A letter to the New York City protesters

[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 ins utions 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 en y in it's entirety. Is Soylindra representative of the investments the government bailout made in other en ies 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 ty 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 en led 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 en led 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.

Bull .

Pure bull , 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- ing-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...

[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 ins utions 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 re ed dumb s who took out an adjustable rate loan they had no shot in 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 re ed dumb s who took out an adjustable rate loan they had no shot in 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?

[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?

Were you ffor or against the bailout?

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