Occupy Wall Street Movement

Economic implication of Occupy Wall Street: After the sub-prime crisis began in 2007 end and its harsh realities began to come up on the face of financial services, firms such as Goldman Sachs and Credit Suisse requested government bailouts which were financed by the taxpayers’ money. From this, outrage ensued and to retaliate, people began what is called the Occupy Wall Street movement, whose aim was to be able to stop the ruthless and selfish profit making mechanism of financial giants. For the same, a protest was held which showed that there is income inequality in the US and these companies as well as the government, while taking this step, has ignored the majority of the society and concentrated only on the affluent minority. In the on-going process, many means of showing ones dislike and anger have been used. For people, the story is about either the closing down of an important economic port to show ones dislike and also going and filling up of jails to going for peaceful agitation on the road. The impact would be on the economic front. Firstly, it has had its share of support from the President, who has assured that proper distribution of resources is done. The means of stopping a port in Portland and thus affecting the trade done from the areas of San Diego, Los Angeles and Oklahoma etc. have already disrupted the trade their and has caused a lot of revenue loss on that front. It has also putting pressure on the government to take corrective action. Such agitations have already shown negative impact on the stock market so that is one kind of economic front that has been hurt. That is not all; the kind of money that is invested from stopping the people from going berserk is also a part of the impacts. Latest news reports have shown that millions have gone down the drain in effort to stop the spread on Occupy Wall Street (Francis). Moral Grounds and implications Done against what has been called as economic and financial injustice, the Occupy Wall Street is targeting to bring about a moral change in the way things are considered by the companies and the authorities. For once, the kind of approach that has been followed by the people till now would try and bring about a change in the way Declaration of Independence and US Constitution is viewed at and some revitalization is sure to happen. Then again as said earlier, the policies that have been targeting to achieve for the 1% of the society will be and must be changed. When that happens, a real sense of equality and fairness would come into play and that is what would be the order of the new economic and financial system. (Jathan Sadowski, 2012). Analysis of implications: The movement which has taken place in order to provide for better treatment for the middle and lower middle income groups , has had to go through the test of ethics to find out whether the approach that has been followed is for the good of the people or not. The three ways are: Utilitarian approach which says that the any approach or means that is done for the greater good of the greater section of the society is the correct means. Kantian approach says that any deed that is done because of duty and not because of some practical reason is the best means of judging its need and requirement in the society. And virtue ethics says that it is the character of the moral agent and not any other means and cause that determines how ethical the work or deed is. Out of all the three approaches that have been proposed, the Utilitarian approach is the closest of all when it comes to the Occupy Wall Street movement. While it is true that the movement had started at a very small scale and by a very small group of people, there is no denying that at present the movement has taken up a gigantic proportion. This has happened since a lot of middle and poor sections of the society have been badly hurt by the financial calamity. That being said a large section of the society has been involved in some way or the other in making the movement a success and in being able to force the companies in the first place and the authorities in the second to look at the condition of the larger section of the society and provide for their needs. That being said the means that has been followed is not for one small section but for the greater good of two sections of the society. And that is why what has been done by them is for the greater good. One example would be when a small section of people stopped the port in Portland. This had an impact on the people there but then it was done with the idea of putting forward the thoughts of a section and they did so. (Bejoub, 2012)

Who is responsible for income inequality? Income inequality and wealth distribution are not typical problems in the U.S. which just popped up out of the blue. It has been an outcome of a number of factors acting together and worst, they have worked together for years and decades and centuries to add inequality to the very base of the country’s socio-economic structure. While social causes like racial disparities contributed by a great margin to begin the inequality, the economic causes soon took over to be the biggest reason. Be it persistence of flawed monetary policy or a joke called money allocation, everything added in enhancing the degree of inequality. A few of the major reasons in this direction are as follows: 1. Persistence of biased monetary policy 2. Flawed money allocation 3. Limited and not equally distributed financial resources 4. Asset accumulation by the rich and policymakers’ failure to control the same 5. Higher rates of return on assets accumulated by the rich 6. Continued inflationary pressure that took the savings away from the not-so-rich 7. Tax policies, that couldn’t bring economic justice
The principle of debt based creation of new money in the system has been a big contributor to income disparity. Allowing large financial institutions to lend on basis of electronic systems and keeping only a fraction as cash reserve has only allowed the big bankers to accumulate more, giving rise to bubbles and bursts that created further disparity in income. While the rich managed to absorb such shocks, the poor could never do that. In the process, the rich who accumulated assets managed to generate higher business and added further to his/her wealth. On the other hand, the taxation policy of the country could never help create a situation for the equals. Just for example, Tax laws have gone through tremendous changes since 1964. While the wealthy Americans were paying as much as 91% as marginal income taxes, the same had fallen to 35%. Similarly, the capital gain taxes, which generally witness the wealthy lot as its prime members, have gone done down. Since the period of Regan as President the scenario is changing thick and fast in terms of widening gap between the rich and the poor. Steady decline in estate and inheritance taxes have also added to the cause.
The biggest reason for inequality is usage of savings. While the rich class has opportunities to invest in a verity of venues including, the poor class is confined only to deposits in saving accounts or home buying. Thus, while the richest are mopping up more and more with every passing day, income growth on the other side of the table is not so happy and happening. And the debate on how to bridge the inequality is on rise.

Equitable outcome from the movement:
Considering the fact that the movement has taken place against the unequal treatment that has been meted out to the majority of the society, it is but understood that if there is a proper end to the movement then it would be one where there is equal distribution of resources, now and later on as well. This would mean that there would be cliff-hanger at the end of the movement, what it would be and what it can be are two different questions that need to be answered. But before that the question is whether the 99% would be able to get past the 1% that has ruled the Wall Street and the ones who have been calling the shots till now. But if at all, they are able to then the following areas would have to be considered: 1) Transparency in the working of the companies: Whatever companies are listed on the Wall Street and the ones who are dependent on the money of the public, will to be more transparent in their approach. This is needed since many of the firms are now on bailouts and need to be answerable to the taxpayers. Also, the working of the credit rating agencies needs to be checked and controlled so that they are impartial and provide genuine inside into the firms. 2) Equitable distribution of income: It has been seen after the bailouts that most of the benefits have been passed on to the top executives of a company. That being said it is unfair considering that all employees should have been given proper bonuses. One of the demands has been in this regard and if accepted policies have to be formed so that such an outcome can be implemented. 3) Well defined and impartial role of government: In all of the happenings till now, the role that the government has played is questionable and partial. That is what needs to be changed and one of the methods would be establishment of powerful regulators who have their say in the issues that are handled and that they are given the necessary support from the side of the judiciary as well. (Kohan).

Will OWS sustain?

The big question that has been asked and debated about is whether this movement be a movement or a flush of moments. Well, keeping in mind the fact that it’s in very nascent stage, it is not right to comment on the same. However, some predictions can be made based on the kind of support that it has been able to generate in US as well as abroad. And that being said, it would be mildly successful and would sustain for a long time to see some of its demand being met.
One of the reasons for the same would be that it has been able to generate a huge support. Besides people, some of the politicians and even small and medium businesses have come and stood in its support. But that is not the end of it all, the kind of mess that has been created on the economic front, it does call for a paradigm shift and that cannot be done unless and until some of the demands of the movement are met.
Elections being round the corner, one can expect the OWS to be one of the hot topics which would see some serious steps being taken from the side of the government and more and more pressure being put on them. But all cannot be achieved since the intricacies of the current system are so strong and complicated that not all can be accepted and put into practice. All said and done, the movement does provide for light at the end of the tunnel.

References
Bejoub, B. G. (2012). A call to corporate compassion. JOURNAL OF REALTIONSHIP MARKETING .
Francis, D. (n.d.). The politics and economic implication of Occupy Wallstreet. Retrieved from http://news.yahoo.com/politics-economics-occupy-wall-street-221759930.html
Jathan Sadowski, T. P. (2012). The Sustainability Review.
Kohan, S. (n.d.). What will victory look like for Occupy Wall Street? Retrieved from http://edition.cnn.com: http://edition.cnn.com/2011/10/14/opinion/kohn-occupy-protest/index.html
Shaw, W. (2010). Ohio. Business Ethics – A Textbook with Cases.