Yeah, I just +1'd your post because it sums up my thoughts completely. Well-intentioned, I suppose, but egregiously uninformed.

*intended durr hurr

It's hard not to sympathize a bit. I think everyone understands these kids' frustration at havign all this education and debt and still being unemployed.

HOWEVER, this whole thing is ridiculous. How sitting in the street and aggravating people just trying to do their jobs and live their lives will change the world is beyond me. They have a right to protest, but they shouldn't get the idea in their head that this will succeed in changing anyone's mind or making a difference.

I really hope the Democrats embrace these hippie hipsters, though. Nothing would guarantee a Romney victory (I give up, it's gonna be him) more than Obama being identified with these radicals.

1960: "How sitting at a Woolworth's lunch counter and aggravating people just trying to do their jobs and live their lives will change the world is beyond me."

I heard they all left after Arrested Development announced the new season and movie. Isn't that all anyone wanted anyway?

Yeah, blacks in the South of the 1960s and before had so much in common with these hipsters and their vapid left-wing shibboleths.

Arrested Development coming back is probably just what this world needs right now. Not a day too soon.

So what if this protest isn't going to accomplish anything? It shows that a large number of people are pissed off. It's better than just sitting at home whining or sending letters to politicians. Who cares that they are aggravating people getting on with their lives, this will create publicity. The police response has been disgusting.

Invictus, you are wrong and right. These protesters are in no way radicals, there is no class dynamic, and many of them have treated union support with disdain, allowing rumours of IWW members being provocateurs or pigs to spread. However, it does seem that most of these people are just a hippy left, but this has to start somewhere.

How is a protest going to be effective if people just trying to go about their jobs won't notice it? I'm vaguely reminded of the movie Brazil, directed by Terry Gilliam, wherein a man ends up tortured into insanity, and yet, everyone involved can avoid responsibility because they were all "just doing their jobs". And I'd be curious to know exactly which points you feel are invalid, because I can think of examples of nearly every grievance they list, and if true they're all valid complaints.

If you really want me to, I have a list refuting it point by point. I'm not always saying that the facts they cite are false, but most often there is no reason to go against them. For example, the generic medicine point: If pharmaceutical companies cannot make a profit on a drug 1) How can they pay for the costs incurred researching and producing it and 2) How can they fund future research. In essence, they're saying the patent system is wrong.

The comparison to the civil rights movement is interesting though. You all also might get mad at me for saying about 95% of the police actions were 100% legal and just

I really don't want to post the whole long response to that document and look like an ass though, so unless you want, I won't post it

OK. Now can you support the claim, or perhaps in this case it's more of a supposition, that drug companies would not be profitable unless they weren't able to keep generic drugs off the market?

The way drug patents work is that for a certain amount of time after a drug is patented only the company which developed the drug may sell it. Once that time is up however, any company may make a generic version of that same drug. All well and good right? During the period in which one company has the exclusive right to sell a product they can sell it under a brand name at an absolutely astronomical markup (and they do), to make a profit on their investment in R&D (which they do). I may be wrong about this, but I don't think the Occupy Wall Street movement takes issue with this. I believe what they're objecting to is a group of practices known as "Evergreening" whereby companies use legal loopholes and technicalities to retain the exclusive right to sell a certain drug beyond the time limit actually provided by the law. One common method of doing this, for instance, is to "reformulate the drug" which usually means to add an antacid (unless the drug was already an antacid to begin with), this is just different enough to warrant a new patent. They then "aggressively market" this "new and improved formulation", which really is actually no more efficacious than the original drug, mostly by pressuring and effectively bribing doctors to prescribe it, when the original drug (in brand name or generic formulations) would do just fine. THIS is I think the kind of thing that the occupy wall street movement is referring to in that manifesto.

But there's nothing to stop generic producers form making the form of the drug without the antacid (in this case) and selling that. Doctors would know the difference (well, the good ones) and they would tell you which ones to take. I mean, personally, my dermatologists have always said "this is the generic version which does pretty much the same thing" and prescribed it when possible. Perhaps my personal experience is clouding my judgement of the system. But I agree with you on the fact that "Evergreening" is a maniipulation of the market and, though technically legal, is not right.

But I go to a case (that I oft cite in many of these situations) that this is a public policy issue. Corporations, by their design, will try and maximize profits. If the government leaves loopholes like that in the law to be exploited, then its a problem with legislation that is the root cause of the problem these protesters have.

And oftentimes these pressure tactics and such aren't even necessary. Once they have the "new formulation" and the patent is extended they can just file for injunctions against generic drug manufacturers, even if the generic drug doesn't actually match the "new formulation" to which the patent applies. The smaller companies which manufacture generic drugs will often simply give up on that particular drug, because they can't afford the legal proceedings. And even if they do attempt to defend themselves against the injunction and win, the cost of the legal proceedings is still more damaging to them than to the brand name drug company who initiated the legal proceedings.

I'm inclined to agree with you goldfinger, up to a point, but I mean, to give an example, when you buy over the counter painkillers, do you buy Tylenol or just generic acetaminophen? There are people who don't know any better who will always go with the brand name over the generic because they actually don't realize there is no difference.

Secondly, I disagree with your second argument. I don't think it's as easy as saying "so really its complicated legislation you have trouble with, I don't know what else you expect a corporation to do, we just need to make the laws loophole free." first of all, that loophole isn't there by accident. It's there because the pharmaceutical lobby is incredibly powerful. And more to the point, I think there's culpability to be had by the companies for engaging in questionable practices like that. We hold individual people to a higher standard than that, don't we? We judge and condemn other people for doing things that aren't technically illegal but are still selfish or morally questionable. Hell, I bet you yell at people who, when their lane is ending on the highway merge as late as possible in heavy traffic to get ahead of everyone else (unless you are one of those people, in which case believe me, everyone else is yelling at you). But suddenly when drug companies use sleazy, but technically legal practices to artificially inflate drug prices, you say "Oh, well what do you expect a company to do?" Bullshit. I say the company should be held accountable to society for their actions, rather than holding the government accountable for not keeping a close enough eye on the company, (though that certainly should happen too).

And to back up my second post about "evergreening": In 2002, an extensive and lengthy inquiry by the US Federal Trade Commission (FTC), found that the Hatch-Waxman legislation or Drug Price Competition and Patent Term Restoration Act (which was instrumental in establishing the US generic pharmaceuticals industry) had resulted in as many as 75% of new drug applications by generic drug manufacturers experiencing legal actions under patent laws by the original brand name patent owner. These were driving up US drug costs by keeping the cheaper generic versions off the market.

Like I said, I think this is a fundamental issue in patent law, not necessarily wrong with drugmakers. They should make it so a whole new patent is issued instead of the current one extended, making it easy for generic producers to step in an produce the drug at a lower cost. I won't deny that these actions by drug companies are reprehensible, but I think it would be easier to change the policy (well, maybe not with this Congress)

But many of the protesters other claims, such as outsourcing, farm monopolization, the expenses of legal teams, the sale of mortgages to third parties, student loans, etc. stem from a fundamental lack of economic and financial knowledge. Almost every one of their claims can be explained by a cost-benefit analysis. Why do firms spend millions on lawyers to find loopholes? Because its cheaper to do that than it is to actually follow the policy. Why are farms forming monopolies? Well, because the larger the scale, the lower the cost it will be per unit. Why do companies outsource? its cheaper. Changes in governmental incentives can rectify most of the problems that they mentioned, though some, like outsourcing, are pretty much insolvable.

And I mean, I think this is a good way to speak to what I think, and I could be wrong about this, but what I think the actual point of the occupy wall street movement is. These kinds of practices by drug companies aren't like, a unique case. They're a result of a social structure which systematically encourages corporate greed to such an extent that these kinds of practices become so commonplace that fully 3/4 of all generic drugs have legal action brought against them, and we just shrug our shoulders and say, "well it's legal, and they're just doing what companies do". The point of the occupy wall street movement isn't just to say "Companies do all these things, therefore they are evil." the point is to call attention to the fact that the economic structure of our society encourages shit like this, and to ask, isn't there a better way? And even if it turns out there is no better way, I still think that's a question that needs to be asked.

Yes, people get judged for doing those things, but they are not fined, nor arrested Mafia, and that is the point I'm trying to make. I understand the loopholes are in there for a reason, but that is a campaign finance issue. Get rid of the donations and the PAC's and I would be willing to bet that politicians wouldn't give two shits about what big companies had to say (unless they were incorporated in their state or something). If you couldn't tell, I hate our political system, and especially our election system. That supreme court ruling a few years ago on corporate donations to campaigns is absolute crap. Problem is, you can't force legislators to pass legislation that will hurt themselves. Supreme Court could've taken care of it, but they didn't. Lets just hope the issue will come up again soon.

And in response to the first paragraph, that's the consumer's fault. Consumers have the ability to make informed decisions, and when they don't, its their fault. (I mean come on, I worked at Target over the summer and printed on every generic there was a "Comparable to XXX" right on the front)

I don't doubt there is a better way. The whole bonus system is inherently flawed. But just as you can't get legislators to pass campaign finance reform bills that will hurt them, you can't get companies to change the way their executives act. You could suggest having a shareholders vote, but most shares are either held by the company itself, or other corporations. There's just no way to change it, I'm afraid. Its wrong, but there's nothing you can do, since everything is technically legal that they do

I disagree that their complaints stem from not understanding economics. I think the question is, why does the economic structure have to be this way? I don't think the occupy wall street movement is ignorant of the reasons for these practices, I think they're calling into question the economic systems that reward these kinds of practices. And I think your argument that changes in government incentives and disincentives is enough to stop corporations from engaging in questionable business practices is flawed. The fact that large industries have been able to develop such powerful lobby groups makes major overhauls of these laws unlikely. And even if that weren't the case, I think all you'd get would be a neverending arms race of companies finding new ways to manipulate the laws to their advantage, and the government constantly trying to legislate to close those loopholes. Every time you solved one problem, you'd create at least one more.

"But just as you can't get legislators to pass campaign finance reform bills that will hurt them, you can't get companies to change the way their executives act. You could suggest having a shareholders vote, but most shares are either held by the company itself, or other corporations. There's just no way to change it, I'm afraid." Or, say if you're frustrated with the system as a whole, you could start/join a social movement aimed at making people completely rethink the way society works. I don't know that it will be effective, I'm not claiming it will, but you have to understand, this is the point, and this is the thought process that has led people to this movement. They've concluded that, like you, under the current rules of the game, there is no way to really effect change. So they're pursuing the only option left to them. Questioning the rules of the game

(The "rules of the game" is a metaphor for capitalist market economies, not just US corporate law.)

The closest thing I can say to answer why they have to be that way is....just cuz. If you had the chance to make 50% more, would you? If that meant moving to another country, would you? Corporations and their stocks are built to make money. Investors (probably including yourself) want to see their stocks appreciate. To do that (to an extent) corporations have to make money. The more money they make, the happier their investors are, the bigger bonuses they get. Naturally, someone is going to get screwed in this process, but it also improves efficiency. Inefficiency is waste. This is why production lines are now highly automated instead of working everything by hand - there are less mistakes, it costs less, and production moves faster.

And I believe incentives such as I suggested could work. If fines for, say dumping toxic waste, were tripled, besides the outcry of producers, you would see a lot less firms dumping toxic waste, because the costs of doing so may exceed the costs of modernizing.

The problem you mentioned about the lobbyists is true. The government won't implement those changes and bring the market to its equilibrium. This is a large reason why I hate the government, because THEY have been corrupted and will not do the actions necessary for markets to reach their equilibrium.

Believe me, I'm not saying the corporations are (morally) right in everything they do. They are not minimizing externalities, they are not getting rid of deadweight losses in the economy. I argue that the economic system as it is cannot be changed, and thus the problems that we face are a result of a failure of the government to put the necessary controls on the economy.

Unless you do away with capitalism, you can't change the rules of the game. Capitalism is not perfect. Businesses are not always right. But with some government regulation to protect abuses of the system, it can be the best system out there.

The fact that lobbyists are deeply entrenched in the policymaking process seriously weaken citizens' indirect agency for affecting the way their country takes. Movements like Occupy Wall Streets are reactions to this unglorious turn of events and shift to direct agency in hope it will achieve more results. Since working indirect agency is the basis of any democratic society, if such movements become widespread, it'll be a sign that citizens don't have much faith in the working of their political system (as in lower than it already is or usually was).

"there is no class dynamic"

ehhhhh dunno bout that. 99%? lol

also, regardless of what i think about this movement, which i am too lazy to express adequately, the police response has been dishearteningly bullshit.

i also think that the laws passed in the last 10 years or so that make most of what they are doing illegal are bullshit. this is america and i believe you should be able to protest just about anywhere. this whole permit shtick really strikes me as pretty damn undemocratic. reminds me, now that we're talking about arrested development, of when they drive the anti war protesters to their free speech zone which is out in the desert in a cage and allow them to protest. lol.

So a quick trip to Wikipedia gives me this:

"The participants of the event are mainly protesting against social and economic inequality, corporate greed, and the influence of corporate money and lobbyists on government, among other concerns. Adbusters states that, "Beginning from one simple demand – a presidential commission to separate money from politics – we start setting the agenda for a new America.""

So their demand is....."Get money out of politics, but let the politicians figure out how?"

Color me underwhelmed.

Ten year ago, I would have described myself as right of center. I've drifted slightly more towards what once was the center while the entire country has shifted right, so I'm effectively left of center today.

Having said that, I've yet to hear a coherent suggestion for reform; therefore, I can't say whether their call for reforms have merit.

If it turns into a riot I hope at least one of them has the brains to lob a Mcocktail or seven @ wall st. talk about publicity then. Any monumental change in this country will look a hell of a lot more like the french revolution than the american, given the class hatred currently boiling over.
And dont give me that crap about how violence never solves anything, A molotov is just as much of a symbol as a sit-in.

Thank you for illustrating so clearly why this protest is ridiculous, Sicarius.

Thucy - while I will agree that the police have been aggressive, I doubt that most of their actions were wrong. The police have posted videos of officers warning protesters not to go onto the Brooklyn Bridge. They did so anyways, and were arrested. You can protest in any public place, within reason. You can't just shut down blocks of a city for a month and expect the city to be okay with it. Police then have the right to act in the interest of the general public and clear the protesters off the streets, which is what they have done.

I will say there have been a few incidents in which the police for was disproportionate, but overall I will side with the police here. Think of it from a police commander's view. You have thousands of angry people. London, Manchester, Liverpool, and Vancouver all had riots in the last 6 months which cost multi-millions in destruction of property. You don't want that happening in NYC, especially in the world's premier financial district. Riots could cause irreparable damage if firms relocate to other, rising financial markets.

So NYPD was acting in the interest of the public good of New Yorkers - meaning both people who live in NYC and in NY State. If *anything* happens to Wall Street that hampers it, both NYC and the state will go into debt. Social services will be curtailed or cut. I mean, its a deadly spiral and they acted with the force needed to prevent anything from going remotely out of control.