Tuesday, September 27, 2011

"Occupy Wall Street"- First Amendment in Action

The movement called "Occupy Wall Street" is spreading from New York City to different cities around the country. People are gathering together and exercising their right that was set down by our forefathers.

The First Amendment in the US Constitution reads:

"Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press, or of the people to peaceably assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances"


Peaceably assembling they are. This Amendment was not made so people could indulge in idle gossip, it was set down so that when the people of this country see an imbalance of power they have the protected right to peacefully assemble and petition for a change.

The foundation of this movement is the imbalance of wealth in this country. They refer to the "ninety nine percent" and how most of us are on this team. Meaning, that the wealth in this county is held by one percent of the population; and they hold it through a system of greed and corruption. They want changes to be made so that there is a greater possibility of equality.

It seems that right now the movement is in a phase of spreading information. What they need is a plan to put into place a system that will encourage equality.

There needs to be a solid, clear, logical plan to get behind.

This is a perfect case to debate these people's rights under the First Amendment. Protesters ( a group of women who were not acting violently) have been filmed being maced by police officers. Protesters have been arrested. They have been barred off from certain areas. It brings up many questions of what they are able to do. Should they be allowed to march down Wall Street? Should they be arrested for the things they are saying?

Should this movement be stifled and quieted or should it be allowed to grow? (I hope the Constitutional answer to this question is clear)

So far the movement has provoked people to at least question the financial imbalance in this country, and question if there is any possibility to bring about a change. Ideas are being spread and minds are being opened. This is why the First Amendment was created.

Below is a link to the "Occupy Wall Street" movement where you can see how it is progressing and/or would like to contribute to the cause:

Saturday, September 17, 2011

HLS Event: John Allison on the Financial Crisis: Causes and Consequences

This last Wednesday, September 14th, Harvard Law School hosted an event in which John Allison gave his talk on the U.S. Financial Crisis: Causes and Consequences. He is a retired Chairman and CEO of BB&T Corporation, the 10th largest financial services holding company headquartered in the U.S. To read more about his credentials view the following link:




He talked about many issues, here are some of the highlights.


The bailouts during the past few years have done nothing to help this crisis. It is a myth that if Goldman Sacks fails then there would be a ripple effect and all other banks would fail.

Allison talked about how the market should have been allowed to correct itself. That bailouts lead to future problems, and they keep companies from going under that SHOULD be going under.

For example, if Chrysler has been allowed to fail, plants would not have been shut down. They would have been taken over by Ford and other car companies. Not only that, other companies would then have learned from Chrysler's mistakes, and become even better. Instead, companies learn that they can pretty much do what they want and the government will bail them out.

He talked about making it a better economy for people to create new jobs and businesses. He said that lowering taxes would be an incentive for people to create jobs and plan for the future. He also talked about how ObamaCare has hurt businesses because it has created ambiguity. Companies are not hiring like they would have before because they are unsure of future health care costs.

Not only is ObamaCare bad for business, it is essentially the opposite of American ideals. Who is paying for this health care? America was built on Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. Everyone has the right to work for their own good. The idea behind this is that we will then be naturally kind to other people, without resentment.

John Allison's bottom line is that the "free lunch" (free health care, free housing...etc) mentality we are living in now is leading this country to certain economical disaster. We need to implement changes in order to stop this from happening.

It seems now we are in a vicious cycle. Right now 60% of the country is below the poverty line (this is without counting government financial help). This is greatly due to the failed education system. Many people graduate high school and are not even able to read or write correctly. This country is left with a shortage of highly skilled persons and an abundance of unskilled workers. These unskilled workers are competing with people in other countries who are willing to work harder for less money. One of the things keeping unskilled workers from getting jobs is the regulations. During a recession, minimum wage was raised 40%. So companies who are cuttings costs are going to hire other workers who do not have this restriction. Which in turn leads to more people living below the poverty line.

Allison believes that government needs to take a big step backwards. That 75% of regulations need to be eliminated in the next 6 months (65,000 pages have been added in the last five years alone). We have a massive over regulatory system.

The role of government should get back to three things. A military to protect (as defensive, not out in three wars). Policemen (to get the "bad guys"). An effective Court System ( to enforce contracts). Other regulations should be gotten rid of.

He also spoke about integrity and how we have to do the best we can. Allison said, "when businesses forget their purpose is to make a better place to live, bad things happen."

These are just some points from his talk. It was very thought provoking and has left me with a new perspective, and also with some questions.

Such as, if we no longer have a "free lunch" system, what happens to the people who are getting a free lunch? What would be the steps needed to transfer to a system with less government involvement?

Below is a link to his talk, given at Virginia School of Law this past February