Or the tightly packed nature of London and the physical closeness of St. Paul's to the stock exchange.

(I was by St. Paul's a few weeks ago. I didn't actually know the stock exchange was so close, although in retrospect there were a lot of investor types around in the nearby bars.)

Why is it "collateral damage?" Maybe it's the Hamlet strategy: keep the targets away from their devotions in order to make sure they can't get into heaven after you destroy them.

I think you misunderstand the purpose of this kind of protest.

The purpose is not to directly affect your target. It is to rally support for your cause. I'm not as familiar with the situation in England, but in the US, the movement is generating widespread support. Most people felt that something was very wrong with the way our economic system works, and now they are talking about it. Politicians that were very dismissive at first are now at least giving it some lip service. I hope constituents will soon demand to know what they intend to do about fixing it. Change can be slow and subtle, but demonstrations like this get things moving.

In the UK we have been talking about it for a while. Indead there are constant debates aboout how to avoid another eccominomic crisis of the kind we had over the banks actions.

I think radical change is necessary, not just a few more safety measures. Our financial system has swallowed our economy and it provides little in return. What is supposed to be a service industry that helps people with money invest in companies that actually produce things has instead become a giant money sucking leach that makes a few people very rich by stealing from everyone else.

After that, we can start dismantling the corporate structures that do no good and should never have existed. Peoeple have been brainwashed into thinking that how things work now is the only way things can work and how they have always worked.

But the point is that they have not made an impact on thier target, but have inflicted some colatral damage on anoher instution. Does this represent what these type of protests will achive, damage to wider society with no damage to capitalism or the finacial institutions. Especialy as thier name is 'Occupy the Stock Exchange' and not 'Occupy somewhere near the Stock Exchange'.

Well the idea of a protest is not to directly damage some target. It is to raise awareness and (more importantly) give political strength (or political cover, depending on how you see it) to those in power that can do something about it.

Shutting down the stock exchange for a week would be a much bigger problem (disastrous even) than shutting down St. Paul's.

So in effect it was not their intention to occupy or shut down the Stock Exchange, but to shut down some random institution that was a softer target to draw attention to their cause? So this was in effect a rather cynical publicity stunt, that had no relation to what they said was their intentions (or the intention their name implied). So yes then (in effect) this is what these types of protest will be, random attacks on soft institutions just to get publicity.

There intention was not to shut down anything, but hold a protest as near to the stock exchange as possible.

And any any protest is part publicity stunt (whatever their name implies, whatever that means. I doubt there was much tea drank at the tea party protests) and, as I said more importantly, to push those with political power or give them cover ("it's what the people want") to do what the protesters want them to do.

St. Paul's will be fine. Marriages and other private services are going on, and it's not exactly strapped for cash, it's St. Paul's. All protests or strikes or any forms of public demonstration have a knock on effect on nearby institutions. At least they have the common sense not to be literally occupying wherever, which would have a pretty bad effect what with the economy being as it is.

So now they have are they going to not open up any more camps that may shut things down or not give a toss and do it anyway?

As to common sense, I would have had more respect for them if they had actualy done what thier name implies they intended to do. When the going gets tough the tough do not go somewhere else.

Depends on whether they think they've had a political impact or not.

You seem to be judging this purely in terms of who or what they disrupt. But of course the point of a protest is to achieve something. You might think the protest wont achieve anything, or that what it's trying to achieve isn't worth the disruption. But the point is, the judgement should be in terms of what it will or wont achieve, and whether that is worth the disruption or not.

That is, they probably do give a toss about what they may or may not shut down. They just think that such shut downs are not as important as the problems they are protesting against.



I'm not. Shutting down St. Paul's will affect St. Paul's. Shutting down the stock exchange will negatively effect much more than the stock exchange, and isn't really connected to the aims of the protest (that is, increase regulation on the banks and make sure the wealthy have things less their way when it comes to politics).

They will also achive the same,becaseu at the end of the day mthier future carrers and propects are more improtant to them then any change in the system. As long as they sit around drinking cheap cider and getting stoned thier no threat to any one, and can (and will be) ignored.

Quite possibly, but I wouldn't connect the longevity of the cause so directly with the commitment of the people involved. The tea party, for example, could more or less die off in the interest of people tomorrow, but it's clearly already made an impact. And of course the converse happens too, the student loans protest groups or the campaigns for vote reforms are pretty solid fixtures (even if they often aren't directly protesting), but their influence is very much on the wane at the moment.

Also, while it's almost certain many of the people there are drinking cider and getting stoned (although that seems a strange mix of class stereotypes to me), what makes you think it's a large percentage of the protesters?

Has it, or is it only making an imnpact whilst it lasts. I would also point out that the Tea Party represents an old set of values about the US, its values are not new. Neitehr are those of Occupy anything that wont get us in trouble, which is the point. This is not a new set of demands, its just that those who used to make them are nowmpart of the establishment thay used to protest about, students havong their summer of 68 befroe tehy grow up and decide that actualy being paid 50,00 a year is a good thing after all. Their not fighting for something, they are just fighting against something. When I msee demands that will not help most peopple, but will help thier patents in the nleafy suburbs (or themselves when they get a job) I think "they don't what to change the world, their just looking for better income".

I am partialy using it as a metapher for sitting on your arse and doing nothing style revolution, mbut mainly because most of the people I know who used to go on this type of demo do that.

Shutting down the stock exchange for a week would be a much bigger problem (disastrous even) than shutting down St. Paul's.

... They are bubble machines that transfer wealth upward.

imperialists and their whining about people thinking they are not getting a fair go..

move along pleas, move along.

Maybe in the short run. I think a case can be made that stock markets don't provide much benefit overall. They are bubble machines that transfer wealth upward.