Yes, I looked at the article some time ago, but I wasn't able to watch the movie. I don't have the connection for that sort of stuff.

O, right, I remember that you mentioned that in other threads. The content of the site beside the video isn't very enlightening.
Found a link to an interview with the economist Stiglitz:
http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/pages/frontline/...rce=relatedlink
Its not as impressing as watching those financial and political persons who were involved, but it offers a report from one who followed the events from a priviledged position.

I'll be sure to read that soon. At the very least, it should be somewhat informative. But I have to be honest, stuff like this:

does not make the interview sound very promising.

Ah, don't worry, that refers to a central notion of the pioneer of political economy, Adam Smith.

It meant that the competition of freely acting participants
that are only following their very own interests in a free market
'somehow magically' leads to the wealth of the nation, the wealth of all.

Look for "invisible hand" f.i. in the wikipedia article about Adam Smith for further information.

I understand exactly what the quote was referring to. I know who Adam Smith is, I know what he wrote, and I know what the invisible hand is. I say that it does not look very promising because I disagree with the interviewee's ideas about its non-existance.

Just as well, I also understand the bigger issues behind OWS. The only reason I will read this interview is because it is good to be well-read and aware of everyone's position on the issues at hand.

There may be certain sides of the issue that I am not aware of, but I am not oblivious to everything about the issue at hand. The greater difference between us is simply the fact that we have different opinions about this issue.

Okay, didn't expect that. Sorry.
I thought that you worried about the sort of 'religious' claim that actually became a dogma in political economics although it is only proven in models with very strict conditions that the markets of the last 30 years didn't even came close to.

When I was at university a friend of mine ,one of the smartest student I have ever met , declared to support monarchy
Of course all of us thought that he was pulling our legs
One day he invited me at his home
He showed me a letter of the King of Italy, in exile at that time, who appointed him as governor of " county " where my friend and me come from

He explained his point of view

A king is a dictator ,ok, but he must not be confused with a brand new bloody bastards
He loves his country being his property
It does not matter if he may be not a smart guy
He must simply appoint as minstries expert people
Ministry of finance must be a an economist
Ministry of R&D a scientist
....

What's the point of having in the govermnet uncompetent people who go around shaking hands, kissing kids , instead of taking care of the real problems of the country ?


I am still believe in democracy but I must confess I have some doubts

I believe that in a perfect world the Monarchy would be the best system of authority, but man's ultimate fallibility at the reins of power is what prompted the founding fathers to create the United States of America.

As you said the bureaucracy can be inefficient but a certain level of inefficiency is actually necessary if you want to restrict the leaders' control of the government.

http://myoccupylaarrest.blogspot.com/
Really, really interesting article!

That's quite an insight, thanks for posting! I'd like to read some other articles about the incident before I judge the situation, but here's just a few comments on the linked article:

- His writing style is colorful. It's obviously a very emotional report, and although this is understandable, it may not be entirely accurate or give all of the details, even as insightful as it may be.

- It is interesting how he mentions that he was still in the park beyond the point when it was legal for him to be there. Sure it's just a misdemeanor, but that doesn't make it any less illegal. Since the beginning of the USA, peaceful protests have only been counted as peaceful as long as they were conducted at the proper location, in the proper way, AND at the proper time. Although I feel that the force applied by the police to subdue the protesters was probably over the top, we can't forget this fact.

- It's also interesting how he mentions that the protesters, at least at first, would not cooperate with the police's orders. And (checking again) it's interesting how he doesn't say how much time passed between the point where the order to disband was given, and the point where they violently subdued the protesters.

As a minor side note, his mentioning of CitiBank's corrupt business tactics reminded me of the movie Wall Street. I'd like to see that movie again...