Dont forget about the spanish indignados

What do you mean by "worse" exactly, Darwyn? People standing up against a state which does not represent them is a *good* thing. If there is "more to come" in terms of protesting and resistance, that's a positive step.

right...that's sorta what I meant. Its a good thing, but the situation will get more violent before the dust settles.

@Darwyn, you basically describe the downfall of the capitalist-exploitation system.

However, i fear that without a popular alternative you can't simply tear down the current system.

I was thinking of violence used to break up protests in Tahir Square and Zuccotti Park. Obviously violence has long been held as a state monopoly in most places for millennia. This example of it's use just goes to show that we are more alike than different, however I think the narrative which people hear will be somehow different in the two cases.

It'll be spooky if Marx turns out to be right.

They are both outside. That's about it. There's nothing new about OWS. These people are the permanent protest class who camp out in front of the WTO and other places all the time. When normal people come out on the street as happened in Egypt (and when the United States has an autocratic dictatorship, we mustn't forget that distinction) then a comparison between these over-educated, under-informed loons and the brave people in Egypt will make sense.

@Invictus, i think you will find that regardless of the mechanisms of governance, the feeling on the ground of powerlessness is fairly similar in the US as it was in Egypt.

At least for those disillusioned by the democratic process in America.

Meanwhile, i agree that the OWS movement are not 'the majority' of americans, i hesitate to distinguish them from 'normal people'. And from what i've seen this is a very different protest from the average WTO protesters.

"When normal people come out on the street as happened in Egypt (and when the United States has an autocratic dictatorship, we mustn't forget that distinction) then a comparison between these over-educated, under-informed loons and the brave people in Egypt will make sense. "

Invictus, the resistance in Iceland, Egypt, Yemen, Greece, US, etc...are all examples of the same problem. Governments that do not represent the will of the people.

What you are seeing is a world wide backlash to that simple notion.

Egyptians may have some different issues than Icelanders or Greeks or Americans...but each of them are upset by governments that have failed them.

This movement is one movement.

"i fear that without a popular alternative you can't simply tear down the current system. "

The current system is rigged (FED, IMF, etc)...it creates more debt than there is money to pay that debt back.

The solution: money supply = debt.

I've said this about a million times on this forum...but IT IS that simple.

"but IT IS that simple" - actually i find that simplified explanation to be rather ignorant.

"This movement is one movement." - it's not one movement unless it is unified, unless the people support each other in some way, I saw no Egyptian protester release a statement of support for the Icelandic protests.

I think your narrative is a little lacking.

"actually i find that simplified explanation to be rather ignorant."

It's simple. When the FED creates money, it prints that money and then charges interest. But the interest doesn't exist as money, it only exists as debt.

"it's not one movement unless it is unified, unless the people support each other in some way"

Is that why we see OWS demonstrators in Europe?

"I saw no Egyptian protester release a statement of support for the Icelandic protests. "

Who cares? They are protesting the same thing...failure of their government to support the people.

"I saw no Egyptian protester release a statement of support for the Icelandic protests. "

perhaps not but there have been back and forth between egypt and US. Now with occupy, and even before when the biggest thing happening here was walkers union busting bill.

"It's simple. When the FED creates money, it prints that money and then charges interest. But the interest doesn't exist as money, it only exists as debt."

too simple to accurately reflect what happens in the complex social interaction that is human economies. That simple truth is blinding you to reality.

OWS demonstrators in Europe are not Icelandic (where they already defaulted on their debts as the government listened to the people)

"too simple to accurately reflect what happens in the complex social interaction that is human economies. That simple truth is blinding you to reality."

Everything can be broken down into simple terms. And what I've described is exactly what happens. That is, there exists more debt than money to pay that debt off.

@Darwyn - we've been over this FED thing before. I will deal with it briefly, but that is not the root cause of this. What the FED is doing by charging interest is taxing money. Taxes are bad for the economy, and all taxes are eventually passed on to the consumer - this we all know. It is not, however, decreasing the money supply. All interest paid to the FED is put back into circulation by the federal government on top of the money that the Fed initially put into circulation. So while yes, tax is bad, the FED is not draining our economy, and actually provides some stability. Look at how much the eurozone is floundering without a centralized bank.

Back to the problem with the protests. I think that while the protestors in the Middle East and those in Europe and the Americas share similar traits, their primary goals are different, though the root cause is the same. They are protesting because they don't have jobs, its as simple as that. If everyone had a well-paying job not enough people would give a shit about corporate power to fuel these protests.

But differences in these protests lie who the protestors blame for not having a job. In Europe, it is mostly the government these are aimed at, the mismanagement of which has been deemed a greater failure than the corruption of corporations. The Middle East was similar with respect to the fact that it was directed at the government, but these economic protests quickly developed into protests for more freedoms and rights, but I still think the fuel that started the fire is to blame.

While there is significant animosity towards the government in the USA, I think most of the blame falls on the corporations, whom the people view as not fairly paying their employees and/or not hiring more employees.

So, in a sense the root cause is the similarity of the protest movements, but the way they evolved has been different on each continent

Thahir (and Tienamen) Square was Heroic.

Wall Street is Whiny.

'Everything can be broken down into simple terms. And what I've described is exactly what happens. That is, there exists more debt than money to pay that debt off.'

no, actually, science tries this reductionist approach and it turns out some complex systems (which can be explained in simple terms) can't be understood by just looking at the simple underlying rules.

You have to take the system as a whole and look at the properties you find there not just the simplified rules.

I studied physics, that is the best example of going so far using this reductionist technique that you prove it fails.

Of course the first approach you take to understanding something (which most scientists take) is to try to simplify first. Whether that means only studying a small sample (like just americans, or just males) so your data is simple and easier to make sense of - that doesn't give you the full or complete picture (it's just a good technique for starting out any attempt at understanding)

@'Look at how much the eurozone is floundering without a centralized bank.' - and how discussions are being made about changing the mandate of the European Central Bank to actually help resolve the problem (i think it is currently mandated to keep inflation low, and do nothing else)

@goldfinger, thanks for that interesting reading...

@ obo, where are you located?

@goldfinger - The problem with all modern reserve banking systems is that the moment the first bank note goes into circulation as the proceed of a loan at interest, more money is owed to the banks than actually exists. <- that's a problem.

@Darwyn, At what point did this actually happen?

and is it really a problem?

I believe there was a lot of money in circulation when the first new bank note went into circulation, and it was all freely exchangeable to gold not debt.

And second, is it a problem? You can create wealth by offering a service which is in demand - then use it to pay off your personal debt to the federal reserve.

It is the value you have created with your own actions which is paying off the debt, and the system encourages people to create valuable things, which is a net benefit to a society - or so the arguement goes...

@ goldfinger: "Look at how much the eurozone is floundering without a centralized bank."

Um, no. Wrong. Incorrect.

The eurozone DOES have a central bank.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/European_Central_Bank

@Jamie, surely you've seen the calls to change the ECB rules (here's a discussion i found, but it's all over the irish media this week http://birdflu666.wordpress.com/2011/05/16/how-changing-one-article-in-the-ecbs-operational-rules-can-save-the-euro/)

to essentially turn the ECB into something more like the US federal reserve...

Yes, jamie, they do have a Central Bank. But a Central Bank is meaningless if it can't conduct its own policies and has extremely limited powers. Orathaic is right, but I meant that they don't have a central bank that is equivalent to the US Federal Reserve

Yeah, that's fine - I just couldn't tell what your level of knoweldge was from your initial comment, goldfinger. All you said they didn't have a centralised bank which is not entirely correct.

I have to say as a European I have always been opposed to the Euro - not on the basis of some jingoistic sentimentality towards my national currency, but because it did'nt seem to me that it wouldn't be able to work given the huge differences between the economies of the countries involved.

Yes, it is a huge challenge, because the economies of northern and southern Europe are vastly different. But then again the economies of rural Alabama is quite different than the economy of Massachusetts. Its more the cultural habits rift, and tendencies of one nation to be thrifty and the others not to be that makes the euro inherently unstable.