Lens of Liberty

The Occupy Wall Street protest has been ongoing for a month now and I’m still trying to get a handle on it. Here are some random thoughts.

Occupy Wall Street and the Tea Party.

There’s much in common between these two movements, though they are commonly painted as opposites. The general thrust of their anger is the recognition that the system is broken, that those that have been given power have used it for personal gain. The government bailouts of political connected companies were a flagrant slap in the face to the majority of Americans from across the ideological spectrum who opposed them.

While the Tea Party focused on the government side of the crony capitalism coin, the Occupiers have focused on the corporations. Both have been maligned by the press who love to focus on the outlandish fringe.

Since the Occupy movement has yet to announce any formal positions, it’s difficult to make an honest judgement on how realistic any forthcoming proposal might be. Though I must say, the ideas that have floated up out of the sea of sparkle fingers, such as eliminating all debt or maximum salaries aren’t encouraging.

The Protesters

If you watch enough footage and interviews from the protests, you will see some amazing things. The complexity of the tiny society that has sprung up in Zucotti Park is simply incredible. Even the decision making process, an easy target for ridicule, is in it’s own way admirable if for no other reason than they’ve managed to get hundreds of opinionated young people to abide by it.

This video filmed by the American Enterprise Institute gives you a good look at what I’m talking about.

The Police

While recognizing that the shaky videos filmed under chaotic conditions mostly by the protesters (or those sympathetic to them) are not necessarily giving us a complete picture of the actions of the NYPD, what they do show is damning. There is far too much violence from the police for what has thus far been a fairly passive protest.

Looking ahead

I hope that the protesters realize that their audience is not Barack Obama, it is not Congress, it is the American people. A thousand or even ten thousand people in the streets is an impressive visual, but it will not mean a thing if they are unable to win over a large percentage of Americans. They need to be aware of how they are being perceived and counfound the agenda driven dismissals of the MSM.

I expect that when Occupy WallStreet announces their one demand, or whatever comes out of this, I won’t agree with much of it, but I hold out hope that I’m wrong. Regardless, like the Tea Party, the Occupy movement is good for America. We have been complacent too long.  A real debate over the direction we are heading, our problems and their possible solutions is long overdue.

Liberty Papers has posted a timely explanation of what causes inflation and how it affects you. This is the issue, above all others, because it is the ability to inflate that gives Washington it’s power. Americans have learned to accept deficit spending and inflation as facts of life, but are oblivious to the insidiousness of debasing the currency for political gain. We’ve had hysterical media coverage and congressional hearings about credit card fees and fifty cents a gallon more at the pump, but until Ron Paul’s presidential campaign monetary policy rarely registered on the political radar. This message is not going to be delivered through mainstream media outlets, so explanations of the problem and it’s ramifications are crucial to awakening the American public to the fraud being perpetrated on them.

So the GM recovery plan apparently involves selling the company to the U.S. government.

That should work out well.

Great line on this latest outrage:

What I want to know is, if the union is going to own Chrysler, and the government owns GM, who will the workers threaten to strike against?

Emails and other documents made public this week paint an ugly picture of the tactics used to force banks to accept TARP funds:

But the strategy also depended on surprise. Treasury didn’t want to give the executives much time to consider the offer, talk to their boards of directors, or listen to different points of view. They wanted to lay the documents on the table and force the CEOs to sign. All at once if possible.

Vito Corleone would be proud.

One of the many complaints about George W. Bush is that he was in the pockets of big business and the charges of corporatism and fascism were never ending. Why is it that no one makes the same accusations of President Obama? If the Bush administration’s relationship with business was incestuous, then Obama’s would be more akin to date rape. The administration has lavished banks and car companies with taxpayer bailouts and when the companies didn’t put out to Obama’s liking he screwed them. He has melded business and government together beyond anything in Ralph Nader’s worst nightmare. The federal government now controls banks and car manufacturers, but that doesn’t seem to bother those who didn’t blink at comparing Bush to Hitler. The reason, of course, is that the government now controls business, instead of the other way around, right? Surely, it is better to have our benevolent elected representative calling the shots than greedy captains of capitalistic exploitation. The problem is the union of government power and business and it matters not who is directing who. The result is diminished choices, less freedom, and widespread corruption.