Misunderstood? More Like Misguided

Five weeks, one hundred and fifty cities, and two continents: operation “Occupy Wall St.” has grown into what some are calling a “movement” and “Arab Spring 2.0”.  The campout at the financial capital of the world has started to receive mass media attention and, consequently, has forced the political capital of the world – Washington D.C. – to take sides in respect to their protest.  For example, House Majority Leader and Virginia’s own Eric Cantor (Republican), said in a press statement, “I for one am increasingly concerned about the growing mob occupying Wall St. and the other cities across the country.”  Nancy Pelosi, House Minority Leader (Democrat), told reporters, “God bless them for their spontaneity.  It’s young, it’s spontaneous, it’s focused and it’s going to be effective.”  Federal Reserve Chairman Ben Bernanke, when being questioned by the Joint Economic Committee, said, “They blame, with some justification, the financial sector with getting us into this mess.  I can't blame them.”  And finally republican presidential candidate Herman Cain said what I believe to be the best summation of the protest, “To me [it] comes across more as anti-capitalism.”  In respect to the comments it has received, Occupy Wall St. seems to have positioned itself perfectly to have an effect on the 2012 presidential election and, possibly, be a make-or-break issue for voters.  However, this possibility is troubling for many reasons.   

            According to Dictionary.com, the word “asinine” can be defined as follows: foolish, unintelligent, or silly.  Put these three adjectives together and you have in a nutshell the Occupy Wall St. movement.  Let’s start with silly: For one, they chose the wrong place to protest.  Wall St. nowadays is a symbol of financial strength, and nothing more.  Ninety-seven percent of New York Stock Exchange trades are executed online through electronic communication networks – that means only three percent of trading volume is done on Wall St.  So who are they protesting to, i.e. who is hearing their message and outcries for change?  The hungry pigeons?  Or the homeless people bumming it on the street?  Protesting for the sake of protesting is a waste of capital, time, energy, and tax money.  Secondly, it is a little late to be angry at the financials sector of Wall St.  The “Great Recession” as it is now known, started officially in December 2007 (U.S Bureau of Economic Research).  This means that the Occupiers have been able to control and deal with their anger for roughly three years.  This also means that even after enduring the worst hardship during the peak of the recession, these Occupiers still did not take to the streets or exercise any of their constitutional rights in regards to protesting their enemy.  Yet now, all of a sudden, they want their demands – which are still ambiguously defined – to be met and change to be enacted?  That is what I meant by silly. 

On a more serious note, I will concede that yes the housing bubble burst was predominantly the financial sector’s fault, and yes it was their supposed AAA credit default swaps that ended up being the “toxic assets” that obliterated the subprime mortgage industry (and economy), and yes it was the same financial sector (Goldman Sachs to be specific) that actually created new derivatives to sell to an oblivious AIG to profit off the crisis, but, with all of that being said, the onus of responsibility does not fall solely on Wall St. and its affiliates.  Although most Americans could not foresee the inevitable foreclosures around the country that would lead to the crash and consequently wreak havoc on their 401Ks, they still shoulder some of the responsibility for the crisis.  Why?  Because it was American’s ignorance – in its totality – that precipitated and hastened the current economic state of affairs we are in.  For example, Americans thought that housing prices would never fall, that incredibly low interest rates would be there forever, and they believed the garbage being promulgated from the political sphere that owning a house was a moral obligation/economic necessity.  With that being said, I want to make it clear that the real culprits of the Great Recession reside in Washington D.C. – and that means current residents and alumni, Republicans and Democrats.  The fact of the matter is, most politicians have at best a sub-par understanding of how an economy works, grows, and prospers and, as a result, they meddle with the economic edifice and regulate every aspect of the system – ironically with good intentions – and thus create and exacerbate our economic woes.

            The occupation is unintelligent: the Occupiers keep making the claim that the top one percent own fifty percent of the nation’s wealth – this is disingenuous.  According to IRS data, the top one percent holds approximately thirty-six percent of the nation’s wealth.  Moreover, the Occupiers refer to the one percent as incredibly affluent millionaires and billionaires, but IRS data again shows that this is false.  Anybody earning $380,354 or more falls within the top one percent.  These two inaccuracies may seem trivial, but if you are going to make a ruckus about something please be correct with your allegations.  On a side note, no one really knows what the Occupiers are pissed about.  They lack a cohesive message.  They lack a justified argument.  They, at the present moment, are a mob engaging in class warfare.  Please do not misunderstand the previous statement, the occupation could morph into a legitimate protest with a lucid and intelligible argument for reform, but at the present moment, they are far from that. 

            Occupy Wall St. is also foolish.  If you take a step back from the emotional appeal to the movement and peel away the layers, what they are really advocating – at this point in time – is socialism and the eradication of our capitalistic financial system.  The Occupiers provide nothing more than arguments from emotion or appeals to pity, not substantive arguments.  Furthermore, they purport that the rich are not paying their fair share.  Where is this claim even based?  This postulation is so absurd that it’s dumbfounding.  The rich are rich for a reason.  Yes some people inherit large sums of money, but that is a very small percentage and that money is taxed. The vast majority of rich people work extremely hard for their money and I would say they are fairly compensated.  I think it would be beneficial to review the definitions of fair and equal because it has become apparent Americans are starting to conflate the two.  Fair – in accordance with rules and standards; legitimate, just, or appropriate in the given circumstances.  Equal – being the same in quantity, size, degree, or value; uniform in application.  Notice the difference?  Here’s an example: your professor passes back an essay you wrote and you got an A, but the person next to you got a B because they turned the paper in a day late – this grading method would be fair since the person next to you did not turn in the paper on time and was therefore penalized for the action.  Equal in this situation would be both you got an A.  Which situation would you prefer?  Now imagine you are the CEO of a Fortune 500 company and have to pay exorbitant taxes just because you make more money.  That is not fair.  The political system in our country is penalizing success and incentivizing entitlements and handouts.  Moreover, what is truly frustrating about the Occupy Wall St. movement is that they want to take a step away from capitalism because they believe it is capitalism causing their troubles.  This is another fallacy – association is not causation.  The people involved in this movement are misguided.  What they should do is take all this pent-up energy and go and occupy Capital Hill and advocate for stricter parents, i.e. politicians, who will refuse to further exacerbate the economic problems and who will no longer sympathize with appeals to pity.