Talk:Sustainable Economy

Wenzday 13:08, 4 January 2012 (EST) Pasting in some discussion about this that happened via email: Hi Wes,

I can see that I didn't express my views the way I would like. I am sorry i was not clearer in my previous email. I will try to explain my position more clearly.

There is a problem, yes.

I was not trying to "whitewash" anything. Certainly, my words are not meant to be an attempt to "gloss over" the actual inequalities that *do exist*, as you pointed out.

My feeling is that a rational, and relatively neutral presentation of the facts (journalistic) might be a more acceptable message in general and appeal to more people in the mainstream, than using more emotionally charged statements. The facts are there. And I think most people should have a hard time disagreeing if they can see the message clearly. I want the Occupy message to be heard and understood by as many people as possible, and also to reflect the perceptions of as many people as possible. That's my goal.

It is the only way we are going to win.

The edits I made were done out of a desire to help the message appeal to other intelligent, rational people who might be on the fence about whether they agree with occupy, and who might be turned off by language which smacks of opinionated ranting. The current system works pretty damn well for some people, the 1%. Is seems to work ok for some others too, namely, that portion of the population who are satisfied with the status quo, either out of fear, or apathy or lack of understanding, or simply because they actually believe everything is fine. Whatever the reason, I think, ideally, occupy needs to have the skill to be able to appeal to all those people - as many of them as we can. And ideally we want those people (especially the 1%) also to realise that there is a way to get everyone's needs met. Without violence, without tyranny and without the disgusting inequity that exists today. That's what we are working towards.

I think we can change that sentence again, perhaps, to be a little clearer and I do agree with you that the page needs more work in order to reflect, as clearly and concisely as we can, the problems and possible solutions that we see. I may have some time to work on more edits to the page tomorrow or Tuesday. I hope others will contribute to the page as well.

Looking forward to meeting.

-wenzday

On 1/1/2012 6:18 PM, Wes Nickerson wrote:

> I understand that you would like to keep it positive. The fact is we are dealing with real world problems here, that we ignore at our peril. We are not Wikipedia and we do not claim to be journalistically neutral. Certainly the Boston Occupier is not neutral. Occupy is a political advocacy movement. The 99% motif has worked quite well for Occupy. The sentence I object to presents inequality as a personal feeling rather than as a fact. It reminds me of how FOX News presents climate change as a matter of opinion, rather than as a scientific fact.

> > Even Wikipedia acknowledges the problem of inequality: > http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Income_inequality_in_the_United_States >

> I believe we can work for positive change, without whitewashing the nature of what we are up against. In fact addressing the issues transparently is essential to our success, in transforming the economy. We're not going to change anything if we pretend like everything is ok. And if everything is ok, then why bother? > > In (R)Evolution, > Wes > >> On Feb 12, 2012, at 5:14 PM, wenzday jane wrote: >> >> I was trying to make the article a little more impartial, ie, closer to the standards in use on wikipedia, which I think work pretty well journalistically. >> >> I, personally, have a problem with focusing on divisive language (the us.vs.them of the 99% motif) so I was just trying to be more positive (thinking about things we can do to effect change). >> >> I think my sentence: "While it serves the needs of some ..." is closer to the truth (and could be a more acceptable statement in general, expecially to non-activist types) than the judgement "It is unequal, unfair, unstable, and unsustainable. " >> >> I still think the whole thing needs more work. >> >>

>> On 1/1/2012 4:50 PM, Wes Nickerson wrote:

>>> While improving the layout of the wiki page and adding contact info, I discovered some edits by Wenzday. I like some of the changes, such as creating an economy that works for "everyone, in harmony with the laws of nature." I also like reference to the triple bottom line in the second paragraph. Thanks Wenzday!

>>> >>> Other edits I disagree with, such as removing all references to wall street, congress, k street, and the 99%/1%. We are still a part of the Occupy movement, and there are real problems with the power structure of the economic system, so I think it is important to bring attention to the important issues of growing inequality, corruption, and influence buying.

>>> >>> In particular I object to the second sentence, in reference to the economy, "While it serves the needs of some, to others it seems unequal, unfair and unstable." The inequality, unfairness, and instability of the economy have been well documented. These points are not a matter of opinion. I would suggest combining the first two sentences of the first paragraph to: "Our current economic system is becoming more and more unequal, unfair, unstable, disconnected and unsustainable, socially, fiscally, and environmentally." Maybe it should have one or more foot notes to document this fact.