I recently visited Zucotti Park in lower Manhattan, the tent city home of the Occupy Wall Street movement.
It was a gloomy, rainy day when I visited, and there were far fewer than the thousands of people I’d expected to see hanging out – maybe there were a couple hundred folks at best, some holding up signs, and others banging on drums and dancing around. Otherwise, the park seemed fairly subdued. Most of the permanent residents of the park stayed inside their tents and under their tarps to avoid the rain.
Taking in this scene, I can’t help but think that if this winter is anything like last winter, that there’s no way the Zucotti owners or Mayor Bloomberg will permit the squatters to stick around.
What’s OWS About?
I agree in spirit with the OWS protesters that something needs to change: the government is failing us. Despite what’s become a misnomer, “Occupy Wall Street,” rather than an expression of anger against the banks per se, is really an expression of disappointment with the government, its unjustified support of corporate greed throughout the recession, and our unique brand of corporatism.
Though I’ve spent my post-college career working in finance, I agree with the Ron Paul viewpoint that the bank bailouts were not best for the country in the long-term. Our imperial foreign policy and Ponzi-esque social welfare programs have us sunk in debt, and dropping another trillion onto the taxpayers to save a failed system is anything but democratic! Certainly, not bailing out the banks would have had tremendous implications in the short-term, and really, who knows what that would have looked like; however, in granting (most of) the banks get-out-of-jail free cards, our government, as Nouriel Roubini noted in 2008, privatized the gains and socialized the losses, which sucks for us taxpayers.
Jefferson once wrote, “a little rebellion, now and then, is a good thing.” Though our political system doesn’t suffer the same level of criminality seen across the revolutionized Arab Spring nations, we have problems. I agree with the sentiment of Matt Hooper in this article: some people have better starts than others, some people are more fortunate, better-looking, or smart, and yeah, this isn’t fair; but one hopes that in the supposed greatest country on Earth, that everyone has an equal shot at achieving the aspirational American dream through the fair rules of capitalism. Bailing out Wall Street and not bailing out Main Street is not playing by the rules.
How to Resolve?
With that point, however, I draw the line. The OWS protesters have a long list of noble demands, a list which the protesters are demanding that our government fulfill: the implication is the government should now make good and bail out Main Street. (Edit: note that the demands are in fact proposals, and none of these proposals have yet been ratified by the Occupy Wall Street General Assembly; clarification from @peaceonstreets.)
I’m of the opinion that relying on the government to hand out answers to our problems will only create new problems. Bailouts didn’t work once, why should they work again? Some of these demands seem reasonable, such as investing in infrastructure to create jobs, which is one of Roubini’s recommendations, for example; but demanding that government subsidize and provide across a wide set of what should be private enterprises goes against my libertarian nature. Ayn Rand’s probably rolling in her grave.
Eventuality of Perpetual Poverty
In his book, “An Essay on the Principle of Population,” Thomas Malthus posed the fear that continued population growth would eventually lead to a state of perpetual poverty. Modern criticisms of this work recognize that technological innovation mitigates the fear entirely: as much as the growth rate might increase year on year, it will still be outpaced by our ability to harvest more and more wheat from an acre of land, for example. Yet, such innovation isn’t necessarily free – the technology allowing that incremental bit of wheat might have negative implications, such as causing environmental damage, or decreasing quality of life. In contrast, it could also be the case that the government might disallow use of that innovative technology preemptively preventing that environmental damage or decrease to quality of life. In either case, without the proper balance of innovation and regulation, the system would not be sustainable or stable.
The Roubini article echoes these sentiments: we need a proper balance of free markets and government involvement. Neither free markets nor government regulations alone will solve our problems, but we need to be careful to avoid relying too much on one or the other. Too many demands from government for forced redistribution of wealth, and we’ll end up with a Marxist revolution, as feared by Nassim Taleb.
No Concrete Vision
Aside from the recently released set of demands (and really, who doesn’t want clean air, free dental, and no student loans?), Occupy Wall Street as of yet, at least from my outsider’s perspective, has no concrete vision or apparent longer-term plans. The protesters draw from so many different groups, that the individual voices average out to a leaderless left-leaning amalgamation. What we’ve begun to see as a result is our elected officials start to test the OWS movement, tests that are early signs of long-term political plans through which politicians attempt to position themselves as the everyman hero who’ll finally fix everything – after all, who wouldn’t want to harness the support of the 99%? (See this WSJ page to see if you’re in the 99%.)
What’s really scary to me, however, is when I read about religious institutions deciding to enter the mix, not because I’m against faith-based leaders helping their constituencies through a difficult time, but because when religious leaders decide to get involved in government affairs, the skeptic in me comes out and I start thinking about Randall Flagg from Steven King’s “The Stand,” or even Nicolae Carpathia from the LaHaye and Jenkins “Left Behind Series” (and yes, I’ve read all 16 books). Just say’n.
Resulting Discussions
Despite any objections that may arise from the OWS situation, one cannot argue that it hasn’t resulted in some interesting discussions. The analysis of the protest from a constitutional perspective is thought-provoking, with well-argued points and counterpoints popping up daily. And, maybe this movement will result in less cronyism and more transparency in government, a platform no politician would argue against but that few actually stand behind (of relevance: this IAmA thread on Reddit by 2012 GOP candidate Buddy Roemer). I’m also impressed with the more creative protest approaches, such as the Bank Transfer Day. If BofA is adding new debit fees, move your money elsewhere! That’s the free market at work.
So, to any protesters who’ve for who-knows-what-reason stumbled on this post: I wish you the best, but if this movement gains more traction, I hope that it takes a more centric view. Focus more on getting the money out of politics and less on the “from each according to their ability, to each according to their needs.” We’ll be in an even worse situation if the market-government balance shifts too far to the other direction, and we’re still operating under an inefficient, corruptible political system.
(Also, I get the need to express, but the drums and dancing are sorta weird – can’t imagine it helps the cause.)
