Occupy Wall Street, Greenspan's Your Man.

Occupy Vancouver outside the Art Gallery in October

The Occupy movement message has turned into a muddled mess. It's too bad, because there is a problem that needs addressing. However the poor delivery of a confusing message, from what appears to be a disgruntled group of anarchists and socialists, now appears to overshadow the occupy movement, and has done little other than get people talking about the spectacle and even ridiculing those involved.

Let's properly define the problem, who to blame and how to fix it.

The Wall Street and bank bailouts are a symptom, not a cause. The cause, is a culture of borrow and spend and tax and spend. The root of the problem is that we've been comfortable for too long in North America (and Western Europe) as it became the norm in the second half of the twentieth century to spend money before it was earned. This went for governments, corporations and individuals. The idea that we've been too comfortable may come as news to many people that have been barely making a living, however remember everything is relative; after all a bad day for a poor person in North America, could be considered a good day for someone with a disability on the streets of Calcutta. However, this notion has not stopped people, and probably rightfully so, from becoming angry and frustrated that their expectations for a high or even a decent paying job are dashed. When one observes the wealth particularly in a place like North America, it's only natural to want some of it. It's galling for a low or moderate earner to think he or she has had income confiscated to help corporations that lavish large salaries, bonuses and benefits which enabled the kind of extravagances that caused the envy behind much of the anger.  Let's be clear, contrary to popular belief, bank and wall street bailouts are NOT capitalism.

We do not have pure capitalism in North America, rather we have a form of corporatism or crony capitalism (socialism and favouritism for corporations) so those who keep pointing the finger at capitalism for today's problems are really misplacing their blame. Intuitively, most people know this but probably don't understand why. Many don't have the wherewith all to bother examining it anyway because they are still comfortable themselves. For the most part, people are still making money and able to afford cheap travel or the odd meal out which gives them the illusion of being a part of the American Dream and acts as a pacifier. The politicians know that as long as the illusion continues, they can continue business as usual. So it continues.

At some point, when you spend more than you earn, there comes a day of reckoning; you reap what you sow. We've been at that day, for over a decade, maybe longer. However nobody is prepared to take the medicine, endure the pain and correct the system so it does not happen again. So we and our governments kick the can down the road, pay people and corporations entitlements, and hope somehow that some growth, new technology or a new economic paradigm will magically arrive to solve the problem. Most of us, and all levels of government, owe more than we own which inhibits our ability to afford things we've come to expect.

Who can we blame? The Federal Reserve led by Alan Greenspan played the most integral role in the whole process of overspending, while preaching capitalism and practicing socialism. The central bankers around the world are squarely to blame for the current mess we find ourselves in. When they reduced the cost of money to below the cost of the risk borrowing represented, they encouraged banks to lend and corporations, businesses, individuals, and for that matter, governments, to borrow.  They were aided and abetted by government organizations such as Fannie and Freddie that were underwriting risks that never would have been taken if left to a free (capitalist) market. This resulted in a flood of new borrowing and spending that in many cases never should have taken place. This loose money policy was the kool-aid everybody drank, designed to encourage as much spending as possible in order to postpone the bitter medicine that should have been swallowed in 2001. If we had dealt with it then, as we should have, we (North Americans led by the US and their Federal Reserve / Central Bank) might have begun a road to some moderate fiscal health which would have prevented the meltdown in 2008, which precipitated the bank and Wall Street bailouts, currently the source of all the anger and the sound bites for the occupy movement.

What's the solution? Certainly not class warfare which seems to be the direction of the Obama administration and many in the Occupy movement. Blaming capitalism isn't the answer because we've not had it in our lifetimes. And for that matter, wealth has never been created by governments who confiscate wealth in order to function. Honestly, it's a difficult question to answer and as long as the can keeps getting kicked down the road with more loose money, bailouts, spending.... and debt, it's not a question many are willing to answer with honesty anyway. The Federal Reserve's sole function has been to line the pockets of the well to do and the banks. It should be abolished.
Related Reading: Greenspan's Bubbles: The Age of Ignorance at the Federal Reserve

The Babysitter's Away And The Kids Will Play

My friends from other countries express surprise at the outcome of last night's hockey game. My response is, why would you be surprised? You cannot fart in this province anymore without permission from the state. This is how kids behave when the babysitter's back is turned. And turned it was last night. The idiots were given a free pass to behave like anarchists. Notwithstanding, on one hand the police must be congratulated for not overreacting as they have been known to do, and I know this is going to be an unpopular comment as it is not PC to criticize Emergency Response; but police response (or lack of it in many cases), did not help much. It was way too little too late.

Armchair expert? I don't think so, I was right there. I am one of those so called "gawkers" who went downtown last night to witness what was going on. I drove a scooter down nearly every alley and street downtown and here is what I saw: I saw small numbers of idiots who were the instigators breaking things, over turning cars, burning things and breaking glass completely unchallenged. The rest were onlookers, some being entertained and some completely aghast.

The onlookers were there for the spectacle. Let's face it, that's why people go to hockey games (I am not a hockey fan) in the first place. And a spectacle they got; vandals and firebugs operated with complete impunity sometimes within feet of cops. I am convinced that if some of those idiots had been grabbed by the scruff of the necks by cops and taken away, it could have been nipped in the bud right away. Instead the cops waited, formed their riot lines with artillery and horses, waited, then threw out flash bangs and occasionally rushed the crowds. This did two things in my opinion; it further incited the crowd, which allowed the followers the time to join the leaders (who by now had momentum) in wrecking things and second it gave the gawkers the spectacle they came to see.

Look, we know the police have a tough, tough job. We appreciate what they do (for the most part). However, I have to ask the question, why are the police so afraid of heavy lifting?  For the most part they watched, apparently afraid, helpless or perhaps tethered by their own bureacracy that was unprepared. There were idiots breaking stuff right in front of them and they have to wait to do something? For what? Even I told a few people to fuck off and stop, but I was not wearing riot gear and armed. Foolish? I don't know, but my intuition and experience was that most people there were on my side and not a threat. However I quickly determined nobody was about to help me. What about getting the fire department to turn a few hoses on people?

This event reminds me of an experience I once had outside a bar in Gastown. There, two men were kicking cars and threatening bar patrons who were waiting in a lineup. I phoned 911, and the police took what seemed like forever to arrive. One showed up on a motorcycle and waited a safe distance away. Meanwhile the two guys took off, so I pursued them. I motioned and yelled to the cop to give chase with me. Only he was not about to give chase without backup which took another minute. The result? The two guys got away.

I might understand this if our cops were not armed to the teeth (but I doubt it as they are trained, which I am not). But contrary to other jurisdictions where police simply carry billy clubs, our police are armed like militia and they still cannot give chase and take them down? Excuse me?? We needed some heavy lifting the other night, not seat belt checks or to be told we cannot enjoy a glass of wine on the beach. Instead, the anarchists got symbolic victory after symbolic victory.

Oh, I can hear the spin now from mayor and chief and the predictable outcome of last night's event from the law and order types will be that we need more restrictive laws and more law enforcement. I don't think so. In fact, I think that one could instead argue that in highly restrictive environments, people do not learn personal responsibility. We've been working for decades on eroding personal responsibility in BC. And as a result it seems some even resent the nanny state so badly that they lash out whenever the opportunity arises.

So I revert to my earlier statement that you cannot fart in in this province without permission. Smoking laws, liquor laws, helmet laws, seatbelt laws, petty parking restrictions, dog leash laws, noise bylaws curfews in parks and beaches... just to name a few.  To some degree you reap what you sow.