OCCUPY

[bush_cheney2004]

Wouldn't you know it...a doper messed up the party for everybody else...like they always do. Thanks dopers!

[cybercoma]

If all I takes is drug-related deaths to send in the cops to shut things down, the Vancouver mayor's office should have been shutdown long ago for allowing so many junkies to die on their streets and in their alleys

[Guest Derek L]

Wouldn't you know it...a doper messed up the party for everybody else...like they always do. Thanks dopers!

Truth be told, I’m surprised “progressive” Mayor Robertson has relented from his waffling stance…….I guess NPA (Conservative) candidate Suzanne Anton, who’s been calling for an end to the rats, drug use and destruction of city owned land brought forth by the “99%ers”, is catching up in the polls…….Robertson is now getting his marching orders from his true “puppet masters”……..The taxpayers and the electorate.

Enter the Police riot squad and cue the Darth Vader music

[Guest Derek L]

If all I takes is drug-related deaths to send in the cops to shut things down, the Vancouver mayor's office should have been shutdown long ago for allowing so many junkies to die on their streets and in their alleys

The 500k + spent on policing the rats nest campground could have went along way in helping ease the problem with a further expansion of Insite and low income housing.

[Guest Derek L]

And I thought Occupy wanted attention from the media? Also, kind of ironic that a punk band called DOA was playing well the young girl lay dead:

http://www.globaltvbc.com/woman+dies+at+occupy+vancouver+encampment/6442515684/story.html

Edited November 6, 2011 by Derek L

[Shwa]

And it certainly gives us insight into the calibre of person who can afford the time to contribute to this bullshit

Indeed, the insight actually gained is about the calibre of person who would generalize about a large group of people based on the actions of one of them.

Then again, we have the Vancouver riots over a hockey game which cost millions in damages, but people fret about a lawn being used for tents.

[Shwa]

The 500k + spent on policing the rats nest campground could have went along way in helping ease the problem with a further expansion of Insite and low income housing.

They could have probably hired a security firm for much less since the Vancouver Occupy protests appear to be fairly peaceful. Unlike the Stanley Cup riots, which cost millions in damages and, oh, how much have they spent so far with all the investigations into that with no arrests?

[jbg]

Hey, Nixon did it at Kent State and he got re-elected two years later

That's an interesting point.

I consider the 60's (and early 70's) demonstrations a good analog to the "Occupy" movement. What happened then was that people were in fact fed up with the disruptions. In fact many parents of college students who were not in the demonstrations didn't enjoy their tuition payments going up in smoke when final exams had to be cancelled.

Kent State wasn't really seen as Nixon's fault, except by such people as Neil Young, who wrote "Ohio". And by the way except for Gordon Lightfoot he's my favorite musician.

What I think got Nixon re-elected was that McGovern was an atrocious candidate.

As far as the impact of the demonstrations, both then and now, they do unnerve voters, and steer them to a "law and order" candidate". Thus I agree they are a problem for Obama.

[Michael Hardner]

Ah, the all chiefs and no indians school. I don't think that many people would argue that CEO's shouldn't be very well compensated. I also don't think many would argue that people with little or no skills should be well compensated. The problem is the ever widening spread between CEO's and even their skilled employees.

There's also the question of how much good information the market has. How can shareholders really evaluate the contributions of a CEO ? Certainly we've heard about CEOs who headed firms that lost money, and still got bonuses.

The thing that I really don't understand is that - as with almost every job - there are far more candidates than positions. Why isn't there more wage competition going on ?

[Michael Hardner]

More and more the 1% can sustain their income and wealth status through wages and fees alone instead of owning resources, land, and the means of production. Services based industry makes this possible, from financials to brain surgery. Handsome compensation packages are aligned with this new economy. There is even a large service industry devoted to wealth management once it is attained....even retirement planning for the middle class is a relatively new product.

Getting the income is no guarantee of staying in the club, and that's where debt can come in to take it all away. That is the difference between income and sustained wealth.

Compelling and believable but I'd still like to see an authoritative link with some data.

[Michael Hardner]

Globally. China, India, South America, etc. It's not just a North America/Europe/Japan economy anymore.

Also compelling and believable.

If that's the case, though, then this means that the easing of protectionism opened the labour market up for competition. That was done by government policy through liberalized trade. Is there a plan to help those of us who are impacted by this change in the economic rules of the game ?

It doesn't seem so.

I see a lot of outrage about lost jobs to China - on the right and left - and leaders don't really seem to be acknowledging that these jobs are gone. If they're not gone forever, they'll be gone for a long long time.

[Rick]

Truth be told, I’m surprised “progressive” Mayor Robertson has relented from his waffling stance…….I guess NPA (Conservative) candidate Suzanne Anton, who’s been calling for an end to the rats, drug use and destruction of city owned land brought forth by the “99%ers”, is catching up in the polls…….Robertson is now getting his marching orders from his true “puppet masters”……..The taxpayers and the electorate.

Enter the Police riot squad and cue the Darth Vader music

With any luck there will be a grassy knoll in both of their futures.

[Michael Hardner]

I'm all for protest, when it enhances or initiates dialogue. The problem I have with OCCUPY is that there doesn't seem to be a realistic goal, and therefore no end date for it.

As such, the idea seems to be that a permanent protest of some kind is to replace actual dialogue between stakeholders in our society. This is a change from what the protests of the 1960s were meant to achieve. Those protests used mass movements to communicate through mass media, in such a way to make people aware that there were those who were generally not happy with the state of affairs.

Protesting, as a tool, was a big hammer to be used on a big nail: civil rights action, withdrawal from Viet Nam. These were big issues and the protesters had clear, and not unpopular demands: equal rights for all... end the war, etc.

I'm sensing tepid support for the movement itself from leftists on the board, even if you do agree with the general message.

[Michael Hardner]

To add: Permanent protest movements with no end goal, could easily lead to real strife, ie. ongoing violence.

[Rick]

To add: Permanent protest movements with no end goal, could easily lead to real strife, ie. ongoing violence.

And that is when real, positive change will occur.

[Argus]

In q1 2011 hp had 4 billion dollars fewer of cash than q1 2010. Wow! For 33 million bucks To pay for a CEO that will get you an extra 4 billion in cash that's a pretty good deal. That's why they are worth what they are.

You are presuming that all of this money was earned because of the abilities of this CEO, which is quite a presumption. You give him 100% of the credit. Yet in many cases, the profitability of a company has more to do with those in the next few tiers than that of the CEO, and can also be affected by the economy, by the competitiveness of other companies (or their lack) or any number of other events. Furthermore, you don't know that a different CEO might not have achieved the same level of profits, or more.

And you carefully selected this CEO. How about the CEO of Merrill Lynch who ran it into the ground? He made $75 million to do so, and his predecessor, who was probably even more responsible, made tens of millions, as well.

Edited November 6, 2011 by Argus

[Argus]

I see a lot of outrage about lost jobs to China - on the right and left - and leaders don't really seem to be acknowledging that these jobs are gone. If they're not gone forever, they'll be gone for a long long time.

Politicians (of any political stripe) are always quick to take credit for anything good that happens, but when was the last time you saw one humbly accept the blame for something bad that happened?

[Guest Derek L]

They could have probably hired a security firm for much less since the Vancouver Occupy protests appear to be fairly peaceful. Unlike the Stanley Cup riots, which cost millions in damages and, oh, how much have they spent so far with all the investigations into that with no arrests?

Your point is valid about the issues with Vancouver policing, then and now……In both cases, after the previous Stanley Cup riot, there were recommendations and preventive measures planned to deal with such “events”…….Case in point, the overhaul success during the last years winter games…..i.e. a large policing presence and rules on public consumption of drugs/alcohol mitigated and major damage…..In the case of both “events” this year, the blame should be centered on Mayor Robertson for his (in)action in both cases…..Like really, letting tens of thousands of teens and early 20 something’s come into the city core for a giant piss-up every two days….What did you think was going to happen? As for the initial “heavy-handed” response with policing for the occupy movement, that’s quite obvious in response to the destruction of the last riot.

[Wilber]

The CEO earns an obscene amount of money because what his job entails is the decision making that can make/lose his firm millions or billions of dollars. Whereas a programmer for example doesmt have that kind of scrutiny. Also a CEO doesn't have much for job security, if a CEO screws up, chances are he's toast. Let's look at hp's CEO kerfuffle within the last couple years. Guy cheats on his wife and got canned (in the wake of tiger woods situation). This CEO earned hp profits of billions of dollars, and was compensated 34 million. Yes that sounds like a lot, but his compensation is a fraction of the wealth his decision making created. After he got canned hp went down the tubes.

Mark hurd

My link

Hp performance under hurd

Performance after hurd

In q1 2011 hp had 4 billion dollars fewer of cash than q1 2010. Wow! For 33 million bucks To pay for a CEO that will get you an extra 4 billion in cash that's a pretty good deal. That's why they are worth what they are.

Ah yes, all profits are attributable to CEO's and CEO's are the only ones who can cost a company huge amounts of money if they screw up. What nonsense. 34 million is cheap? No doubt he would quit and go to work at Micky D's if it only paid a paltry 15 million.

Job security? Give me a break. Most smart CEO's make sure they have a parachute big enough to set up almost any of their employees for life, no matter how incompetent they turn out to be at actually running the company.

All systems get out of whack at times, no matter how good they are. This is one of those times. In nature, the result is usually a mass dieing until balance is restored. Sometimes it is the same in humanity. The challenge is to recognize there is a need to restore some kind of balance before it reaches a point things like the guillotine get hauled out.

We are a long way from that point but the signs are there. Time to start paying attention.

[Guest Derek L]

That's an interesting point.

I consider the 60's (and early 70's) demonstrations a good analog to the "Occupy" movement. What happened then was that people were in fact fed up with the disruptions. In fact many parents of college students who were not in the demonstrations didn't enjoy their tuition payments going up in smoke when final exams had to be cancelled.

Kent State wasn't really seen as Nixon's fault, except by such people as Neil Young, who wrote "Ohio". And by the way except for Gordon Lightfoot he's my favorite musician.

What I think got Nixon re-elected was that McGovern was an atrocious candidate.

As far as the impact of the demonstrations, both then and now, they do unnerve voters, and steer them to a "law and order" candidate". Thus I agree they are a problem for Obama.

Indeed, the methods of a Dr King or a Ghandi have proven effective……..A clear, concise message delivered through a non-threatening public persona, that changed the opinion of the actual 99%, or if you prefer, the voters & taxpayers.

WRT to Nixon, I tend to agree……though he was far from an angel, and I base my assumptions on what has been made public about (which as all things must be taken with a grain of salt) him, that his Quaker upbringing and it’s inherit repulsion towards violence, made him the true anti-war candidate and advocate of civil rights and the environment, as is made evident by his record in Congress and VP under Ike, and again his endorsement and the passage of the Equal Rights Amendment and creation of the EPA

Regardless if his motivations for these policies were based on an actual belief or just plain political pandering, the ends justify the means, for they all were once solely populace movements.

[Guest Derek L]

With any luck there will be a grassy knoll in both of their futures.

And what would the killing of an elected official achieve for your (misguided) goals? The last such event lead to this:

[Shwa]

I'm all for protest, when it enhances or initiates dialogue. The problem I have with OCCUPY is that there doesn't seem to be a realistic goal, and therefore no end date for it.

I'm sensing tepid support for the movement itself from leftists on the board, even if you do agree with the general message.

There doesn't seem to be a realistic goal, and there no end date, but what is their "general message?" You want a big hammer single issue protest, but lookie, the damned kids have gone and changed the rules again. Perhaps you are behind the times gramps, this isn't your 60's & 70's anymore and no one is naive enough to expect change in big chunks unless it comes in viral form.

[blueblood]

You are presuming that all of this money was earned because of the abilities of this CEO, which is quite a presumption. You give him 100% of the credit. Yet in many cases, the profitability of a company has more to do with those in the next few tiers than that of the CEO, and can also be affected by the economy, by the competitiveness of other companies (or their lack) or any number of other events. Furthermore, you don't know that a different CEO might not have achieved the same level of profits, or more.

And you carefully selected this CEO. How about the CEO of Merrill Lynch who ran it into the ground? He made $75 million to do so, and his predecessor, who was probably even more responsible, made tens of millions, as well.

The Merrill lynch CEO got a job contract. That means the contract has to be honored or it's off to litigation. Why do you think the CEO's of failed big companies go hat in hand for a gov't bailout. Had we had normal bankruptcy, that contract goes bye bye and the compensation with it.

Did you look at hp's performance under Hurd vs. When he left. It's night and day. The buck stops with the CEO and at the end of the day their decisions are what determines the fate of the company. The bp oil disaster was an example of the other end of the pendulum, the CEO was in the hot seat and his policies of shortcuts bit him on the rear, and he's not CEO anymore.

[Rick]

And what would the killing of an elected official achieve for your (misguided) goals? The last such event lead to this:

Two less or your kind...

Win Win...

[Guest Derek L]

Two less or your kind...

Win Win...

And after PET enacted the War Measures Act, how successful were the FLQ radicals (like yourself?) at achieving their goals?