“There is no excuse trampling on others’ rights to make your point, when your point could be made in a way that doesn’t bother anyone else
I think the key clause here is, when your point could have been made in a way that does not bother anyone else. For the moment, as regards only the UC protests, the point has been addressed over and over by students in workshops, letters to administration, letters to editors, presentations to lawmakers, pleas, cajoling, entreaties, radio broadcasts, major journal articles, voting choices…….I’m sure I must be missing others….what way would you propose that people who do not have tax payer support and are not independently wealthy, or backed by major corporations use to “make their point” ?
To medwoman: As I said before, a mass movement to pull money out of banks and put it in credit unions would probably have been more effective. It wasn’t necessary for students to “camp out” on the quad or occupy a building. They could have led demonstrations in speaking out on the quad without causing trouble/disrupting university business…
Elaine
As far as venues for on campus protests, i actually think the quad is a nondisruptive choice. There are no immediately adjacent regular instructional areas and the tents were not located in such a fashion as to obstructive traffic to and from classes. I still believe that the administration and police took a minor nuisance and managed to escalate it into a major event.
Good article David, glad you posted it.
And I would say the Occupy movement is aiming at the correct target, Wall Street, not their employees, the feds.
We have done a disservice to our federal public servants in DC by enabling them to be exposed to irresistable temptation to make fortunes, of dynastic scale if they play their cards toward that end; thru the selection process of being recognized as a player prior to financing and marketing of election campaigns, and bending an ear to lobbyists and other powerful interests groups while in office; ensuring a highly lucrative career as corporate advisors or executives or board members, after the elected representative period of life is over with, where they continue to wield influence in D.C. thru pre-existing networks of contacts.
Elaine
“They could have led demonstrations in speaking out on the quad without causing trouble/disrupting university business…
These kinds of activities with speakers on various topics including rising education costs, income inequities , wealth distribution, banking practices have been going on for years with no discernible effect. The point of a demonstration of this type is to cause enough disruption to draw attention where other tactics such as those you suggest have already failed. As far as a mass movement to pull money out of banks, most students probably do not have enough money in banks personally to make a difference and not enough financial credibility to sway others to do so.
I guess my question really should have been:
What new tactic that is within the students financial and logistic capability, and has not been demonstrated over time to be completely ineffective,
would you suggest ?
[quote]As far as venues for on campus protests, i actually think the quad is a nondisruptive choice. There are no immediately adjacent regular instructional areas and the tents were not located in such a fashion as to obstructive traffic to and from classes. I still believe that the administration and police took a minor nuisance and managed to escalate it into a major event.[/quote]
I have no problem using the quad for “speech”; just a problem with it for “camping” (nonspeech).
[quote]I guess my question really should have been:
What new tactic that is within the students financial and logistic capability, and has not been demonstrated over time to be completely ineffective, would you suggest ?[/quote]
Students could have encouraged OTHERS (like their parents)to pull their money out of banks and put them into local credit unions. Think of how effective that might have been! How much good has come out of the OWS protests thus far? What has changed? Not a thing, from what I can tell. It doesn’t seem as if the UCD protest has resulted in any significant change to the way banks do business…
My guess is that the Occupy movement will gain strength in 2012 if the economy and joblessness worsens; but if there is a big boost in employment and economy it will wither.
I think thus far the Occupy movement has accomplished a lot, in terms of drawing peoples attention to serious problems we face as a nation, and getting people to talk about these problems.
If the economy worsens in 2012, I would expect some leadership and platforms will emerge from the Occupy movement.
Elaine
“Students could have encouraged OTHERS (like their parents)to pull their money out of banks and put them into local credit unions. Think of how effective that might have been! How much good has come out of the OWS protests thus far? What has changed? Not a thing, from what I can tell. It doesn’t seem as if the UCD protest has resulted in any significant change to the way banks do business…”
These students may very well have urged their parents to do so. We simply have no way of knowing. I know that based on a class discussion, I had urged my parents to buy Genentech stock. They chose not to do so. What a difference that would have made for them personally! There are many things that people urge that are ineffective.
I agree with jimt that the movement has made a huge difference in shifting the national conversation which is always the beginning of making societal change. Would we expect fast changes in banking practices. Of course not.
All change in human enterprise involves the formulation of ideas. Changing the conversation is the necessary first step.