The European Futures Observatory
  • Home
  • Projects
    • The Post Scarcity World 2050-75
    • The Next Golden Age Of Technology 2030-45
    • Communities Of The Future 2020-30 >
      • Communities Of The Future: The Book
    • A History Of The Next Ten Years 2010-20
    • The Globalisation Of Crime
    • America 2025
    • Suffolk Small Business Project
  • Publications
  • Emerging Fellows
    • 2018 Programme
    • 2019 Programme >
      • Programme Outline
      • Charlotte Aguilar-Millan
      • Paul Tero
      • Alex Floate
      • Felistus Mbole
      • Esmee Wilcox
      • Robin Jourdan
      • Ruth Lewis
      • Tim Morgan
    • 2020 Programme >
      • Programme Outline
      • Carl Michael
      • Johanna Hoffman
      • Kevin Jae
      • Kimberly 'Kay' Daniels
      • Tyler Mongan
      • Sarah Skidmore
      • Travis Kupp
  • The Futurian
    • Issue 1
    • Issue 2
    • Issue 3
    • Issue 4
    • Issue 5
    • Issue 6
  • About Us

Are The Occupiers Right?

2/2/2013

5 Comments

 
Occupy Wall Street may best be described as a meta-protest. The Occupy Movement, which spread from Wall Street to Occupy movements throughout the world all shared a common theme. People from different walks of life have come together to voice their displeasure at a wide range of things: bank bailouts, student loan debt, lack of healthcare, to name a few. The list is as diverse as the people involved in the Occupy movements. However, at the heart of it all, the Occupiers’ main critique is a protest against the rise of economic inequality, with much of their ire focused on the big banks, or “banksters” according to many in the Occupy movement. This is personified in their signature “we are the 99%”.

The banks have come to represent a system that has potentially failed. Bankers were given huge incentives to create complex financial products and extend cheap lines of credit, in many cases to people who normally would not qualify for loans. The bankers were making vast sums as of money when things were going well, but  when things began to unravel, these very same banks - who were engaged in a high risk / high reward game - suddenly became “too big too fail” and had to be bailed out with public funds. This incited the Occupiers’ sense of unfairness. Looking into the future, does the failure and bailout of the banks represent a turning point? Has Western style capitalism failed? If so, do the Occupiers give us any signals of what may replace it?

While the Occupy movement’s critique is accurate, they fall short in terms of any substantive solutions. The Occupiers have made a good start, but have seemingly reached the natural limits to where they could go. A solution for this could be that the Occupy movement widens its scope to help with constructing an alternative form of banking, one that can address the issues of economic equality. By joining with other groups, the Occupiers can move from being a loud voice that is too vague, to become a group working with the banks against which they protest. The purpose of this would be to create a banking system in the future that is socially useful for everyone. A banking system that contains regulatory and operational reforms, as well as dealing with the issues of equity that form the basis of the Occupy Movement. To devise a system of solidarity and reciprocity that meets the needs of our communities, not a system that divides the world into the ultra wealthy 1% and the other 99%.

Were the Occupiers right? They were. In highlighting the rise of inequality they helped to bring into light and popularize the problems of the global financial system. In coming up short in terms of solutions, the Occupiers may have reached their limits, and it may be necessary for them to reach out to other groups in order to craft a new financial system in the future, one that serves everyone, and not just the 1%.

Jason Swanson
© The European Futures Observatory 2013

Follow The Conversation On Deliberator

Resources:

A Leaf Being Turned: A speech given by Andrew Haldane (Bank of England) to Occupy Economics, 29 Oct 2012.

A Blueprint For Better Business?: A speech given by Archbishop Vincent Nichols at conference 18 Sept 2012.

www.blueprintforbusiness.org : Making the case for the need for change.

5 Comments
Tyler
5/2/2013 11:13:16 pm

This is an incredibly engaging article that clearly examines the flaws in our current system and the grass roots effort that should be extended to not necessarily bring about economic equality on the scale of Communism, but one that encourages the rendering of future services and their appropriate allocation; the 100%.

I'm not sure where you found Jason, but obviously his voice is one that needs to be amplified! I can't wait to pass this along to others while waiting to read what Jason presents next!

Reply
Stephen Aguilar-Millan
6/2/2013 10:13:00 pm

Tyler, Jason is one of our Interns. He is, amongst other things, studying under Peter Bishop at Houston. This is Jason's first piece to be published under our banner. We are very pleased with the piece produced.

Reply
JOSH
6/2/2013 01:35:58 am

This is a very thought provoking article. I never would have imagined the contributors of the occupy movement to join the banks in creating a alternate form of banking. That is a great idea, my only concern is what stops the protesters from becoming too greedy? After all, they have partial control of the banks in this hypothetical "new system"? Could history repeat itself very easily in this futures outcome? Quite possibly.

Reply
Stephen Aguilar-Millan
6/2/2013 10:15:44 pm

Josh, thanks for your comments. Your concerns are well aired. However, this piece is part of a larger body of work in which we are involved that aims at developing a new economics, one in which social contribution is valued as much as personal enrichment. We will post more on this theme as it develops.

Reply
Jennifer Jarratt
21/2/2013 02:30:57 am

Hi Jason!
Thanks for your timely thoughts! You don't quite make the point about the Occupy Movement being a protest about protests. Did you actually mean that?

On the whole, I should call the movement inchoate, although I am sure individuals and groups within the whole knew exactly what they were protesting about.

In its way, it is/was an attempt to kindle a debate that could then be reframed to garner wider support. Except for "99%", which is a framing that has stuck with the public, the movement didn't succeed. That has yet to come perhaps. IMO it isn't really the job of the protesters to fix the system. The movement needs its Marx, or similar.

Reply

Your comment will be posted after it is approved.


Leave a Reply.

    RSS Feed

    Picture

    Stephen Aguilar-Millan

    Director of Research
    stephena@eufo.org

    View my profile on LinkedIn
    Picture
    Jason Swanson
    Research Associate
    jlswanson@gmail.com
    View my profile on LinkedIn
    Picture
    Kate Burgess - Mac Intosh
    Research Associate
    kate@revitalizinghistoricsites.com
    View my profile on LinkedIn

    Archives

    February 2015
    January 2015
    December 2014
    November 2014
    August 2014
    July 2014
    May 2014
    September 2013
    August 2013
    May 2013
    February 2013
    January 2013
    November 2012

    Categories

    All
    Age Of Scarcity
    Big Brother
    Book Review
    Capitalism
    Energy
    Eufo
    Europe
    Fiscal Policy
    France
    Future Trends
    Germany
    New Economics
    New Enlightenment
    Obama
    Oil
    Uk
    Usa
    Water
    Wild Cards

Proudly powered by Weebly