Subscribe via RSS Feed

There’s something happening here

[ 42 ] October 8, 2011 | Paul Campos

Look at this.

Then read this.

Comments (42)

Trackback URL | Comments RSS Feed

  1. Brian says:
    October 8, 2011 at 12:47 pm

    I’m so sick of thelibrulmedia.

    Reply
  2. Miami Lawyer says:
    October 8, 2011 at 1:03 pm

    Now if we could only convince the 99% to vote in their own economic interest…

    Reply
    • c u n d gulag says:
      October 8, 2011 at 1:04 pm

      I’d settle for 51%.

      Reply
    • Pierre Corneille says:
      October 8, 2011 at 3:34 pm

      One challenge is that the members of the 99% do not necessarily share the same economic interest. The top 10% are probably almost as elitist as the top 1%; the next 20% or 30% are still probably quite well off, with good prospects. I’d wager that close to a majority, if not a majority, of the 99% benefit from the very low wages paid to service workers and other members of the working poor.

      I hold little truck for Erin Burnett or for the cry that “the rich are suffering, too.” I also realize–or at least believe–that “99%” is more for persuasiveness and not meant to be taken literally. Still, things are complicated.

      Reply
      • gmack says:
        October 8, 2011 at 6:22 pm

        Personally, I think it’s somewhat misleading to think of “the 99%” as a demographic group; it is, rather, a political designation, more akin to a declaration of faith and principles than a reference to one’s factual income. To declare oneself as part of the 99% is not to say that I make less than X amount of money; it is to declare that I am in opposition to the existing order of things, which has effectively written out large percentages of the population as not really relevant to the political community. Thus, for instance, I think that Warren Buffet could declare himself too to be of the 99%, and I would welcome it. So while its true that the 99% don’t share a common interest, it is equally true that the one core purpose of the movement is to transform things, to bring into being a new political subjectivity, which in theory at least, could contain anyone and everyone.

        In a related matter, the protest is not at this stage a matter of electoral politics. Their whole point is that their position is not yet represented in the existing party structures or in the current media environment. Thus, they do not yet have an electoral strategy, a candidate list, or a platform. At this stage, I think these lacks are positive. The left already has an abundance of “plans”, platforms, and strategies. What we lack is a movement, energy, organization, and imagination. These folks, like the Wisconsin protesters earlier this year, are providing the first steps in this direction.

        Reply
      • mpowell says:
        October 8, 2011 at 9:53 pm

        It would be pretty foolish to think of the standard here as whether you are pretty well off or not. If you take that tact, this movement will die a quick death. It has become increasingly obvious that the top of the pyramid is growing fatter and fatter and that this is neither justified or healthy. The banking industry is a major source of the problem.

        If you look at the income growth of the top decile of American workers, it has grown with respect with respect to the bottom 90 since 1980. But that growth has not been exceptional with respect to the growth in productivity over the same period. The top 1 percent, or even better, top 0.1 percent has been a different story. The growth has been far more rapid than any productivity story would explain. So I really do believe the 99 self-description does get the story pretty accurate for the simplification being offered.

        Reply
    • Bill Murray says:
      October 8, 2011 at 11:08 pm

      maybe we should also have a political party that works for their economic interests

      Reply
  3. c u n d gulag says:
    October 8, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    Like Krugman “liberated,” “There’s something happening here…”

    And I couldn’t stand Erin Burnett from Day 1 when she became Cup O’ Schmoe Scarborough’s favorite go-to Finance-bunny on his idiotic morning show, even though what she knows about business and finance would easily fit into a thimble for a ‘Stay-at-home-Mom’ Barbie doll – with room to spare for what Schmoe knows.

    When it comes to real financial acumen, instead of aping what the old geezer’s like Larry Kudlow tell her to say, she’s about as useful as mammaries on a male bovine.

    And enough with the cute-sification and handome-fication of the news!
    Instead of listening to Erin Burnett and Chip Reid on any subject under the sun, I’d be better off pulling the strings on talking Ken and Barbie dolls, or asking questions of a Magic f’in’ 8-ball.
    Hell, I’d get better information after Charlie Sheen hoovered an 8-ball of Peruvian Flake up his nose, and chased it with a liter of Old Grandad 101!

    Reply
    • mpowell says:
      October 8, 2011 at 9:56 pm

      It is ridiculous. What do these financial reporters actually contribute? Do they have any background in economics or finance at all? It is insulting that we are expected to regard people like this as experts. One of the many reasons I refuse to spend any significant time watching mainstream news.

      Reply
  4. Miami Lawyer says:
    October 8, 2011 at 1:04 pm

    Now if we could only convince the 99% to vote in their own economic interest…

    Reply
  5. joe from Lowell says:
    October 8, 2011 at 1:45 pm

    You can tell by her responses that the whole thing is personal to her. Her people are being attacked, and she’s pissed off about it.

    And this is whom CNN wants to cover this story.

    Reply
    • redrob says:
      October 8, 2011 at 2:50 pm

      Who better to empathize with the fears and longing of the real victims of our current economy as they face criticism from the great unwashed?

      Reply
  6. jncc says:
    October 8, 2011 at 2:48 pm

    I guess I am the 1% since I can’t afford a computer with a web-cam …

    Reply
  7. BKN in Canadia says:
    October 8, 2011 at 2:52 pm

    Forgive my naivete as someone from a country with socialized medicine, but

    http://wearethe99percent.tumblr.com/post/11182599755/i-am-32-years-old-and-have-a-masters-degree-that

    $2000/mo in premiums, w/ $10K deductible? WTF? Yes, here in Soviet Canuckistan you may have to wait a few weeks/months if what you got isn’t immediately life-threatening, but it’s “free”. Jeebus.

    Reply
    • mpowell says:
      October 8, 2011 at 9:58 pm

      I don’t know if the numbers are right, but insurance on the open market is damn expensive if you’re 55.

      Reply
    • dave says:
      October 9, 2011 at 2:14 am

      In the end the question is, how much more do we want to pay to live longer? What is a ‘good’ percentage of GDP to funnel into health-care for people with conditions that mean they may likely never work again, and in care of all kinds for people who are no longer economically active?

      The instinctive compassionate answer is that the question is too horrible to have even been asked. But as the global economy totters towards Peak Everything, and a fundamental shift of wealth away from the West continues and gathers pace, it may turn out that the only good news is that the question will get dealt with for us. We just won’t like the answer we get stuck with.

      Reply
  8. Ohio Mom says:
    October 8, 2011 at 3:08 pm

    BKN, I hope you’re not assuming that just because we pay a lot down here in the US, our wait times for various doctors doesn’t sometimes stretch out to weeks and months, because they can and do.

    Reply
    • Linnaeus says:
      October 8, 2011 at 3:20 pm

      Certainly was true in my case. My old health insurance plan was pretty good (didn’t pay premiums, copays were reasonable, deductible was not too high), and I still faced a two-month waiting period to see an otolaryngologist when I discovered a suspicious lump behind my ear. Which turned out to be a benign tumor. But we didn’t know that for sure until it was removed (which happened after another 3 week wait after seeing the otolaryngologist).

      Reply
      • BKN in Canadia says:
        October 8, 2011 at 5:11 pm

        Linnaeus: you likely would have waited a good while longer than that around here, unless your GP (or whoever first caught the lump–in Canadia we generally don’t have direct access to specialists; you need a referral from your GP) had really strong reason to believe it was life-threatening.

        Reply
        • Substance McGravitas says:
          October 8, 2011 at 5:22 pm

          BKN, it’s pretty hard to make that generalization without actually knowing the facts. Different provinces have different practices and different resources, neither of us is sure of what doctors would make of the condition of Linnaeus. Anecdata I can offer from Alberta and BC is that there was very very little delay in the cases I know of, both minor and major.

          Reply
          • Leeds man says:
            October 8, 2011 at 9:35 pm

            Anecdata I can offer from Alberta and BC is that there was very very little delay in the cases I know of, both minor and major.

            Ditto for the several cases I’m familiar with (family, friends) in Ontario.

            That said, drugs can still be very expensive.

            Reply
        • Linnaeus says:
          October 8, 2011 at 6:03 pm

          Well, I did have to go through a primary care clinician before I could see the specialist and the initial examination didn’t reveal any obvious signs of cancer.

          Still ended up shelling out about $1500 in the end.

          Reply
  9. Davis says:
    October 8, 2011 at 3:21 pm

    Back in the 60s my generation was said to have been radicalized by the war. We had a real stake in what the government was doing and took to the streets. I see something similar now. Those young people know that something is wrong with the country. Increasing income disparity, dim job prospects, heavy student loans even if they went to a state school, all these affect them directly and did not happen by accident. More power to them.

    BTW a slight difference this time is that the police seem to be sympathetic, as are the unions (I remember the hard hats wading into a crowd, fists swinging).

    Reply
  10. howard says:
    October 8, 2011 at 4:56 pm

    in many ways, the fellow travellers of the ultra-wealthy (like burnett) are actually harder to take than the upper 1% themselves.

    Reply
  11. Jim Lynch says:
    October 8, 2011 at 5:41 pm

    Greenwald’s simple-simon observations of bias in the corporate media are equally applicable to congressional and executive branch democrats. As with their corporate media allies, that party’s establishment profess Claude Rains-like shock that anyone could even imply as much. And if and when they do dare imply as much, it’s only because they are lunatic left-wing dirty stinking hippies.

    Reply
    • Anonymous says:
      October 8, 2011 at 8:12 pm

      I could use a few more parallels before I sign up here.

      Reply
    • John Protevi says:
      October 8, 2011 at 8:26 pm

      Greenwald’s simple-simon observations of bias in the corporate media are equally applicable to congressional and executive branch democrats. As with their corporate media allies, that party’s establishment profess Claude Rains-like shock that anyone could even imply as much. And if and when they do dare imply as much, it’s only because they are lunatic left-wing dirty stinking hippies.

      A startling, novel insight I’ve never heard before, certainly not here at LGM. Where do I sign up for your newsletter?

      Reply
  12. Jim Lynch says:
    October 8, 2011 at 9:25 pm

    “Where do I sign up for your newsletter”?

    You needn’t credit my insight. As I mentioned, I thought it a simple-simon statement of fact. I sometimes forget there are those for whom the obvious is often a revelation.

    The address of the newsletter? www. upyours2.

    Reply
  13. Linda says:
    October 9, 2011 at 7:16 am

    It makes sense that Burnett and Kosik ended up at CNN. Wall Street worshipping Barbies are anachronisms of the late 90′s-prerecession, and so, since CNN is perpetually a dollar short and a day late behind every other news organization, they washed up there.

    Reply
  14. cpinva says:
    October 9, 2011 at 7:36 am

    if those people had any motivation at all, they’d be out there taking what they wanted, by whatever means necessary, ala ayn rand. it’s obvious they lack the critical skills & desire necessary to become the 1%, so they should all do the honorable thing, and just die in the street. just do it on a side street, so the 1% won’t have their view spoiled.

    erin burnett. given her CV, who’d she blow to get where she is? and i mean that literally.

    Reply
  15. BradP says:
    October 10, 2011 at 7:51 am

    I feel like I am part of the 99%, but I don’t have a liberal arts degree. Can I still be a member.

    Joking aside, I really do support the 99%, but I know I will be disappointed by what comes out of it. I like the idea of student loan forgiveness, but this movement will really miss the boat if it just becomes a “Where’s my middle-class bailout” movement.

    If this movement doesn’t do anything (and I know it won’t) to address the social forces that lead 25 yo’s to have a Master in Arts, $100,000 in student loan debt, and no plausible job opportunity that supports that debt load, it won’t accomplish much of anything.

    There is some loss of privilege prevalent here that reminds me of the Tea Party. Much easier to sympathise with the Occupy movement, though, and I hope it has what limited success it can have.

    Reply
  16. chimneyswift says:
    October 10, 2011 at 10:08 am

    Waking up to History:

    “There are many questions about the group and about the group’s goals. It is our goal here at CNBC to give them a chance to share their voices and for those who want to learn more about the group, to hear what they have to say and what they’re hoping to do in this live blog.”

    Reply
  17. Page not found : Lawyers, Guns & Money says:
    October 11, 2011 at 11:13 am

    [...] There’s something happening here [...]

    Reply
  18. 99% : Lawyers, Guns & Money says:
    October 11, 2011 at 1:14 pm

    [...] importantly, though, I think it’s a mistake to think about the 99% too literally, for reasons gmack articulated nicely in a comment on this post: Personally, I think it’s somewhat misleading to [...]

    Reply

Leave a Reply




If you want a picture to show with your comment, go get a Gravatar.

  • blogroll

  • Brad Delong
  • Crooked Timber
  • Daily Kos
  • Danger Room
  • Eschaton
  • Ezra Klein
  • Feministe
  • Talking Points Memo
  • Feministing
  • Glenn Greenwald
  • Juan Cole
  • Monkey Cage

    • Switch to our mobile site