Is there a documentary about how Occupy Wall Street failed?
It didn't fail.
>>71566414
5 years is a long time to be in denial anon
It is time to let go
>>71566382
how did it fail? it created division, dissent and distraction. just as it was planned by it's wealthy benefactors. subversion is alive and well.
Usually a documentary asks a big question and then makes an attempt to answer it. Think of it as a long-form essay in film format. Occupy Wall St. failed for very obvious reasons. It was a bunch of disorganized leftists squatting in a financial district without any clear goals or means of accomplishing them if they had any. Sure the zeitgeist of the discontent at economic disparity is real, but not enough for the tipping point of any kind of revolution. All it took was cold weather for these "protesters" to go back to their bread and circuses. They never stood a chance.
Go watch a documentary about something less lame.
>>71566414
Just because there's still homeless people sleeping in parks across the country doesn't mean they are part of a movement
>>71566414
Yeah GamerGate didn't fail either lol.
Protip: Big money always wins
>>71566414
D E L U S I O N
E
L
U
S
I
O
N
>>71566553
What was gamergate's endgame? Did it have any?
yea it's available on YouTube
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=SCwhlZtHhWs
The left would never make that movie.
How genuine outrage at a system turned into cultish far left faggotry.
>>71566553
GG succeeded in creating a unified opposition to SJWS. Post-GG Internet is a very different place.
However, I agree that they failed to achieve their stated strategic goal.
>>71566573
Harrass women in the gaming industry.
>>71566382
Yes. That youtube video. You know the one
>>71566637
kek
>>>/tumblr/
>>71566573
Stop corruption in the media.
>>71566637
S J W D E T E C T E D
>>71566665
>>71566574
That's the one I mean
>>71566637
>>71566636
>GG succeeded in creating a unified opposition to SJWS
That was /pol/s doing and the general Zeitgeist shifting.
SJWs still control the videogame industry so yeah GG lost.
>>71566522
This right here
Soro is King
>why be the king when you can control the king
>>71566573
Make journalists accountable for their breaches of ethics.
Why weren't YOU part of the revolution, anon?
>>71566573
"ETHICS IN GAME JOURNALISM"
However, it should have been the destruction of all games journalism.
>>71566722
Nah, I have to disagree even though I'm a /pol/lack through and through.
>>71566722
>SJWs still control the videogame industry
Don't buy their games you idiot
>>71566573
No. A quick summary of gamegate is
A bunch of people pissed off at industry professionals for corruption calling them derogatory words, and then said professionals starting a defensive movement over the grounds of sexism.
Everyone lost the moment they started a reactionary argument with reactionary group as if videogame journalism wasn't completely corrupt in the first place anyway.
End result was fuck all change, made worse by the fact that gamergate is a confusing piece of shit you can't be pro- or anti- on picked up by the media and blown out of proportion to make money with.
The shit didn't matter in the first place.
>>71566636
>GG succeeded in creating a unified opposition to SJWS
No you didn't, you only elevated the status of the people you were trying to tear down. You /v/ermin are hilariously delusional.
>>71566738
>>71566765
That needs to be defined further. I know it is a meme-phrase, but "what did they mean by this?"
>>71566722
>SJWs still control the videogame industry so yeah GG lost.
We got you to admit that the video game industry is run by SJWs because they were denying that point.
GG has successfully dismantled any trust or faith people had in the games media.
Politically driven gaming blogs/vlogs are failing left and right.
To deny our influence is just being contrarian.
>>71566809
Stop indie dev and journo nepotism. At least at first.
>>71566382
Michael Moore could make documentary about it and how America is evil and how everything in America is bad, how conservaties are blood thirsty monsters and everything in Europe is perfect, but for some reason he still chooses to live in USA.
>>71566765
The problem was that no one really gave a shit except for man-children who take their hobbies a little too seriously.
>>71566856
Man, I'm so sad that Jim left(twice now). He had a talent that could potentially be very useful.
>>71566929
The guy was too redpilled for GG
i warned you faggots when gamergate was first starting that it would just turn into another chanology
why didn't you listen?
>>71566382
The answer is simple. They got cut up into different SJW sects.
>>71566954
He left to spend more time with his mentally ill lesbian girlfriend.
Wonder if he's still ploughing that rice picker.
>>71566522
>it's a stormweenies spew preposterous antisemitic canards episode
ugh
>>71567036
How was she mentally ill? She drew pretty funny propaganda t.b.h
>>71567036
>having a qt Asian bi grill with huge tits as a gf
I am jelly af
>>71567069
I hold no ill will toward Jews in general, but Soros does seem to have his fingers in a whole lot of farther-left pies for a big Hillary contributor.
>/v/ ruining another thread
Fuck off with this GG bullshit. You faggots brought in an large influx of an immature demographic onto this site, gave a shitty OC and a thousands of dollars to some random feminist that claimed to be on your side, caused rampant harassment across the whole spectrum, and gave your community a bigger stigma than it already had.
And don't spout this bullshit about it being for the ethics of gaming journalism. You people just wanted to jump on the easy target being
a sexual scandal. If it really was about ethics, you people would have done something between 2009 and 2012 when even greater examples of of corrupt journalism were open.
25
Y
E
A
RULE
There's a story in it somewhere
but you'd need to work hard to find it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SCwhlZtHhWs
>>71566637
Women aren't going to fuck you because you try to defend them online, you know that right?
>>71566738
So they focused on going after a female game dev instead of the male reporters. Brilliant.
>>71566414
thats why i can see the impact its efforts made when i look out my window everyday
>>71567766
A female game dev who slept her way to the top of the gaming press
>>71567069
>it's a libtard denying his puppet status episode
>>71566414
Don't know what those GG faggots expected.
It's like they're sheltered or something, anyone with half a brain knows 99% of journalism of any kind is either propaganda or shilling, even more when there's loads of money to be made off a product.
They only ended up giving more attention to professional feminists that are in it for the money like Anita and giving the media some flavor of the month subject to cash in on.
>>71566414
yes it did
it was absolutely embarrassing about how much of a complete failure of a movement it was, and 4chan as much as it tries to forget did take part in it
>>71566798
tbqh, the number of anti-SJW content creators and thei audience multiplied on YouTube after that.
So allies grew just as much as enemies.
>>71567069
>ugh
Fucking end yourself, redditfag
>>71567069
Ugh? What is with the faggotry? Fuck and die you worthless shit
>>71567356
The Anon that first brought up GG ITT (>>71566553) is obviously anti-Gamergate.
But keep blaming /v/ for the worsening state of /tv/, even though /v/ coexisted with the rest of 4chan for years until Gamergate brought a horde of uninvited SJW bitches to whine and "shame" any board that wasn't PC enough for them.
/v/ NEVER got blamed for the shitposting until Gamergate, it was always (correctly) identified as /b/. Now you want me to believe that "manbabies" from /v/ are the shitposters? Even though exactly 0% of the shitposting is videogames related?
Go fuck yourself all the way back to Gawker.
>>71567356
You're the unwelcome one, dipshit
Requesting that /pol/ reply that said occupy had no leadership and failed because there were no clear leaders or goals to further the cause
>>71567069
Soros sold out Jews in hiding to the Nazis. He's the anti semite.
>>71567493
Are ther more screencaps form the guy talking about Occupy on 4chan? I've long felt that this identity politics stuff is a large part why the the left has become irrelevent.
I find funny that SJW bullshit is all the American left ever talks about. It's like they're complteley fine that income inequality is skyrocketing and that the middle class is becoming non-existant, but transgender bathrooms are the great issue of our times.
>>71566636
Even fucking 4chan is more filled with SJWs now, let alone the rest of the godamn internet. Holy Christ I wish I lived in your head.
>>71566382
because it was ran by liberals
>>71568175
You literally have your own website to go to, cripplefag. Came crawling back, did you?
>>71567770
>if it didn't literally destroy the world then it had no impact
It raised awareness, if nothing else. The harassment claims were either false flags or routine internet trolling blown out of all proportion. Milo Yiannopolous, a journalist that took the side of Gamergate, had daily death threats and syringes full of brown gunk sent to his house. Not a peep from the media about that harassment.
But so many people saw through the one-sided media closing ranks that faith in the general media plummeted, Gawker and their subsidiaries lost credibility amongst all but the most delusional progressives (as well as millions in ad revenue from petitioned sponsors), and the corrupt mechanics of games "journalism" were laid bare for all to see.
It wasn't an efficient or Earth-shattering operation, but you can't say it was completely ineffective.
>>71567804
Who was a symptom and not a cancer.
>>71567493
Bunch of worthless faggots, anyway.
SNAP FINGERS
>>71567987
Yeah, except one side was getting looks on national television about it and a chance to make the other side look crazy. Which side was that again?
>>71568285
That's because it doesn't cost anything to the dominant classes.
Let's make issues about nothing and incite the poors to fight between themselves for scraps.
>>71568285
no, sorry
but I do have this video showing what faggots the SJWs were
http://www.cc.com/video-clips/d4hmi3/the-colbert-report-colbert-super-pac---stephen-colbert-occupies-occupy-wall-street-pt--1
>>71568285
>I find funny that SJW bullshit is all the American left ever talks about
From the '60s/'70s onwards the Left was taken over by upper-middle-class university-educated brats that changed the focus on "oppression" from class-based to gender/race/sexuality-based.
Now you've got media organisations like Vox saying that the only reason Boynie Sanduhs wants protectionism is so he can fuck over impoverished Third Worlders to secure the comfort of middle-class Americans threatened by free trade
>>71568118
>cites an example of another failed movement
>/v/ spergs out about it and blames everyone else for their reaction
Nothing new here.
>>71568404
What the fuck are you even talking about?
You really should have been a blow job.
>>71566573
To crush Gawker and their affiliates and Peter Thiel accomplished that.
>>71568537
ironically the left now protects outsourcing and mass immigration while the right complains about it.
The world is upside down.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=x-MraD1Ys3Q
>>71566637
Noble goal.
>>71568447
I don't know man did you play Depression Quest? I needed chemo after that shit
>>71566382
Assault on Wall Street
>>71568506
Well that was predictable. Should we cancel free speech because adversaries are on side of the establishment?
Sounds like you actually belong to those adversaries.
>>71568593
Peter Thiel is a closet NRxer. He is even bankrolling Moldbug's latest project.
>>71566382
Occupy Unmasked
>>71568339
I don't think it has much to do with GG
>>71568637
>ironically the left now protects outsourcing and mass immigration while the right complains about it.
It's like living on Clown World, 2bh.
We're only a year away from articles with headlines like "The Unconventional Racism of Opposing Wall Street Bailouts" from places like The Grauniad
>bunch of white kids sitting around complaining about lack of jobs instead of actually trying to get applications
>waaaah I can't get a job with my liberal arts degree!
Yea, it was one hell of a movement, alright.
>>71568679
Nigger what? I have no idea what you're trying to get at or how you got that from my post. Your reading comprehension is so skewed by your delusions that it's not even funny anymore. It's called picking your battles and predicting cause and effect if you want real results. Giving people who already have professional victim status more fuel for their fire is literally the last thing you should have done, you only made them look better and you look worse in the eyes of the people you should have been trying to convince.You should have all made accounts with Arabic names and framed Muslims.
>>71568584
>doesn't know cripplechan
You really are the one that doesn't belong here.
>>71568688
No wonder that commie faggot Klabnik hates him so much.
>>71568643
No of course I didn't fucking play that game. You did?
>>71568362
OWS was originally started by highly qualified people. In the beginning, when only RT was covering it, I saw lawyers, professors, economists, veterans and so on giving highly articulate interviews. They had clear goals, a plan, and a shitload of optimism and determination.
Then a major US news outlet, possibly CNN, started covering it. Suddenly it was 100% hipsters, crazy homeless people, vague chanting about being "the 99%" and banners ranting about everything from weed to communism.
I saw a post from someone who was there at the start and saw the decline, and they said it was the SJWs that killed it. After a certain amount of time, the movement was forcefully co-opted by a group who claimed to represent the protest but only ever talked about identity politics. Anyone trying to discuss the corruption on Wall street was shouted down as "privileged," and made to wait until "oppressed minorities" had their say. Look up "progressive stacking" for more info on how that works.
Being constantly yelled at and called racist, misogynist or in some way bigoted for wanting to talk about something other than identity politics takes a toll. The qualified activists dropped out one by one, taking any chance for meaningful political reform with them.
SJWs killed OWS with the help of the mainstream media, who were all too happy to paint the movement as consisting of these aimless lunatics rather than having been infiltrated by them.
>>71568720
GG caused the influx of Redditors. The influx of SJWs is just the general liberalization of younger generations and oldfags leaving.
>>71568774
I wouldn't even blink if I read that
>>71568421
This is about as good as it gets.
For over a decade everyone knew that game journalists and the video game industry were partly in bed with each other. Back when magazines were still big, this was commonly joked about. It was at the point where anyone old enough to understand the connection viewed the games media with some skepticism.
Yeah everyone rememebers the gamespot Kane and Lynch 2 incident, but all that did was confirm what were already knew, that big game journalists were in league with the publishers. It was more accepted at the time because anyone who thought about it would understand that without the game publishers, the game journalists couldn't even exist. You cant go pissing on all your ad revenue.
Why GG was different was the fact that it wasn't a huge game publisher paying off journalists anymore. It was about some shitheads journalists who (allegedly) fucked some chick in exchange for favourable review scores. The idea was so laughable that it changed the way we thought about them. It wasn't just about the money anymore, or securing their jobs even. Just sex for press.
Regardless of if it actually happened or not, what followed was a stream of proof that the whole industry was shit, and definitively needed a purge. Of course that never happened, in fact if anything things got worse. All we can hope is that the memories of this shitty movement carry on and in the future can be used as an example when people again want change in the industry.
>>71568774
>Grauniad
>>71568840
Of course I did, where do you think my brain tumor came from? Smoking?
>>71568881
This is more plausible, but not every board is as bad as /tv/. Most boards are pretty /pol/
>>71568774
>Hitler's world is not so far away
God I hope so and I'm a shitskin
>>71568859
It stopped being about economics pretty quickly
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=18p23-mE4e0
Social Justice seems to be the magic bullet for globalists and wall street to obscure any conversation.
>>71568859
>OWS was originally started by highly qualified people. In the beginning, when only RT was covering it, I saw lawyers, professors, economists, veterans and so on giving highly articulate interviews. They had clear goals, a plan, and a shitload of optimism and determination.
I remember this, the real life Godon Gekko was there aka Asher Edelman in the beginning.
>>71568930
I think the brain tumor caused you to think it might be a good idea to play Depression Quest.
>>71566636
All Goobergaters did was remind me how videogames are childish. I'm so glad film doesn't have these problems.
I have to remind myself that one is an art form of pure kino (Movies) while the other is for manchildren (Games).
>>71568859
>After a certain amount of time, the movement was forcefully co-opted by a group who claimed to represent the protest but only ever talked about identity politics.
Well I don't know about the US, but up here in Toronto (which ought to be even more full of lefists) I remember the talk around those protests was still largely about capitalism.
>>71568892
Breaking up big banks would help with sexism and racism considering minorities pay higher interest on loans and a monopoly that can set their own market prices only makes this worse
>>71569016
>videogames are childish
Why?
Do you find the game of chess to be childish?
Classic case of good ol USSR style subversion
It became about identity politics & quickly forgot about it's original goal
Hence subverted
A story i heard was a lot of White dudes were organising quite well but stupid Women & Minorities wanted to make it about them & didn't want White men running the show, when the White men fucked off they started getting sexually assaulted in the parks without guys there to protect them
>>71569046
>considering minorities pay higher interest on loans
The banks can easily justify this with basic risk assessment. SJW fags can start their own bank if they want to ignore risk assessment for the sake of certain minorities.
>>71569088
Chess isn't video games. Go back to your mothers basement.
>>71566382
You can't make a documentary every time leftists fail, anon.
>>71568987
Shit, man. You might be right
I remember watching an episode of true life on it, someguy believed in it, cleaned everybody shit and the park for free but didnt actually have any goals, then two college art students that wanted to join to be part of something but didnt actually know what they were trying to achieve
>>71566382
It was a mix of it being taken over by SJWs + 'career activists' who take part in just about every movement all joining to the latest big one, BLM.
>>71569115
Chess is a game.
Are you asserting that only games that use video screens are childish? Or did you simply not think your statement through before you made it?
>>71569115
>Chess isn't video games
The videogame Battlechess is both. Checkmate.
Why do you think chess is acceptable for adults but videogames aren't? They are fundamentally the same thing: a game
No documentaries exist on why OWS failed because it would require asking some serious questions on the left that no one has the balls the ask. Not to mention that there is no one reason WHY it failed, but a complex number of reasons.
Which amount to:
1. Police brutality and corrupt local government crushing OWS in major cities
2. SJW types and old hippie types co-opting the entire movement for TV time. Besides the "Progressive Stack" crap, they ran off anyone and everyone not left of Stalin from the movement and usurped control of the entire machine.
3. The media running a smear campaign (remember the "OWS=rape culture" smear against the protests with false stories about women being raped?) and at the same time, doing their best to deny them any publicity or time on the nightly news.
Also, the 2012 election. Once Obama got re-elected, that was the death kneel for OWS in so far as the SJW and hippies declaring victory. Especially when you consider that the majority on the SJW front considered OWS a left wing organized response to the Tea Party and their antics. Obama winning in 2012 was a repudiation of the Tea Party, so they tossed the apparatus of the movement into the garbage, not caring that the original goals had not been achieved/Obama was still giving the banks a free pass, because they wanted to use the re-election to ramrod SJW bullshit down everyone's throats using the defeat of Romney/Obama's re-election as their justification point.
>>71569046
>minorities pay higher interest on loans
giving minorities cheap credit caused the sub prime crash
wall street gave them NINJA loans (No Job No Income No Assets) because it enriched wall street in the short run.
>>71569097
>The banks can easily justify this with basic risk assessment.
Agree with this but my point is she is defending monopolies. Banks really do need to be broken up
>>71569197
Career activists are the cancer of the 21st century, some of those cunts took over the local student protests at my shithole and turned into some some media attention op and ended up occupying a building after everyone fucked off.
Turns out none of them were active students and one of the had actually been expelled for harassing a girl from another political movement over facebook and threatening her.
>>71569293
Obama was always a great friend of wall street just like Hillary is.
It was probably embarrassing to him knowing that part of his voting base hated the banks that funded his campaign.
>>71569293
>they ran off anyone and everyone not left of Stalin from the movement
>left of Stalin
>>71569293
What OWS wanted, and ultimately failed to get, was an answer to the question, "How do we fix wall street?"
The real problem, and why it failed itself, was that no one had an answer. Wall Street is a system that is so complex that when it fails no one can even figure out what went wrong. It took years before the message got passed down to the masses in an easier to understand way. But it was that confusing, and the government ultimately doing absolutely nothing about it was what everyone was so upset about.
When the next financial crisis hits, people that protested in OWS will again remember what they're pissed about, and social media can help spread that message.
>>71566573
Revenge mostly.
>>71569293
Or it was a bullshit movement full of nothing but whiners.
Smear campaigns and muh oppression. Fucking christ.
>>71569469
>that pic
Evo Morales actually said chicken meat turned people into fag degenerates cause of all the estrogen they get from their feed.
>>71569500
it's fiarly easy to figure out what went wrong
deregulation under Carter and Regan let banks create monopolies and bad loans that caused massive debt.
Things got 10x worse under Greenspan's tenure as Fed chairmen and then Clinton's revocation of Glass Steagall (the New Deal law that stopped investment banks from colluding with commercial banks to create economy destroying bubbles)
http://cepr.net/documents/publications/dereg-timeline-2009-07.pdf
>>71569509
What people wanted was to not have to deal with another financial crisis that comes out of nowhere and takes years for anyone to be able to explain why we lost our jobs, homes, and savings.
>>71569392
>embarrassing to him
If he weren't a sociopathic narcissist, maybe.
>>71569524
To be fair most Third World socialist movements are crazy because Third World. IIRC the Khmer Rouge would eat the organs of deceased enemies to absorb their power as part of an ancient Cambodian practice
>>71569579
You should time travel back to 2008 and explain that to everyone that, should clear it all up perfectly.
>>71569509
they have a legitimate complaint
wallstreet destroyed the economy and then was given trillions of dollars for free all while their real estate debt ponzi schemes that fuck over the working class were kept in place
But SJWs ruined the movement and made it about trannies and white guilt.
>>71569580
Nobody in occupy owned a home or had any savings, are you buttfucking kidding me
>>71569623
There were people who pointed out the bad loans wall street was making
http://michael-hudson.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/03/RoadToSerfdom.pdf
but no one listened to them.
>>71566382
It died the second the cameras left.
That and change requires hard work not the LWNJs strong suit.
>>71569237
>>71569205
Go back to pedochan goobergaters.
>>71569644
Everyone suffers from an economic collapse even if it's just people with shitty jobs.
>>71569579
not quite
http://tomwoods.com/podcast/ep-638-did-deregulation-cause-the-financial-crisis/
>>71569626
What part of Detroit is that house in, though
>>71569693
I guess you're counting the rich as outliers from "everyone."
>>71569580
That's what I mean. It's basically wanting an explanation of why the wind blew tree limb off that fell on their car.
The real answer goes back to their (the public at large) greed. The crisis was a result of decades of finance built on phony money. You can point your finger at Wall Street all you want, but it's really no different than blaming Pepsi because your pancreas is shot and you have diabetes.
It's the public's fault. But when shit hits the fan, everyone else is to blame.
>>71569611
Even Fidel hates fags with a passion. Hard line socialists never cared about identity politics trash, it's some 21st century propaganda trash to gather votes from politically correct fools done by the american liberals and the softcore yuro socialists.
The ONLY answer to wall street and big banks is a free market.
If we had free banking, these banks would be much much smaller, would actually have to be stable and respond to consumers instead of getting free money from the federal reserve(which leftists support for some reason).
>>71569626
The people they elected caused it. And their parents and their shitty free money loans, of course.
The government basically forced banks to make the loans and they sold the debt up and up. Then when shit started reaching a tipping point, the senate committees told Bush to go fuck himself when he wanted an investigation.
>>71569671
>not an argument
>>71569579
>deregulation under Carter and Regan let banks create monopolies and bad loans that caused massive debt.
That's not what happened at all.
You leftists and your federal reserve gave the banks trillions of dollars for free.
We are against that.
Why are you for that?
>Clinton's revocation of Glass Steagall
BULLSHIT
Canada and many other countries didn't have a law like glass steagall and their banks did much better.
Idiot.
>>71569671
>goobergaters
Why does tumblr pretend they're welcome here?
>>71569731
It's in Vancouver
>>71569731
Tom Woods doesn't care about the details
The increase of lending to minorities with no incomes or assets was a regulation change led by Robert Rubin, a Goldman Sachs employee and Treasury Secretary under Clinton.
http://www.businessinsider.com/the-cra-debate-a-users-guide-2009-6
Revoking Glass Steagall was also a result of the "brain trust" during the Clinton years involving mainly Greenspan, Rubin, and wall street freelance speaker and undersecretary Larry Summers.
It was entirely collusion between the government and wall street lobbyists that caused deregulation.
>>71569671
>calls videogamers immature
>resorts to pathetically childish namecalling when asked for the most basic level of reasoning
You've exposed yourself as a hypocrite. As such, your opinion is worth less than nothing. Remember that next time you offer it to a forum.
>>71569916
>The increase of lending to minorities with no incomes or assets was a regulation change led by Robert Rubin, a Goldman Sachs employee and Treasury Secretary under Clinton.
You idiot.
Who gave these banks trillions of dollars to gamble with and told guaranteed their bailout if they fucked up.
You're absolutely retarded if you don't see the government's role in this.
Can't wait until the Canadian housing bubble collapses too and you leftist retards see how wrong you are about central banking.
>>71569916
>he still thinks "deregulation" caused it when banking is the most regulated industry in america
>>71569916
>Revoking Glass Steagall was also a result of the "brain trust" during the Clinton years involving mainly Greenspan, Rubin, and wall street freelance speaker and undersecretary Larry Summers.
This. Essentially Wall Street was supposed to just regulate itself because the best minds the Ivy Leagues had were working there, ergo there was no way they could fuck up
And then they did
>>71569840
>The government basically forced banks
no
cheap credit was in wallstreet's interest and was lobbied for by the big 4 banks (Bank of America, JPMorgan Chase , Citigroup, and Well Fargo
They worked with the government to remove regulations since the late 70s under Carter.
>>71569869
The federal reserve didn't create the money wall street did
The Fed only created the trillions of dollars that bailed out wall street after the fact in order to bailout wall street while leaving American consumers in piles of debt.
>>71569978
>This
SEE:
>>71569869
Canada and countless other countries didn't have a glass steegal law and they fared the crises much better.
You fucking idiot, you're wrong, shut up.
>>71569974
>the banks are banned from doing something because it fucks everything up by filling the market with lies
>the restrictions on this are lifted - deregulated if you would - and then the banks immediately get to doing the explotative bad shit that isn't banned anymore
But yeah it's totally not deregulation
>>71570005
>The federal reserve didn't create the money wall street did
HAHAHAHAHAHAHA
Where did wall street get their money you brainwashed piece of shit?
The federal reserve basically types numbers into a computer and GIVES IT TO THESE BANKS. Interest rates were super low the years leading up to this.
Retards like you actually support this, thinking it's good for the economy.
Fuck you.
>>71570047
>>the banks are banned from doing something because it fucks everything up
But it didn't fuck everything up.
It wasn't the main problem at all.
The government/federal reserve printing trillions and giving it to banks, and saying they will be bailed out when they inevitably fail did.
Stop believing hollywood propaganda.
>>71569948
banks create credit
No one "gives" them money. The problem only occurs when they create massive bubbles that result in needing FED bailouts
>>71569974
It's hardly regulated at all in practice.
Even in the 80s under Reagan and the S&L crisis wall street was far more regulated than it is today. Under Reagan at least thousands of white collar criminals went to jail for fraud.
After 2008 and under Obama no one went to jail.
>>71568811
The nose knows...
>>71569916
>Tom Woods doesn't care about the details
Tom Woods literally goes over every dumb point you just made in precise detail and debunks it.
>>71569978
>best minds the Ivy Leagues had were working there
This is what always gets me. The government honestly had no way to fix this shit, if you were smart enough to fix this you were going to make 10x working for wall street anyways.
>>71570029
Canada has stronger regulations surrounding mortgages and the finance industry
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/article/2008/10/15/AR2008101503321.html
The Canadian finance industry isn't "What the US's finance industry would be without Glass-Steagall"
>>71570065
you don't seem to understand the concept
when banks create money they charge interest
when the FED prints money it doesn't nessecarily charge moeny at all.
The cause of the sub prime crisis was banks creating trillions of dollars of debt and handing it out to people who could never pay it back.
Now their balance sheets are full of toxic debt that is never getting paid back so the FED saved them by "printing" trillions out of nothing and handing it to wall street instead of just letting the banks fails.
>>71570107
>The problem only occurs when they create massive bubbles that result in needing FED bailouts
Holy fuck are you ever a brainwashed corporate shill.
>banks create credit
They get their "credit" from the federal reserve. Which charges little to no interest.
You actually support the government giving banks unlimited money and think there's nothing wrong with this.
>>71570107
>It's hardly regulated at all in practice.
Yes it is.
>Under Reagan at least thousands of white collar criminals went to jail for fraud.
Just because people didn't go to jail this time doesn't mean it's not heavily regulated and controlled.
>>71570154
Not to sound intellectual, but I think it was more about the arrogance of the Ivy League grad "whiz kids" involved that they must've known what they were doing, because Goldman Sachs is run by Harvard grads! We can't be wrong!
>>71570029
>they fared the crises much better
We did better, (and are still doing better) because quiet honestly we lack houses. No house defaults on a mortgage up here because there's always someone in line who can pay up.
>>71568859
Some say another factor that killed it which was meetup culture by that time it was full of teenagers who didn't care about the government.
>>71570107
>Even in the 80s under Reagan and the S&L crisis wall street was far more regulated than it is today. Under Reagan at least thousands of white collar criminals went to jail for fraud.
I was just watching an episode of that new shown on CNN, The Eighties. It had a segment on that in their "Greed is good" episode. Also had a bit on this guy.
>>71569293
>1. Police brutality
>>71570188
>when banks create money they charge interest
Banks don't create money.
The federal reserve creates money and lends it to banks at little to no interest.
Banks get trillions of dollars from the fed.
>creating trillions of dollars of debt
In a free market this would be fucking impossible. Banks would only be able to lend out what they actually have.
Not print trillion of dollars in fake money.
>so the FED saved them
Of course it did.
The fed created the problem in the first place, now it's perpetuating the problem by giving them even MORE money when they fail.
>>71570206
>"credit" from the federal reserve
No banks create credit out of nothing. There were panics and bubbles long before the FED existed.
>You actually support the government giving banks unlimited money
Banks naturally create credit out of nothing. The problem is when they create so much debt that it can't be paid back.
The solution is to have tighter regulation on the loans banks can hand out.
>doesn't mean it's not heavily regulated and controlled
That's almost exactly what it means. Technically we still have laws on the books against fraud, but no one cares, wall street is still allowed to commit endless fraud.
END THE FEDERAL RESERVE
DO IT
NOW
>>71570215
>because there's always someone in line who can pay up.
That "someone" always being Chinese mainlanders
>>71566529
Resurrect Dead is a pretty cozy docu to watch instead.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K4VLYGfGDZg
or
http://sockshare.net/watch/OGgp70Ad-99-the-occupy-wall-street-collaborative-film/veoh.html
>>71570306
>No banks create credit out of nothing.
No they don't.
Provide evidence or shut up.
>There were panics and bubbles long before the FED existed.
Yes and every one of these cases was the government interfering in the market.
Countless books have been written on the subject.
>Banks naturally create credit out of nothing.
Yes and they shouldn't be doing this.
You're dumb enough to support this type of corporate fascism.
>Banks naturally create credit out of nothing.
The solution is NOT LET THEM DO THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE
Do you hear yourself?
You're creating a massive fucking problem using the government, then thinking the government can fix it.
Idiot.
>Technically we still have laws on the books against fraud, but no one cares, wall street is still allowed to commit endless fraud.
Yes and liberals support this fraud.
>libtards mindlessly defending the federal reserve and their corporate masters
>>71570277
>Banks don't create money.
Yes they do
>Banks would only be able to lend out what they actually have
that's not how banks have ever worked.
>The fed created the problem in the first place
No the lack of regulation caused the disaster.
The FED certainly encouraged them though because Greenspan was the chairmen.
>>71570389
>Provide evidence or shut up.
I suggest you watch this lecture on it
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-KRi9nF8BiA
>Yes and every one of these cases was the government interfering in the market.
Not really. The government didn't regulate the "wildcat" banks in the 1800s in the US but panics still happened regularly.
>they shouldn't be doing this.
Yes they should, creating credit increases demand in an economy and spurs production and growth. You're arguing for what is essentially a stagnant economy where no one can get a loan.
>NOT LET THEM DO THIS IN THE FIRST PLACE
how are you going to do that without government regulation?
>liberals support this fraud
Yes they do in general support wall street and the billionaire class.
>>71570319
Obama actually is retarded and cut the deficit during a recession, the exact opposite of what Keynes prescribed.
>>71570420
Krugman actually doesn't believe in increasing spending to grow the economy he actively shills instead to just give trillions of dollars to wall street.
In essence he is no different from a supply side economist that thinks handing out free money to billionaires will "trickle down" to the masses.
>>71570612
>I suggest you watch this lecture on it
I'm not going to watch some youtube video.
Do you have any argument of your own?
>Not really.
Yes really.
https://wiki.mises.org/wiki/Panics
There's clear evidence for the government manipulating the market in all of these times. Sometimes they allowed banks to print their own money, sometimes they created central banks, sometimes they've done some weird sketchy shit.
>The government didn't regulate the "wildcat" banks in the 1800s
Wildcat banks were a myth if you actually read history.
>Yes they should
No, seriously kill yourself.
Nobody wants to live under corporate fascism, apparently you do.
We don't want banks to completely rule our lives.
>creating credit increases demand in an economy and spurs production and growth
Keynesian economics has been proven wrong so many times it's unreal.
You can only create actual credit if you have real resources to back up them, if you just create credit out of thin air it causes bubbles.
>You're arguing for what is essentially a stagnant economy
Nope, I'm arguing for what we had during the gilded age.
A deflationary economy with massive levels of economic growth, wage increases and prices coming down.
Love how that proves you wrong.
>how are you going to do that without government regulation?
It's called the LAW you idiot?
Lending out fake money is a form of FRAUD, something clearly illegal in a free market.
>>71570716
>muh not real keynesian
It doesn't matter, keynesian economics is sociopathic and does not work.
>>71570672
>we should get into even more debt
You're a dumb fuck.
>>71570421
>Yes they do
They don't and can't. They get money lent to them from the federal reserve at low interest rates.
>that's not how banks have ever worked.
That's the literal definition of a bank.
Fractional reserve banking is bullshit.
>No the lack of regulation caused the disaster.
LMAO
The fed gave them trillions of dollars to gamble with and you think "lack of regulation" caused it.
Holy fucking shit please kill yourself.
Oh, look. Another /tv/ professional spouting bullshit that fits with their ideology when there is no fucking answer to the fix the economy question.
>>71570869
>no fucking answer to the fix the economy question.
Yes, end the federal reserve and allow the economy to restructure itself.
We're just going to keep getting poorer unless we do this.
>hurr lets just print more money
Enjoy inflation.
Why are liberals such corporate shills?
>>71570799
>There's clear evidence for the government manipulating
Yes it was le evil government behind all those droughts
>I'm not going to watch some youtube video.
well sucks for you
>Wildcat banks were a myth
kek
>muh corporate fascism
You are just a meme spouting libertarian at this point. I bet you're an ancap too, kek
>Keynesian economics has been proven wrong so many times
not really, no
>I'm arguing for what we had during the gilded age
You want more corruption and monopolies?
>A deflationary economy with massive levels of economic growth
not really. Banks were still creating credit and therefore bubbles and panics
>It's called the LAW you idiot?
laws are just regulations which you hate
I like to think that liberals started to realize that they're the ones that caused the market crash and gave the banks a compelling case for the government to bail them out but that's probably asking too much of people.
You can't use the government to force banks to give out loans to everyone that asks in a misguided attempt at fixing "inequality" among blacks and white. In order for the banks to do that they would have to be insured by the government so when those loans inevitably fail the government needs to uphold their part of the bargain. Clinton caused the crash by forcing banks to hand out money to people that couldn't pay it back.
>>71570869
"Fixing" the economy only proves disastrous, lever pullers and button pushers only fuck things up.
>>71570867
>keynesian economics is sociopathic
no it works fine
your neoliberalism on the other hand is shit
>You're a dumb fuck.
you have the economic understanding of a child
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Au2N07eHa-Q
>That's the literal definition of a bank.
Not really no
>Fractional reserve banking is bullshit.
"fractional reserve" banking is a myth. In reality banks create credit from nothing
>The fed gave them trillions of dollars
like I said the banks created the credit not the FED a practice they have done for millenia now.
>>71570939
>Laws = Regulations
I'm guessing you're not American.
>>71567069
>if I close my eyes, it'll stop being real
Started with legit complaints then go co-opted by a bunch of leftest faggots who turned it into a special snowflake parade.
>>71566414
Indeed it succeeded. Me and my drum circle accomplished so much.
>>71571028
regulations are the result of legislation which is just a law passed by congress.
Of course the real question is how the executive branch (President) will enforce the laws and in the case of wall street ever since Clinton they have been basically allowed to do whatever the fuck they want with only minimal repercussions
>>71570939
>Yes it was le evil government behind all those droughts
Strawman, nobody is talking about the droughts.
Wait, are you naive enough to think the government can magically fix downturns due to droughts?
lmao
>well sucks for you
Not an argument.
>kek
Not an argument.
>You are just a meme spouting libertarian at this point. I bet you're an ancap too, kek
Not an argument.
and clearly butthurt
:^)
>not really, no
Not an argument.
and stagflation of the 70s, also the bullshit we're dealing with today.
>You want more corruption and monopolies?
The only "monopolies" existed due to government power.
Also standard oil was never a monopoly and was very beneficial to the poor and working class.
>not really.
lmao what do you mean not really?
It ACTUALLY fucking happened and WORKED.
In fact the gilded age was the biggest consistent period of growth in american history.
How mad does this make you?
>laws are just regulations which you hate
LMAO HOLY FUCK YOU'RE STUPID
>>71571020
>your neoliberalism on the other hand is shit
HAHAHA
Dude neoliberalism is just a leftist buzzword that makes absolutely no sense.
We're not on a gold standard anymore, we're all keynesians now.
Reagan didn't do anything to deregulate, in fact regulations INCREASED during his term, so did taxes and government spending.
Where the fuck is this "neoliberalism" you whiny preteen cunts are talking about?
>you have the economic understanding of a child
>another youtube video
>can't hold an argument of his own and can only shitpost
>calls other people a child
Oh the ironing.
>Not really no
Do you have ANY arguments?
You're just saying no and yes to everything.
>a practice they have done for millenia now.
lmao fractional reserve banks were considered fraud for the longest time.
>>71571160
>are you naive enough to think the government can magically fix downturns due to droughts
No I'm saying you're blaming the government for what are essentially acts of god
>stagflation of the 70s
That was caused by the energy crisis in the middle east not "Keynesianism"
However it was used as a casus belli to start the neoliberalism that you so passionately defend.
>"monopolies" existed due to government power
Only to the extent that very rich oligarchs can afford to control the government
>In fact the gilded age was the biggest consistent period of growth in american history
Not by any statistical measure
>>71571113
Some regulations are, most aren't. If you're going to talk about laws, just say "laws". Also, last I checked nobody elected the Fed chair.
>>71571020
>BAAAWWWW NEOLIBERALISM
Why do retarded people like this even exist?
>>71571285
>No I'm saying you're blaming the government for what are essentially acts of god
No, we're not.
The only downturns listed on that website are ones due to government manipulation.
Nice strawman though.
>That was caused by the energy crisis in the middle east not "Keynesianism"
hah
yeah had absolutely nothing to do with getting off the gold standard that decade
>NOT MY FAULT GUISE
Keynes MATH was wrong in the first place, no wonder it doesn't work, the guy is too retarded to even do basic math.
>to start the neoliberalism
I already told you neoliberalism is a myth.
Do you have any argument at all or are you just going to shitpost angrily?
>Only to the extent that very rich oligarchs can afford to control the government
No shit you fucking idiot.
Why do you think we're against that, while leftists in america have supported it.
You're the dumb brainwashed fuck that supports giving trillions of dollars to bankers.
>Not by any statistical measure
Yes, by every statistical measure.
I love how the gilded age pretty much proves keynesian "oh noes muh deflationary spiral" myths completely wrong, when there was massive deflation and constant growth.
>>71571266
>neoliberalism is just a leftist buzzword that makes absolutely no sense.
only because you like to stay in your delusional bubble
>we're all keynesians now
I wish
>Reagan didn't do anything to deregulate
He mainly deregulated wall street
>Where the fuck is this "neoliberalism" you whiny preteen cunts are talking about
It's basically just rule of countries via internationalist corporations i.e. globalism something that autistic libertarians while pretending to be right wing seem to support.
>someone who links Mises calling anyone a child
kek
>fractional reserve banks were considered fraud for the longest time
in the west charging interest was slowly accepted over centuries
>>71571266
>Reagan didn't do anything to deregulate
hahahahahahahaha what
/tv/ - Television & Film
>>71571484
>only because you like to stay in your delusional bubble
NOT
AN
ARGUMENT
:^)
Show me this "neoliberalism" you brain damaged authoritairan cunts like to whine about so much.
>I wish
Even if we're not 100% keynesian right now, we're far far closer to keynesianism than a free market.
>fiat currency
>no gold standard
>central banking
That's exactly what keynes want and everything austrians warned against.
>He mainly deregulated wall street
Give an example, oh wait you have none.
>It's basically just rule of countries via internationalist corporations
Yes, corporate fascism, the IMF, the World Bank, goldman sachs.
All things libertarians are strongly against, all things most american leftists support.
There's nothing classically "liberal" about these government/corporatist structures.
>kek
TOP WEW
You can only angrily shitpost non arguments and refuse to use proper punctuation because "I'm too cool for that mom".
You are the quintessential manchild lmao.
>>71571597
https://mises.org/library/myths-reaganomics
Look up the "deregulation" section.
Stop listening to the leftist media claiming reagan was a free market supporter or whatever.
>>71571472
>due to government manipulation
nope. Your just using the government as a scapegoat, ironically during a time when the US government was far too small to manipulate the economy.
>yeah had absolutely nothing to do with getting off the gold standard that decade
It didn't seeing as the problems started with the oil embargo https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/1970s_energy_crisis
>You're the dumb brainwashed fuck that supports giving trillions of dollars to bankers.
you're the libertarian that thinks all government is le evil
>Yes, by every statistical measure.
nope
real wages rose far more in the 20th century
END THE FED
DO IT
NOW
FREE THE MARKET
>>71571690
>stop listening to the leftist media
>have this source that shares my bias instead
hahahahaha what?
It's all about the petrodollar at this point. Why do you think globalists have such a hard-on for muh climate change, now?
>>71571654
>this "neoliberalism"
pretty much the entire global establishment at this point
>we're far far closer to keynesianism than a free market
Keynes was a capitalist to begin with
>That's exactly what keynes want
That's what the US had before Keynes even printed the General Theory
Everyone had already realized the importance of the government controlling the money supply before Keynes came around.
>All things libertarians are strongly against,
They're just against regulating banks though for "reasons"
>refuse to use proper punctuation
classic libertarian autism
>>71571722
>Your just using the government as a scapegoat,
No, we're actually explaining what happened in the real world.
>ironically during a time when the US government was far too small to manipulate the economy.
Holy shit you're actually this ignorant of history?
Are you saying the first and second banks of the united states didn't exist?
>It didn't seeing as the problems started with the oil embargo
The oil embargo was just a contributing factor.
Why do you think the economy bounced back when Volker raised interest rates in 1980.
>you're the libertarian that thinks all government is le evil
LMAO no I don't think the government is super evil
You support giving trillions to bankers lol and you admit it.
You're falling apart right now, you couldn't even reply to the other stuff I said.
lmao
>>71571690
>using Mises as a source
pretty pathetic
http://cepr.net/documents/publications/dereg-timeline-2009-07.pdf
>>71569016
>I'm so glad film doesn't have these problems
>>71571759
Everything is biased, just read the article if you want to stay informed and question your own beliefs.
what the fuck was occupy wall street anyway? what did they want? free money? retards
>>71571924
the same thing leftists want all the time: free goods, free services, free security. Basically they want everything but responsibility.
>>71571883
>we're actually explaining what happened in the real world
nope
the constant panics of the 1800s were caused by the banking system creating unsustainable debt. Without a central bank(1913) and fiat money (introduced 1933) recessions were far more frequent and severe
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_recessions_in_the_United_States
>The oil embargo was just a contributing factor.
It was the only factor
>Volker raised interest rates
after the energy crisis ended the recession ended
what a surprise
>You support giving trillions to bankers
I'm explicitly against that.
You on the other hand are fine with deregulating banking so they can flood the US consumer market with debt.
>>71571821
>pretty much the entire global establishment at this point
Just because you say something doesn't make it true.
I just showed you how none of this global corporate fascism and government power is "neoliberal".
What's classically liberal about it? These global parasites are far closer to keynesianism than "neoliberal".
Answer the question you dumb autist.
>Keynes was a capitalist to begin with
What does that have to do with anything kid?
We are far far closer to keynesianism than a free market. Sorry if this angers you, but you have yet to argue against my point.
>That's what the US had before Keynes even printed the General Theory
We got off the gold standard permanently in 1970. There was still a semi gold standard before that time that kept the fed and government from doing what it wants. Now they can do whatever the fuck they want. Keynesian dream.
>Everyone had already realized the importance of the government controlling the money supply before Keynes came around.
Nope, that was just corporate fascists manipulating people
Kill yourself.
>They're just against regulating banks though for "reasons"
What are you even talking about?
>classic libertarian autism
MOMMY I'M A COOL KID I DON'T HAVE TO USE PROPER GRAMMAR AND PUNCTUATION
Listen to yourself you autist, were you dropped on your head?
>>71572067
>none of this global corporate fascism and government power is "neoliberal".
it certainly is
http://fortune.com/2016/06/03/imf-neoliberalism-failing/
>These global parasites are far closer to keynesianism than "neoliberal"
They are explicitly neoliberal
>We are far far closer to keynesianism than a free market
Keynesianism means using deficit spending to counter recessions, which is the opposite of western economic policy today.
>We got off the gold standard permanently in 1970
In 1933
the gold window is not a "gold standard" by any stretch.
>Nope, that was just corporate fascists manipulating people
>muh fascism
>What are you even talking about?
the fact that you despise regulation
>Listen to yourself you autist, were you dropped on your head?
projection
libertarianism correlates strongly with autism
http://reason.com/blog/2011/07/20/being-libertarian-may-cause-au
>>71566553
Gamergate raised awareness and really did kill the massive influx of hipster bullshit in gaming. It didnt erradicate it but at least we dont get shit like Gone home getting called Citizen kane of gaming. Plus it helped in the death of gawker so im glad about that
>>71571894
>not at least reading the article because you're a brainwashed idiot
There was no "deregulation."
Regulations increased during his term.
>>71572021
>the constant panics of the 1800s were caused by the banking system creating unsustainable debt.
WHICH YOU FUCKING SUPPORTED
In fact you SUPPORT THIS.
PERIOD.
You want banks to get into massive amounts of debt.
Why are you such a hypocrite?
These massive levels of debt were caused by the government allowing the banks to print unlimited amounts of money. Something you support.
Why does the fact the mostly "free banking" period of the gilded age was the most stable and we had the most growth during this time make you so angry?
>Without a central bank(1913) and fiat money (introduced 1933) recessions were far more frequent and severe
AHAHAHAHHAHA
WE HAD THE FUCKING GREAT DEPRESSION DURING CENTRAL BANKING
The worst depression in american history.
The cognitive dissonance in you people holy shit.
>It was the only factor
It was a contributing factor, in fact the stagflation was over when Volker rose interest rates.
How MAD does these fact make you autist?
>after the energy crisis ended the recession ended
Gas prices were still super high during this time, there was still an "energy crisis.
>I'm explicitly against that.
Yet you support the federal reserve doing EXACTLY THAT.
You were probably dropped on your head as a kid.
>You on the other hand are fine with deregulating banking
Yes I am.
They need to follow the same rules other companies do.
Regulations only help banks.
> so they can flood the US consumer market with debt.
It's YOU PEOPLE who created this fucking debt in the first place with low interest rates.
During period of free banking, people actually had SAVINGS.
Keynes is against savings.
>>71566637
Enjoying that kool aid?
>>71572199
>it certainly is
Not an argument.
Do you have an argument?
>They are explicitly neoliberal
Not an argument.
Do you have an argument?
>Keynesianism means using deficit spending to counter recessions,
Which we have explicitly done.
We're 19 trillion dollars in debt from doing dumb shit like this.
>which is the opposite of western economic policy today.
I can't believe people like you, who completely deny reality actually exist.
>In 1933
Only partially.
Are you this ignorant of history.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nixon_shock
They were still bound to the gold standard you dumb autist.
>the fact that you despise regulation
Not an argument.
Do you have an argument?
>projection
LMAO
Son, listen to yourself, I've debunked pretty much all of your points and you either don't respond to them or respond with one word "yes" or "no" answers.
I've never seen this level of autistic shitposting in my life.
Pic related, this is how autistic you are.
This is you.
>regulations
>good
No, but I can tell you why it happened.
>>71572244
>Regulations increased during his term.
not for wall street or international finance
>WHICH YOU FUCKING SUPPORTED
No I support regulation of banking
>You want banks to get into massive amounts of debt.
I think banks should only be encouraged to lend productively
>WE HAD THE FUCKING GREAT DEPRESSION DURING CENTRAL BANKING
Which was caused by lack of regulation of the banking system, which you support
>over when Volker rose interest rates.
interest rates changing didn't do anything as the only cause was energy price spikes
>Yet you support the federal reserve doing EXACTLY THAT.
nope
>Regulations only help banks.
This is some grade A insanity
>Keynes is against savings.
seeing as it prolonged the depression yes, everyone saving at once causes a deflationary spiral.
>We're 19 trillion dollars in debt from doing dumb shit like this.
Which doesn't matter since the government controls the US currency
>I can't believe people like you, who completely deny reality actually exist.
The government hasn't been acting counter cyclically. It's thanks to idiots like you that it doesn't.
>They were still bound to the gold standard
no that's objectively wrong. The gold window was not the same as a "gold standard"
>I've debunked pretty much all of you
you've rambled incoherently about your high school meme tier economics without understanding anything I've said.
>>71572439
so instead of just changing the regulation system so industry insiders can't be regulators we should just ban all regulation?
reasons to why OWS failed:
1) no central leadership or spokesperson. this is very key and beyond symbolic.
every movement that changes needs a leader and symbols
> civil rights era
MLK, malcom X, RFK, rosa parks, etc
> 2nd wave feminism
betty friedan, gloria steinem
> consumer rights
ralph nader
> worker/migrant rights
cesar chavez
> OWS
???
yeah it sounds poetic when you have "we are legion, we are the 99%, we are the many, we speak as one voice" or whatever crap but at a deep subconscious human level we like leaders. we crave them. it's why society formed government. it's psychological as fuck
2) the super rich can just go "lol batten down the hatches" and ride out the storm. can't take off weeks to protest, eventually you have to put food on the table for your family. super rich have that luxury. they used their connections and had the white shirt NYPD act as personal security and just start arresting & pepper spraying people
3) retard progressive stacks and other bullshit identity politics cancer'd the movement within. i'm 90% convinced they were purposefully inserted by people who support shillary and the ilk, since they're all SJWs who care more about MUH REPRESENTATION than actual ideas
OWS was the largest grassroots movement this country has had since the civil rights era, its cause was just and it had a singular message. and they lost. there is no god
