Wednesday, October 12, 2011

Occupy Boston Profiles: Eliana

The Occupy movements have got me fascinated. That's led me a little off-track in terms of what I usually write about, but regardless of their agenda - if you can even say they have an agenda - a movement of this magnitude would intrigue me and compel me to consider what it's implications might be for sustainability. (I wasn't around for the Tea Party.)

I decided to check out Occupy Boston myself to understand better what's brewing there. I've had my expectations violated on an occasion or two before - which is something I think everyone can use a healthy dose of - so I knew I wouldn't be able to trust any interpretation of the people there and their activities until I'd seen a fair bit of it for myself. The only way to build up an accurate sense of any collection of people or ideas is to start from the bottom - with individuals. So that's what I did.

Eliana

It proved more difficult to approach people and get their backstories than I thought it would. Even at a protest, people seemed a little shy about being scrutinized by a nameless stranger. I suspect part of that stems from a reluctance to be perceived as speaking for a movement that's still very much in a formative phase. Another reason is probably that, as Eliana articulated, there are different views represented there and you can't be sure how yours will be received.

Especially if I had just come as an agitator.

But luckily, after possibly scaring off some other people, we were able to talk a bit.

What brought her out here

Eliana works in the biomedical research industry. One of the first things she shared with me was that the environment was her top concern. She saw the economic downturn as an opportunity for a government jobs program to bolster our infrastructure and make society more sustainable, such as by expanding renewable energy.

As far as government debt, she didn't see it as a concern. It had not been one under the previous administration. It was only when Obama came into office that it was raised as a major issue, one manufactured by the Tea Party, when in reality the US would retain its solvency.

It was also important that the Tea Party not be the only group of people assembling and expressing themselves in such a visible way. What's interesting is that, as I would later find out, the two groups weren't mutually exclusive either. Tea Party members have been in attendance at the Occupy movements as supporters, as well as Ron Paul supporters. I suspect they have in common a desire for greater accountability in business and government, whatever size they consider ideal for it.

Government measures

That Eliana repudiated criticism of the deficits under Obama isn't to say she's in full support of him. In his attempt to compromise she's witnessed him preemptively make concessions and give up the opportunities he's had to make substantial progress. In recent times it's seemed to me that Obama might be making an about-face and start putting his foot down, but it may be too late to garner the support of the likes of Eliana.

In terms of policy changes, the conversation turned toward Paul Krugman's suggestions; a return to the Glass-Steagall Act, which had separated commercial and investment banking from the Great Depression until 1999, thus keeping banks from trying to profit off risky investments funded by deposits; and the Buffet rule, which would levy higher taxes on the mega-rich - at least high enough that they'd be paying the same rate as lower brackets. As of today they pay a lower rate than the middle class on average, since their incomes typically come from capital gains, which are taxed less than wages.

Pulling it all together

The Occupy movements are clearly unified by their frustration (who isn't?) and, as I see it, a longing for a more egalitarian distribution of the political power that determines economic fates. Naturally, people will differ in their thoughts on how that can be attained, in addition to tagging their pet issues onto the momentum that's built up. For instance, I witnessed one general assembly where Occupy Boston was compelled to adopt a position on the wars.

It makes me wonder whether this will solidify into more specific, but broad-based policy initiatives. If it doesn't, it's still getting many of us to pause and reflect on the state of the union, the system that's determined it, and the roles played within it. At the very least, I've gotten a few interesting conversations out of it.

Sunday, October 9, 2011

Occupy Wall Street

Like many movements, Occupy Wall Street inspires me with its level of civil engagement but leaves much to be desired. I won't be the first to point out that it could benefit from narrowing its scope to a concrete, productive goal. Indeed, if it doesn't its sole legacy may be disillusionment. My main goal here though is to address a couple aspects of the discourse unraveling around it.


I got around to checking out OWS's declaration and what really drew my attention were the characterizations, both from the side of the protesters as well as their critics.

Who are the corporations?


Corporations are made up of individuals. Just like any organization, they're heterogeneous, consisting of people whose views vary widely. Just as there are individuals who don't have the interests of society at heart in these settings, there are also individuals who share the values embodied by this protest in certain respects. I am one of them.

Any view can dominate at a given level in an organization and thus inform the direction corporations take. Even in their capacity as legal entities corporations differ. I'll give just a couple examples of how corporations don't hold to how they're being portrayed here.

The first is Calvert Investments, which specializes in socially responsible investments and thus helps businesses that don't place profit over people get ahead in the market. The second is Whole Foods, which helps to promote more sustainable lifestyles. Though there's arguably some greenwashing involved in their operations, they're renowned for the treatment of their workers and are certainly an improvement upon the preexisting status quo. Like churches, nations and book clubs, you'll find both good and bad corporations and you should always be wary of letting the whole come to represent its constituent parts and vice versa.

Who are the activists?




There's a tendency in American society to identify a movement with one political extreme or another the moment it strikes the slightest semblance and to caricature its participants accordingly. Critics of Occupy Wall Street and related movements have described their participants as lazy, uneducated, voluntarily unemployed, irresponsible, spoiled and financially supported by their parents. Hippies and hipsters.

There are some to be found who satisfy those definitions, of course. What concerns me though is an incapacity I frequently observe for anything but gross generalizations. I doubt anybody's saying all the participants fall into these categories, but I'm skeptical that even the majority does, in the same way that I'm skeptical that the Tea Party consists mostly of selfish, racist, gun-wielding evangelicals.

To be sure, there are people at the Occupy movements who drive me up the wall, but there's a whole world out there and you can find anything you're looking for. As a case in point, I take myself. I'm interested enough in Occupy Wall Street to at least attend, but I'm educated (I received no funding from my family) and hold a professional job at a corporate entity that I happen to find morally irreproachable.

The Targets

Targeting groups of people whose morals can't be accurately and consistently characterized is bigotry. As I elaborated above, there are both good and bad corporations. There are also both good and bad rich people, with Warren Buffett and Bill Gates immediately coming to mind as examples of wealthy individuals who render a service to society commensurate with their extraordinary affluence.

Even if we can pinpoint the "bad" corporations or the "bad" people in them, is that the appropriate target? There will be exceptions, but I think the main factor behind the frustrations expressed at OWS is preferential treatment of people and organizations that are already so clearly empowered. The enemy here is not big business or the rich, but the mechanisms in place that allow some of them to live with less accountability than their smaller counterparts. It's the arrangement that allows the largest banks to benefit from bad business decisions and taxes billionaires less than the middle class.

As preferential treatment has its roots in political corruption, if the movement is to adopt policy goals, campaign finance reform should probably be one of them.

The Collusion

This movement couldn't have been precipitated without the financial crisis. And the financial crisis couldn't have been precipitated without three culprits, which Raghuram Rajan outlines so clearly in his book Fault Lines: government, corporations (banks), and the consumer.


Government's to blame for pushing better access to credit through Fannie Mae and other organizations as a fix for growing wealth disparity and thus distorting returns in the securities market; the financial sector for responding to those distortions and pursuing unsustainable business models for a quick buck (then pursuing them further to establish systemic importance and thus ensure their longevity despite their decisions); and those consumers who overborrowed to live a life they couldn't afford.

There are improvements to be had in the private sector, as well as in the private sector's relationship to the government and the public. Nevertheless, there are also issues we need to address outside of it, with our government and with ourselves. To be more concrete, I'll advocate here what I have so often elsewhere: leverage what power you have, however small, as an economic actor.

Companies and people don't grow rich on their own; someone has to give them the money. By refraining, or more effectively, opting for or providing a better alternative, people can shape fates and behavior. Disagree with a bank? Move your account to a more responsible one. Keep your money in a sock. Leverage your power as a friend or family member to increase the likelihood that those you come in direct contact with will do the same. Expose wrongdoings and commend good deeds as you see them in conversation and on the internet.

But don't be an imposing jerk because that never works.

It's through this feedback that we can hope to transform an existing foundation into something better, instead of uprooting the establishment with potentially nothing to fill the vacuum. Take the lessons of failed revolutions and shock therapists to heart: it's easy to destroy something, but it's much more difficult to create something better out of it.

Saturday, October 1, 2011

The Greening of Ohio State University

So I was making a student loan payment when I stumbled upon this: my alma mater's football stadium is going "zero waste." Okay, that really means 10% waste or less, but that would be a huge stride in the right direction. They're planning to make this happen through recyclable and biodegradable materials and by making only corresponding bins for their disposal available. No more trashcans.

Zero Waste at Ohio Stadium

I'm wondering how well it'll be received. The reason it would be such an improvement is because games generate so much trash, which also means it'll be a tough habit to curb. What if a person comes into the stadium with a load of stuff that can't be recycled or composted? Likely throw it where they please, which threatens to make this new system in practice not much different from the current one.


The fact that the vast majority of products available for purchase at the stadium will conform to these new guidelines, however, is reassuring. Even with a stray wrapper here or there, it could still work. I just hope people don't get frustrated with it or see it as a damper on their festivities. Because they can get really passionate about them.


It seems like OSU really took up their sustainability bent right after I left there, which is awesome but makes me regret that I wasn't around to take part in or be influenced by it. They've got smarter, sustainable buildings now, were pioneering dandelions as an alternative fuel source last I knew, offer courses in that same vein. It at least gives me a little something to brag about.

Speaking of which, one of my many cynical friends was quick to point out that "they're probably only doing it for the PR." My response to which is, of course they're only doing it for the PR! Virtually no organization wants to take on more responsibility and do the right thing for its own sake.


What interests us is the recognition and reward that comes with that responsibility, rarely the virtue in and of itself. Luckily in a more transparent, interconnected world we start dishing those accolades out. The more we move in that direction the better the feedback will be for those who appear to act beyond their own interests.

I think that this arrangement is probably our best hope for steering ourselves toward a brighter future. Sunlight is the best of all disinfectants.