4 Marketing Tips for Occupy Wall Street

Free marketing advice for protestors who didn’t ask for it.

• 

  Posted by Paul Carr, Seattle, Washington | Oct 06, 2011

  Absolutely correct. It's a real mish-mash at the moment. However, so were the first Viet Nam protests movements of the 60s, primarily because a new generation was having to figure out not only what was really wrong, but why (and they weren't getting much help from their elders).

  What they DID know was that the system itself had broken faith with what the country said it stood for—and that is also the case here. And just as it was then, more and more middle-class and middle-aged (and older) folks are beginning to catch on. We've all been had, people, and it won't change unless we change it.

  I'm both a former government auditor/analyst AND a person who was right there (and the right age) while those "disorganized protests" went from chaos to almost mainsteam activity...and the war ended. You are right—they have to focus on a major theme that translates into clear goals, state them simply, and follow through. Because I don't believe in criticizing without helping (which is precisely why your article is so good), I'll give them a a theme and goals: the Theme is simple—Those who were responsible should be held personally liable for their actions. To that end, here's the goals:

  Set up a Special Commission with arrest and prosecution authority to truly investigate whether actions of those in authority, whether in the investment community or the SEC itself, rise to the level or malfeasance, fraud, or just plain theft. That's the first goal.
  Publish the findings. That's the second goal. Depending on the findings, prosecute those who did wrong to the full extent of present law.
  Finally, if the penalties, after review, do not appear to fit the level of the crimes (if any), then insist those laws and/or penalties be amended to do so. Nothing less will ever convince me, nor should it millions of average Americans, that we can ever have confidence again in putting ANY money in the hands of those who trade it, or invest in, the activities of the stock market and "Wall Street".
• 

  Posted by Michelle Basey, Seattle, Washington | Oct 07, 2011

  Well ... at least give them credit for all the free publicity, that must count for something in the marketing arena!

  I see them in the brainstorming part of the process and they are speaking messages that seem to resonate & bring people in. That counts for something good towards marketing points, right?

  It's a very interesting notion this "marketing something to an audience that is usually marketing to them" thing they seem to be doing. Usually it's the corporations & politicians marketing to them, they are attempting a marketing campaign in reverse!
• 

  Posted by Paul Costello, Boston, Massachusetts | Oct 07, 2011

  Thanks, Paul - interesting points.

  Absolutely, Michelle - plenty of marketing strengths within the movement (much like the Arab Spring) that will have communications and marketing profs talking for ages: use of social media, viral marketing, PR, event marketing, influential endorsements (of which we've only seen the beginning).

  In fact, as I was contemplating this content while listening to talk radio in traffic this AM, I had planned to write an article on these strengths before arriving at my desk and realizing it might be more concise (and less obvious) to take an alternate path.

  You both raise a great points that are likely to play themselves out - a group that is used to having an agenda handed to them, will likely--in some capacity-- be welcomed to craft and "market" their own solution to complex problems. It will be interesting to watch unfold.
• 

  Posted by Chas Wyatt, Gladstone, Oregon | Oct 07, 2011

  Your Points are well taken, as are the comments and feedback by Paul Carr. Lack of focus and a muddled agenda doesn't forge a strong movement. The timing is perfect for such a movement and sympathy from the average citizen with the bailouts of Banks, Investment Houses and Insurance groups such as AIG, as well as banks adding, or raising fees; but, many have squandered timing before, due to a lack of focus, from Presidents to prosecutors. Growing up in the time I did, I think the participants should Steal a page from Abbey Hoffman- his single act of throwing money on the floor of the NYSE and watch brokers scramble for it, was more effective in garnering attention than what I have seen from the current protests; and from a time before the internet, smart phones, texting and tweets.
• 

  Posted by Jim Carroll, Norfolk, Virginia | Oct 07, 2011

  Paul, an excellent article that really gets to the heart of the matter. The difference between the "Occupiers" and the "Tea Partiers" is the focus of their respective messages. Regardless of whether or not you agree with the agenda, the Tea Party message seems to be coherent and readily understandable by the public at large. The Occupy message is all over the map. Just what is their agenda and what are they trying to accomplish...it depends on who is being interviewed. Though I have to admit that I really do not agree with some of the recommendations espoused by Mr. Carr, he does present an interesting scenario. Keep up the good work Paul.
• 

  Posted by Laura Dodson, CPA, Seattle, Washington | Oct 07, 2011

  I think there is a receptive audience for this type of protest. Too many people who feel they don't have a voice have been burned by the economic crisis. Foreclosures, job losses, etc., have trapped people who thought they were making wise choices.

  If the marketing message is refined and presented, I'm sure the protests will only grow in size.

  Tax Preparation and QuickBooks Training
• 

  Posted by Brian Setzler, CPA, Portland, Oregon | Oct 07, 2011

  Unfortunately, Occupy Wall Street is not a company trying to market a product.

  Attend an event and the messages are clear: Change the system.

  You can read about my experience on my blog at www.GreenCPA.blogspot.com

  Portland CPA and tax expert
• 

  Posted by Libby Carr, Seattle, Washington | Oct 08, 2011

  Hi Paul Costello: Interesting article and interesting responses. I think it's great to have all this protest, especially reminding me of my days protesting the war in Vietnam and being a part of the civil rights movement. Getting back to our roots of freedom from oppression is always a good thing.
  I also like what Paul Carr had to say and not just b/c he's my husband. Some (or lots of) heads definitely need to roll or at least be investigated which should lead to the reinstatement of controls on Wall Street which were removed during the Bush administration. In addition, I would offer up the idea of the protesters voting with their money by removing it from the stock market and from the corporate banks (eg. Bank of America, Chase, etc) and placing it in your local credit union, which are owned by the people belonging to those credit unions. In addition, I would urge everyone across the country to pass legislation (as we are working to do in Washington state) a State Bank where the State's tax revenue is put into a bank owned and operated by the state and which then helps with college loans and financing small businesses. We don't need to put the state revenues (our taxes) in to the B of A. Put it into our own bank. North Dakota started this system for their state's revenue over 90 years ago and is the only state in the country whose state budget is not upside down and unemployment is not much of a problem.
  At any rate, those are 2 very concrete ideas (Calls to Action) which are very important for the Occupy-er groups across the country to now start getting focused on. Pulling our money out of the stock market and out of the big corporate banks would totally speak volumes and have a huge impact. Libby Carr
• 

  Posted by Laura Dodson, CPA, Seattle, Washington | Oct 11, 2011

  What is the estimate for creating the new bank? Would it exceed the interest from tax revenue?

  Tax Preparation and QuickBooks Training
• 

  Posted by Brian Willoughby, Bellevue, Washington | Oct 13, 2011

  Mr. Setzler, You make an interesting point, but I don't think it's really relevant. It doesn't matter whether you are a company marketing a product or a movement trying to change the system; what matters is whether people listen and take action. Even when you don't have a product to sell, you still want people to do something that will help rather than hinder. People are listening, but they don't know what to do. The bigger problem is that Occupy Wall Street doesn't know what to do, either.

  Change is vague. Obama campaigned on "Change" and ending the wars, but now instead of ending any of the wars we have a new one plus fresh troops being sent to the old wars. "Change the system" is not a valid message, not if you want the right actions to be taken.

  Occupy Wall Street needs intelligent people who really understand economics to suggest how to change the system. And these people crafting the message should not be Keynesian Economists or Monetarists, because those are responsible for the system we have now. Members of the Austrian School of Economics could offer a great deal of specific action for the Occupy Wall Street movement to utilize. But the changes must go deep to reform currency itself, as well as the power systems that presently define banking. Wall Street itself is not completely bad, but when money is not real and the Fed manipulates interest rates, you end up with a house of cards that falls, bringing everyone with it (except, perhaps, for the cards on top).
• 

  Posted by Daimon Sweeney, Bellingham, Washington | Oct 13, 2011

  A great part of the strength of the growing OWS movement is that it is open to all flavors of protest.

  This is appropriate because the insults and damages produced by the current system include a wide spectrum of harm, from economic rapacity toward anyone under the top 1% (or perhaps the top .1%) to erosion of civil rights, acceptance and condoning of torture through lack of prosecution of those responsible, further lack of prosecution of those clearly guilty of the financial crimes now afflicting us all (thus eroding respect for the law and showing it can be flouted at will by those with sufficient means), the corruption represented by a government run by two wings of the Corporatist Party - the corporate enthusiasts and the seemingly reluctant (Look what they're making us do!), environmental imbecility and myopia, war mania (not mania - after all, it makes money for a few), poor treatment of everyone who needs help (veterans, homeowners, small businesses, students, schools, children, anyone unhealthy and unwealthy) and so on.

  The action called for is a new vision of society, which requires moving away from celebrating and empowering wealth however acquired, literally inviting those with wealth to manipulate the system (lobbyists actually write much of the legislation now).

  The movement is calling for a government of, by and for the people. How radical. How hard to understand this is. What could they be asking for?

  No single demand will do what is needed because we have a massive legal and institutional infrastructure set up to support the movement of wealth to the wealthy.

  The occupiers seem to be sick of this whole system and are refusing to empower it. They are seeking to operate outside the system, so it is confusing. It is outside the box because the box became suffocating.

  There may not be a well-packaged marketing campaign, though it has its brilliant moments and methods. but the movement is pretty clearly an expression of moral repugnance, a rejection of systematized unfairness, and a rejection of the political system that cozies up to venality by allowing and empowering exploitation of the least able to defend themselves by those most able to purchase laws and policies that favor them.

  Narrowing demands down to something specific opens the path to being co-opted. A political party would take up the issue, it would turn into a political football and get gummed to death. Can you imagine anything significant happening in Congress as it is? It is broken, and we are seeing the consequences of a failing or failed system.

  By making a more fundamental demand, that the needs of actual people be treated with more respect than the "needs" (endless demands) of pseudo-corporate-people, the occupiers are making a more powerful statement than "tweak the system and it will all be OK." Yes, changes have to happen, but the system will not do what has to be done on its current moral footing.

  Creating the discussion from which a new vision of government and a revised system of values would emerge would be the greatest achievement possible, perhaps.

  But engaging with the system on its terms would leave it all in place, putting no more than a BandAid(r) over a mortally wounded polity. The occupiers are more clear-sighted and yes, articulate, in their seemingly disjointed approach than they may seem.

  Whether we as a country are capable of hearing the message remains to be seen.
• 

  Posted by Duke Snyder, Indianapolis, Indiana | Oct 13, 2011

  4 AM and I am absolutlely giddy having read this articulate article and the subsequent posts. So much so I have listed the fine points in Paul's writing then followed that with all the various points added by each poster. Do that and I am certain you, too, will read your compilation and feel you also have grasped a great deal of learning for yourself and with finding little fault in the varied comments made here. I fully agree with the final lines by Daimon Sweeney in the post immediately ahead of mine..."engaging with the system on its terms would leave it all in place, putting no more than a BandAid (r) over a mortally wound polity. The occupiers are more clear-sighted and yes, articulate, in their seemingly disjointed approach then they may seem. Whether we as a country are capable of hearing the message remains to be seen."
• 

  Posted by Brian Willoughby, Bellevue, Washington | Oct 13, 2011

  I get the impression that the goal of Occupy Wall Street may be to create a discussion. Either that, or the goal is basically to vent the collective frustration with regard to the existing system.

  The point that Mr. Costello is making is that if you have a goal, then you can achieve it; or at least you can tell whether you've succeeded or failed. This has nothing to do with whether you are a corporation with a product to market and sell, or a movement with ideas.

  Just to play Devil's Advocate, here, Mr. Costello's examples of a corporation who is already selling a product and merely wants their target market to continue purchasing seasonally - well, frankly, that's an incredibly boring example. Occupy Wall Street has a much more interesting challenge that promises to affect more than a mere target market for a single product. That said, just because there is little in common between corporate communications and OWS's message doesn't mean that we can ignore the cold, hard facts about human interactions. In other words, OWS must still define a goal, outline specific actions, and take steps to achieve the desired outcome - otherwise nothing will happen but a lot of hot air.

  Unfortunately, if the goal is to bring about change, but you don't know what that change is, then you may achieve nothing more than venting via public discourse.

  It's one thing to be specific about what you're against. That's a topic about which Occupy Wall Street is being fairly clear. But it's entirely different to achieve change in a system that affects millions or even billions of people if the movement cannot be as specific about what they want as they are about what they do not want.

  Paul Costello has made a really good set of points. Every item on his list needs to be considered. Forgot about the specific jargon, and don't fret about the corporate marketing examples. The gem here is that effective communication between human beings is something that is well understood by marketing types, and a lot of that is truth - regardless of whether it is applied to product advertising or social change.
• 

  Posted by Sunidhi Garg, Mumbai, Maharashtra India | Oct 13, 2011

  I agree with most of the things mentioned here. one can study the Anna Hazare movement to see how this fits.
• 

  Posted by Judy Dunn, Seattle, Washington | Oct 13, 2011

  Paul,

  Very good points you make here. We were just discussing this very issue—OWS's marketing message (or the lack thereof)—on Facebook a few days ago. Having come from a marketing background myself) owner of a marketing firm for 18 years), I agree with much of what you say here, especially the part about the message being watered down. But these are just normal people, not marketing consultants, and they have lots of frustration (and dare I say, rage?) but fewer strategies, tools and skills to express it in a way that will be powerful and move people to act. (That old call to action.)

  Someone in the comments nailed it, though, when they said that, yes, there are a lot of causes jumping on the bandwagon because these policies and the corporations behaving badly have affected so many lives.

  Like Paul (Carr), I remember the protests of the 60s. In fact, I marched in them. I was inspired to try to make a difference and in my 20s was elected an alternate delegate to a national convention to nominate a presidential candidate. So I know that mass protest CAN make a difference (and did). It was a primary mover in ending the Viet Nam war!

  Brian (above) ponders whether the goal of OWS (hey, it's an acronym now, that's progress!) is to create a discussion. I think it is doing a very good job of that and talking about an issue is the first step. I think the other crucial parts are to get the attention of the politicians and the media, which is happening, too. Change at this level is hard and does not happen overnight. Look how long the civil rights movement was!

  Looking at a few of the comments here, I hope this discussion does not turn into political rants and candidate bashing. This problem is way bigger than any one candidate or person.

  Nice job with the article, Paul.
• 

  Posted by Alan Bishop, Franklin, Tennessee | Oct 13, 2011

  The 99% message is clear but has been muddied by the media talking heads.

  The CTA is clear, 'occupy' specific locations. I spent a day observing the 'Occupy Nashville' CTA. The protestors spent time with the 'Occupy' lawyers getting briefed on how to legally occupy. The teams were then briefed by the 'Occupy' media and IT teams. It was pretty impressive. The results of the CTA are visible.

  The 'Occupy' teams cannot be held responsible for the sloppy, under-researched media reports that detract from the core message.

  Success will look like a government that starts to represent the interests of the 99% and not corporate interests.
• 

  Posted by Jackie Martin, San Diego, California | Oct 13, 2011

  Occupy is a highly organized social movement and creative system for change. It appears chaotic, for individual participants define their own needs and goals within the effort. There is ONE objective for all, CHANGE.

  The change process may take years, for like Humpty Dumpty, things have to fall apart, for real change to take effect. Subsequently and anew, it is put back together again.

  We want to place Occupy in a box that makes sense to us, based on all we believe or think we know, tie it up and put a ribbon around it.

  The lesson of Occupy is to "know what it is that we do not know." Stay open, learn something new and grow with the experience.

  Get involved! Be informed! Send food! Potentially, as in the 1960's civil rights movement, it could be a long ride!
• 

  Posted by Margy Rydzynski, Arlington, Massachusetts | Oct 13, 2011

  Interesting article, and one that clearly resonates. The protesters have themselves said that they need to clarify their message, and are working on that. They're in the forging stage right now.

  I'm seeing an extremely effective call to action, though, since hundreds, thousands, perhaps more, are joining up and participating. At this stage, Occupy Wall Street is waking us up and making us realize that we're not alone in our economic concerns. And that's only the beginning.
• 

  Posted by Paul Carr, Seattle, Washington | Oct 13, 2011

  Paul Costello--

  Thanks again for your article; it seems to have been the catalyst for motivating a widely diverse group of people (although I'd bet all of us are in the 99.9% group) to consider what the fledgling "Occupy" movement really means to all of us: We're all fed up with the current system, and we're tired of being victims of unbridled greed.

  The Occupy movement is, I believe, the harbinger of a coming social unrest that may make the '60s look like a Sunday School picnic. Politicians in both parties seem determined not to listen, so what happens next is fairly predictable: The protests will grow, local law enforcement will be overwhelmed, troops will be called out...it's what happens next that will determine the course of this country's future.

  My wife, Libby, actually proposed a way to short-circuit this grim prospect, although that was not at all the thrust of her message—start State Banks.

  What would happen if legislation were introduced to start State Banks, based on the North Dakota model, in each state? Aside from scaring many corporate bankers into instantaneous arrhythmia, it would send word to corporations that the 99.9% are serious about change.

  The corporate interests that currently control this country have one fatal weak point—like everyone else, they are overextended too. Take away their cash flow and they will fall.

  We can all presume legislative fights will surely ensue from this proposed legislation, so as a way to convince the entrenched interests we are serious, we should do two things right now that will simultaneously help us individually and hurt them corporately . Libby and I have done this, and you can too:

  1. Cut up every credit card. No more credit purchases until the system changes.

  2. Take out your cash from banks and transfer it to credit unions. In Washington state (and most other states) credit unions aren't just for people in one industry any more—they can take anyone. Credit unions have checking accounts, savings accounts, debit cards, etc (and often with better rates and less fees)—BUT THEY ARE NON-PROFIT AND OWNED BY THEIR MEMBERS.

  This is capitalism at its most basic level. It's our money; let's start taking in back.
• 

  Posted by Lisa Giesler, Missouri City, Texas | Oct 13, 2011

  What a great article and reminder. I am going to use these strategies during my organizing presentations. Thanks Lisa Giesler
• 

  Posted by Libby Carr, Seattle, Washington | Oct 13, 2011

  Hi - Yes, these conversation is interesting, but likening it to the "good old days" when we protested the war in Vietnam, that Call to Action was very specific: on a policy/political level it was "close the war down and leave." that took years to achieve. But INDIVIDUALS could make a DECISION for their own life (in the days of the Draft) and that was to leave the country and go to Canada, etc.
  This situation is analogous to that situation, in my opinion: We are screaming for our politicians to change policies and pass legislation that would control Wall Street greed, corporate greed, etc., but that is a POLITICAL process. And we all know how that goes and it's not pretty b/c it's now all about "follow the money" especially because of Citizen's United where politicians are even more 'bought and paid for' by the wealthy. So, we have to find ways to take PERSONAL action. Some of that is being done by simply showing up in the Occupy events all over the country. It's showing the depth and breadth of peoples' frustrations. But, there is a PERSONAL ACTION that these crowds could take right now, immediately, and that is to close their bank accounts in the big corporate banks and open up checking/savings accounts in their local credit union. We did this several years ago (left Chase and joined BECU) and have been delighted ever since b/c we earn higher rates of interest, they have been totally accurate, pay interest on both checking and savings accounts, have better loan rates, etc, etc, and most of all - treat me/us with courtesy and respect! And if we have a beef, we can be heard. There are mechanisms for that process b/c the who CU is owned by the account holders. So, can't you just see the incredible Wake Up Call this action could have if the thousands involved in this OWS movement, across the country, were to move their bank accounts out of the B of A, Chase, Wells Fargo, etc - any corporate bank? Trust me, flexing some muscle like this could have a huge effect then, on the POLITICAL PROCESS. We would need to also, at the same time, really get behind the states that are entertaining the idea of starting a State Bank, and encourage all states to take on this model. These are specific Calls to Action that would give the OWS total focus and would make the rest of their demands/complaints much more respected! Thanks in advance for responding to these specific ideas. I'd like to hear what you think. Libby Carr
• 

  Posted by Julie Cole, Jefferson, Ohio | Oct 13, 2011

  Great article on marketing, unfortunately the Wall Street occupation is at the wrong address. They need to be at the White House in DC, not New York. How do you market (protest) to an idea? Wall Street is not an entity. Wall Street does, what Wall Street does. They (whoever "they" are at the moment) buy,sell and gamble on your money. Don't give it to them. Put your money and invest in small banks. There are still hundreds of great small banks out there and they still are investing in small business and people. If the protesters want someone to sit up and listen then market to the audience that can make the change.....our elected officials.
• 

  Posted by Stanley Schriger, Bothell, Washington | Oct 13, 2011

  If they follow your advice they will be taking a page right out of the same play book as big corporations and the political establishment.

  I love the fact these fools are tweeting away and facebooking on their Ipads that Daddy bought them...the Twitter, Facebook and Apple Execs are probably laughing all the way to those big bad banks.

  Why are we even discussing a silly anarchist movement on a business social networking site?

  The 60's are over!

  Let's all get back to work!
• 

  Posted by Judy Dunn, Seattle, Washington | Oct 13, 2011

  Did you just say "anarchist movement,",Stanley? All I can say to that is, what? People of all stripes are standing up to voice their concerns. Young people, the "Raging Grannies," labor and tradespeople, military veterans! Why, when we exercise our democratic right (not Democratic party, but rights as citizens in a democracy) under the First Amendment ("Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right peaceably to assemble") are we called anarchists? What has happened to this country?

  Okay, my rant is over. I hope we can get back to the point and spirit of Paul's article, which was (whether you agree with the OWS movement or not), how effective is their message?
• 

  Posted by Brian Willoughby, Bellevue, Washington | Oct 13, 2011

  Starting state banks would be largely pointless if they still used federal fiat currency.

  Moving to credit unions is also very ineffective because they must follow the same federal regulations as other banks, with very minor exceptions.

  Taking all of your money out of the system and cutting up your credit cards is good advice for the individual, but it will hardly make a difference because the Fed can give loans any time they want, set any interest rate they want, and print more money any time they want. The corporate banks could thrive on interest from loans to big business alone, all without the small savings accounts of citizens.

  If any difference is to be made, then we need fundamental reforms in several areas. Citizens should have a right to choose their currency, so we need to revoke Legal Tender laws which force us to buy in to the fake, paper money of the Fed. Corporations should not enjoy the same rights as actual, living human beings, so we need to revote the corporate entity in our legal system; instead, board members and CEOs should be held personally responsible for their actions as part of a corporation. Their human rights should be sufficient alone, without granting 'person' status to the concept of a corporation. Finally, the federal government should get out of the business of printing money, setting interest rates, and running a central bank. At that point, after the above reforms have been enacted, state banks would have meaning, so long as citizens have a choice to bank outside the "system" - a choice that we do not currently have, even with credit unions.

  As for banking regulations, we have plenty of laws against force and fraud. We really do not need to hold banks and corporations to some higher standard. It would be enough to make banks and corporations follow the same laws that individuals must follow, provided that government would actually enforce these laws fairly instead of ignoring the crimes of banks and corporations as is the current norm.

  P.S. "Anarchy" has more than one meaning. It's economic meaning is way more precise than it's assumed meaning in the vernacular. "Capitalism" suffers the same problem, where it's actual economic meaning is quite different from the meaning people assume.
• 

  Posted by Chas Wyatt, Gladstone, Oregon | Oct 14, 2011

  What could the current economic conditions of the middle class, Wall Street & financial bailouts possibly have to do with small business?(go ahead; you may call me a cynic, if you must).
• 

  Posted by Annastacia Tooke, Gastonia, North Carolina | Oct 14, 2011

  The middle class and the working poor are bearing the brunt of our welfare state.
• 

  Posted by Paul Costello, Boston, Massachusetts | Oct 14, 2011

  Some great posts here - thank you for the range of perspectives. Again, without going down the political path - looking at this as a prominent entity "marketing" itself:

  Alan - you raise an interesting point about the Call to Action. With any organization, there are internal CTAs and external CTAs. As you note, the movement seems to be clear in their internal CTA (get involved, make a statement). It's their external CTA the lacks clarity - poll figures indicate that the desired outcome of the movement has yet to be articulated in specific terms. As the "success" of the movement will ultimately be determined by the external actions they elicit, this remains an area worthy of focus.

  Brian - you're dead on. Thanks for making the point better than I did. Principles of sound marketing apply to all entities: corporations, communities, movements, professionals - even individuals in our personal lives.

  Jackie - great points. Again, I am not assessing the aims of the movement, only the way they have attempted to achieve their aims through persuasion. I would challenge you that "Change" is enough to achieve the ends they seek. That's similar to me, as a marketer, yelling "Buy!" Without clearly articulating and properly targeting a complete message, it can't help but fall on deaf ears or leave the audience wondering, "what do you want me to do?"
  If any of you have ever read "Tipping Point" - you may remember Gladwell's early example of witnesses of a crime being less apt to help if they know they are not the only witness. It is very easy for open ended pleas for "change" to be ignored, with the expectation that someone else will respond to this demand.
• 

  Posted by Chas Wyatt, Gladstone, Oregon | Oct 14, 2011

  My previous comment was meant to be read as a facetious remark, if anyone didn't get it.
• 

  Posted by Allison Rapp, Grass Valley, California | Oct 15, 2011

  I think maybe I missed something... what exactly isn't clear about this? (It took Alan Grayson under 40 seconds to say it on the Bill Maher show.)

  Grayson: Let me tell what they're talking about. They're complaining about the fact the Wall Street wrecked the economy three years ago and nobody's held responsible for that. Not a single person has been indicted or convicted for destroying twenty percent of our national net worth accumulated over two centuries. They're upset about the fact that wall street have iron control over economic policies of this country and that one party is a wholly owned subsidiary of wall street and the other party caters to them as well, that's the truth of the matter as you said before.
• 

  Posted by Brian Willoughby, Bellevue, Washington | Oct 15, 2011

  That's an interesting little fiction, although I'm sure Alan Grayson believes it. Despite an economics degree, he probably doesn't understand real economics any more than janitorial and nightwatchman duties.

  The economy was built as a house of cards with paper money - fiat currency - by the Fed, who also set artificially low interest rates that encouraged the housing bubble to expand along with everything else. Wall Street is not responsible because their straw broke the camel's back, although the bailouts did add serious insult to injury. Again, though, it was our federal government who handed out these bailouts.

  Look at the history of the buying power of the U.S. Dollar. When we had a gold standard, the dollar was not a fiat currency, and its buying power actually increased. The only time the dollar fell was when the government tried to expand currency to fund (illegal and unpopular) wars. However, once we left the gold standard and unhinged the dollar from anything of real value, its buying power has only decreased.

  Such a system as we have is not sustainable. Laying blame on the latest scapegoat is not a solution. We need to reform currency and banking at the most basic level, and then hold everyone (Wall Street, corporations, politicians, citizens) to the same laws against force and fraud.

  But responsibility has to be real and based on facts. Wall Street did not destroy 20% of national net worth because the valuations were never real. An economic bubble is full of nothing more than hot air, not real value, and thus when it bursts there is nothing of real value lost. It's certainly a painful adjustment, though.

  Most of what Grayson has to say is a complete distraction from the real lack of economic foundations in our economy.
• 

  Posted by Susan French, Tarzana, California | Oct 25, 2011

  Here's my take: this is a movement that evolved spontaneously from a great deal of national pain, theft, lies and bought-media suppression.

  And here we are talking about it: everywhere. Just as the 'movement' is spreading everywhere.

  This global disgust and rage at having so many processes rigged that the one thing you can probably say is that it is drawing together every kind of voter except those who watch Fox news and other bought media.

  The diversity in regards to most everything we have opinions about is great, except for one singluar outcry: get your greedy, corrupt clutches out of my pocket. We're taking back control.

  The "we" is all of us in the 99%. Let's hope we can overcome.

  Anyhow, that's my take.

  Susan http://www.hypno4success.com
• 

  Posted by Kate Phillips, Seattle, Washington | Nov 03, 2011

  Okay, my comment refuses to post correctly, so I'm deleting it! Great article, Paul, good discussion.
• 

  Posted by Kate Phillips, Seattle, Washington | Nov 03, 2011

  Something funky is going on with quotations. One more try...

  I think the basic message that is emerging is this (curious if others are hearing it too):

  Businesses, we want you OUT of government! Elected officials, we want you representing US, not the corporations and lobbyists who are trying (and succeeding) in buying your loyalty!

  Oh yes, and We're mad as hell and we're not going to take it anymore!

  As long as we refuse to heed the warnings of Eisenhower (about the Military-Industrial Complex with now demands war after war to feed it's appetite) and Woodrow Wilson (about the Federal Reserve and the system of credit he realized would ruin the nation), I have little hope for change.

  But one thing has changed: the protests (even if poorly orchestrated, message-wise) of fed-up Americans are getting more press than Lindsay Lohan's latest parole violations. And that's a good thing.
• 

  Posted by Brian Willoughby, Bellevue, Washington | Nov 03, 2011

  Hi Kate,

  I think that I noticed the same thing: The double-quote key, when used in a posting, ends up causing everything outside the quotes to disappear! This is probably something for the Biznik site developers.

  The real problem is that there are trillions of dollars in incentives for politicians and businesses to work together. Basically, so long as socialists vote in favor of wealth redistribution from the rich to the poor, that will give huge incentives for businesses to persuade politicians to distribute as much of that wealth on them as they can possibly manage to spin in a positive light.

  As the Libertarian Party recently stated in a Press Release: Lobbyists are too powerful because government is too powerful.

  So long as voters continue to turn to the federal government to solve every single problem in society, politicians will continue to employ more people and control more funding than any other sector of society, and thus they will continue to wield a power that cannot be ignored.

  In other words, if OWS has a message, then it's an ill-conceived message.

  Someone else paraphrased OWS thusly: What do we want? We don't know! When do we want it? Now!