A letter to the New York City protesters

[DarrinS]

:clap

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/sites/default/files/styles/article_image_full/public/wallstreet-ap.jpg
A bunch of angry ideologues who don't share ordinary people's concerns.




Dear protesters in New York City,

You are not 99 percent of America. I don't mean that in the obvious numerical sense. If 99 percent of Americans had actually joined your march, Manhattan would have flipped over by now.

What I mean is that if 99 percent of Americans actually sympathized with your cause, the entire nation's economy would have collapsed long ago -- apparently to the delight of the organizers of this current protest.

What I mean to say is, you have a marketing problem.

When you decided to sit in traffic and block the Brooklyn Bridge a few days ago, with that blazing pink "SMASH PATRIARCHY-SMASH CAPITALISM" sign in hand, you probably didn't see the regular people you stranded in traffic.

You know, the ones with real-world concerns, business to attend to, families to go home to, et cetera. You may have read about such people during college in a book called "The Petit Bourgeoisie," or something like that. Many of us grew up calling them "the middle class."

Whatever you call them, they are hurting badly in this economy, probably more than you are. (I'm just judging by that sweet digital video camera I see you holding out in front of the cops, in hopes of provoking them into a viral-video police brutality incident.)

Those people you left stuck in traffic have a hard time paying their bills and rents and health insurance and mortgages. They worry about things like finding decent schools for their children to attend and making sure they don't get fired at work, and fixing leaking roofs and chimneys.

You know what they don't worry about, ever? Smashing patriarchy and capitalism.

So when your organizers go on television and say things like, "It's revolution, not reform!" and they're not joking, those words might give some of these narrow-minded people an unpleasant, October 1917 kind of feeling.

I know you'll find this hard to believe, but these regular people probably weren't very happy to see you on that bridge, carrying your preprinted black and yellow protest sign that hundreds of you got straight from the communist Workers' World Party (or one of its less frighteningly named affiliates). So incensed was one Ground Zero construction worker that he called you "g-ddamned hippies" in the New York Post.

And that underscores the problem with the 100 million-plus people who work for a living in this country. They lack an enlightened perspective that would show them how your camping trip in lower Manhattan has already helped their lives.

See, regular people don't like banks any more than you do. But when they go to buy houses for their families to live in, they often find that they don't have half a million dollars stuffed in their mattresses. So they shortsightedly embrace financial imperialism, otherwise known as a mortgage.

They also worry about corporations, because they're big and powerful. But then, they'd love to own one of those sweet video cameras like yours, and they perceive that they can only buy one if an evil corporation can turn an obscene profit making and selling it.

So the point is, real-life things blind people to the great class struggle you're waging in lower Manhattan. You, and the rest of America's three-tenths of one percent.

You can take some consolation from that next year when you sacrifice your principles, abandon the Global People's Liberation Party (or whatever), and vote to re-elect President Obama.

[Spurminator]

It's like this guy has never seen a protest before.

Link?

[DarrinS]

http://campaign2012.washingtonexaminer.com/article/letter-new-york-city-protestors

[Agloco]

What I mean is that if 99 percent of Americans actually sympathized with your cause, the entire nation's economy would have collapsed long ago -- apparently to the delight of the organizers of this current protest.

What I mean to say is, you have a marketing problem.

Well there's sympathizing and then there's acting on said sympathy. As long as the toughest decision Americans face is venti vs grande or generic vs brand, corps will be ok. The tough decisions are slowly turning towards mortgages, medical treatment, etc though.

Things will begin to get interesting in the near future.

[CosmicCowboy]

It's like this guy has never seen a protest before.

Link?

What exactly are these losers protesting?

[DarrinS]

Nice

http://farm7.static.flickr.com/6173/6214034947_239f0a1339_z.jpg

[FuzzyLumpkins]

What exactly are these losers protesting?

If you don't know then how in the fuck can you characterize them as losers?

CC rationalization: they seem to be protesting the financial industry so therefore they must be losers.

[boutons_deux]

cc is your typical well-off, self-congratulating, preening asshole.

[CosmicCowboy]

Again, what exactly are they protesting?

[CosmicCowboy]

http://blog.mlive.com/business_impact/2008/09/large_20080926-ap-protest-new-york-bailout.jpg

Poor little kid. Should have majored in something employers actually wanted.

[ElNono]

Poor little kid. Should have majored in something employers actually wanted.

He's not big enough to not fail...

[DarrinS]

RDuHqntfqUI

[DarrinS]

http://blog.mlive.com/business_impact/2008/09/large_20080926-ap-protest-new-york-bailout.jpg

Poor little kid. Should have majored in something employers actually wanted.


I love when students hold up signs bitching about their student loan debt. Do they think they are the first people to ever have student loans? WTF? I guess those loans were shoved down their throats.

[Borat Sagyidev]

A look, someone made a threat about pro-banker, pro-finance welfare.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/12/01/news/economy/fed_reserve_data_release/index.htm



Fed made $9 trillion in emergency overnight loans

http://i2.cdn.turner.com/money/2010/12/01/news/economy/fed_reserve_data_release/chart_fed_loans.top.jpgTop recipients of overnight loans made by the Federal Reserve under special program that ran from March 2008 through May 2009. By Chris Isidore, senior writerDecember 1, 2010: 6:05 PM ET


NEW YORK (CNNMoney.com) -- The Federal Reserve made $9 trillion in overnight loans to major banks and Wall Street firms during the financial crisis, according to newly revealed data released Wednesday.

[Borat Sagyidev]

I love when students hold up signs bitching about their student loan debt. Do they think they are the first people to ever have student loans? WTF? I guess those loans were shoved down their throats.


I killed about 20 more jihadists with more integrity than you. You hateful sack of shit.

Student loans are needed even more thanks to 5 fold increases in tuition costs on average across the nation in the past 15 years. Don't let facts like that catch you though.

[ElNono]

I love when students hold up signs bitching about their student loan debt. Do they think they are the first people to ever have student loans? WTF? I guess those loans were shoved down their throats.

What's your point?

If he doesn't go to college: "Look at that moron that didn't go to college and now complains he doesn't have a job"

If he goes to college and has a job: "Nobody forced him to get that loan and go to college"

If he goes to college and doesn't have a job: "Should've picked a career that gets him a job"

Hindsight is great, I guess.

[George Gervin's Afro]

why do you care why they are protesting? What's the point of this thread?

[Agloco]

http://blog.mlive.com/business_impact/2008/09/large_20080926-ap-protest-new-york-bailout.jpg

Poor little kid. Should have majored in something employers actually wanted.

Does anything in the picture indicate that he didn't?


I love when students hold up signs bitching about their student loan debt. Do they think they are the first people to ever have student loans? WTF? I guess those loans were shoved down their throats.

There are better questions than the ones you posed. But you already knew that right?

[Spurminator]

If Team Red doesn't understand what they're protesting, why are they automatically against it?

(Answer: It's because baaa-aa-aa-aaa-aaa)

[Spurminator]

What's your point?

If he doesn't go to college: "Look at that moron that didn't go to college and now complains he doesn't have a job"

If he goes to college and has a job: "Nobody forced him to get that loan and go to college"

If he goes to college and doesn't have a job: "Should've picked a career that gets him a job"

Hindsight is great, I guess.

And really, the whole point is that while this person may have made some bad choices, the bad choices that many of the millionaires on WS made were recouped by the government so they could continue being millionaires.

[Borat Sagyidev]

And really, the whole point is that while this person may have made some bad choices, the bad choices that many of the millionaires on WS made were recouped by the government so they could continue being millionaires.


Yup, and if they keep it up.
http://www.therealcuba.com/che_01R.JPG

[Vici]

I love when students hold up signs bitching about their student loan debt. Do they think they are the first people to ever have student loans? WTF? I guess those loans were shoved down their throats.

I will always side with the students on this issue. I'm very lucky because I only have 18k in student loan debt but I also had a job and help from family. There are tons of students out there who don't have the same help and have to rack up that debt in order to get a good job, or so they are told.

I honestly don't feel college is all that important anymore because you don't really learn a whole lot. My job has absolutely nothing to do with my degree. Most of the people I work with don't have degrees yet our starting wage is 50k. I have friends who just graduated from Columbia with a law degree that can't find a starting wage that high. What's even worse for them is that 3 years ago the starting wage at firms in NY was something like 100k. a year ago it was 50k.

It doesn't help that when kids actually go to schools, the schools push private instead of public loans which kill the kids even more.

[Vici]

What's your point?

If he doesn't go to college: "Look at that moron that didn't go to college and now complains he doesn't have a job"

If he goes to college and has a job: "Nobody forced him to get that loan and go to college"

If he goes to college and doesn't have a job: "Should've picked a career that gets him a job"

Hindsight is great, I guess.

Bingo

[Viva Las Espuelas]

What's real funny is most, if not all, of those people will vote for Obama again.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Why aren't the students protesting at the colleges they go to about tuition costs. The colleges aren't loaning them money. The banks are.

[clambake]

viva thinks they're protesting tuition.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Clammy's not reading again.

[clambake]

Why aren't the students protesting at the colleges they go to about tuition costs. The colleges aren't loaning them money. The banks are.


viva thinks they're protesting tuition.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Ok, if I say "why aren't" then that must mean that they are not....
Hmmmm. Yet I'm being accused that that's what I think they're protesting.

Fucking brilliant, Clammy :golfclap
Take a load off and rest that noggin of yours.

Oh, wait! Maybe it's because I didn't use correct punctuation. Should've been a "?" at the end of the first sentence. Did that throw your thought process off Clammy-poo?

[MannyIsGod]

Why aren't the students protesting at the colleges they go to about tuition costs. The colleges aren't loaning them money. The banks are.

you sure about that? Pretty sure private loans are a fraction of what is loaned through government programs.

[MannyIsGod]

I'm not sure why anyone here who is reasonably intelligent would be against protesting against wall st.

[boutons_deux]

yes, dubya privatized student loans, subsidizing the banks and guaranteeing the loans, also. absolutely free money for the banks.

Rather than us govt making the loans, the banks do, plus interest.

Then the banks got the Repugs to make the student loans forever inescapable, even in personal bankruptcy.

Defaulted student loans get passed to collection sharks, who add can add on $10Ks for collection fees plus interest on collection fees, assuring the student will be screwed for decades.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm not sure why anyone here who is reasonably intelligent would be against protesting against wall st.

Again, what exactly are they protesting and what do they propose to accomplish?

[ElNono]

Again, what exactly are they protesting and what do they propose to accomplish?

Probably different things. Anybody that's there protesting TBTF has my endorsement (whatever that's worth).

[clambake]

probably because the mega-rich can transfer all the risk to others.

[CosmicCowboy]

I grew up in the 60's/70's when protests were a daily event, but in that case the goals and objectives were crystal clear, even if the protest itself was futile. I just don't see that here. This is more of a flash mob.

[Wild Cobra]

If you don't know then how in the fuck can you characterize them as losers?

CC rationalization: they seem to be protesting the financial industry so therefore they must be losers.

It is seen what they are protesting. The problem is, they are protesting for different reasons, and Wall Street became the focus of their blame.

[DarrinS]

I grew up in the 60's/70's when protests were a daily event, but in that case the goals and objectives were crystal clear, even if the protest itself was futile. I just don't see that here. This is more of a flash mob.

bingo

[Trainwreck2100]

you sure about that? Pretty sure private loans are a fraction of what is loaned through government programs.

The gov. realized that they were basically the fronting money to middle men when they could have been doing it themselves all along and took said middle men out of the equation. The loans come from the gov. now. I'll give Obama props for that one

[DarrinS]

lol @ this one

Apparently, misspelled "fuckers" on first attempt.

http://www.zidouta.com/images/protest_wall_street.jpg

[Trainwreck2100]

lol @ this one

Apparently, misspelled "fuckers" on first attempt.

http://www.zidouta.com/images/protest_wall_street.jpg

:lol










:rollin










:lol






that sign is like 4 years old.

[MannyIsGod]

yes, dubya privatized student loans, subsidizing the banks and guaranteeing the loans, also. absolutely free money for the banks.

Rather than us govt making the loans, the banks do, plus interest.

Then the banks got the Repugs to make the student loans forever inescapable, even in personal bankruptcy.

Defaulted student loans get passed to collection sharks, who add can add on $10Ks for collection fees plus interest on collection fees, assuring the student will be screwed for decades.

All government loans are now handled through DirectLoans which is directly from the Dept of Ed.

[MannyIsGod]

The gov. realized that they were basically the fronting money to middle men when they could have been doing it themselves all along and took said middle men out of the equation. The loans come from the gov. now. I'll give Obama props for that one

Exactly - it was fucking stupid for the government to take on all the risk while companies like Sally Mae made money with no risk.

[clambake]

darrin using a 4 year old sign.

lame

[DarrinS]

darrin using a 4 year old sign.

lame


It was linked with some recent photos. Sue me.

[MannyIsGod]

I grew up in the 60's/70's when protests were a daily event, but in that case the goals and objectives were crystal clear, even if the protest itself was futile. I just don't see that here. This is more of a flash mob.


bingo

This is more of a flash mob? REALLY?

If only they had a clear message that you could easily find on the internet through a google search of "occupy wall st". If only.

http://occupywallst.org/

[MannyIsGod]

It was linked with some recent photos. Sue me.

You linking shit on this forum that is out of date and or incorrect.



I'm shocked.

[MannyIsGod]

God, its so hard to find out what these protests are all about.

:dramaquee

http://www.adbusters.org/blogs/adbusters-blog/occupywallstreet.html

[DarrinS]

This is more of a flash mob? REALLY?

If only they had a clear message that you could easily find on the internet through a google search of "occupy wall st". If only.

http://occupywallst.org/


Anti-capitalist protest organized through non-profits such as Facebook and Twitter. Lol.

[DarrinS]

The irony is, if capitalism ceased to exist, these lefttards would be the first to starve.

[MannyIsGod]

Where did you read that it was anti capitalist? No where on the sites I linked.

[MannyIsGod]

Darrin, you're free to think whatever you'd like about the protests and I really won't care either way but I think its telling that you have to basically make up things in order to justify your feelings toward the situation. That's gotta be a weird existance.

[MannyIsGod]

The irony is, if capitalism ceased to exist, these lefttards would be the first to starve.

Coming from the guy who finds it hard to survive without his dishwasher this is fairly hilarious. I'm sure a big alpha male like you would be out catching game with your bare hands and skinning them with your teeth.

:lmao

[LnGrrrR]

I'm not sure why anyone here who is reasonably intelligent would be against protesting against wall st.

Why, because of the responsible and intelligent way they've shepherded us through this financial crisis, of course.

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm sure a big alpha male like you would be out catching game with your bare hands and skinning them with your teeth.

:lmao

:depressed

You make that sound like a bad thing....

:p:

[LnGrrrR]

Also, how old is the author? He makes it sound like a videocamera is some high-tech, lavish piece of equipment.

Edit: He's 34? Yeesh. I'm not sure if he's an idiot or dishonest.

[MannyIsGod]

:depressed

You make that sound like a bad thing....

:p:

:lol

I'm all for getting out there and catching what you eat I just don't think that dishwashing pussy could handle a day away from youtube in the forest. I'm pretty sure this leftist would have to feed that fuck in exchange for making sure my dishes were cleaned with no spots.

[DarrinS]

:lol

I'm all for getting out there and catching what you eat I just don't think that dishwashing pussy could handle a day away from youtube in the forest. I'm pretty sure this leftist would have to feed that fuck in exchange for making sure my dishes were cleaned with no spots.


GFY and grab your shine box while you're at it. When you support an entire family and your aging parents, let me know.

[MannyIsGod]

Darrin, you want props because you didn't know how to use a condom and your parents didn't plan for their retirement?

:sleep:sleep:sleep

[DarrinS]

Bunch of bored, trust fund kids.

[DarrinS]

Darrin, you want props because you didn't know how to use a condom and your parents didn't plan for their retirement?

:sleep:sleep:sleep

Wow. Really?

[MannyIsGod]

Darrin, you're free to think whatever you'd like about the protests and I really won't care either way but I think its telling that you have to basically make up things in order to justify your feelings toward the situation. That's gotta be a weird existance.


Bunch of bored, trust fund kids.

[MannyIsGod]

Wow. Really?

If your parents had properly planned you wouldn't have to take care of them, now would you? I guess they were too busy watching Youtube at work, too. Or maybe they were too busy protesting in the 70s/60s (protests where they properly declared the purpose).

[MannyIsGod]

Actually, why bother supporting them, Darrin? So socialist of you. Let them sink or swim on their own merrits, imo.

[clambake]

i'm wondering how this protest harms darrin.

if anything, it should help. after all, your wealthy boss is using your "patent" for free.

[Trainwreck2100]

supporting old people is so not capitalist. HINT HINT

[MannyIsGod]

Darrin is a model socialist. He probably refers to his old leech parents as "comrade".

[DarrinS]

Actually, why bother supporting them, Darrin? So socialist of you. Let them sink or swim on their own merrits, imo.


WTF?

It would be socialist if you expected me to take care of YOUR parents. Since when is taking care of YOUR OWN family socialist?

[DarrinS]

Good Lord! You idiots need to join the throng of unwashed, braindead masses at Occupy Wall Street. Maybe Jay Leno will come along and interview you.

[CosmicCowboy]

Thanks for the link Manny but they still don't say what they think they are going to accomplish. I thought the part about getting Obama to appoint a czar to get money out of politics was freaking hilarious. He's the biggest whore of them all. All he does when he isn't on vacations is fly around on Air Force One to fund raisers.

[clambake]

you give away your patent for free....or you're just afraid of your boss.

[EVAY]

Really, folks.

Doesn't this just represent the left version of tea partiers?

Isn't it part of the longstanding American tradition of getting a bunch of folks together and fussing about whatever we are pissed off about at the moment?

[clambake]

Thanks for the link Manny but they still don't say what they think they are going to accomplish. I thought the part about getting Obama to appoint a czar to get money out of politics was freaking hilarious. He's the biggest whore of them all. All he does when he isn't on vacations is fly around on Air Force One to fund raisers.

you don't like it when a president uses air force 1?

[CosmicCowboy]

Presidents busy schedule yesterday:
9:15 AM
The President departs the South Lawn en route Joint Base Andrews
9:30 AM
The President departs Joint Base Andrews en route Dallas, TX
12:20 PM
The President arrives Dallas, TX
1:35 PM
The President delivers remarks at a campaign event (fundraiser
2:00 PM
The President delivers remarks at a campaign event(fundraiser)
3:35 PM
The President tours Children’s Laboratory School at Eastfield College
3:55 PM
The President delivers remarks urging Congress to pass the American Jobs Act now
4:55 PM(Fundraiser)
The President departs Dallas, Texas en route St. Louis, MO
6:25 PM
The President arrives St. Louis, MO
7:45 PM
The President delivers remarks at a campaign event9Fundraiser)
8:35 PM
The President delivers remarks at a campaign event(Fundraiser)
10:00 PM
The President departs St. Louis, MO en route Joint Base Andrews
11:55 PM
The President arrives Joint Base Andrews

[EVAY]

Seems to me these folks are saying what voters have been saying since 2006.

2006: "I'm pissed off at you, government!"

2008: "I'm still pissed off at you government!"

2010: "I'm still pissed off at you government!"

2011: "And by the way, I'm pissed off at Wall Street too!"

[Vici]

WTF?

It would be socialist if you expected me to take care of YOUR parents. Since when is taking care of YOUR OWN family socialist?

You do see the logical fallacy right?

Socialism is taking care of your own. Socialism, in your context, would be the U.S. paying for other countries to have universal health care.

[DarrinS]

You do see the logical fallacy right?

Socialism is taking care of your own. Socialism, in your context, would be the U.S. paying for other countries to have universal health care.

fail

[clambake]

would giving away your patent be socialism?

[MannyIsGod]

Thanks for the link Manny but they still don't say what they think they are going to accomplish. I thought the part about getting Obama to appoint a czar to get money out of politics was freaking hilarious. He's the biggest whore of them all. All he does when he isn't on vacations is fly around on Air Force One to fund raisers.

I agree on your last points but it has to start somewhere, right? That being said I don't expect them to succeed but I understand the motivation and anger.

[FuzzyLumpkins]

Again, what exactly are they protesting?

Is it really hard to figure out. From the CSM hardly a liberal rag:


It turns out there are objective reasons the decentralized movement, which is protesting what it says is the undue political influence of major financial firms, has not generated more and better coverage.

http://www.csmonitor.com/USA/Elections/Vox-News/2011/1005/Occupy-Wall-Street-Why-this-revolution-isn-t-made-for-TV

I need to start a thread about where people get their information from because by and large I am seeing a bunch of people who have no idea how to research.

[Agloco]

We already have a good idea about how Wall Street feels about this

2PiXDTK_CBY

[Trainwreck2100]

We already have a good idea about how Wall Street feels about this

2PiXDTK_CBY

That's called the counter troll tbqh

[Spurminator]

After three years of Tea Party rallies, NOW all of a sudden you guys expect a consistent and central theme to protest rallies?

How expectations change...

[Trainwreck2100]

After three years of Tea Party rallies, NOW all of a sudden you guys expect a consistent and central theme to protest rallies?

How expectations change...

These guys aren't dressing up patriotically though. At least we knew the Tea Party loved Merica

[ElNono]

Thanks for the link Manny but they still don't say what they think they are going to accomplish. I thought the part about getting Obama to appoint a czar to get money out of politics was freaking hilarious. He's the biggest whore of them all. All he does when he isn't on vacations is fly around on Air Force One to fund raisers.

So we went from "What are their protesting?" to "What they expect to get out of it?". That's progress, I guess.

I'm sure some politico will try to capitalize on them at some point or another, and maybe they'll get something back. The thing with politicos is that when votes are short, they aim to please. Not necessarily come through once elected, but doesn't hurt trying, right?

[Trainwreck2100]

Youre already seeing that with the unions, some are as dirty as corporations

[cherylsteele]

I'll bet most of you don't even know what they are actually demanding.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/

A $20.00 minimum wage?? (part of demand 1)

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live. We have that now, they want to make illegal immigration legal.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment. They want to increase welfare? This will make it worse, you have a choice of working or not and you still can get money to live, this is not a good idea.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment. Isn't there an amendment to the constitution already (1960's)?

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. I could buy a million dollar house and not have to pay it back? Hot damn. I wouldn't have to pay back my car loan, or credit cards? This will make matters much, much worse.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies. Demands 11 and 12 mean you can just be given everything, no matter what.

Demand four: Free college education. So, professors don't get paid? That'll go over well.

[RandomGuy]

:clap
A bunch of angry ideologues who don't share ordinary people's concerns.

Are we talking about the tea party or the NYC protestors?

[MannyIsGod]

I'll bet most of you don't even know what they are actually demanding.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/

A $20.00 minimum wage?? (part of demand 1)

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live. We have that now, they want to make illegal immigration legal.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment. They want to increase welfare? This will make it worse, you have a choice of working or not and you still can get money to live, this is not a good idea.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment. Isn't there an amendment to the constitution already (1960's)?

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. I could buy a million dollar house and not have to pay it back? Hot damn. I wouldn't have to pay back my car loan, or credit cards? This will make matters much, much worse.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies. Demands 11 and 12 mean you can just be given everything, no matter what.

Demand four: Free college education. So, professors don't get paid? That'll go over well.

A forum post? Thats like saying that the shit posted on here comes straight from the Spurs.

[Yonivore]

A forum post? Thats like saying that the shit posted on here comes straight from the Spurs.
Truth is, the vast majority of them don't know what their protesting.

[MannyIsGod]

Truth is, the vast majority of them don't know what their protesting.

Truth is a LOT of you have to make shit up like this. How do you know what the "vast majority" of them are thinking? You must have a device that lets you know what people are thinking, Yoni. You showed that in the Jobs thread as well.

[admiralsnackbar]

Truth is, the vast majority of them don't know what their protesting.

While this place is hardly ever a venue for reasonable discussion, it can always be depended upon to provide heaps of unintentional irony.

[RandomGuy]

I'll bet most of you don't even know what they are actually demanding.
http://occupywallst.org/forum/proposed-list-of-demands-for-occupy-wall-st-moveme/

A $20.00 minimum wage?? (part of demand 1)

Demand nine: Open borders migration. anyone can travel anywhere to work and live. We have that now, they want to make illegal immigration legal.

Demand three: Guaranteed living wage income regardless of employment. They want to increase welfare? This will make it worse, you have a choice of working or not and you still can get money to live, this is not a good idea.

Demand eight: Racial and gender equal rights amendment. Isn't there an amendment to the constitution already (1960's)?

Demand eleven: Immediate across the board debt forgiveness for all. I could buy a million dollar house and not have to pay it back? Hot damn. I wouldn't have to pay back my car loan, or credit cards? This will make matters much, much worse.

Demand twelve: Outlaw all credit reporting agencies. Demands 11 and 12 mean you can just be given everything, no matter what.

Demand four: Free college education. So, professors don't get paid? That'll go over well.


Admin note: This is not an official list of demands. This is a forum post submitted by a single user and hyped by irresponsible news/commentary agencies like Fox News and Mises.org. This content was not published by the OccupyWallSt.org collective, nor was it ever proposed or agreed to on a consensus basis with the NYC General Assembly. There is NO official list of demands.

I would not put it past some conservative activist to post something like this to deliberately make propaganda out of.

Did you leave out the part out about it not being an official list on purpose?

[Stringer_Bell]

http://blog.mlive.com/business_impact/2008/09/large_20080926-ap-protest-new-york-bailout.jpg

Poor little kid. Should have majored in something employers actually wanted.

What the fuck does it matter if someone majors in something simply to attract an employer or not? Truth be told, the student makes a choice to take the loans, but even with all the best credentials - unless your parents know someone or groom your ass to be a boy scout, good ass jobs are not within the reach of 70% of college grads. And by good ass job, I mean something that can pay rent/mortgage, utilities, car, car insurance, health insurance, and student loans from month to month. It seems a lot of the Tea Party crowd has hostility toward college students, which sucks but whatever.

Of course the kids out there don't know wtf they are protesting, that is also true. It's spontaneous, but now it's growing virally and starting to get organized. I have 100x more faith that this movement will have a more positive affect that anything the Tea Party ever did...which was simply go to voting booths to replace one crook with another.

Fuck elections - what good and honest person wants to be involved in politics at a time like this? lol voting

[Spurminator]

As with most large protest rallies, a variety of different people are there for a variety of different reasons.

They are not ideologically monolithic, and the idea that a protest like this SHOULD be composed of identically-minded people with a single central message or goal is a ludicrous talking point peddled to fools.

[Yonivore]

As with most large protest rallies, a variety of different people are there for a variety of different reasons.

They are not ideologically monolithic, and the idea that a protest like this SHOULD be composed of identically-minded people with a single central message or goal is a ludicrous talking point peddled to fools.
So, what is their aim in protesting?

[Yonivore]

Truth is a LOT of you have to make shit up like this. How do you know what the "vast majority" of them are thinking? You must have a device that lets you know what people are thinking, Yoni. You showed that in the Jobs thread as well.
What are they protesting, Manny?

[MannyIsGod]

Read the thread, dumbass. I've already answered that question.

[CosmicCowboy]

There is going to be an "occupy San Antonio" protest at Travis Park today. The organizer was interviewed on the radio this morning and asked what they were protesting. To paraphrase, He said we don't have anything specific...that is what is so unique about us...we are all individuals protesting our own thing...

[MannyIsGod]

Well, the NYC protests have a very real goal as we've seen. I can't speak to any of the others.

[Yonivore]

Read the thread, dumbass. I've already answered that question.
Sorry, I'm not going back through a multi-page thread to find your musings on the matter simply because I didn't happen to be online when you posted it. I asked you a question; you can choose to answer or not.

I heard an interview of one of the "Wall Street Occupiers," this morning who, when asked what she was protesting, said she was there to take back what belonged to her. She didn't elaborate.

I'm curious, is there a cohesive message?

The 60's protesters wanted Peace; they wanted us out of Viet Nam. I got that. This one, not so much.

[Yonivore]

Well, the NYC protests have a very real goal as we've seen. I can't speak to any of the others.
Okay, what is it?

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Yep. They're being instructed to not answer any specific questions as to what they're protesting. Some other group within the protectors are releasing what they're protesting. I guess they can think for themselves.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Truth is a LOT of you have to make shit up like this. How do you know what the "vast majority" of them are thinking? You must have a device that lets you know what people are thinking, Yoni.

Maybe you should lend him your device.

[ElNono]

tbqh, with the current economic + jobs situation as it is, and after that big bank bailout we had to foot the bill for, if you're still wondering what that people are protesting, you're either dumb or purposely idiotic.

[DarrinS]

Are we talking about the tea party or the NYC protestors?

The Tea Party changed the makeup of Congress. Are you really comparing these braindead hipsters to the Tea Party? :lmao

[CosmicCowboy]

These hipsters seem to be mad about a lot of the same things the tea party is mad about.

[MannyIsGod]

Maybe you should lend him your device.

I keep that for my own personal use, tbqh. It may seem like a fancy device, but being able to read what you write tells me what you're thinking. I understand what to a functional illiterate such as yourself reading does seem like mind reading!

Magic!

[MannyIsGod]

Sorry, I'm not going back through a multi-page thread to find your musings on the matter simply because I didn't happen to be online when you posted it. I asked you a question; you can choose to answer or not.

I heard an interview of one of the "Wall Street Occupiers," this morning who, when asked what she was protesting, said she was there to take back what belonged to her. She didn't elaborate.

I'm curious, is there a cohesive message?

The 60's protesters wanted Peace; they wanted us out of Viet Nam. I got that. This one, not so much.


Okay, what is it?

If you're too lazy to read through a few posts then you can remain ignorant and continue to look like a dumb ass. No skin off my back.

[MannyIsGod]

Pretty damn funny to see Yoni come in here with the already debunked conservative meme from yesterday though.

[MannyIsGod]

tbqh, with the current economic + jobs situation as it is, and after that big bank bailout we had to foot the bill for, if you're still wondering what that people are protesting, you're either dumb or purposely idiotic.

+1490832048239048239048209482094823904823904802498 234908234908234 x 10^24098249082490824908290824902482904824908240924 8092482908240

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I keep that for my own personal use, tbqh. It may seem like a fancy device, but being able to read what you write tells me what you're thinking. I understand what to a functional illiterate such as yourself reading does seem like mind reading!

Magic!

:lol

[Agloco]

tbqh, with the current economic + jobs situation as it is, and after that big bank bailout we had to foot the bill for, if you're still wondering what that people are protesting, you're either dumb or purposely idiotic.

[Yonivore]

Capitalist Pig foments crowd against capitalist pigs...


MtYnoOpLYAE[/quote]

And, another proposes a return of the guillotine and "reeducation camps" (how 1984 of her)...


[youtube]fYcTXzY6m7o

Oh, the irony just gets thicker.

[DarrinS]

tbqh, with the current economic + jobs situation as it is, and after that big bank bailout we had to foot the bill for, if you're still wondering what that people are protesting, you're either dumb or purposely idiotic.


Where were these people when TARP and Stimulus were passed?

I know one group of people that were very vocal about both -- the Tea Party.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

I'm sure everyone is pissed about the banks, bailouts, etc. What makes these guys "outrage" any different? Why is this being treated like sliced bread?

[Yonivore]

ElNono quote
They should be at the Capitol and White House then. It is from there the problems are emanating.

[JoeChalupa]

This is great.

[MannyIsGod]

Man, the depths you guys have to go to try to make people who just want power out of Wall St's hands is amazing. I would have thought the way people here protested the bail outs and TBTF that EVERYONE would have been behind this. Never underestimate the pride one has in their particular political team, I guess.

[CosmicCowboy]

Man, the depths you guys have to go to try to make people who just want power out of Wall St's hands is amazing. I would have thought the way people here protested the bail outs and TBTF that EVERYONE would have been behind this. Never underestimate the pride one has in their particular political team, I guess.

Manny, I just made the observation that they seem to be angry about a lot of the same things the tea party is angry about. No comment?

[MannyIsGod]

I'm sure everyone is pissed about the banks, bailouts, etc. What makes these guys "outrage" any different? Why is this being treated like sliced bread?

You really need to know what makes it different? Are you protesting in NYC on Wall St?

Actually, considering they're saying they're representing 99% of the country who is upset at the current situation and not a particular political viewpoint or party then you could say thats the only difference and one of the points.

[MannyIsGod]

Manny, I just made the observation that they seem to be angry about a lot of the same things the tea party is angry about. No comment?

I think you're right. I will give the Tea Party a lot of credit for becoming a viable political force that was borne out of a lot of anger at a lot of different things. I don't agree with their solutions, but I think the anger on certain issues is parallel with these people. I think there are differences and I think that there are idiots within both groups but I think overall you're right. They are generally pissed off at many of the same things.

[Yonivore]

Man, the depths you guys have to go to try to make people who just want power out of Wall St's hands is amazing. I would have thought the way people here protested the bail outs and TBTF that EVERYONE would have been behind this. Never underestimate the pride one has in their particular political team, I guess.
Well, the "power" Wall Street wields just happens to be the power that fuels the economic engine of this country.

The "power" that needs to be reigned in is that which sees fit to borrow money it doesn't have to give to companies that either don't deserve it or are worthless money pits, to saddle business with onerous and oppressive regulations, and to violate normal standards of business law to favor cronies.

I can give them all directions to 1600 Pennsylvania Avenue.

[Yonivore]

Manny, I just made the observation that they seem to be angry about a lot of the same things the tea party is angry about. No comment?
I think the principle difference is the Tea Party movement seeks limited government while the Occupy Wall Street movement appears to want limited business.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Ah, so now that people with political beliefs close to yours are doing what the tea parties have been doing, you're ok with them?

[DarrinS]

They should be at the Capitol and White House then. It is from there the problems are emanating.

+1490832048239048239048209482094823904823904802498 234908234908234 x 10^24098249082490824908290824902482904824908240924 8092482908240

[DarrinS]

Man, the depths you guys have to go to try to make people who just want power out of Wall St's hands is amazing. I would have thought the way people here protested the bail outs and TBTF that EVERYONE would have been behind this. Never underestimate the pride one has in their particular political team, I guess.


They are just 3 years late to the party. Short bus takes longer to get there, I suppose.

[MannyIsGod]

Ah, so now that people with political beliefs close to yours are doing what the tea parties have been doing, you're ok with them?

See, this is what I mean about you being functionally illiterate. Go back and reread my post. Do it a few times if you have to.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

They should take a poll of these protesters and ask who they're voting for in '12.

[clambake]

They should take a poll of these protesters and ask who they're voting for in '12.

who's running?

[MannyIsGod]

They should take a poll of these protesters and ask who they're voting for in '12.

Who should they vote for?

[Spurminator]

So, what is their aim in protesting?

Are you just trolling now? In the very post you quoted I said they have no central goal and that protests these days rarely do. Don't ask me to give you their "aim" when I just told you they don't have, or need, one.

They're gathered together because they're pissed off about the financial district's influence on Washington, and they have the spare time to gather there. Just like the Tea Party was pissed off about government's influence on business and had the spare time to gather together to protest it.

I know you're a puppet but I never took you for a fucking idiot.

[MannyIsGod]

They are just 3 years late to the party. Short bus takes longer to get there, I suppose.

Actually, they were there before the Tea Party. They just happened to rally behind someone who didn't have the balls to actually make change int he system.

[Spurminator]

They should take a poll of these protesters and ask who they're voting for in '12.

And that's the only reason you guys are so scared of these rallies, because they're probably voting differently than you. How predictable.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

See, this is what I mean about you being functionally illiterate. Go back and reread my post. Do it a few times if you have to.

I read it. It's not hard to comprehend. Is the question to hard to answer? You obviously have no problem defending these protesters from what im reading here. You took every possible shot at the tea party and now you say you're giving them credit because "the anger on certain issues is parallel with these people". Is that correct?

[CosmicCowboy]

Well, the "power" Wall Street wields just happens to be the power that fuels the economic engine of this country.



:lmao

Yoni, those wall street leeches do not fuel economic growth. Oh yeah, the ability to do IPO's and connect cash to growing companies is a good thing, but that is just a tiny part of what they do. They make money whether the economy booms or busts and they really don't give a shit which it is.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

Who should they vote for?

I don't tell people what to do or think. I said "poll"

[MannyIsGod]

I read it. It's not hard to comprehend. Is the question to hard to answer? You obviously have no problem defending these protesters from what im reading here. You took every possible shot at the tea party and now you say you're giving them credit because "the anger on certain issues is parallel with these people". Is that correct?

What am I giving them credit for, Viva? I said it in there. What does my second sentence say? Do I agree with their solutions or not? What does my final point say?

I have not changed my stance regarding the Tea Party one bit. Of course its OK that they're angry and it always has been. Of course I'm going to give them credit for becoming a viable political force. That doesn't mean that I agree with what they want to do or I agree that their only motivation is anger over what was going on.

[Viva Las Espuelas]

And that's the only reason you guys are so scared of these rallies, because they're probably voting differently than you. How predictable.

It's amazing how people just talk shit out of there ass to feel good about themselves. smh

Spurm, I don't really expect everyone to think like me or me to think like everyone. We're all individuals. I don't care if you vote Steve Jobs. I don't care if you vote for Castro. Do whatever the hell you want. There's no gun at your head.

[MannyIsGod]

I don't tell people what to do or think. I said "poll"

I didn't say you did. I was asking you a question. See, reading, Viva. Reading.

Anyway, what would you be looking for in the poll results?

[MannyIsGod]

It's amazing how people just talk shit out of there ass to feel good about themselves. smh

Spurm, I don't really expect everyone to think like me or me to think like everyone. We're all individuals. I don't care if you vote Steve Jobs. I don't care if you vote for Castro. Do whatever the hell you want. There's no gun at your head.

Are you sure you know what I don't care means? You just said they should conduct a poll so obviously you care who they are voting for.

[Agloco]

So, what is their aim in protesting?


tbqh, with the current economic + jobs situation as it is, and after that big bank bailout we had to foot the bill for, if you're still wondering what that people are protesting, you're either dumb or purposely idiotic.


They should be at the Capitol and White House then. It is from there the problems are emanating.

Not sure what angle you're taking here but I'll proceed under the assumption that you're holding Obama solely responsible for this mess.

When did Bear Stearns and Countrywide go under again?

Washington may have provided the arms, but Wall Street chooses to employ them of their own volition. You go after the perpetrator in any case. Immorality runs rampant in the free market. It was laid bare during the financial crisis.

[Yonivore]

Not sure what angle you're taking here but I'll proceed under the assumption that you're holding Obama solely responsible for this mess.

When did Bear Stearns and Countrywide go under again?
It probably would help for you to see this post from another thread...


Exactly what did Wall Street do?

Pay their CEOs too much? It's their money...Oh, and I seem to remember posting an article that pointed our the compensation packages for the top 25, of the Fortune 500 companies, did not amount to the more than $500 million dollars the Obama administration threw down the Solyndra money pit.

Not pay enough in taxes? Government constructed the tax code and businesses would do their stockholders a disservice to throw away money when they are playing by the rules that have been dictated.

Took TARP money? I seem to remember there was a meeting, during the Bush administration, where his Treasury Secretary, Paulson, current Treasury Secretary Tim Geigthner, FDIC Chair Sheila Blair, and Fed Chair Ben Bernanke strong-armed Wall Street Banks into taking TARP money (http://www.judicialwatch.org/news/2009/may/judicial-watch-forces-release-bank-bailout-documents). I said, at the time, they should have let the banks fail.

And, another thing, the "Occupy Wall Street" protests are doing less to big business than they are to the thousands of not-so-rich Wall Street employees just trying to eke out a living like the rest of us.


Washington may have provided the arms, but Wall Street chooses to employ them of their own volition. You go after the perpetrator in any case.
Wall street was forced to take TARP money. Besides, it would be foolish for a company to pass up on a legal opportunity to stay solvent. I was in favor of letting the banks fail. Some still argue they were too big to fail and that if they hadn't been propped up the market would have crashed.

To that I say, great! At least we'd be further along in our recovery than this slow strangulation we're experiencing at the hands of the current administration.


Immorality runs rampant in the free market. It was laid bare during the financial crisis.
Because, morality underpins socialism?

Systems have no morality. Does capitalism have a component of greed? Absolutely. But, in no other form of market is altruism and philanthropy as high as it is in the free market capitalism of the United States.

I like how Milton Friedman explained it to Phil Donahue, years ago.


RWsx1X8PV_A

[Spurminator]

It's amazing how people just talk shit out of there ass to feel good about themselves. smh

Spurm, I don't really expect everyone to think like me or me to think like everyone. We're all individuals. I don't care if you vote Steve Jobs. I don't care if you vote for Castro. Do whatever the hell you want. There's no gun at your head.

I'm just saying it's been awfully predictable to see how some of you have reacted to the Occupy rallies.

[boutons_deux]

"altruism and philanthropy as high as it is in the free market capitalism of the United States."

neither of those have ANYTHING to do with capitalism, unless capitalists are altruistic or philanthropic to obtain accounting "good will" and public acceptance for their non-altruistic, non-philanthropic capital-seeking activities.

And no other industrial country is as so ruthlessly, mercilessly sociopathic, eg about health care, as the for-profit health care of UCA.

[DarrinS]

I wonder how many of these hipsters know who Larry Summers is?

[DarrinS]

All the while, paying homage to capitalist extraordinaire, Steve Jobs

http://twitter.com/#!/LadyCurriculum/status/121738466370396162
http://twitter.com/#!/alphaleah/status/121730960210395136
http://twitter.com/#!/micchiato/status/121746980094480384


lol Occupy San Antonio
http://twitter.com/#!/TheTechTease/status/121794593166602240

[Spurminator]

Darrin on full attack like a good little soldier.

[ChumpDumper]

Darrin just regurgitating the party lines he's supposed to regurgitate.

[xrayzebra]

How long before they burn a police car or bus? Bust a few windows out of some
windows and loot a few stores.

[ChumpDumper]

How long before they burn a police car or bus? Bust a few windows out of some
windows and loot a few stores.Do you know how long have they been there?

[CosmicCowboy]

Do you know long have they been there?

Yoda? Is that you?:p:

[xrayzebra]

Do you know long have they been there?

Hehehehehehe..........

[ChumpDumper]

Hehehehehehe..........Edited.

So you are ignorant about how long they have been there.

Hehehehehehehehehehe..............

[ElNono]

Where were these people when TARP and Stimulus were passed?

I know one group of people that were very vocal about both -- the Tea Party.

They were hoping Barry do what he ran on vs doing what he did.

I don't think these people are against the stimulus, BTW. I don't think the protests have anything to do with policy, and that's exactly why it's nothing like the Tea Potties.

No matter the party, to get to the WH or Congress you need a ton of dough, and the financial industry is exactly where a lot of that dough comes from, along with the influence and leverage. It's not surprising the protests are in Wall Street, and not in Orlando, FL.

[xrayzebra]

Edited.

So you are ignorant about how long they have been there.

Hehehehehehehehehehe..............


No just laughing at you reaching for some "brilliant" comeback to
my post.....

:lol

[ChumpDumper]

No just laughing at you reaching for some "brilliant" comeback to
my post.....

:lolSo you're saying you know how long they've been there.

How long?

Let's see your brilliant comeback to a simple question of fact.

I predict it won't actually answer the question.

[Agloco]

It probably would help for you to see this post from another thread...

Wall street was forced to take TARP money. Besides, it would be foolish for a company to pass up on a legal opportunity to stay solvent. I was in favor of letting the banks fail. Some still argue they were too big to fail and that if they hadn't been propped up the market would have crashed.

To that I say, great! At least we'd be further along in our recovery than this slow strangulation we're experiencing at the hands of the current administration.

Yoni, Wall Street takes this money regardless of how much the government pushed it. You stated as much in the very next sentence.

As for how well or bad we'd be doing, that's a matter for someones crystal ball to sort out.



Because, morality underpins socialism?

Systems have no morality. Does capitalism have a component of greed? Absolutely. But, in no other form of market is altruism and philanthropy as high as it is in the free market capitalism of the United States.

And in no other system does such a large disparity of wealth exist. I don't argue that overall, capitalism has given us vast benefits that no other countries have. That doesn't preclude the notion of accountability though. No one gets a pass because they donated to Random Charity X at some point (unless it's Random Political Party Charity X, but that's another argument).




I like how Milton Friedman explained it to Phil Donahue, years ago.


RWsx1X8PV_A

:tu

Good clip.

[Yonivore]

Yoni, Wall Street takes this money regardless of how much the government pushed it. You stated as much in the very next sentence.
I disagree.

Until Government forced it on them, Wall Street only received money that was freely given them by the markets.


As for how well or bad we'd be doing, that's a matter for someones crystal ball to sort out.
Solyndra. We'd be $535 Million Dollars richer if we hadn't given them money. It doesn't take a crystal ball to figure that out. If the banks had been allowed to fail, investors would have lost everything. But, the beauty of the free market is that others would have bought the remaining assets and liabilities for pennies on the dollar and built another empire.

All the government did was force me (via my tax dollars) to invest in a failing business instead of allowing me to wait and see if what replaced it was better.


And in no other system does such a large disparity of wealth exist. I don't argue that overall, capitalism has given us vast benefits that no other countries have. That doesn't preclude the notion of accountability though. No one gets a pass because they donated to Random Charity X at some point (unless it's Random Political Party Charity X, but that's another argument).
Why is the disparity a problem? We have the richest poor in the world...because of the benefits of our capitalist free market economy.

And, in no other country can a poor person ever achieve the wealth available in this country.


:tu

Good clip.
And, yet, you're not persuaded to his position?

[cherylsteele]

I would not put it past some conservative activist to post something like this to deliberately make propaganda out of.

Did you leave out the part out about it not being an official list on purpose?Then if there is no official list, what pray-tell is the actual reason for the protesting?

[Agloco]

I disagree.

Until Government forced it on them, Wall Street only received money that was freely given them by the markets.

You said: It would be foolish for a company to decline a legal means to remain solvent. Now you maintain that they would have if the government hadn't insisted? :wtf


Solyndra. We'd be $535 Million Dollars richer if we hadn't given them money. It doesn't take a crystal ball to figure that out. If the banks had been allowed to fail, investors would have lost everything. But, the beauty of the free market is that others would have bought the remaining assets and liabilities for pennies on the dollar and built another empire.

All the government did was force me (via my tax dollars) to invest in a failing business instead of allowing me to wait and see if what replaced it was better.

Agreed, but you've only covered 535 million of 10trillion+ problem. What about the trillions that still exist because of the intervention? How much richer would we be today if trillions were allowed to disappear four years ago?



Why is the disparity a problem? We have the richest poor in the world...because of the benefits of our capitalist free market economy.

And, in no other country can a poor person ever achieve the wealth available in this country.

Perception mainly. Americans tolerate this to a much greater degree than other societies. Sooner or later the small guy catches on ( I think this is what you're seeing with the protests, albeit in this iteration they don't have their shit together). The gap is widening and standard of living is on the decline. Once Venti vs Grande is replaced by Mortgage vs Meds, problems ensue. I dont' claim to know when that will occur, but one is hard pressed to argue that it won't at some point given the current trajectory of things.


And, yet, you're not persuaded to his position?

I'm not anti free market Yoni. I said as much in my prior post.

We can't have Capitalism with Accountability though?

[RandomGuy]

It probably would help for you to see this post from another thread...

Wall street was forced to take TARP money. Besides, it would be foolish for a company to pass up on a legal opportunity to stay solvent. I was in favor of letting the banks fail. Some still argue they were too big to fail and that if they hadn't been propped up the market would have crashed.

To that I say, great! At least we'd be further along in our recovery than this slow strangulation we're experiencing at the hands of the current administration.

Because, morality underpins socialism?

Systems have no morality. Does capitalism have a component of greed? Absolutely. But, in no other form of market is altruism and philanthropy as high as it is in the free market capitalism of the United States.

I like how Milton Friedman explained it to Phil Donahue, years ago.


RWsx1X8PV_A

We would be so much better off with another full-out Great Depression?

Really?

That's what you are going with?

Wall Street was "forced" to take TARP money in about the same sense that drowning people are "forced" to take life preservers.

Sorry, they rather shrewdly calculated that they would get backstopped and they did.

They counted that the gun to their heads would make politicians blink.

They were right. I say it is time to take the gun away from them.

[MannyIsGod]

Then if there is no official list, what pray-tell is the actual reason for the protesting?

:bang:bang:bang:bang:bang:bang:bang:bang:bang:bang :bang

[Th'Pusher]

Why is the disparity a problem? We have the richest poor in the world...because of the benefits of our capitalist free market economy.


You might want to do some research on how countries/civilizations fare when wealth is hyper-concentrated among a very few at the top. From 1960 to 1980 the richest 1% share of the national income was ~10% in the last 30 years, the top 10% share of the national income has surged to ~25% (link (http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/TabFig2007.xls)) and if you look at wealth, not income, the numbers are even more staggering.

Do you honsely not see any issues with having the vast majority of the wealth in America in the hands of so few?

[Yonivore]

We would be so much better off with another full-out Great Depression?

Really?

That's what you are going with?

Wall Street was "forced" to take TARP money in about the same sense that drowning people are "forced" to take life preservers.

Sorry, they rather shrewdly calculated that they would get backstopped and they did.

They counted that the gun to their heads would make politicians blink.

They were right. I say it is time to take the gun away from them.
We're slowly headed to depression now and there's no guarantee allowing those banks to fail would have resulted in a depression but, even if it did, we would already be recovering instead of continuing to sink.

Isn't this "Occupy Wall Street" movement all about causing the exact failures the government actions of 2008 were designed to prevent? And, if so, why is the administration sympathizing with them instead of telling them to STFU?

[Yonivore]

You might want to do some research on how countries/civilizations fare when wealth is hyper-concentrated among a very few at the top. From 1960 to 1980 the richest 1% share of the national income was ~10% in the last 30 years, the top 10% share of the national income has surged to ~25% (link (http://elsa.berkeley.edu/~saez/TabFig2007.xls)) and if you look at wealth, not income, the numbers are even more staggering.

Do you honsely not see any issues with having the vast majority of the wealth in America in the hands of so few?
Wealth is not a finite commodity so, it's not very productive to treat it as such.

[George Gervin's Afro]

We're slowly headed to depression now and there's no guarantee allowing those banks to fail would have resulted in a depression but, even if it did, we would already be recovering instead of continuing to sink.

Isn't this "Occupy Wall Street" movement all about causing the exact failures the government actions of 2008 were designed to prevent? And, if so, why is the administration sympathizing with them instead of telling them to STFU?

now you want the president to tell people to shut up?

[ChumpDumper]

Wealth is not a finite commodity so, it's not very productive to treat it as such.:lmao

Who told you to say that?

[Th'Pusher]

Wealth is not a finite commodity so, it's not very productive to treat it as such.

Lol. The fact is the top 1% have continued to see their incomes and wealth grow exponentially as compared to the lower %99. Please explain to me how that is good for America.

[Yonivore]

You said: It would be foolish for a company to decline a legal means to remain solvent. Now you maintain that they would have if the government hadn't insisted? :wtf
I'm saying government was wrong to give them the legal means to stay solvent. They should have allowed them to fail.


Agreed, but you've only covered 535 million of 10trillion+ problem. What about the trillions that still exist because of the intervention? How much richer would we be today if trillions were allowed to disappear four years ago?
Solyndra was my proxy for the Trillions the government has wasted since roughly the inception of LBJ's Great Society -- and, some would argue it goes back further, to FDR's overreaches. I don't agree with the premise that Trillions would have disappeared if the banks had failed.

All the money tied up in the failing institutions would have gone somewhere.


Perception mainly. Americans tolerate this to a much greater degree than other societies. Sooner or later the small guy catches on ( I think this is what you're seeing with the protests, albeit in this iteration they don't have their shit together).
Catches on to what?


The gap is widening and standard of living is on the decline. Once Venti vs Grande is replaced by Mortgage vs Meds, problems ensue. I dont' claim to know when that will occur, but one is hard pressed to argue that it won't at some point given the current trajectory of things.
I think the one thing your algorithm discounts is the wealthy need a society of functioning people, with incomes, and jobs, and discretionary budgets, in order to remain wealthy.


I'm not anti free market Yoni. I said as much in my prior post.

We can't have Capitalism with Accountability though?
I think the government can monitor the markets without playing an active role. When you write legislation that extorts banks into lending money to people that can't afford to pay it back and then expect those banks not to develop mechanisms (such as credit default swaps and mortgage-based derivatives) to reduce their risk; I think it can be argued that government is the problem, not business.

I'm still not sure what, precisely, you think the capitalists have done to cause this problem. I mean, if I go down the list of grievances of the "Occupy Wall Street" gang, I could make an argument that none of them are the fault of business but, instead, either derive from government interference in the markets or choices made by the aggrieved.

[Agloco]

Wealth is not a finite commodity so, it's not very productive to treat it as such.

That is to say wealth is infinite? :lol

Come on Yoni.

[Yonivore]

Lol. The fact is the top 1% have continued to see their incomes and wealth grow exponentially as compared to the lower %99. Please explain to me how that is good for America.
Tell me how it's bad.

Everyone's income has risen -- well, until Obama took office, that is. But, still our poor are the wealthiest in the world.

[Yonivore]

That is to say wealth is infinite? :lol

Come on Yoni.
One look at our 1789 GDP compared to our 2011 GDP would tend to say, yes; wealth is, in fact, infinite...or pretty damn close to it.]

At the very least, wealth can be created and is not something that requires government redistribution.

Why not, instead of demanding business give back their wealth (to whom is my obvious question), lift the oppressive regulations that are keeping them from investing capital or employing Americans?

[cherylsteele]

:bang:bang:bang:bang:bang:bang:bang:bang:bang:bang :bangOkay then, enlighten me, what are these people actually protesting about wall street exactly (besides greed and corruption), or are you unable to answer this? Why are you, and others, backing this protest? What do they want to accomplish with this exactly?

Do you not like greed? It is not just on wall street.

That link is on their website, and there was no "official" rebuttal, just a blog of users' comments, and that short statement saying it was made up by fox and such. I went to their website and I found no real statement of what they actually want, just vague ideas.
If they have valid ideas, fine, but to me, so far, it is just a random protest someone started because it is the "in thing" to do, I may join the movement if I feel it is right.

[ElNono]

yoni building straws left and right... :lmao

[Yonivore]

Okay then, enlighten me,...
Uh, you should have read his post back some pages ago because, he only says things one. The rest of the time he spends posting insults and cute emoticons.

[MannyIsGod]

Okay then, enlighten me, what are these people actually protesting about wall street exactly (besides greed and corruption), or are you unable to answer this? Why are you, and others, backing this protest? What do they want to accomplish with this exactly?

Do you not like greed? It is not just on wall street.

That link is on their website, and there was no "official" rebuttal, just a blog of users' comments, and that short statement saying it was made up by fox and such. I went to their website and I found no real statement of what they actually want, just vague ideas.
If they have valid ideas, fine, but to me, so far, it is just a random protest someone started because it is the "in thing" to do, I may join the movement if I feel it is right.


Uh, you should have read his post back some pages ago because, he only says things one. The rest of the time he spends posting insults and cute emoticons.

I'm not going to support your laziness. Its been posted. Its been discussed. People who can't figure it out deserve to wallow in their own self imposed ignorance.

[MannyIsGod]

One look at our 1789 GDP compared to our 2011 GDP would tend to say, yes; wealth is, in fact, infinite...or pretty damn close to it.]

At the very least, wealth can be created and is not something that requires government redistribution.

Why not, instead of demanding business give back their wealth (to whom is my obvious question), lift the oppressive regulations that are keeping them from investing capital or employing Americans?

Man no wonder you don't understand science. Your logic is absolutely terrible.

[ChumpDumper]

One look at our 1789 GDP compared to our 2011 GDP would tend to say, yes; wealth is, in fact, infinite...or pretty damn close to it.]

At the very least, wealth can be created and is not something that requires government redistribution.

Why not, instead of demanding business give back their wealth (to whom is my obvious question), lift the oppressive regulations that are keeping them from investing capital or employing Americans?So how did the distribution of infinite wealth become so unbalanced?

Be specific.

[Agloco]

I'm saying government was wrong to give them the legal means to stay solvent. They should have allowed them to fail.

Ok




Solyndra was my proxy for the Trillions the government has wasted since roughly the inception of LBJ's Great Society -- and, some would argue it goes back further, to FDR's overreaches. I don't agree with the premise that Trillions would have disappeared if the banks had failed.

All the money tied up in the failing institutions would have gone somewhere.


It would have somehow been different this time around than in 1929? Do tell. Who bails out the banks if Uncle Sam doesn't?

Also, a proxy represents another entity in it's entirety. Is Soylindra representative of the investments the government bailout made in other entities such as Ford, AIG, Morgan Stanley, Citi, etc?



Catches on to what?


Onto the general situation below. You don't think the current trajectory is a problem?



The gap is widening and standard of living is on the decline. Once Venti vs Grande is replaced by Mortgage vs Meds, problems ensue. I dont' claim to know when that will occur, but one is hard pressed to argue that it won't at some point given the current trajectory of things.




I think the government can monitor the markets without playing an active role. When you write legislation that extorts banks into lending money to people that can't afford to pay it back and then expect those banks not to develop mechanisms (such as credit default swaps and mortgage-based derivatives) to reduce their risk; I think it can be argued that government is the problem, not business.

They're both complicit. No two ways about it. To suggest that business had no hand in this mess? Laughable at best, ignorant (and possibly disingenuous since you do in fact possess knowledge) at worst.



I'm still not sure what, precisely, you think the capitalists have done to cause this problem. I mean, if I go down the list of grievances of the "Occupy Wall Street" gang, I could make an argument that none of them are the fault of business but, instead, either derive from government interference in the markets or choices made by the aggrieved.

How about knowingly engaging in excessively risky investment strategies? How about giving good ratings to shitty investments? Lets start there shall we?



I think the one thing your algorithm discounts is the wealthy need a society of functioning people, with incomes, and jobs, and discretionary budgets, in order to remain wealthy.

This is true. Unfortunately the wealthy are forgetting this rule and becoming complacent. They're human after all and their game is getting progressively more sloppy, as evidenced by the protests.

[MannyIsGod]

Wealth is a representation of resources. To act as if time and every other resource are infinite requires the drinking of some crazy kool-aid.

[Agloco]

One look at our 1789 GDP compared to our 2011 GDP would tend to say, yes; wealth is, in fact, infinite...or pretty damn close to it.]

GDP has an upper bound in both cases, hence by definition it's not infinite. You might want to try another descriptor. I'd go for expansive or even vast. Infinite? Um, no.


At the very least, wealth can be created and is not something that requires government redistribution.

Sure it can be created, by those who already possess it. Now you rely on morality to save the day, which by your own admission is a troublesome issue in any system.


Why not, instead of demanding business give back their wealth (to whom is my obvious question), lift the oppressive regulations that are keeping them from investing capital or employing Americans?

How much money is sitting on the sidelines now? Businesses are flush with cash but where is the investment?

[MannyIsGod]

Theoretical situation here. Lets say you put a human on every square meter of land on the earth. Would it be possible for all of those people to achieve Bill Gates level success? Where would the food come from? Where would the water come from? How would you effectively move?

[Yonivore]

GDP has an upper bound in both cases, hence by definition it's not infinite. You might want to try another descriptor. I'd go for expansive or even vast. Infinite? Um, no.
An exaggeration I attempted to qualify in the next statement.


Sure it can be created, by those who already possess it.
I would suggest it doesn't take wealth to create it; and, I humbly submit one Steven Jobs as proof. He created wealth with an idea. So have most multi-millionaires and billionaires.


Now you rely on morality to save the day, which by your own admission is a troublesome issue in any system.
Where did I rely on morality?


How much money is sitting on the sidelines now? Businesses are flush with cash but where is the investment?
They will tell you it's waiting for Obama to quit toying with the economy.

[Yonivore]

Theoretical situation here. Lets say you put a human on every square meter of land on the earth. Would it be possible for all of those people to achieve Bill Gates level success?
No.


Where would the food come from?
From the Bill Gates or Steve Jobs of food?


Where would the water come from?
The Bill Gates or Steve Jobs of water?


How would you effectively move?
What would be the point in moving? There is a human on every square meter of land on Earth. I'm thinking you're stuck where you are.

But, what makes anyone entitled to be as wealthy as Bill Gates?

[Agloco]

An exaggeration I attempted to qualify in the next statement.

Exaggerations are unproductive and obfuscate reality. Is that your aim here?




I would suggest it doesn't take wealth to create it; and, I humbly submit one Steven Jobs as proof. He created wealth with an idea. So have most multi-millionaires and billionaires.

Steve Jobs = 1/7000000000

And how many millionaires and billionaires people exist in relation to the general populace?

What about the other 6.999 billion?




Where did I rely on morality?

I should have been clearer here. Reread you post then mine again. I was referring to the "situation being discussed" relying on morality. That was in response to your assertion that it (wealth creation) didn't require any government redistribution.


They will tell you it's waiting for Obama to quit toying with the economy.

They will tell you it's waiting for <Random Lawmaker or Executive Official> to quit toying with the economy.

fixed.

[MannyIsGod]

No.


From the Bill Gates or Steve Jobs of food?


The Bill Gates or Steve Jobs of water?


What would be the point in moving? There is a human on every square meter of land on Earth. I'm thinking you're stuck where you are.

But, what makes anyone entitled to be as wealthy as Bill Gates?

That's all your creation. I never said anything of the sort. My point was to demonstrate that wealth is very much a finite thing and is tied to the resources we as humans use. At the very basic level those are labor, time, food, and water.

And here in lies one of the biggest problems we face as a species. Those resources on this rock are very much limited and are reaching points where we're achieving diminishing returns. Water is already a huge issue and will only get much larger in the coming decades. Food production has peaked and is actually in decline. We're running across lower levels of natural resources while demand and use go up. There is less of what we need to go around and that's not going to get any bigger until population peaks or we see a greater increase in efficiency.

Why has GDP grown for so long to levels so much greater? Well, take a look at the resources and industrial revolutions that we've gone through. We've been able to increase production across the board and increase efficiency very quickly. Also, human population grows exponentially so the growth for 95% of your time line is going to be eclipsed by the growth in the last 5%. As an example of this, it took the world 100 years to grow from 1 billion around the turn of the 19th century to 20 billion around the turn of the 20th. Yet, to go from 6 to 7 billion took a whopping 12 years. That means that efficiency has to grow just as fast simply to keep pace and much grow faster in order to continually grow our wealth.

Technology sometimes can grow exponentially too, but there are very real biological processes and natural processes which are not increasing in efficiency and we rely on them. Oil is not created any faster and the Edwards Aquifer does not recharge at a faster rate, for example.

Its dangerous to sit and think that wealth is infinite or even so vast that we it will just magically happen if we take our hands off the wheel.

[CosmicCowboy]

That's all your creation. I never said anything of the sort. My point was to demonstrate that wealth is very much a finite thing and is tied to the resources we as humans use. At the very basic level those are labor, time, food, and water.

And here in lies one of the biggest problems we face as a species. Those resources on this rock are very much limited and are reaching points where we're achieving diminishing returns. Water is already a huge issue and will only get much larger in the coming decades. Food production has peaked and is actually in decline. We're running across lower levels of natural resources while demand and use go up. There is less of what we need to go around and that's not going to get any bigger until population peaks or we see a greater increase in efficiency.

Why has GDP grown for so long to levels so much greater? Well, take a look at the resources and industrial revolutions that we've gone through. We've been able to increase production across the board and increase efficiency very quickly. Also, human population grows exponentially so the growth for 95% of your time line is going to be eclipsed by the growth in the last 5%. As an example of this, it took the world 100 years to grow from 1 billion around the turn of the 19th century to 20 billion around the turn of the 20th. Yet, to go from 6 to 7 billion took a whopping 12 years. That means that efficiency has to grow just as fast simply to keep pace and much grow faster in order to continually grow our wealth.

Technology sometimes can grow exponentially too, but there are very real biological processes and natural processes which are not increasing in efficiency and we rely on them. Oil is not created any faster and the Edwards Aquifer does not recharge at a faster rate, for example.

Its dangerous to sit and think that wealth is infinite or even so vast that we it will just magically happen if we take our hands off the wheel.

I agree there are too many people. Lets vote boutons off the island.

[Yonivore]

Exaggerations are unproductive and obfuscate reality. Is that your aim here?
Eerily similar to your suggestion, in another thread, that it is okay to throw the Wall Street baby out with the bathwater by condemning the whole because you have grievances with a few.

In my defense, I did qualify my exaggeration.


Steve Jobs = 1/7000000000

And how many millionaires and billionaires people exist in relation to the general populace?

What about the other 6.999 billion?
Wait a minute, I was merely putting the lie to your assertion wealth can only be created by those who have it. There are literally thousands (maybe millions globally) that have succeeded in the same manner; Steve Jobs is just an example fresh on our minds.

Unless everyone on the planet wants to be responsible for all of their own needs and desires, there will always be commercial interests there to sell them the things they want and need.

People get rich providing goods and services others want. If everyone did that, no one would be rich but, we'd all have what we need and want, no? Realistically, not everyone can build a power plant so, they pay someone willing to invest their money in the infrastructure and personnel necessary to provide them with power.

That's how it works. We're all willing to accept various levels of wealth based on what we're willing to do to go get it ourselves.


I should have been clearer here. Reread you post then mine again. I was referring to the "situation being discussed" relying on morality. That was in response to your assertion that it (wealth creation) didn't require any government redistribution.
I guess I'm still missing your point, I'm sorry.


They will tell you it's waiting for <Random Lawmaker or Executive Official> to quit toying with the economy.

fixed.
In the current climate, it's Obama. They had no problem investing and creating jobs during the Bush administration.

[Yonivore]

That's all your creation. I never said anything of the sort. My point was to demonstrate that wealth is very much a finite thing and is tied to the resources we as humans use. At the very basic level those are labor, time, food, and water.

And here in lies one of the biggest problems we face as a species. Those resources on this rock are very much limited and are reaching points where we're achieving diminishing returns. Water is already a huge issue and will only get much larger in the coming decades. Food production has peaked and is actually in decline. We're running across lower levels of natural resources while demand and use go up. There is less of what we need to go around and that's not going to get any bigger until population peaks or we see a greater increase in efficiency.

Why has GDP grown for so long to levels so much greater? Well, take a look at the resources and industrial revolutions that we've gone through. We've been able to increase production across the board and increase efficiency very quickly. Also, human population grows exponentially so the growth for 95% of your time line is going to be eclipsed by the growth in the last 5%. As an example of this, it took the world 100 years to grow from 1 billion around the turn of the 19th century to 20 billion around the turn of the 20th. Yet, to go from 6 to 7 billion took a whopping 12 years. That means that efficiency has to grow just as fast simply to keep pace and much grow faster in order to continually grow our wealth.

Technology sometimes can grow exponentially too, but there are very real biological processes and natural processes which are not increasing in efficiency and we rely on them. Oil is not created any faster and the Edwards Aquifer does not recharge at a faster rate, for example.

Its dangerous to sit and think that wealth is infinite or even so vast that we it will just magically happen if we take our hands off the wheel.
No one is asking anyone to take their hands off the wheel, just tell Obama to get his hands off the wheel and let those that drive, drive.

GDP grows because we use our resources to create things of value not simply because those resources exist.

[RandomGuy]

there's no guarantee allowing those banks to fail would have resulted in a depression but, even if it did, we would already be recovering instead of continuing to sink.

Bullshit.

Pure bullshit, Cosmored. "it is plausible that the hundreds of pounds of moon rocks were faked" = "there's no guarantee".

We were, by most accounts, on the brink of a cataclysm that would have destroyed more capital in a self-destructive negative feedback cycle that would have made the collapses of the Depression seem tame.

The interlinking of the financial sector companies gauran-fucking-teed it.

Even if you had a bank that acted soundly, it would have been dragged down into insolvency because it held other bank's bonds/stocks as assets. Dominos tottering over in sequence would be a pretty fair analogy.

It was way worse than we realized at the time, and we are still feeling the after affects.

Losing trillions of dollars of assets out of the economy would not be something you would be "recovering now from".

Lending would all but cease, as all the banks that provide stop-gap short-term revolving credit to all sizes of businesses vanished, in a whirlwind of bankruptcies that would have swamped the markets and courts ability to process.

The fallout from such a string of massive collapses would have taken the better part of a decade to sort out. If you think otherwise you are a fool.

[LnGrrrR]

The 60's protesters wanted Peace; they wanted us out of Viet Nam. I got that. This one, not so much.

I'm sure that all the 60's protestors were strictly on-message, and none of them were there just because it was counter-culture.

[RandomGuy]

No one is asking anyone to take their hands off the wheel, just tell Obama to get his hands off the wheel and let those that drive, drive.

GDP grows because we use our resources to create things of value not simply because those resources exist.

Yeah, let the financial innovators create some more derivatives. That's exactly what we need, because creating financial instruments that nobody understands worked so well.

CDS's anyone?

[CosmicCowboy]

I'm sure that all the 60's protestors were strictly on-message, and none of them were there just because it was counter-culture.

I just went there to smoke dope and score with the braless chicks...:p:

[LnGrrrR]

Well, the "power" Wall Street wields just happens to be the power that fuels the economic engine of this country.

I think you forgot about the political power they hold.


The "power" that needs to be reigned in is that which sees fit to borrow money it doesn't have to give to companies that either don't deserve it or are worthless money pits, to saddle business with onerous and oppressive regulations, and to violate normal standards of business law to favor cronies.

Agreed for the most part, with a caveat. I'm all for saddling oppressive regulations on any bank we had to bail out.

[Yonivore]

Yeah, let the financial innovators create some more derivatives.
Credit default swaps and mortgage-back derivatives were a creation (legal, mind you) of the financial industry to cover the risk they took on by lending money to people they knew would not be able to pay it back.

Why were they lending money to people they knew would not be able to pay it back? Because the government told them to.


That's exactly what we need, because creating financial instruments that nobody understands worked so well.

CDS's anyone?
People have to enter into the transaction. Those acquiring those derivatives are just as much to blame as the institutions that offered them. That's why I was in favor of letting them fail.

[Yonivore]

I think you forgot about the political power they hold.
Apparently not enough to keep the hounds at bay.


Agreed for the most part, with a caveat. I'm all for saddling oppressive regulations on any bank we had to bail out.
One could argue some didn't want to be bailed out and other were in the position they were because of past government interference in the industry.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

Wall Street wouldn't have been able to screw over America if there weren't so many retarded dumbfucks who took out an adjustable rate loan they had no shot in hell of being able to pay off down the road. Both sides are at fault.

[ElNono]

Wall Street wouldn't have been able to screw over America if there weren't so many retarded dumbfucks who took out an adjustable rate loan they had no shot in hell of being able to pay off down the road. Both sides are at fault.

Sure. The scammed also shares some responsibility. Completely agree. That said, only the scammers got bailed out. BTW, is that Yonivore your right-wing troll? :lol

[Wild Cobra]

Sure. The scammed also shares some responsibility. Completely agree. That said, only the scammers got bailed out. BTW, is that Yonivore your right-wing troll? :lol
Were you ffor or against the bailout?

I was against, If I recall, you were for...

[ElNono]

Were you ffor or against the bailout?

I was against, If I recall, you were for...

You recall wrong. But ultimately it matters little, since neither you or I matter. And that's exactly what those protests are about.

[Agloco]

Eerily similar to your suggestion, in another thread, that it is okay to throw the Wall Street baby out with the bathwater by condemning the whole because you have grievances with a few.

In my defense, I did qualify my exaggeration.

I've stated that clearer goals would be desirable. Meanwhile, you could have gone with an example which didn't require an exaggeration no?




Wait a minute, I was merely putting the lie to your assertion wealth can only be created by those who have it. There are literally thousands (maybe millions globally) that have succeeded in the same manner; Steve Jobs is just an example fresh on our minds.

Unless everyone on the planet wants to be responsible for all of their own needs and desires, there will always be commercial interests there to sell them the things they want and need.

Fair enough. I think I got off track here. I'm in the middle of auditing a new radiation facility. My apologies.

However, you can't say that Jobs is an example of how the system usually works. Wealth is created, for the most part, by those who already possess it. I stand by that assertion.





I guess I'm still missing your point, I'm sorry.

From this:



At the very least, wealth can be created and is not something that requires government redistribution.

To which I responded that if government redistribution does not occur to a large extent, we're now reliant on people doing the right thing (morality). You had previously stated that morality was an issue no matter the system in question. This leaves us in a bit of a conundrum.



In the current climate, it's Obama. They had no problem investing and creating jobs during the Bush administration.

Of course they didn't. That was before "the crisis" though which Obama had nothing to do with. "The crisis" is the real reason money continues to sit on the sidelines, and "the crisis" can be ascribed directly to practices by Wall Street.

[Yonivore]

Wall Street wouldn't have been able to screw over America if there weren't so many retarded dumbfucks who took out an adjustable rate loan they had no shot in hell of being able to pay off down the road. Both sides are at fault.
Except, you forget the banks didn't originally want to loan them the money.

All of a sudden, the government and ACORN made it a matter of racial and social justice.

[Wild Cobra]

You recall wrong. But ultimately it matters little, since neither you or I matter. And that's exactly what those protests are about.
Yes I know. It seems all the protesters simply rallied around who liberal pundits told them what as fault. They seem to all have different individual reasons, except to have to vent somewhere.

[Wild Cobra]

Except, you forget the banks didn't originally want to loan them the money.

All of a sudden, the government and ACORN made it a matter of racial and social justice.
I think liberals conveniently forget this.

I believe that banks would have continued resisting to provide high risk loans, without government regulations changing to allow the bundling and sell off the banks books.

Wish I was a fly on the wall seeing those regulation and law changes being made.

[CosmicCowboy]

LOL I just drove by the San Antonio protestors...all 40 of them. :lol

And that includes the usual 10-15 jotos that always hang around the statue...

[Yonivore]

I've stated that clearer goals would be desirable. Meanwhile, you could have gone with an example which didn't require an exaggeration no?
Fine, not a point in which it's worth getting mired. I shouldn't have used the word infinite.


Fair enough. I think I got off track here. I'm in the middle of auditing a new radiation facility. My apologies.
By all means, pay attention to that! (Unless, of course, you're auditing a facility in Tehran.)


However, you can't say that Jobs is an example of how the system usually works. Wealth is created, for the most part, by those who already possess it. I stand by that assertion.
I think it's a reasonable position to take, I just think it's wrong. Legacy wealth is on the decline. There aren't as many Rockefellers, DuPonts, or Hiltons as their used to be and those that are left are, in great part, wasting the wealth left them on transient and superficial things.

I suppose we could look at the Fortune 500 and see how many of the largest companies are new (less than a generation old) and how many are multi-generational companies where wealth is passed along.

Most companies were begun with very little more than a pocketful of change and an idea. Pick one. Pick any of the big tech companies, Microsoft, Dell, Apple, etc...


To which I responded that if government redistribution does not occur to a large extent, we're now reliant on people doing the right thing (morality). You had previously stated that morality was an issue no matter the system in question. This leaves us in a bit of a conundrum.
Now I understand.

To which I would respond economic systems are amoral but, that doesn't mean those engaged in it are, as well.

Government is awful at charity. We've literally thrown trillions of dollars at poverty, since LBJ's Great Society experiment began, and we're worse off than before. Government wastes, steals, and mismanages our money to no end. My dollar would go further if I gave it to a charitable organization, providing whatever service you want the government to provide, than your tax dollar.

Americans are, as a whole, the most generous people on the face of the planet. If you believe government -- even with the fraud, waste, and abuse -- could better provide services, with my money, than I could, that's a pretty flawed piece of logic.



Of course they didn't. That was before "the crisis" though which Obama had nothing to do with. "The crisis" is the real reason money continues to sit on the sidelines, and "the crisis" can be ascribed directly to practices by Wall Street.
I disagree.

From his community organizer activities with ACORN, during the time when they were extorting banks into loaning money to people that could not afford them to his lobbying the President, as a Senator from Illinois, to sign off on TARP, to his protection of the idiots that lied us into a Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac catastrophe, to his union cronyism that changes bankruptcy rules to favor his cronies over legitimate investors; Obama's fingerprints are all over this crisis.

Again, we disagree; Wall Street responded to an unreasonable risk by created a mechanism that failed. Had Government never imposed the risk, I doubt credit default swaps and mortgage-based derivatives would have ever become the overwhelming catastrophe they did.

[Th'Pusher]

Credit default swaps and mortgage-back derivatives were a creation (legal, mind you) of the financial industry to cover the risk they took on by lending money to people they knew would not be able to pay it back.


Sounds kind of like insurance. Yet is wasn't being regulated like insurance so there was actually no money backing up that insurance. I take it you find no issue with that?

[Yonivore]

Sounds kind of like insurance. Yet is wasn't being regulated like insurance so there was actually no money backing up that insurance. I take it you find no issue with that?
Seeing as how the government so thoroughly fucked up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I'm not sure government regulation would have mattered.

The government should have stayed out of the mortgaged industry altogether. Then, much of this would not have happened.

[Th'Pusher]

Again, we disagree; Wall Street responded to an unreasonable risk by created a mechanism that failed. Had Government never imposed the risk, I doubt credit default swaps and mortgage-based derivatives would have ever become the overwhelming catastrophe they did.

You do realize TARP was signed by GWB, right? Also, I've asked you this before (with no answer), but exactly how many jobs were created under the Bush administration as compared to previous administrations.

[Th'Pusher]

Seeing as how the government so thoroughly fucked up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I'm not sure government regulation would have mattered.

The government should have stayed out of the mortgaged industry altogether. Then, much of this would not have happened.

Don't evade the question. Why should the financial sector be able to conjure up a CDS which is effectively insurance, without reserving the capital to pay out in the event of a default?

[ElNono]

Except, you forget the banks didn't originally want to loan them the money.

Baloney. About 1% of the toxic loans were the Acorn-sponsored loans.

crofl liar

[Wild Cobra]

Baloney. About 1% of the toxic loans were the Acorn-sponsored loans.

crofl liar
Are you defending ACORN, or attempting to keep the truth strait?

When I try to keep the truth strait, you accuse me of one thing or another.

[ElNono]

Yes I know. It seems all the protesters simply rallied around who liberal pundits told them what as fault. They seem to all have different individual reasons, except to have to vent somewhere.

I thought you were against the bailout. You just vent here

[ElNono]

Are you defending ACORN, or attempting to keep the truth strait?

When I try to keep the truth strait, you accuse me of one thing or another.

Can you read? You mean 'straight'? lmao English

[Wild Cobra]

Can you read? You mean 'straight'? lmao English
LOL...

True to form, find something to change the topic over and not answer the question.

Yes, English was my worse subject in school. I have admitted that several times. Why do you bother with something I admit to and everyone knows?

[Yonivore]

You do realize TARP was signed by GWB, right?
I do. An act for which I loudly criticized him.


Also, I've asked you this before (with no answer), but exactly how many jobs were created under the Bush administration as compared to previous administrations.
Hell if I know.

But, he left Obama with a pretty decent unemployment rate in 2009, after our economy took two major hits just prior to and early in his presidency; the tech bubble bursting and 9/11.

[Th'Pusher]

Hell if I know.

But, he left Obama with a pretty decent unemployment rate in 2009, after our economy took two major hits just prior to and early in his presidency; the tech bubble bursting and 9/11.

I'll help you. 1.1M jobs were created under GWB, 22.7M were created under Clinton, 2.6M created under GHWB, 16.1M created under Reagan and 10.3M created under Carter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

And LOL at Bush leaving Obama a pretty decent unemployment rate. The economy was in a tailspin loosing 600K jobs per month and only started to turnaround after Obama's stimulus, which in hindsight was too small.

[Th'Pusher]

Job Losses by Month

Aug 2008: -84,000
Sep 2008: -159,000
Oct 2008: -240,000 <---- Market collapse
Nov 2008: -533,000
Dec 2008: -524,000
Jan 2009: -598,000 <---- Obama inaugurated
Feb 2009: -651,000
Mar 2009: -663,000 <---- ARRA (Stimulus) starts
Apr 2009: -539,000
May 2009: -345,000
Jun 2009: -467,000
Jul 2009: -247,000
Aug 2009: -216,000

Source: Bureau of Labor Statistics

[ChumpDumper]

lol ACORN

lol sex slaves

[ElNono]

LOL...

True to form, find something to change the topic over and not answer the question.

How have I changed the topic? I said 1% of toxic loans were Acorn-sponsored.

Don't know how you interpolate that to some kind of defense of Acorn. Loving or hating Acorn is irrelevant to the discussion of toxic loans.

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

That said, only the scammers got bailed out
I agree completely, either both sides or neither side shoulda gotten bailed out. That's why I'm not voting for o'spearchucker again

[MannyIsGod]

Seeing as how the government so thoroughly fucked up Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, I'm not sure government regulation would have mattered.

The government should have stayed out of the mortgaged industry altogether. Then, much of this would not have happened.

Um, no. This is the flat out false meme you've seen for years not but has no basis in fact. The percentage of sub prime loans processed on the order of government help or whatever you want to call it are not even close to the majority of the bad loans these companies wrote.

Futhermore, its wasn't the loans that really fucked this country but the repackaging of these loans and incredibly poor financial tactics used to make money off these loans. Had the MBS and CDS mess not happend on the backs of these loans then we wouldn't have had the crisis we did.

The nail in the coffin is how these fucks on Wall St. bet against the very fucking securities that they were selling. Why package these securities and sell them? Well, the ratings agencies were making them all look like a pile of gold and at the same time you could make money from the CDS when they failed. Win motherfucking WIN for these corps.

Oh wait, but when AIG goes under you're not going to get any money from those CDS or at best you're going to get pennies on the dollar, right? Wrong, you're motherfucking Wall St! You've got enough influence within the government so that when the bailout for AIG comes you make sure they have to pay you in full for the securities that you knowingly sold as good when they were toxic.

Man, this was definitely the fault of poor people and ACORN. Fuck yeah!

[MannyIsGod]

How have I changed the topic? I said 1% of toxic loans were Acorn-sponsored.

Don't know how you interpolate that to some kind of defense of Acorn. Loving or hating Acorn is irrelevant to the discussion of toxic loans.

Fuck the loans. The loans weren't the real problem. The real problem were the way they sold and leveraged themselves against the loans and bet on the loans they sold failing. THAT is what caused thee cascading loss of confidence and failures.

Its the equivilant of me being able to buy life insurance on anyone then not being prosecuted when I go kill them and collect that life insurance. Biggest fucking scam we'll ever see.

So yeah, occupy that motherfucker and protest away.

[ElNono]

Fuck the loans. The loans weren't the real problem. The real problem were the way they sold and leveraged themselves against the loans and bet on the loans they sold failing. THAT is what caused thee cascading loss of confidence and failures.

Its the equivilant of me being able to buy life insurance on anyone then not being prosecuted when I go kill them and collect that life insurance. Biggest fucking scam we'll ever see.

So yeah, occupy that motherfucker and protest away.

Plus it has little to nothing to do with what's being discussed. The people taking those loans (ill advised or not), were not the ones getting bailed out.

[Trainwreck2100]

I agree completely, either both sides or neither side shoulda gotten bailed out. That's why I'm not voting for o'spearchucker again

AGAIN you voted for him the first time smh

[DUNCANownsKOBE]

AGAIN you voted for him the first time smh
Agreed, but, he's not any worse than McCain/Palin woulda been.


McCain still thinks the foundation of our economy is strong :lol

[Wild Cobra]

How have I changed the topic? I said 1% of toxic loans were Acorn-sponsored.

Don't know how you interpolate that to some kind of defense of Acorn. Loving or hating Acorn is irrelevant to the discussion of toxic loans.

I meant you resorted to correcting my spelling when I asked if you were defending ACORN or trying to present the truth. It was as if you changed the subject as not to answer my question.

[Wild Cobra]

I'll help you. 1.1M jobs were created under GWB, 22.7M were created under Clinton, 2.6M created under GHWB, 16.1M created under Reagan and 10.3M created under Carter.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jobs_created_during_U.S._presidential_terms

And LOL at Bush leaving Obama a pretty decent unemployment rate. The economy was in a tailspin loosing 600K jobs per month and only started to turnaround after Obama's stimulus, which in hindsight was too small.
But presidents do not create jobs. The marketplace does. Clinton was lucky to be president when the tech boom started to really take off.

Clinton owes his good economy to the Y2K scare, and CMP.

Also, that he didn't have democrats writing legislation for his last six years. Not that republicans are much better... They just aren't democrats.

[Wild Cobra]

Agreed, but, he's not any worse than McCain/Palin woulda been.


McCain still thinks the foundation of our economy is strong :lol
If you go back and review the 2008 election threads, you will see I was no fan of McCain. I don't recall him saying the foundation of our economy is strong, but I don't doubt you. I will say I disagree with McCain if he did say that.

[Winehole23]

Anti-capitalist protest organized through non-profits such as Facebook and Twitter. Lol.Are you standing on your head, Darrin? This protest is against the biggest welfare queens ever.

(Government bailout, $Ts in ultra low interest Fed loans, cash for trash swaps etc. -- just keep hitting the snooze bar, D):lol

[LnGrrrR]

But presidents do not create jobs. The marketplace does. Clinton was lucky to be president when the tech boom started to really take off.

Clinton owes his good economy to the Y2K scare, and CMP.

Also, that he didn't have democrats writing legislation for his last six years. Not that republicans are much better... They just aren't democrats.

Didn't you say that the election of Obama would kill jobs, because owners wouldn't want to create new jobs with a Democratic president?

[Wild Cobra]

Didn't you say that the election of Obama would kill jobs, because owners wouldn't want to create new jobs with a Democratic president?
I don't recall my exact words, but in essence, that democrats talking about policies they want to implement, scare the job creators, and they are afraid to take chances and grow. Therefore, they stop hiring employees for new ventures, because they don't start new ventures when they believe the tax system and regulations will harm them in unforeseen ways.

[Yonivore]

http://pl-mgroup-akamai.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2011/10/ram-100711-blame-IBD_800.jpg.cms_.png

[Yonivore]

http://pajamasmedia.com/instapundit/wp-content/uploads/2011/10/ENDTHEOCCUPATION.jpg

So, as it turns out, much of the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd are just astroturf for Unions and Communist organizations.

Someone has suggested the Democrats are experiencing Tea Party Envy and, therefore, are trying to figure out how to safely associate themselves with the group whose message seems to be, "anarchist for big government."

[Yonivore]

They Should Be Occupying K Street (http://www.businessinsider.com/they-should-be-occupying-k-street-2011-10)

The article makes points I've been trying to make in here...


A few facts are in order. Capitalism is responsible for lifting more poor people out of poverty, and lifting the standards of living for more individuals around the world than any other economic system. Government decided to bail out the banks. They could have let them go bust. Government was at the root of the banking crisis; banks reacted to government incentives.
...

OWS protestors are highly critical of big corporations lobbying Congress and Washington DC regulatory agencies to tilt the playing field in big business favor. It sounds like they don’t appreciate the virtues of crony capitalism, otherwise known as “The Chicago Way”.

Well guess what?

Companies that are successful lobbying the Washington DC apparatus are simply playing off big government. To kill the effect of lobbying, skewer the beast and make government smaller.

Allowing companies to stay alive with government support also empowers big government. Allowing the capitalistic force of creative destruction is something the Tea Party is behind. What about Occupy Wall Street?
Sadly, it turns out, the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd is being led around by big government cronies...


There are some troubling signs with Occupy Wall Street. The SEIU is busing people to join the marches. Other unions, and socialist Senator Sanders are supporting the cause.

Members of up to five powerful unions, rights defenders in dozens of cities, plus Michael Moore, Susan Sarandon, Roseanne Barr, Dr. Cornell West and other celebrities have joined the protesters who intend to occupy the Wall Street area indefinitely, until change occurs in the financial situation that Olbermann and Sanders concur is being demanded by an overdue, active, motivated, American Left coalition forming for betterment of the United States
Any movement that has has beens like Roseanne Barr and Susan Sarandon as a part of it make me think that their agents told them this was a good way to get visible again. Michael Moore ceases to be relevant and Cornell West has ideas that are simply on the fringes of organized society. Who watches Keith Olberman besides his immediate family? He couldn't even get an audience on the hard left MSNBC.

My gut tells me at the root of this, you will find an Obama administration operative. They want to co opt some of the Tea Party themes into Occupy Wall Street and divert attention from the really poor job they have done on the economy. It’s a re-election strategy.

Sorry, I don’t think this is a small government movement. Whatever the original intentions of the founders were, Occupy Wall Street has become a hard leftist movement. All the above mentioned people are determined to end the American capitalist system. Of course, they all have benefited from it and are so wealthy, any abrupt change to socialism won’t affect them or their lifestyle. Social justice and fairness are not a strategy to level the playing field.
Then, as I've been saying...


I do understand their frustration with Big Government, with the bank bailouts, with the lobbying, with the revolving door between industry, unions, and Washington DC. There is one sure fire way to end all of that. Shrink the size and scope of government, not increase it.

The Occupy Wall Street crowd, or at least the new public backers that have joined them, put their faith in government. I can’t rebut them any better than this:


RWsx1X8PV_A

There are lots of ideas to accomplish the task of reducing the governments influence. I know of only one sure fire way to do it. Starve the beast. Flat tax, and end all write offs. Cut millions of regulations. Then there is nothing to lobby for. Allow Coase Theorem to work.

The celebrities joining forces with the “working class” on Wall Street and the media that is giving it publicity don’t trust the individual. Economic systems that don’t trust individuals are commonly called socialism, or at an extreme, communism. We know they don’t work and are bad for “working people”.

Instead of occupying Wall Street, maybe they ought to occupy K Street.
I couldn't agree more.

[boutons_deux]

"the "Occupy Wall Street" crowd are just astroturf for Unions and Communist organizations."

YOU FUCKING SLANDEROUS LIAR

[Yonivore]

Big Soros Money Linked to “Occupy Wall Street” (http://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/politics/9269-big-soros-money-linked-to-occupy-wall-street)
Can you say, "astroturf?" I knew that you could.

[Yonivore]

Organizer admits to paying ‘Occupy DC’ protesters [VIDEO] (http://dailycaller.com/2011/10/06/organizer-admits-to-paying-occupy-dc-protesters-video/)
Can you say, "astroturf?" I knew that you could.

Favorite parts?

Latinos calling the anglo organizer, "Boss."

Anglo "boss," admitting that not all of the protesters are volunteers.

[Yonivore]

http://pl-mgroup-akamai.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2011/10/52812439780ed616fa0e6a706700e3f9.jpg

Can you say, "astroturf?" I knew that you could.

For the uninitiated, Answer is a communist organization.

[Yonivore]

http://pl-mgroup-akamai.powerlineblog.com/admin/ed-assets/2011/10/activists-protest-front-bank-los-20111006-152655-576.jpg

Can you say, "astroturf?" I knew that you could.

For the uninformed, "makebankspaycalifornia.org" is a coalition of unions and union front groups.

[ElNono]

I read unions joining the protests a couple days ago. I figured the usual ankle-biters would react accordingly. /self pat in the back

[Yonivore]

Wall Street Protestors Have Met the Enemy and It Is They (http://pajamasmedia.com/spengler/2011/10/06/wall-street-protesters-have-met-the-enemy-and-it-is-they/?singlepage=true)

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/images/chart150811b.gifhttp://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/images/chart150811c.gif


That is why the Wall Street protesters are foolish and petulant. American households levered a $6 trillion net inflow of foreign savings during the decade 1998 through 2007 into a bubble that benefited them far more than it did Wall Street. The impact of the bubble on the household balance sheet exceeds the growth in real-estate assets, moreover, because most small business expansion followed the housing bubble.

For fifteen years we rode a tsunami of foreign capital pouring into American markets. We didn’t save a penny. Why should we? Our home equity was our retirement account. Our smartest kids got MBAs and went to Wall Street derivatives desks. Engineering was for dummies. Home prices rose so fast that local governments swam with tax revenues and hired with abandon.

Everybody went to the party. Now everybody has a hangover, especially the bankers. We thought we were geniuses because we won the lottery. Now we actually have to produce and export things, and we have to play catch-up. Our kids are competing with Asian kids who go to cram school and practice the violin in the afternoon. This isn’t going to be easy, and the sooner we decide to roll up our sleeves and get back to work instead of looking for bankers to blame, the better our chances of coming back.

[TDMVPDPOY]

this is what i dont get with the bailouts from the govt to the banks

banks are own by shareholders, whatever happen to capital raising through its own shareholders....

instead of bailing them out through large loans, why not just buy the bank and its discounted share price, and nationalise it, pay of debts and then run a profit, then privatised it.....then again out through this process the same wankers with the banks will continue to hold their jobs who were the problem in the first place....


lol crying over student loan debts....dude mustve studied a ARTS degree hahahahaha

[vy65]

EPS won't measure the benefits banks receive.

That said, the article's sentiment is pretty fucking sensible.

[MannyIsGod]

CDS and MBS and betting against your own shit failing is far worse than what people did (which they could only do because the banks were happy making money off of it so they could bet against the MBS to begin with!).

[MannyIsGod]

BTW, Simultaneously saying the free market rules all while blaming customer irrationality for our problems is fucking ironic as hell.

[Spurminator]

Damn, this movement is really putting the fear into Yonivore.

[Yonivore]

Damn, this movement is really putting the fear into Yonivore.
What makes you think I'm afraid?

I think the OWS movement is a desperate move by the Left to save the political power they see slipping away with the disastrous presidency of Barack Obama.

[ChumpDumper]

http://www.atimes.com/atimes/Global_Economy/images/chart150811b.gif

Does this chart just say there are fewer "bankers" now?