Occupy Torrance: A Reflection

Around 5pm on August First, a small group was gathered on the corner of Hawthorne Blvd. and Carson Street in Torrance, CA.

Five people were lined up along the corner, right in front of a Bank of America branch.

To the side, a box full of banners and signs were waiting to be picked up and displayed.

Five people were out in full force that afternoon, the Torrance branch of the Occupy Movement, a force based on relevant and respectful outrage, yet turning more into an oddity than an odyssey for political and legal change.

Some interesting banners were waving in the air. "Honk if you cannot afford a lobbyist!"

"Honk for the 99%" displayed another sign.

"Fair trade, not free trade" bore another sign, with the tariff rates for China and the United States listed below. The sign indicated China charges a 25% tariff on its imported goods, while the United States charges 2.5%

Still another sign exhorted us to consume what we produce, I suppose indicating that people should "buy American".

One gentleman was waving an American flag, but instead of a spangled-banner of stars, corporate logos littered the blue field in the top corner of the flag, apparently suggesting that corporate instead of people interests are now running things in this country.

Two of the ladies I spoke to, both standing on the corner of the street outside of the Bank of America, allowed some time for me to talk with them about this Occupy Movement.

"Banks make $ loans. Don't play the Stock Market" read one banner, one held by a lady named Tony, who gave me a few minutes of her time. She told me how she wanted Glass-Steagall reinstated, a law which would  prohibit banks from making risky loans with depositors' money on Wall Street.

Judy, the other lady waving banners along the corner, the one calling for "fair" instead of free trade, had a necklace with a sign that read "Be the Change".

Tony informed me that "Occupy Torrance" meets every Wednesday and Thursday at the corner of Hawthorne and Carson, although in previous weeks they were meeting  closer to the Torrance/Hawthorne intersection.

With Judy, I had one question:

"Define 'fair'."

She told me that should could not offer a definition, but I then asked her how she could talk about fair trade if she did know what the term "fair" meant.

This is a fundamental defect when Occupy protesters are trying to articulate a solution to the problems which are plaguing this country.

While talking about the role of corporate corruption with government, Tony mentioned that "we" are destroying jobs in this country. When I asked her to articulate who exactly was destroying jobs, and how, she explained that corporations are closing up their industries in this country and setting up shop overseas.

Judy, the one carrying the "Fair Trade" sign, said that we should high tariffs on all goods coming into this country from China. I told them that the protectionist war set off shortly after the October 1929 Stock Market Crash precipitated the world-wide depression, as businesses all over the world suffered since the tariff policies frustrated trade for everyone.

I mentioned also that a number of companies are going bankrupt or moving to other countries because of labor costs, costs which have risen dramatically because of union power which has pushed or generous pensions and benefits for workers, in many cases to the growing hurt of companies which must shoulder these liabilities.

As we began talking more at length about markets, trade, the best mechanisms for ensuring the best use for a certain number of products, Judy then commented about "Greed".

"What's 'greed'? Define 'greed' for me?"

Judy then shared that a person should only be allowed to make so much money. I was confused as well as concerned. At what point is the amount of money that one takes in "too much"?

This discussion proved to be as fruitless as my inquiry about "fair" and "equity". The nebulous nature of these terms has caused more problems than it has solved in our national polity. Yet the notion of stifling the profit that one takes in as a matter of "fairness" or social justice is a doctrine which lacks salience for me, and for many. The notion that people should only make "so much" smacks of the growth in state power which not only denies to one segment the amount of money that one takes in, but would also curb the wealth that others can make.

The one word that came to mind when I reflected on the issue of "Greed" - "Covetousness". The culture of covetousness which has emerged stronger than ever is doing more harm than good, in my opinion.

There is a lot of anger out there, and the Occupy Movement concentrated the outrage that voters and "average" citizens have about the failure of the government to respond and respect the needs of the people they claim to represent. Yet the solutions which have created the problems dragging down the economy, the collusion of corporation and government, cannot be solved with more government. I was disturbed by the seemingly minute understanding of the two protesters whom I spoke with regarding the role of economies and jobs.

The role of supply and demand, the power of the free market, as understood as a comity of agreed-upon rules which enforce contracts and punish fraud while providing a forum for compliance and enforcement of competition, these issues escaped the understanding of those whom I spoke with.

That government, that more regulation is the panacea to fix this nation's problems, that deregulation is the big problem which has created the Great Recession and the Anemic Recovery that followed, these insights are uninformed. The expansion of government power, the disdain for profit and corporation, the railing against Wall Street, all ignore the picking and choosing which inevitably unfolds when government as reformer forms more laws and regulations, like Dodd-Frank, which in the byzantine fold of rules and code only confuse financial firms, requiring another horde of lawyers while discouraging or diminishing small banking firms.

The location of this protest was intentional, outside of a Bank of America, an institution which has a checkered history and poor track record with consumers. I noted to the protesters that Credit Unions have profited and proliferated during the institutional hardships which have afflicted depositors charged with secret fees and higher rates of interest. Of course, the government's intervention into credit card interest rates only made it more difficult for individuals to get credit, along with lowering lines of credit for those who already had cards.

The law of Unintended Consequences, the role of the spontaneous order, the need for choice and freedom as opposed to government regulation and intervention, this debate bore out little by little as I spoke with Tony and Judy that afternoon. Before I left, I offered to Judy that she read The Fatal Conceit by Friedrich Hayek, a free market economist who articulate the role of spontaneous order free from excessive government intervention.

She suggested that I look up the works of  a Ravi Pavar, an economist I was not familiar with at the time. From commenting on her use of the terms "fair" and "greed", to her thoughts on the role of government in regulating economies and breaking up powerful banking firms, Judy told me that is she had had her notes, then she could better articulate her views.

Before leaving, I suggested that the notion of "fair" cannot be defined with an precision of value, that less government, more capitalism, these reforms would free up the economy and end disastrous role of government at the expense of the people. She told me that she would contact me in the future, that perhaps an open forum to discuss these issues would be helpful.

I cannot state this enough: the grievances of the Occupy Movement were legitimate, but the means of protest and the solutions to these problems are not acceptable.