Occupy Wall Street and the 99% Movement - Term Paper Example

? Occupy Wall Street movement Task: Occupy Wall Street movement Introduction Income disparities have heightened with economicrecession and unequal wealth allocation globally. These factors undermine the livelihoods of a mainstream of the world’s populace. The variations between the rich and the poor form the central peak for the “Occupy Wall Street” (OWS). The OWS is a movement for enabling technical support to resistance movements. It began in September 2011 and has spread widely since its inception. Its tenets fight against the socio-economic domination by multinationals, corporations, banks, insurance and large businesses (Vag, 2011). The movement is stimulated by the recent successful uprisings in Egypt, Tunisia and Syria. Their goal is to confront the status quo in the government and the wealthy people who control most of the world’s resources. Their dominance creates an iniquitous global economy that disfavors the majority who are unable to compete effectively within the capitalist system. They aim at confronting greed, corruption and dominance by the business elites and politicians and creating accommodative redress to all persons (Vag, 2011). “Moral and economic implications involved in the movement” The OWS believe that a minority 1% of the world’s population controls the majority of meaningful resources. Their slogan, “we are the 99%” is based on socio-economic statistics for the year 2011. They argue that the 99% in the society is left to survive on very little that compromises their sustainable living. This movement shuns such dominance. They assert that it is instigated by insatiability, egotism and corruption. They petition authorities and decision makers to review their policies and redress these economic disparities between the 99% and the 1% (Vag, 2011). The OWS movement is fundamentally an awakening caveat to the people that concentrate the world’s wealth, power and control in their hands at the loss of the society. The movement appeals to the moral reasoning behind utilitarianism. Majority of the world lives in unemployment, poverty and homelessness while another group enjoys luxury, space, wealth and power (Vag, 2011). Therefore, a majority group has a bleak future with an diminishing ability to determine their destiny. The historical and economic implications to these inequalities have resulted to perceived economic injustices. The OWS aims at prompting the decision makers to review these principals consciously and address livelihood variability’s among populations. “The implications identified against the utilitarian, Kantian and virtue ethics to apply which theory best applies to the movement position”. The OWS aimed at confronting the corporate dominance in democracy and lack of legal actions to the perpetrators of the global economic crises. The utilitarian principle asserts that the ultimate socio-political and socio-economic achieves collective economic success. This system is not informed by moral merit and virtue. Nonetheless, it is expected to achieve the expected consequences of addressing socio-economic inequalities (White, 2006). The OWS bargains against these grounds to identify a cohesive ground for addressing social inequalities. The Kantian theory emphasizes on equality among all persons. It is perceived as a viable option to utilitarianism (White, 2006). Utilitarian theory overlooks the moral significance of moral virtues that inform minority issues and human rights. The utilitarian principles do not accord intrinsic values to human beings. The goal is to capitalize on individual rather than society benefits. The Kant theory concentrates on the most applicable channel to address issues. The theory that best compliments the OWS is the Kantian movement (Vag, 2011). The OWS is specifically is specifically interested in collective benefits and embodies a distinct shift in ethical dimensions. “Who is responsible for income inequality and wealth distribution in the US, Explain Rationale?” The income and wealth variations in America are attributable to the capitalism system. The person that can employ their intellectual and physical capabilities in financially viable ventures garners the most wealth. Wealth and power have a close interplay and enhance the economic prowess of those who can access it. The persons that control power can maneuver their ways into amass more wealth and income. Moreover, because of their economic capability, their bargaining power is enhanced such that they spend less for more. Additionally, they acquire land, housing, comprehensive insurance, employment opportunities and favorable policies. This keeps the few people that create employment, control public funds such as in insurance and banking a higher control in making decisions for the minority. The decisions that they make are such that they will continue to secure their economic status at the expense of the public. They create conducive grounds to grow at the expense of the others. Therefore, the governance system, capitalism and politics are responsible for the income disparities in America. Because the world has limited resources, the capitalism principle implies that a few people hold the limited wealth (Vag, 2011). The remaining majority is squeezed in shrunken livelihood bases and has little chance of improving their lives. The capitalism system ensures that those that already have are at better platforms to acquire more. The continual increment of wealth base by the wealthy and powerful compromises sustained livelihoods of the majority. It heightens the inequity gaps by depriving those who cannot compete in that system an opportunity to survive (Vag, 2011). An equitable outcome from the movement appropriate for our capitalistic society The goal of OWS is to minimize income gaps and promote an economic balance within populations. Governments, corporate and banks, understand the OWS concerns. For this reason, a debate emanates regarding the most appropriate rationale to address these concerns (Thomson, 2006). The new approach must embrace development of a comprehensive economic system that will address unemployment, cushion small businesses and create equitable means for wealth control. Therefore, a fundamental goal of OWS is to present a solution to the shifting economic stability and the job crises. Therefore, a radical shift in economic insights is unavoidable. The system must re-evaluate their rationale to be just and fair to all citizens. A novel financial system that tasks banks, insurance, corporate and government is inevitable. This system will value companies not, by their profits and financial prowess but through the responsibility they show to the society and the nation. The government, through the legal system should ensure that those who earn from the public repatriate a standard amount for social-economic redress. These incentives aim at compelling the corporate world to weigh their profits against unemployment, employment creation, job retention and other incentives (Thomson, 2006). The Probable Future of the Movement The movement will not end in the near future since anxiety might lessen with the time, but ideologies advocated by the movement may take a new course. This is exemplified by the current trend presented by the movement. The movement has gone global and the group’s ideas continue to attract considerable attention. The movement has managed to tap into a mounting sense of the present worldwide economic anxiety. The world economies continue to face developmental challenges indicating that OWS concern will remain relevant to the future governments and generations. White (2011) observes that the OWS movement has attained a largely unexpected scale and the movement is capable of stretching to extreme levels. It is amazing to realize the period that the movement has persisted regardless of being insignificant at the start. However, the movement has raised serious apprehension with the time. Apparently, some of the initial concerns raised by the protesters may be eroded, but the principles sourced from the movement will inform future policies (Thompson, 2006). The movement has adopted a strategic position that has high potential of strengthening their influence in developing a strong commanding authority. According to Van (2011), the three main elements fueling the movement includes the persistent economic discontent, the escalating media coverage and the need for curtailing harsh law enforcement plans that were primarily used to suppress the movement. These are influential elements meaning that the movement cannot be dismissed easily. In fact, the movement is capable of developing to be a stronger movement of great relevance to world’s policy makers. Van further asserts that the three factors noted have provided the movement with rational ideas capable of tapping a huge audience offering the group an opportunity of selling their claims (Van, 2011). Critical observations affirm that activists are presently using media as their protesting ground and the avenue has proved to be very effective. Indeed, the internet and the social media have an imperative role of connecting and bringing up demonstrators together. Consequently, activists no longer have to walk into the street to air the concern since they can comfortably do this over the internet. This provides an effective ground for the proliferation of the movement’s activities. Conclusion The OWS presents sensible fiscal, social and political concerns that have attracted world attention. It is surprising to note that few prominent individuals control the world economy. One can hardly explain a scenario where 1% of a population dictates on the 99% since a justified position would be that the 99% should reside with the authority. The state of wealth disparities and unequal resource distribution poses concerns. Ignoring the concerns raised by the movement is detrimental. Unless the burning issues are addressed effectively, the movement can hardly end. Therefore, governments need to reflect on claims emanating from the movement and respond accordingly by adopting strategies that can minimize disparities. References Thompson, S. (2006). The political theory of recognition: A critical introduction. Cambridge [u.a.: Polity. Van, G. S. (2011). This changes everything: Occupy Wall Street and the 99% movement. San Francisco: Berrett-Koehler Publishers. White, M. D. (2011). Kantian ethics and economics: Autonomy, dignity, and character. Stanford, Calif: Stanford University Press. Read More