Occupy Wall Street Or Occupy Hypocrisy?

Photo credit: © Adrian Parker

An interesting tidbit of news came out recently about the the Occupy Wall Street movement. Seems as though they aren’t so attached to their cause after all (or at least they have selective hatred and concern), since Amagalmated Bank, their “bank of choice” , is part of the problem the 99% are protesting so vehemently against. Turns out that Amalgamated, while originally started and owned by a labor union, actually acted like a greedy corporate bank and participated in supbrime lending in California, and even sold out out to the tune of a 40% share to private equity ventures. One of the chapters of the movement in Oakland even opened an account and deposited $20,000 in Wells Fargo when a credit union was unable to accommodate their needs in a time frame that was convenient for the movement . Oh for shame!

 

You see, for all of the bitching and moaning and camping and disrupting the movement has done, they also showed the world that they themselves don’t believe entirely in their own cause. Talk about contradictory actions and hypocrisy. What happened? Did they suddenly decide that although they were tearing down corporations and banking institutions (and the people who run them) that it was alright to do business with them because it was necessary? Who could have possibly foreseen that a credit union would have trouble accommodating a large group with large sums of money at times that would be convenient to the consumers?

 

What you have to understand is that I have no problem with people having opinions on certain matters, or certain beliefs, as that is their inherent right as people and as Americans. What I do take issue with is when people don’t fully think through their reasoning for coming to hose conclusions. By having large, corporate banking institutions with millions of dollars at their disposal, Occupy Wall Street is able to manage the donations and have access to those funds when they need it. Their own bank, by participating in the dangerous business of subprime lending and selling ownership stake to private equity funds, is a contributor to the events that the groups is angry about. A great and funny journalist who I’ve been following for a few years now, Brandon J. Mendelson said “Someone’s gotta tell the protestors that every time they buy those V for Vendetta masks, they’re making Time Warner wealthier.” The people protesting in NYC were surveyed by Baruch College and it turns out that 31% were over 35, over 50% were employed full-time, 13% made over $75,000 which begs the question: what the heck are they complaining about, and even moreso why are they protesting rather than doing their jobs earning money for their families?

 

Why don’t these people try to do something productive like run for office to try and change things? Why don’t any of them start a business and employ those who cannot find work? Why don’t any of them get off their asses and try to communicate with the people they deem to be offenders rather than protest? Why don’t don’t they start a program to teach people valuable skills so they can become employable again? Why don’t they go back to their jobs (since a good number of protesters have them) and use some of their earnings to financially back a campaign or a constructive platform they believe in? Why disrupt other people, whom they claim to represent from being able to do their jobs and earning a living for themselves?

 

All of this seems to be flying in the face of what these people are supposedly outrages over, and are fighting against. What kind of message are they sending if they are, on their own, going to make exceptions to the causes beliefs when it benefits them?

About Eric J. Nisall

Former NY'er, accountant & business consultant, founder of GreenBridge Advisors. Blogging about personal financial, small business topics, and other fun topics at DollarVersity. Fan of the NHL and everything hockey! Follow me on Twitter, Facebook, and on Google+

  • Benjamin Tevelow

    I have some responses to the inconsistencies and misrepresentations in this article.Seems as though they aren’t so attached to their cause after all (or at least they have selected hatred and concern), since Amagalmated Bank, their “bank of choice” , is part of the problem they so vehemently are protesting against.I found only one article about OWS’s banking relationship with Amalgamated. It too brought up the ‘part of the problem’ referenced in this article, but it had trouble making much stick. The fact of the matter is that until OWS actually achieves the fundamental changes sought in the banking and political worlds, it still has to function within those worlds. That’s always the case, for everyone. OWS chose a bank that they believe is working towards achieving the kind of banking practices that are sought, and went with the best option they could find among the choices available – and frankly it seems like a pretty great choice. Yes, they are injecting funds from the big bad private equity investors, but they’re being pretty careful about it. They picked two investors with good track records of supporting unions and ethical practices, and they are not letting go of a controlling interest. Yes they took part in the subprime mortgage lending which was a very bad thing, but they’re taking their lumps and owning up to the bad practice. And they’re taking their involvement with OWS seriously. The bank’s CEO is actually participating on the ground in the protests. He met personally with the finance committee and is taking their input on how OWS wants a bank run. Some quotes:”I’m trying to show personally that you can be a bank, but also be supportive of progressive values” – Ed Grebow, Amalgamated CEO”I myself have no intention of marching as part of Occupy Wall Street, but I also have not the slightest intention of interfering with [Grebow's] decision to do so.” – Wilbur Ross, one of he equity investors potentially taking a 20% share of Amalgamated”It’s a contradiction that exists and you can either embrace it and use it to your advantage, or you can turn away from it” -Noel Beasley, head of the Workers United Union which owns the majority share of Amalgamated on running a bank with progressive valuesThe finance committee has openly raised concerns about bank practices to the both Ross and Beasley, and have said they feel confident that the bank can practice in a way consistent with OWS views and objectives.Did they suddenly decide that although they were tearing down corporations and banking institutions (and the people who run them) that it was alright to do business with them because it was necessary?Yes, exactly. When something is necessary it is necessary, even if you don’t like it and are actively trying to change it. That’s what necessary means. Many of the protestors, myself included, also want to see a dramatic, sweeping restructuring of our electoral and governing process. Does that mean we’re going to refuse to vote in the existing electoral process? Does it mean that we’re going to cease the (largely one sided) communication many of us have had with our representatives for years and years now? Of course not. I believe that those processes are rotten to the core, but just because I want to change them doesn’t mean I can’t be involved in them. Being involved in them, in fact, is one of the surest ways to achieve the change that is needed. There is no hypocrisy involved, just a diversity of tactics.The people protesting in NYC were surveyed by Baruch College and it turns out that 31% were over 35, over 50% were employed full-time, 13% made over $75,000 which begs the question: what the heck are they complaining about, and even moreso why are they protesting rather than doing their jobs earning money for their families?I am an NYC protestor. I am under 35, emploted full-time and make less than $75,000. What does any of that have to do with my belief that our government does not represent the people anymore, that our electoral process is broken, that the corporate interests are influencing legislation to the detriment of the people of this country, that the rapidly widening wealth gap is dangerous and detrimental or that big banks unethical and risk-laden practices are directly responsible for the collapse of the economy? Just because I happen to fall into a certain demographic means I should keep my views to myself and check out of the democratic process? How does that even begin to make sense? Also…. I am both protesting and doing my job and earning money for my family. Obviously. If I wasn’t, I wouldn’t be employed any more because I would be fired for absenteeism.Why don’t these people try to do something productive like run for office to try and change things?I have personally spoken to three people within the Occupy movement who are running for office. I am personally involved in a working group building support for people who want to run for office without huge stashes of personal wealth, huge donations from special interests or the support of a major party.Why don’t any of them start a business and employ those who cannot find work?I cannot reference any specific small business owners involved in the movement, but I feel certain they exist. To take the question on its face though, starting a business and employing a few people is great. It’s a help to the economy and to individuals. It carries a great deal of personal risk and does nothing to address the deeper issues of corporate control of government and risky investment practices by big banks damaging the economy.Why don’t any of them get off their asses and try to communicate with the people they deem to be offenders rather than protest?Um…. what do you think protesting is? What other methods of communication do you suggest? Why would the people we’re communicating with listen to us now when they haven’t for decades?Why don’t don’t they start a program to teach people valuable skills so they can become employable again?There are literally thousands of schools, universities and training programs teaching people “valuable skills”. A big thing being protested against is the simple face that these skills don’t actually make people employable again. There are four unemployed people for every job opening in this country. The majority of the unemployed have valuable skills, and are still not being hired.Why don’t they go back to their jobs (since a good number of protesters have them) and use some of their earnings to financially back a campaign or a constructive platform they believe in?As pointed out before, those of us who are employed haven’t left our jobs. I don’t know what others are doing with their money, but I donate as I can to campaigns and platforms I believe in, including to OWSWhy disrupt other people, whom they claim to represent from being able to do their jobs and earning a living for themselves?Because it is impossible to bring about great change without a bit of inconvenience. I don’t think anyone within the movement is trying to prevent anyone else from earning a living. When protests seek to shut down a port or a financial institution for a day, or an hour, or for 20 minutes it is not in order to keep the people who work there from bringing home a paycheck (though I suppose the kinds of institutions we are protesting are exactly the sort to dock workers pay because the institution itself could not open) it is to cause a real negative effect on the institutions whose actions cause real negative effects to us on a daily basis.As a parting point – before you write an article from your comfy desk chair decrying decisions made in long, difficult meetings by people willingly making sacrifices in an attempt to fix problems that effect them directly, perhaps you should go out yourself and see what it’s like.

    • http://www.dollarversity.com Eric J. Nisall – DollarVersity

      Hello Benjamin, and thanks for your well thought out comments. It’s good to know that there are those within the movement that can respond to critics thoughtfully and respectfully.

      Except for your last remark, I respect your viewpoints and arguments. The last sentence shows that you yourself, speak without seeing where the other is coming from. I myself am part of the so-called 99%, not exempt from the effects of the economic crisis. I own a home that has seen a significant decrease in value, and was in fact unemployed for 8 months in 2008. However, rather than bitch and moan that I should be entitled to relief or assistance from others, I turned to my savings, started a business and did what had to be done to make it through the difficult times. I don’t sit in a comfy office chair overlooking some scenic cityscape or anything like that. I work for a small local CPA firm and run my own consulting business on the side in an effort to better my own financial situation and that of my family.

      Now, a few counterpoints to your arguments:

      Why is Amalgamated a great choice to be used by OWS? Is it because they made mistakes in the past and are now doing something differently that the movement approves of? Well, how about all of the other banks such as Chase and Wells Fargo that pour millions of dollars into assorted charities to help better society? And this, mind you, isn’t in an effort to make up for mistakes, but rather practices that have been in place for years before any economic difficulties that recently occurred? Do their humanitarian efforts not hold as much weight?

      Why is the banking and securities industries the primary target of the OWS efforts? Is it because people want to place blame elsewhere for their own financial problems? Is it not true that individuals signed for mortgages under their own volition, without having a gun held to their heads? Whose fault is it that people buy cars that cost half as much as a mortgage payment? Who is to blame for individuals going to malls and running up credit card bills they cannot possibly pay off? Who’s fault is it that people would rather buy “stuff” than save money in an emergency fund? Why not go after the defense industry, gun indsury, the oil industry, the entertainment industry who exert much more political influence?

      Regarding the communications, have there been consumer groups set up to meet with company or industry leaders, the way civic leaders do in places such as the home base of NYC? Have there been any groups assembled to present concerns to labor boards who hold much influence over business groups?

      Just because the intention may not necessarily to be to prevent people from getting their work done, the end result is just that in many instances. Just like the prank that goes bad and kills someone, the end result is the end result. Negligence is no excuse. And whether or not the people get reimbursed, they still have work that needed to be done, but now have twice as much since they lost a day or two or more and the work just piles up. What about the people that are indirectly affected? The people who are trying to go about their business but cannot because the people they depend on to provide services or support to them aren’t working because of the protests?

      This isn’t in any way a personal shot directly at you, but simply put, for every point that OWS thinks is right there are counter points that are just as valid. If you’d read any of the posts found on this site, you would see that I am neither pro- or anti-OWS per say. I am a proponent of accountability–by everyone. The individuals who find themselves in financial distress need to look at themselves before pointing the finger at anyone else, but at the same time, the credit industry and companies need to claim their fair share of responsibility for some of the mess we find ourselves in today. It’s all right here in plain English.

      • Benjamin Tevelow

        Hi Eric - 

        Thank you as well for taking the time to read my post thoroughly and respond to it thoughtfully.  I will begin with a tempered apology for my parting shot.  I will apologize for the implication that you are some fat cat sitting high above it all – that was not my intention, and I chose my words carelessly.  By referencing your hypothetical “comfy desk chair” I meant only that it is easy to sit in an office (regardless of it’s size or what floor it’s on) and watch the news roll in about what financial decisions the Oakland and New York General Assemblies are making and critique and ridicule it.  It is much harder to make those decisions on the ground, on the fly, by consensus in the midst of a movement growing far more rapidly than anyone expected.  It was not meant as a point about your economic or social status (though I find I cannot stop myself from pointing out that just by your casual mention of “dipping into your savings” you are revealing your state of economic privilege), just on the perspective from which you are writing and the inherent distortion of that perspective – and that I will not apologize for.

        Some responses to your responses:

        “Why is Amalgamated a great choice to be used by OWS? Is it because they made mistakes in the past and are now doing something differently that the movement approves of?”
        Sort of, yes, although that is a rather simplistic way of putting it.  I would say that it is more because of a systemic practice of admitting mistakes and owning up to them.  The narrative of the financial industry as a whole has been “it isn’t our fault, the government *made* us take those risks.  Blame those guys.”  The government did no such thing – the interest rate was lowered sharply which put pressure on the banks at roughly the same time regulations were abruptly loosened.  The government absolutely created a situation that *encouraged* financial institutions to make extremely risky choices and offer extremely predatory packages to consumers, but it was still the choice of the financiers to make those choices and offers.  You know all this, as you are a rapid proponent of personal responsibility.  The point is that Amalgamated has not defended it’s own bad choices and practices, or tried to place the blame elsewhere.  It is making reasoned financial choices now that fit in with OWS’s demands for accountability on the part of financial institutions.

        “Well, how about all of the other banks such as Chase and Wells Fargo that pour millions of dollars into assorted charities to help better society? And this, mind you, isn’t in an effort to make up for mistakes, but rather practices that have been in place for years before any economic difficulties that recently occurred? Do their humanitarian efforts not hold as much weight?”

        Frankly, no, they don’t.  Partially because of your own point – that those practices aren’t to make up for mistakes.  Chase and Wells Fargo continue to insist that they did no wrong, that all fault lies elsewhere and that they’re the real victims here – despite a hefty bailout and continuing massive profits.  They aren’t making up for their mistakes because they cannot admit that they made any mistakes!  Their ‘humanitarian efforts’ are very convenient tax loopholes and often not without some political or financial benefit for the banks themselves.  The reason Amalgamated’s actions count is because they are adjusting banking practices to do what is good for their banking customers and for the economy as a while.  Chase making a donation to a charitable organization, while nice and all, has nothing to do with adjusting banking practices.

        “Why is the banking and securities industries the primary target of the OWS efforts? Is it because people want to place blame elsewhere for their own financial problems?”

        Not exactly – people want to place blame for the failing economy which is exacerbating or causing their financial problems on the institutions that brought it about through frankly stupid investment policies.  More than just blame, since those institutions have proven that they cannot regulate themselves, we want them re-regulated so that such a crash cannot happen again.

        “Is it not true that individuals signed for mortgages under their own volition, without having a gun held to their heads?”

        Yes, but it is also true that since the dissolution of the barrier between savings banks and investment banks the same people who sell mortgages have vested interests in how those mortgages perform, which has led to deceptive lending practices by banks.  I have a complicated reaction to this one – people who are taking out mortgages should be careful and understand their terms and be realistic about their ability to meet those terms.  On the other hand that is very hard to do when your terms are written in dense financial/legalese and your banker is assuring you that you can totally afford your ARM because he has been advised by his higher ups to sell as many mortgages as possible to anyone who asks regardless of their ability to pay while they exploit the growing bubble.  Short answer:  Yes, those individuals are responsible for their debt, but the financial institutions that have exploited that debt are responsible for the results of their actions as well.

        “Who’s fault is it that people would rather buy “stuff” than save money in an emergency fund?”

        This one makes my blood boil.  Yes, obviously there are shop-a-holics out there who are going overboard on their spending, but it is disingenuous and extraordinarily elitist to suggest that if everyone just exercised a little restraint they’d be fine.  Last week I responded to a challenge posed to a “I am the 99″ tumblr post by a man who said his family income was $80,0000 and this year he had to ask his parents for help.  The challenger made the same claim – he must be living irresponsibly.  I ran the math on monthly expenses for a two-earner home bringing in $80,000 gross with two children and found that counting only basic necessities my yearly estimate of their needs was just over $80,0000.  The income disparity in this country right now is real and it is devastating.  I myself have a decent chunk of consumer debt (which I’m nearly done paying off, I’m not asking for a handout) which I accrued in my first few years out of college when I was underemployed.  I didn’t have parents capable of floating me so I got by some months on credit cards.  I never bought anything extravagant (I didn’t and still don’t own a television even), I didn’t go out partying, I just got by and went into debt doing it.  I am 31 years old now.  I have only been able to begin building any kind of savings in the past year.  I am not irresponsible, and I am not unusual, this is the way income in America is now.  Again, this is not to say that there are no people who made bad choices, or that some of those people wouldn’t like a handout – it’s just to say that to wave your hand and assume that’s the *only* way people go into debt is to ignore facts, and to claim that those people are the root and center of the OWS movement is frankly untrue.

        “Why not go after the defense industry, gun indsury, the oil industry, the entertainment industry who exert much more political influence?”

        I’m not at all sure that I agree that the entertainment industry exerts more political influence than the financial industry, but I do see your point.  For me, and I think for most of the protestors, we want to see ALL lobbying and monetary influence out of government.  I have huge problems with the defense and oil industries especially, and if you browse the Occupy signs you’ll find plenty of slogans and outcry about those as well.  I believe the reason the financial sector is in the hotspot is twofold:  First off, it’s a point of commonality for people who’s other political priorities may vary.  People have widely varying opinions on gun lobbying, to pick an obvious example, but a huge majority of people agree that corporations and the very wealthy aren’t paying their fair share of taxes, that Main Street got sold out to Wall Street (to use the hackneyed phrase) in dealing with the financial crisis and that the root of the economic plummet that has drastically changed the prospects of an entire generation can be laid soundly at the feet of large financial institutions that made gambles Vegas addicts would think twice about, and then ‘paid for it’ with a couple days of bad press and a big fat check from the Fed.  The other big, bad issues facing us do definitely need to be dealt with, but we can’t deal with them until we come together and get our finances back in order and our politicians out of the pockets of big investors.

        “Regarding the communications, have there been consumer groups set up to meet with company or industry leaders, the way civic leaders do in places such as the home base of NYC? Have there been any groups assembled to present concerns to labor boards who hold much influence over business groups?”

        I frankly do not know.  I’ll bring it up to working groups, and if it hasn’t been done yet it should be done.  I have very limited expectations of being listened to and dealt with honestly by big finance, but it’s worth trying.  Labor is strongly behind the Occupy movement, and union leaders have been meeting, planning and debating with protestors in the best possible ways.  So far there has been very little effort by the unions to co-opt the movement – it has more of the feel of a partnership.  Hopefully that can continue.

        “Just because the intention may not necessarily to be to prevent people from getting their work done, the end result is just that in many instances. Just like the prank that goes bad and kills someone, the end result is the end result. Negligence is no excuse. And whether or not the people get reimbursed, they still have work that needed to be done, but now have twice as much since they lost a day or two or more and the work just piles up. What about the people that are indirectly affected? The people who are trying to go about their business but cannot because the people they depend on to provide services or support to them aren’t working because of the protests?”
        The only part of this I take issue with is ‘Just like the prank that goes bad and kills someone’.  That is an extraordinarily extreme metaphor.  Being twenty minutes, or two hours late to work because of protest is hardly to be equated with murder.  Yes it’s inconvenient.  Yes it puts some stress on the people who work for big finance, and the people who’s work depends on big finance.  Yes, most of those people are soundly within the disenfranchised class that we want to help.  It sucks for them, and I hope that the inconvenience serves as a point of reflection for at least some of them about just what it is that their work is supporting.  I don’t want them to quit their jobs because their bosses are unethical greed machines, but I do want them to join the movement politically to try to change the damaging nature of their business.  This is a BIG protest movement about BIG issues.  Some inconvenience is going to happen.  And for the most part, the protestors try to target those they are causing inconvenience to.  On the 17th, protestors did not shut down the Brooklyn Bridge or the Subways, despite false reporting that they planned to do so.  The plan was always to march on the pedestrian walkway of the bridge, and “Occupying the Subway” was always about sending groups into the larger station hubs, where there is lots of open space for a group to gather, and chanting and holding signs there, where there is more exposure.  There was no intent to stop anyone from using the subways or the bridge – the people who ride subways and live in the outer boroughs are almost universally people we are fighting to benefit.

        There are a lot of people who work in finance who participate in the protests – it’s not as much of a contradiction as it seems.  I myself had a job at the World Financial Center last week, the home of Brookfield Properties Management and American Express.  I didn’t disrupt anything, I didn’t shout down the people in the hallways, I didn’t suddenly erupt into protest mode – I was at work and I behaved as I always do at work, with professional decorum and respect for my clients.  After work, I walked up the street to Zuccotti and attended a GA and discussed ways to reduce the influence my clients of the day have in our government.  This is an ideological battle we’re fighting, and however many arrests there are and however many drum circles are held, it will really be fought and won in debates and legislation and electoral politics.

        “This isn’t in any way a personal shot directly at you”

        Thank you for that.  You seem like an intelligent and well spoken individual.  I disagree with you about a lot of things, clearly, but I do appreciate your ability to frame your arguments well and respond politely and intelligently to counter points.

        “…for every point that OWS thinks is right there are counter points that are just as valid”

        I do disagree with you there – there are counter points, but I do not believe that they are just as valid.  Just because there is more than one way to look at a situation doesn’t mean that one isn’t more right.  I happen to think I’m more right.  I will argue that I am, and provide as much evidence and logical reasoning as I can to prove that I am. Other people will do the same with their viewpoints, because they also think they are more right.  That’s the nature of debate, and it’s exactly why debate is so important and why it’s the foundation of our political process – the *only* way the people can choose what kind of social and political structure they want this country to take is to hear intelligent arguments from all angles and follow the path that seems the most right.  So thank you for debating with me.

        “The individuals who find themselves in financial distress need to look at themselves before pointing the finger at anyone else, but at the same time, the credit industry and companies need to claim their fair share of responsibility for some of the mess we find ourselves in today.”

        I could not agree more.  It seems the only place we are arguing here is that I think the balance of accountability is highly skewed – the financial sector and the bought government collectively brought about an economic and social climate in which the huge majority of people cannot viably live their lives in such a way as to keep themselves out of financial distress, and yet the financial sector and the government want to be absolved of all responsibility and to place the entirety of the blame on the class of people they are systematically disenfranchising.  It’s all well and good to say that if one cannot pay their debt they shouldn’t accrue it, but a prerequisite of putting that accountability on an individual is providing that individual with the means to make the right choices.