Posted by Rojas @ 10:52 am on October 12th 2011

Occupy retirement homes?

We haven’t discussed the various permutations of the “occupy” movement yet, largely because Brad is attending to Ireland and none of the rest of us ever has anything to say to initiate discussion. Short version: I’m in favor of it. As with the Tea Party, I find civic engagement to be generally praiseworthy in and of itself, and the movement’s initial greivance–the apparent insulation of Wall Street firms from any form of accountability, either in political or capitalist terms–is very much correct. Of course, one would wonder why people who are angry about said lack of accountability would choose to support politicians who favor bailing the bankers out of the crises they engineered, and who staff their administrations with Goldman Sachs personnel, but I digress…

Anyway, here is Niall Fergusson, making the intriguing argument that the true enemy of the OWS crowd is the Baby Boomers–and that realistically, they are likely to see their income reduced more substantially by the demands of existing entitlement programs than by any form of predation by the rich. In short, he wants to replace class warfare with generational warfare…and he has an intriguing idea for bringing it about. Money quote:

So occupying Wall Street is not the answer to this generation’s problems. The answer is to occupy the Tea Party—and wrest it from the grumpy old men who currently run it.

A fusion of OWS and the Tea Party dedicated principally to entitlement reform? Now there’s a coalition I could support without reservations.

No Comments »

No comments yet.

RSS feed for comments on this post.

Leave a comment

You must be logged in to post a comment.