With the dawn of the 2008 banking crisis, which resulted in millions of people losing their jobs, homes, and savings, the blame quickly fell on the shoulders of ‘greedy bankers’. The titanic wave of foreclosures, and the near complete collapse of the global stock markets, led to extreme levels of anguish and anger. There were many to blame for the events that precipitated this crisis predominantly the US and foreign governments interventions into the free-market system, yet many of the governments weathered the storm as they emphasized corporate greed as the main cause of the crisis. The United States government which prompted banks especially through the government supported Freddie Mac and Fannie Mae Programs to make outrageous loans, not to mention all the individuals who took out credit they could scarcely afford, were as much to blame for the crisis as those large banking institutions which made these same loans and traded in unreported derivatives because the US accounting laws did not require derivatives to be incorporated into SEC filings.
Out of the crisis two political forces came to fruition in response to the crisis and the outlandish government spending that followed in a misguided attempt to salvage the global economy. The first such force came in the form of the Tea Party Movement which originated as an anti-tax movement and called for a return to a time when the Government was less intrusive in the lives of its citizens. The direction the movement has recently taken is up for debate; however a few things can be definitively said of the Tea Party Activists: they have clearly defined objectives and an organized leadership, they are peaceful, and they obey the rule of law. Agree or not with their motives, yet they have emerged as a legitimate political force in US politics, unlike other movements which have sprouted since.
In recent months, following the Arab Spring and the protests in Europe due to increasingly severe austerity measures tied to the bloc’s sovereign debt crisis, the US had its own run-in with civil unrest which erupted in the form of the Occupy Wall Street movement. The rapid scaling of the effort, from the Brooklyn Bridge across the United States, was shocking to say the least, and showed that something was definitely wrong: the American Dream is fading.
As the Occupy Movement took to the streets of the United States I saw how truly disillusioned people in my country have become. They are so angry at the wealthy and the government that they took to protesting and taking up a quasi-common banner against the supposed “1%”. But their anger and passionate distaste for the high-income earners reflects a society and a rapidly evolving culture of entitlement. The American Dream is one where anyone can pull themselves up by their bootstraps; however, it has evolved into the dream of “‘I am entitled to this and that, and I don’t care if I did not earn it’”.
Let me put things into context, I am a 24 year old and have a graduate degree from an internationally recognized institution, and you have no idea the odyssey it has been for me after more than half a year to gain full-time employment. However one thing you will not see me doing is calling into question that those that have toiled to amass personal fortunes, should surrender more than they already do to the gigantic hydra that is the American Government. “We are the 99 percent”, is simply an excuse for a indolent sense of entitlement.
In the United States we did not used to feel that we were owed anything, but rather that by hard work you could make a better life for yourself and your own; we did however eventually decide to take a European-esque approach. Young people truly have become disillusioned about what it means to earn a living. It did not begin with my generation, but rather—at least—the one before. I remember stories from my parents about how in your first few years of work you needed to be prepared to work 80 to 100 hours a week. However, over the last few decades many—certainly not all—young people want to punch in their 40 hours a week and go off to enjoy the same lifestyle they had while living in their childhood homes. The result has been massive borrowing to live beyond one’s means and income. I know a number of people a few years older than myself that bought million dollar homes with under a hundred thousand dollars a year in income. Long story short—homes, cars, and credit cards all mortgaged to the hilt.
With the Kraken that is the burgeoning national debt rising in the minds of the people, an issue which quickly came to the forefront of US politics, there were many proposals for how to forestall the beast. The bravest of politicians suggested adjusting Medicare and other entitlement programs that are truly the source of this staggering debt, however many of them were cast aside. This was especially the case among “the Greatest Generation” who would be more accurately called the Greediest Generation. They receive far more in benefits than they ever paid in (including adjusting for inflation), and their lack of savings makes it impossible to restrict their entitlements. For them it has always been more, more, more. Our generation will pay for that, you can be sure of that.
The Occupy Movement in the wake of these events began protesting against those in the top 1%, claiming they had a duty to pay their fair share. If they had bothered to do a little research, they would know that in New York City the top 1% pay 43% of the taxes. Does that seem remotely fair to anyone, because if it does then that shows a rather dim understanding of economics. If that’s not convincing, then take a look and see what the top ten percent of the population of the city pays: 71%. Those individuals are not wealthy either, but rather to break into that top ten percent you only have to be making $105,000 a year in the most expensive city in the United States. These are not people cruising around in Bentleys and Ferraris, or living in lavish mansions. Occupy protesters consider this, but be careful though, because if you do, the foundation of your cause evaporates.
The most disturbing aspects of the Occupy movement came out in a few different ways. The first was before Black Friday when a few members of the movement in New York City were caught on tape saying they were going to throw Molotov cocktails through the windows of Macy’s department stores. That showed an escalation from mere accusations and infantile finger-pointing to actually putting lives in danger. The individuals who would have been in danger from the firebombs were not the ‘evil’ 1% but rather the average citizen trying to get bargains for the holiday season. If that isn’t the definition of nefarious, I’m not sure what is.
Another disturbing aspect of the movement is the sheer number of rapes that have been committed throughout various cities in Occupy camps. I am not implying that all the rapists were part of the movement, but the general trend has been that the rapes are not reported directly to law enforcement but rather handled internally by the camps. Even if you are anti-establishment, rape is not a crime that should be swept under the rug and ‘handled’ by the organizers. I wonder what they planned on doing, did they chastise the rapists? Have we reached the point where vigilante justice is acceptable? Telling the perpetrators to leave and never come back? No, those people should be dealt with by the rule of law and the justice system that enforces it.
One point that really hit home for me was a movement by Occupy protestors in Iowa. They camped outside Democrat offices and demanded that the US military budget be halved so that the money could be spent to create jobs. Now the main purpose of the government is to defend its people, and I would much rather see money spent on the military and the brave men and women who serve in it than people who contribute nothing to this country. Putting that aside, you have to consider that the US military has over 1.46 million active military personnel according to the US government in 2011, and an additional 1.45 million on reserve duty. Should we ever decide to halve the budget, would we not be in danger of losing at least a million of those jobs? According to the Occupy movement we need to add another million to the unemployment rosters to get the economy going. This has to be, without a doubt, one of the most outrageous and ridiculous claims in economic history. Not only would military personnel be affected, but also all private sector military contractors. Do not be confused thinking that I am referring to companies like Xe or Dyncorp, but more along the lines of Boeing, Northrup Grumman and others who provide essential services and equipment to our military, and otherwise, that employ hundreds of thousands if not millions of people. Overall, I do not believe that the protestors went as far as considering the consequences of their “one-liners-disguised-as-policy”, not in the least.
Finally, the march on the Port of Oakland—the fifth busiest container port in the United States. The Occupy Movement in that city was determined to shut down the port to disrupt activity and get a response from the elite. If that had come to pass, there would have been massive supply disruptions on the Western Seaboard, and those that suffered the most would not have been corporations but rather consumers that could not purchase certain goods because they were held up at the port. At the end of the day it was an ill-conceived strategy.
Ultimately the Occupy Movement has shown that it is not what the United States wants or needs. The economic and fiscal policies that are projected are, at best, poorly researched, and at worst an attempt to disrupt the capitalist system in favor of one similar to that of the despot Hugo Chavez in Venezuela. As US citizens we may in many ways be divided politically, but we must unite against the foes of our constitution and our free-market capitalist system for a better future. In essence: end the Occupy movement.