Occupy Wall Street (1 Viewer)

[bueno]

This thing looks like Spiderman's PJ's, so I'll keep this brief and retire for the evening. Suffice to say we have different opinions of what it would mean to break up the banks that are too big to fail. I see it as a positive thing if the commercial side was kept separate from the investment side. It just makes sense. As does a partnership requirement as per what was mentioned earlier in the thread. The real big players that the US banks would compete with would still be European banks like UBS, not any Canadian Banks (who should be commended for coming away from the subprime crisis largely unscathed). Look where UBS is now? Do you think they are in any greater position than our restructured mega-banks would be after having to eliminate nearly 20,000 jobs and instituting a new payment structure that significantly pared down pay, stock incentives and variable compensation? Ask Peter Kurer.I also believe credit needs to be approached in a more rational manner and come under control for individual consumers as well as corporations and governments. People are slowly waking up to this. I'll leave the predictions for the future to others, but I can see some big changes coming in this regard. Technology and the internet, if left uncontrolled by corporate interests, will go a long way towards this... we'll see.

Thank gods that dog's breakfast is gone!What suffices to say, is that I think you lack an international perspective as to what breaking up our banks would mean to our ability to compete in global credit markets. This is perfectly clear, as you don't realize what a large player the Bank of Montreal is in the international markets. i wasn't referring to the home mortgage business. No offense really. Most Americans lack that perspective.One could argue, and I would agree, that breaking out Merrill Lynch from Bank of America (i.e. getting banks out of the financial adviser/broker business) might be a net positive, but I'm not sure that would be sufficient to prevent another derivative bubble. Still, Bank of America would be too big to fail. So what else would you do? Maybe Slapdash can weigh in on that. However, if you weaken our banks, then you will see more branches of HSBC, Scotia Bank, UBS, etc. take their place in the niches our banks are forced to abandon. You will be other banks surpass ours in the global investment banking industry. And yes, I think UBS will be stronger for the reorganization that they are going through now. I also don't believe you have the perspective as to what getting our banks out of the investment market would do to their ability to compete in the world market with regard to investing in capital projects rather than just lending money. As to personal credit, beware of unintended consequences. Putting a cap on credit card interest will have farther-reaching negative effects than you think it does.

Fácil tigre! I did not know you were French. I wasn't really limiting my scope to the mortgage markets, amigo, but if you say so...Just so the class understands; you are talking about BMO, yes? The third largest bank in all of the empire of Canadia? With something on the order of $400 billion (with a "B") in total assets? This is who you fear for the sake of our little ol' banks? Isn't the RBC something like twice the size of BMO? Why not worry about them? Didn't they almost get swallowed by RBC before those Socialists up north stepped in and they had to settle for a merged credit processing solution in Moneris? Perhaps this behemoth is what we should all be up late at night worrying about!Honestly man, this is tripe. I went so far as to ask my buddy David V., who not only has boatloads but also experience in int. finance, if your suppositions held any weight and he basically asked why I was bothering him with this Bank of Montreal nonsense (full disclosure: the man is from Toronto, so maybe it's a civic pride/rivalry thing). He is a good deal smarter than me (and possibly even as smart as you, though doubtful). When pressed he offered that you were either fear mongering or perhaps had some other reason to be fearful, but either way were "talking out of someplace other than his mouth." I offered that you could be fishing but that one went over his head. He did text me later though with a thought to share with you: "Tell him to hide all his money... if they actually go through with it!"... Perhaps he would fit right in around here.So which is it: are you BS-ing or are the hippies getting to you?

Well, seeing as you don't want to be civil anymore,Nobody is fearing them (BMO). I'm saying that if you break up our banks (like maybe divide them in half), then they won't be able to compete as well with bigger banks in foreign countries. I have plenty of buddies in int. finance myself. You knowing David V. doe snot impress me. Where'd you get that name anyway? Off of LinkedIn?Assuming he is even real, ever think that maybe the Canadians have a vested interest in our banks being less competitive? Nah, didn't think so.

 

[Neofight]

This thing looks like Spiderman's PJ's, so I'll keep this brief and retire for the evening. Suffice to say we have different opinions of what it would mean to break up the banks that are too big to fail. I see it as a positive thing if the commercial side was kept separate from the investment side. It just makes sense. As does a partnership requirement as per what was mentioned earlier in the thread. The real big players that the US banks would compete with would still be European banks like UBS, not any Canadian Banks (who should be commended for coming away from the subprime crisis largely unscathed). Look where UBS is now? Do you think they are in any greater position than our restructured mega-banks would be after having to eliminate nearly 20,000 jobs and instituting a new payment structure that significantly pared down pay, stock incentives and variable compensation? Ask Peter Kurer.I also believe credit needs to be approached in a more rational manner and come under control for individual consumers as well as corporations and governments. People are slowly waking up to this. I'll leave the predictions for the future to others, but I can see some big changes coming in this regard. Technology and the internet, if left uncontrolled by corporate interests, will go a long way towards this... we'll see.

Thank gods that dog's breakfast is gone!What suffices to say, is that I think you lack an international perspective as to what breaking up our banks would mean to our ability to compete in global credit markets. This is perfectly clear, as you don't realize what a large player the Bank of Montreal is in the international markets. i wasn't referring to the home mortgage business. No offense really. Most Americans lack that perspective.One could argue, and I would agree, that breaking out Merrill Lynch from Bank of America (i.e. getting banks out of the financial adviser/broker business) might be a net positive, but I'm not sure that would be sufficient to prevent another derivative bubble. Still, Bank of America would be too big to fail. So what else would you do? Maybe Slapdash can weigh in on that. However, if you weaken our banks, then you will see more branches of HSBC, Scotia Bank, UBS, etc. take their place in the niches our banks are forced to abandon. You will be other banks surpass ours in the global investment banking industry. And yes, I think UBS will be stronger for the reorganization that they are going through now. I also don't believe you have the perspective as to what getting our banks out of the investment market would do to their ability to compete in the world market with regard to investing in capital projects rather than just lending money. As to personal credit, beware of unintended consequences. Putting a cap on credit card interest will have farther-reaching negative effects than you think it does.

Fácil tigre! I did not know you were French. I wasn't really limiting my scope to the mortgage markets, amigo, but if you say so...Just so the class understands; you are talking about BMO, yes? The third largest bank in all of the empire of Canadia? With something on the order of $400 billion (with a "B") in total assets? This is who you fear for the sake of our little ol' banks? Isn't the RBC something like twice the size of BMO? Why not worry about them? Didn't they almost get swallowed by RBC before those Socialists up north stepped in and they had to settle for a merged credit processing solution in Moneris? Perhaps this behemoth is what we should all be up late at night worrying about!Honestly man, this is tripe. I went so far as to ask my buddy David V., who not only has boatloads but also experience in int. finance, if your suppositions held any weight and he basically asked why I was bothering him with this Bank of Montreal nonsense (full disclosure: the man is from Toronto, so maybe it's a civic pride/rivalry thing). He is a good deal smarter than me (and possibly even as smart as you, though doubtful). When pressed he offered that you were either fear mongering or perhaps had some other reason to be fearful, but either way were "talking out of someplace other than his mouth." I offered that you could be fishing but that one went over his head. He did text me later though with a thought to share with you: "Tell him to hide all his money... if they actually go through with it!"... Perhaps he would fit right in around here.So which is it: are you BS-ing or are the hippies getting to you?

Well, seeing as you don't want to be civil anymore,Nobody is fearing them (BMO). I'm saying that if you break up our banks (like maybe divide them in half), then they won't be able to compete as well with bigger banks in foreign countries. I have plenty of buddies in int. finance myself. You knowing David V. doe snot impress me. Where'd you get that name anyway? Off of LinkedIn?

It's the hippies, isn't it? They've got you sweating just a little bit, no Bueno?I didn't give you a full name, but I just looked on my iPhone for it. I also have video on that same phone from his retirement party in June, when Gates gave a roast and Chris Isaak played a few sets. David was hoping for the Black Crowes, but they weren't available. Bummer, but Isaak is a great performer. I'll tell D to mind his P's and Q's.

 

[bueno]

This thing looks like Spiderman's PJ's, so I'll keep this brief and retire for the evening. Suffice to say we have different opinions of what it would mean to break up the banks that are too big to fail. I see it as a positive thing if the commercial side was kept separate from the investment side. It just makes sense. As does a partnership requirement as per what was mentioned earlier in the thread. The real big players that the US banks would compete with would still be European banks like UBS, not any Canadian Banks (who should be commended for coming away from the subprime crisis largely unscathed). Look where UBS is now? Do you think they are in any greater position than our restructured mega-banks would be after having to eliminate nearly 20,000 jobs and instituting a new payment structure that significantly pared down pay, stock incentives and variable compensation? Ask Peter Kurer.I also believe credit needs to be approached in a more rational manner and come under control for individual consumers as well as corporations and governments. People are slowly waking up to this. I'll leave the predictions for the future to others, but I can see some big changes coming in this regard. Technology and the internet, if left uncontrolled by corporate interests, will go a long way towards this... we'll see.

Thank gods that dog's breakfast is gone!What suffices to say, is that I think you lack an international perspective as to what breaking up our banks would mean to our ability to compete in global credit markets. This is perfectly clear, as you don't realize what a large player the Bank of Montreal is in the international markets. i wasn't referring to the home mortgage business. No offense really. Most Americans lack that perspective.One could argue, and I would agree, that breaking out Merrill Lynch from Bank of America (i.e. getting banks out of the financial adviser/broker business) might be a net positive, but I'm not sure that would be sufficient to prevent another derivative bubble. Still, Bank of America would be too big to fail. So what else would you do? Maybe Slapdash can weigh in on that. However, if you weaken our banks, then you will see more branches of HSBC, Scotia Bank, UBS, etc. take their place in the niches our banks are forced to abandon. You will be other banks surpass ours in the global investment banking industry. And yes, I think UBS will be stronger for the reorganization that they are going through now. I also don't believe you have the perspective as to what getting our banks out of the investment market would do to their ability to compete in the world market with regard to investing in capital projects rather than just lending money. As to personal credit, beware of unintended consequences. Putting a cap on credit card interest will have farther-reaching negative effects than you think it does.

Fácil tigre! I did not know you were French. I wasn't really limiting my scope to the mortgage markets, amigo, but if you say so...Just so the class understands; you are talking about BMO, yes? The third largest bank in all of the empire of Canadia? With something on the order of $400 billion (with a "B") in total assets? This is who you fear for the sake of our little ol' banks? Isn't the RBC something like twice the size of BMO? Why not worry about them? Didn't they almost get swallowed by RBC before those Socialists up north stepped in and they had to settle for a merged credit processing solution in Moneris? Perhaps this behemoth is what we should all be up late at night worrying about!Honestly man, this is tripe. I went so far as to ask my buddy David V., who not only has boatloads but also experience in int. finance, if your suppositions held any weight and he basically asked why I was bothering him with this Bank of Montreal nonsense (full disclosure: the man is from Toronto, so maybe it's a civic pride/rivalry thing). He is a good deal smarter than me (and possibly even as smart as you, though doubtful). When pressed he offered that you were either fear mongering or perhaps had some other reason to be fearful, but either way were "talking out of someplace other than his mouth." I offered that you could be fishing but that one went over his head. He did text me later though with a thought to share with you: "Tell him to hide all his money... if they actually go through with it!"... Perhaps he would fit right in around here.So which is it: are you BS-ing or are the hippies getting to you?

Well, seeing as you don't want to be civil anymore,Nobody is fearing them (BMO). I'm saying that if you break up our banks (like maybe divide them in half), then they won't be able to compete as well with bigger banks in foreign countries. I have plenty of buddies in int. finance myself. You knowing David V. doe snot impress me. Where'd you get that name anyway? Off of LinkedIn?

It's the hippies, isn't it? They've got you sweating just a little bit, no Bueno?I didn't give you a full name, but I just looked on my iPhone for it. I also have video on that same phone from his retirement party in June, when Gates gave a roast and Chris Isaak played a few sets. David was hoping for the Black Crowes, but they weren't available. Bummer, but Isaak is a great performer. I'll tell D to mind his P's and Q's.

You do that.Ain't no hippies in my redneck of the woods, and I don't sweat. I perspire.

 

[Neofight]

This thing looks like Spiderman's PJ's, so I'll keep this brief and retire for the evening. Suffice to say we have different opinions of what it would mean to break up the banks that are too big to fail. I see it as a positive thing if the commercial side was kept separate from the investment side. It just makes sense. As does a partnership requirement as per what was mentioned earlier in the thread. The real big players that the US banks would compete with would still be European banks like UBS, not any Canadian Banks (who should be commended for coming away from the subprime crisis largely unscathed). Look where UBS is now? Do you think they are in any greater position than our restructured mega-banks would be after having to eliminate nearly 20,000 jobs and instituting a new payment structure that significantly pared down pay, stock incentives and variable compensation? Ask Peter Kurer.I also believe credit needs to be approached in a more rational manner and come under control for individual consumers as well as corporations and governments. People are slowly waking up to this. I'll leave the predictions for the future to others, but I can see some big changes coming in this regard. Technology and the internet, if left uncontrolled by corporate interests, will go a long way towards this... we'll see.

Thank gods that dog's breakfast is gone!What suffices to say, is that I think you lack an international perspective as to what breaking up our banks would mean to our ability to compete in global credit markets. This is perfectly clear, as you don't realize what a large player the Bank of Montreal is in the international markets. i wasn't referring to the home mortgage business. No offense really. Most Americans lack that perspective.One could argue, and I would agree, that breaking out Merrill Lynch from Bank of America (i.e. getting banks out of the financial adviser/broker business) might be a net positive, but I'm not sure that would be sufficient to prevent another derivative bubble. Still, Bank of America would be too big to fail. So what else would you do? Maybe Slapdash can weigh in on that. However, if you weaken our banks, then you will see more branches of HSBC, Scotia Bank, UBS, etc. take their place in the niches our banks are forced to abandon. You will be other banks surpass ours in the global investment banking industry. And yes, I think UBS will be stronger for the reorganization that they are going through now. I also don't believe you have the perspective as to what getting our banks out of the investment market would do to their ability to compete in the world market with regard to investing in capital projects rather than just lending money. As to personal credit, beware of unintended consequences. Putting a cap on credit card interest will have farther-reaching negative effects than you think it does.

Fácil tigre! I did not know you were French. I wasn't really limiting my scope to the mortgage markets, amigo, but if you say so...Just so the class understands; you are talking about BMO, yes? The third largest bank in all of the empire of Canadia? With something on the order of $400 billion (with a "B") in total assets? This is who you fear for the sake of our little ol' banks? Isn't the RBC something like twice the size of BMO? Why not worry about them? Didn't they almost get swallowed by RBC before those Socialists up north stepped in and they had to settle for a merged credit processing solution in Moneris? Perhaps this behemoth is what we should all be up late at night worrying about!Honestly man, this is tripe. I went so far as to ask my buddy David V., who not only has boatloads but also experience in int. finance, if your suppositions held any weight and he basically asked why I was bothering him with this Bank of Montreal nonsense (full disclosure: the man is from Toronto, so maybe it's a civic pride/rivalry thing). He is a good deal smarter than me (and possibly even as smart as you, though doubtful). When pressed he offered that you were either fear mongering or perhaps had some other reason to be fearful, but either way were "talking out of someplace other than his mouth." I offered that you could be fishing but that one went over his head. He did text me later though with a thought to share with you: "Tell him to hide all his money... if they actually go through with it!"... Perhaps he would fit right in around here.So which is it: are you BS-ing or are the hippies getting to you?

Well, seeing as you don't want to be civil anymore,Nobody is fearing them (BMO). I'm saying that if you break up our banks (like maybe divide them in half), then they won't be able to compete as well with bigger banks in foreign countries. I have plenty of buddies in int. finance myself. You knowing David V. doe snot impress me. Where'd you get that name anyway? Off of LinkedIn?

It's the hippies, isn't it? They've got you sweating just a little bit, no Bueno?I didn't give you a full name, but I just looked on my iPhone for it. I also have video on that same phone from his retirement party in June, when Gates gave a roast and Chris Isaak played a few sets. David was hoping for the Black Crowes, but they weren't available. Bummer, but Isaak is a great performer. I'll tell D to mind his P's and Q's.

You do that.Ain't no hippies in my redneck of the woods, and I don't sweat. I perspire.

Wow, somehow that last line left me feeling just a bit uncomfortable. Don't get me wrong, I laughed. But...

 

[Neofight]

This thing looks like Spiderman's PJ's, so I'll keep this brief and retire for the evening. Suffice to say we have different opinions of what it would mean to break up the banks that are too big to fail. I see it as a positive thing if the commercial side was kept separate from the investment side. It just makes sense. As does a partnership requirement as per what was mentioned earlier in the thread. The real big players that the US banks would compete with would still be European banks like UBS, not any Canadian Banks (who should be commended for coming away from the subprime crisis largely unscathed). Look where UBS is now? Do you think they are in any greater position than our restructured mega-banks would be after having to eliminate nearly 20,000 jobs and instituting a new payment structure that significantly pared down pay, stock incentives and variable compensation? Ask Peter Kurer.I also believe credit needs to be approached in a more rational manner and come under control for individual consumers as well as corporations and governments. People are slowly waking up to this. I'll leave the predictions for the future to others, but I can see some big changes coming in this regard. Technology and the internet, if left uncontrolled by corporate interests, will go a long way towards this... we'll see.

Thank gods that dog's breakfast is gone!What suffices to say, is that I think you lack an international perspective as to what breaking up our banks would mean to our ability to compete in global credit markets. This is perfectly clear, as you don't realize what a large player the Bank of Montreal is in the international markets. i wasn't referring to the home mortgage business. No offense really. Most Americans lack that perspective.One could argue, and I would agree, that breaking out Merrill Lynch from Bank of America (i.e. getting banks out of the financial adviser/broker business) might be a net positive, but I'm not sure that would be sufficient to prevent another derivative bubble. Still, Bank of America would be too big to fail. So what else would you do? Maybe Slapdash can weigh in on that. However, if you weaken our banks, then you will see more branches of HSBC, Scotia Bank, UBS, etc. take their place in the niches our banks are forced to abandon. You will be other banks surpass ours in the global investment banking industry. And yes, I think UBS will be stronger for the reorganization that they are going through now. I also don't believe you have the perspective as to what getting our banks out of the investment market would do to their ability to compete in the world market with regard to investing in capital projects rather than just lending money. As to personal credit, beware of unintended consequences. Putting a cap on credit card interest will have farther-reaching negative effects than you think it does.

Fácil tigre! I did not know you were French. I wasn't really limiting my scope to the mortgage markets, amigo, but if you say so...Just so the class understands; you are talking about BMO, yes? The third largest bank in all of the empire of Canadia? With something on the order of $400 billion (with a "B") in total assets? This is who you fear for the sake of our little ol' banks? Isn't the RBC something like twice the size of BMO? Why not worry about them? Didn't they almost get swallowed by RBC before those Socialists up north stepped in and they had to settle for a merged credit processing solution in Moneris? Perhaps this behemoth is what we should all be up late at night worrying about!Honestly man, this is tripe. I went so far as to ask my buddy David V., who not only has boatloads but also experience in int. finance, if your suppositions held any weight and he basically asked why I was bothering him with this Bank of Montreal nonsense (full disclosure: the man is from Toronto, so maybe it's a civic pride/rivalry thing). He is a good deal smarter than me (and possibly even as smart as you, though doubtful). When pressed he offered that you were either fear mongering or perhaps had some other reason to be fearful, but either way were "talking out of someplace other than his mouth." I offered that you could be fishing but that one went over his head. He did text me later though with a thought to share with you: "Tell him to hide all his money... if they actually go through with it!"... Perhaps he would fit right in around here.So which is it: are you BS-ing or are the hippies getting to you?

Well, seeing as you don't want to be civil anymore,Nobody is fearing them (BMO). I'm saying that if you break up our banks (like maybe divide them in half), then they won't be able to compete as well with bigger banks in foreign countries. I have plenty of buddies in int. finance myself. You knowing David V. doe snot impress me. Where'd you get that name anyway? Off of LinkedIn?

It's the hippies, isn't it? They've got you sweating just a little bit, no Bueno?I didn't give you a full name, but I just looked on my iPhone for it. I also have video on that same phone from his retirement party in June, when Gates gave a roast and Chris Isaak played a few sets. David was hoping for the Black Crowes, but they weren't available. Bummer, but Isaak is a great performer. I'll tell D to mind his P's and Q's.

You do that.Ain't no hippies in my redneck of the woods, and I don't sweat. I perspire.

P.S.~ I was wrong about BMO. They are Canada's fourth largest bank. Excellent research though.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Bankers salaries vs. everyone else

How do they compare to doctors and lawyers?

Not sure, but those bankers look like pikers next to baseball players.

Occupy Yankees Stadium

 

[Idiot Boxer]

Bankers salaries vs. everyone else

How do they compare to doctors and lawyers?

Not sure, but those bankers look like pikers next to baseball players.

Occupy Yankees Stadium

Through no fault of my own, I am right handed, wasn't born in the Dominican Republic and can't hit a curveball....I am the 99%

 

[Reaper]

It's the hippies, isn't it? They've got you sweating just a little bit, no Bueno?

Seriously - why would anyone sweat this?Unless you had a business in the area and your bathroom was trashed and your customers were blocked?But, what would one be sweating at this point?

 

[Neofight]

It's the hippies, isn't it? They've got you sweating just a little bit, no Bueno?

Seriously - why would anyone sweat this?Unless you had a business in the area and your bathroom was trashed and your customers were blocked?But, what would one be sweating at this point?

I'm not. It find it refreshing. Did you meant to address this to Bueno?

 

[guderian]

Bankers salaries vs. everyone else

The following part didn't cheer you up?"The sector employs just 12 percent of the city’s work force, but accounted for one out of every three jobs lost in the recession."

Maybe one day you'll put them all out of work and inflicted a requisite amount of pain on them, in your eyes. Happy day for America, indeed.

Of course, according to this report the state of NY would lose 14% of it's tax revenues, but this isn't about economics, it's about scapegoating and retribution.

That's what you take from the chart I linked?

I don't stop at the chart that happens to show what you want. I actually read the article as well as the linked report. Try it.

 

[guderian]

Bankers salaries vs. everyone else

How do they compare to doctors and lawyers?

Lawyers, particularly big money trial lawyers, are huge Democratic donors, so they're in the "ok to be wealthy" box.

 

[guderian]

It's the hippies, isn't it? They've got you sweating just a little bit, no Bueno?

Seriously - why would anyone sweat this?Unless you had a business in the area and your bathroom was trashed and your customers were blocked?But, what would one be sweating at this point?

2008: Inspired by snappy rhetoric, hippies find their way to the polls and elect liberal President.2012: Hippies wandering around lower Manhattan crapping in bathroom sinks. I don't see what's to fear either.

 

[urbanhack]

It's the hippies, isn't it? They've got you sweating just a little bit, no Bueno?

Seriously - why would anyone sweat this?

Unless you had a business in the area and your bathroom was trashed and your customers were blocked?

But, what would one be sweating at this point?

2008: Inspired by snappy rhetoric, hippies find their way to the polls and elect liberal President.2012: Hippies wandering around lower Manhattan crapping in bathroom sinks.

link?

 

[IGKYA!!!]

It's the hippies, isn't it? They've got you sweating just a little bit, no Bueno?

Seriously - why would anyone sweat this?

Unless you had a business in the area and your bathroom was trashed and your customers were blocked?

But, what would one be sweating at this point?

2008: Inspired by snappy rhetoric, hippies find their way to the polls and elect liberal President.2012: Hippies wandering around lower Manhattan crapping in bathroom sinks.

link?

Breaking news

 

[JerseyToughGuys]

99 Percenters and 53 Percenters Face Off

 

[Steeler]

99 Percenters and 53 Percenters Face Off

Love the 53 percenters!

 

[Idiot Boxer]

99 Percenters and 53 Percenters Face Off

Love the 53 percenters!

I count 152%. Somebody's exaggerating.

 

[guderian]

As much as they try to say this is about the 1%, corporate greed or whatever--I think that if we were humming along at 3+% GDP growth with sub 7% unemployment like we should at this stage of a recovery, no one would be trying to occupy anything.

I also don't think that either Wall Street or the '1%' prefer this type of an economy nor are they intentionally pushing for legislation to keep the economy stalled. The disconnect between the growing economy that everyone seems to want and where we are seems to lie elsewhere.

 

[adonis]

As much as they try to say this is about the 1%, corporate greed or whatever--I think that if we were humming along at 3+% GDP growth with sub 7% unemployment like we should at this stage of a recovery, no one would be trying to occupy anything.

Might as well say that if Wall Street hadn't screwed everything up, no one would be protesting wall street right now.

 

[guderian]

As much as they try to say this is about the 1%, corporate greed or whatever--I think that if we were humming along at 3+% GDP growth with sub 7% unemployment like we should at this stage of a recovery, no one would be trying to occupy anything.

Might as well say that if Wall Street hadn't screwed everything up, no one would be protesting wall street right now.

Your "it's all Wall Street's fault" narrative has driven policy for the past 3 years and here we are. Perhaps it's now time to consider the alternative narrative...

Wall Street's Gullible Occupiers

The protesters have been sold a bill of goods. Reckless government policies, not private greed, brought about the housing bubble and resulting financial crisis.

By PETER J. WALLISON

There is no mystery where the Occupy Wall Street movement came from: It is an offspring of the same false narrative about the causes of the financial crisis that exculpated the government and brought us the Dodd-Frank Act. According to this story, the financial crisis and ensuing deep recession was caused by a reckless private sector driven by greed and insufficiently regulated. It is no wonder that people who hear this tale repeated endlessly in the media turn on Wall Street to express their frustration with the current conditions in the economy.

Their anger should be directed at those who developed and supported the federal government's housing policies that were responsible for the financial crisis.

Beginning in 1992, the government required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to direct a substantial portion of their mortgage financing to borrowers who were at or below the median income in their communities. The original legislative quota was 30%. But the Department of Housing and Urban Development was given authority to adjust it, and through the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations HUD raised the quota to 50% by 2000 and 55% by 2007.

It is certainly possible to find prime borrowers among people with incomes below the median. But when more than half of the mortgages Fannie and Freddie were required to buy were required to have that characteristic, these two government-sponsored enterprises had to significantly reduce their underwriting standards.

Fannie and Freddie were not the only government-backed or government-controlled organizations that were enlisted in this process. The Federal Housing Administration was competing with Fannie and Freddie for the same mortgages. And thanks to rules adopted in 1995 under the Community Reinvestment Act, regulated banks as well as savings and loan associations had to make a certain number of loans to borrowers who were at or below 80% of the median income in the areas they served.

Research by Edward Pinto, a former chief credit officer of Fannie Mae (now a colleague of mine at the American Enterprise Institute) has shown that 27 million loans—half of all mortgages in the U.S.—were subprime or otherwise weak by 2008. That is, the loans were made to borrowers with blemished credit, or were loans with no or low down payments, no documentation, or required only interest payments.

Of these, over 70% were held or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie or some other government agency or government-regulated institution. Thus it is clear where the demand for these deficient mortgages came from.

The huge government investment in subprime mortgages achieved its purpose. Home ownership in the U.S. increased to 69% from 65% (where it had been for 30 years). But it also led to the biggest housing bubble in American history. This bubble, which lasted from 1997 to 2007, also created a huge private market for mortgage-backed securities (MBS) based on pools of subprime loans.

As housing bubbles grow, rising prices suppress delinquencies and defaults. People who could not meet their mortgage obligations could refinance or sell, because their houses were now worth more.

Accordingly, by the mid-2000s, investors had begun to notice that securities based on subprime mortgages were producing the high yields, but not showing the large number of defaults, that are usually associated with subprime loans. This triggered strong investor demand for these securities, causing the growth of the first significant private market for MBS based on subprime and other risky mortgages.

By 2008, Mr. Pinto has shown, this market consisted of about 7.8 million subprime loans, somewhat less than one-third of the 27 million that were then outstanding. The private financial sector must certainly share some blame for the financial crisis, but it cannot fairly be accused of causing that crisis when only a small minority of subprime and other risky mortgages outstanding in 2008 were the result of that private activity.

When the bubble deflated in 2007, an unprecedented number of weak mortgages went into default, driving down housing prices throughout the U.S. and throwing Fannie and Freddie into insolvency. Seeing these sudden losses, investors fled from the market for privately issued MBS, and mark-to-market accounting required banks and others to write down the value of their mortgage-backed assets to the distress levels in a market that now had few buyers. This raised questions about the solvency and liquidity of the largest financial institutions and began a period of great investor anxiety.

The government's rescue of Bear Stearns in March 2008 temporarily calmed the market. But it created significant moral hazard: Market participants were led to believe that the government would rescue all large financial institutions. When Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail in September, investors panicked. They withdrew their funds from the institutions that held large amounts of privately issued MBS, causing banks and others—such as investment banks, finance companies and insurers—to hoard cash against the risk of further withdrawals. Their refusal to lend to one another in these conditions froze credit markets, bringing on what we now call the financial crisis.

The narrative that came out of these events—largely propagated by government officials and accepted by a credulous media—was that the private sector's greed and risk-taking caused the financial crisis and the government's policies were not responsible. This narrative stimulated the punitive Dodd-Frank Act—fittingly named after Congress's two key supporters of the government's destructive housing policies. It also gave us the occupiers of Wall Street.

 

[adonis]

As much as they try to say this is about the 1%, corporate greed or whatever--I think that if we were humming along at 3+% GDP growth with sub 7% unemployment like we should at this stage of a recovery, no one would be trying to occupy anything.

Might as well say that if Wall Street hadn't screwed everything up, no one would be protesting wall street right now.

Your "it's all Wall Street's fault" narrative has driven policy for the past 3 years and here we are. Perhaps it's now time to consider the alternative narrative...

My point remains that Wall Street played a big role in our current problem, and people are out protesting against Wall Street. There's nothing surprising here.Sure, government played a role too...we had the tea party movement pissed off at government. We're getting both waves of frustration here, Tea party came first, at the most obvious offender to the conservatives - BIG GOVERNMENT who wrote big checks to bail out companies and talks of raising taxes.Now, we have the more progressive folks pissed off at Wall Street for the role they played in this, with the Occupy Wall Street movement.

 

[FavreCo]

Wall street & the zillionaires have time on their side. This will fade and simply become a wikipedia event.

 

[tommyGunZ]

Wall Street's Gullible Occupiers

The protesters have been sold a bill of goods. Reckless government policies, not private greed, brought about the housing bubble and resulting financial crisis.

By PETER J. WALLISON

There is no mystery where the Occupy Wall Street movement came from: It is an offspring of the same false narrative about the causes of the financial crisis that exculpated the government and brought us the Dodd-Frank Act. According to this story, the financial crisis and ensuing deep recession was caused by a reckless private sector driven by greed and insufficiently regulated. It is no wonder that people who hear this tale repeated endlessly in the media turn on Wall Street to express their frustration with the current conditions in the economy.

Their anger should be directed at those who developed and supported the federal government's housing policies that were responsible for the financial crisis.

Beginning in 1992, the government required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to direct a substantial portion of their mortgage financing to borrowers who were at or below the median income in their communities. The original legislative quota was 30%. But the Department of Housing and Urban Development was given authority to adjust it, and through the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations HUD raised the quota to 50% by 2000 and 55% by 2007.

It is certainly possible to find prime borrowers among people with incomes below the median. But when more than half of the mortgages Fannie and Freddie were required to buy were required to have that characteristic, these two government-sponsored enterprises had to significantly reduce their underwriting standards.

Fannie and Freddie were not the only government-backed or government-controlled organizations that were enlisted in this process. The Federal Housing Administration was competing with Fannie and Freddie for the same mortgages. And thanks to rules adopted in 1995 under the Community Reinvestment Act, regulated banks as well as savings and loan associations had to make a certain number of loans to borrowers who were at or below 80% of the median income in the areas they served.

Research by Edward Pinto, a former chief credit officer of Fannie Mae (now a colleague of mine at the American Enterprise Institute) has shown that 27 million loans—half of all mortgages in the U.S.—were subprime or otherwise weak by 2008. That is, the loans were made to borrowers with blemished credit, or were loans with no or low down payments, no documentation, or required only interest payments.

Of these, over 70% were held or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie or some other government agency or government-regulated institution. Thus it is clear where the demand for these deficient mortgages came from.

The huge government investment in subprime mortgages achieved its purpose. Home ownership in the U.S. increased to 69% from 65% (where it had been for 30 years). But it also led to the biggest housing bubble in American history. This bubble, which lasted from 1997 to 2007, also created a huge private market for mortgage-backed securities (MBS) based on pools of subprime loans.

As housing bubbles grow, rising prices suppress delinquencies and defaults. People who could not meet their mortgage obligations could refinance or sell, because their houses were now worth more.

Accordingly, by the mid-2000s, investors had begun to notice that securities based on subprime mortgages were producing the high yields, but not showing the large number of defaults, that are usually associated with subprime loans. This triggered strong investor demand for these securities, causing the growth of the first significant private market for MBS based on subprime and other risky mortgages.

By 2008, Mr. Pinto has shown, this market consisted of about 7.8 million subprime loans, somewhat less than one-third of the 27 million that were then outstanding. The private financial sector must certainly share some blame for the financial crisis, but it cannot fairly be accused of causing that crisis when only a small minority of subprime and other risky mortgages outstanding in 2008 were the result of that private activity.

When the bubble deflated in 2007, an unprecedented number of weak mortgages went into default, driving down housing prices throughout the U.S. and throwing Fannie and Freddie into insolvency. Seeing these sudden losses, investors fled from the market for privately issued MBS, and mark-to-market accounting required banks and others to write down the value of their mortgage-backed assets to the distress levels in a market that now had few buyers. This raised questions about the solvency and liquidity of the largest financial institutions and began a period of great investor anxiety.

The government's rescue of Bear Stearns in March 2008 temporarily calmed the market. But it created significant moral hazard: Market participants were led to believe that the government would rescue all large financial institutions. When Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail in September, investors panicked. They withdrew their funds from the institutions that held large amounts of privately issued MBS, causing banks and others—such as investment banks, finance companies and insurers—to hoard cash against the risk of further withdrawals. Their refusal to lend to one another in these conditions froze credit markets, bringing on what we now call the financial crisis.

The narrative that came out of these events—largely propagated by government officials and accepted by a credulous media—was that the private sector's greed and risk-taking caused the financial crisis and the government's policies were not responsible. This narrative stimulated the punitive Dodd-Frank Act—fittingly named after Congress's two key supporters of the government's destructive housing policies. It also gave us the occupiers of Wall Street.

AEI to the rescue!

 

[Reaper]

Wall Street's Gullible Occupiers

The protesters have been sold a bill of goods. Reckless government policies, not private greed, brought about the housing bubble and resulting financial crisis.

By PETER J. WALLISON

There is no mystery where the Occupy Wall Street movement came from: It is an offspring of the same false narrative about the causes of the financial crisis that exculpated the government and brought us the Dodd-Frank Act. According to this story, the financial crisis and ensuing deep recession was caused by a reckless private sector driven by greed and insufficiently regulated. It is no wonder that people who hear this tale repeated endlessly in the media turn on Wall Street to express their frustration with the current conditions in the economy.

Their anger should be directed at those who developed and supported the federal government's housing policies that were responsible for the financial crisis.

Beginning in 1992, the government required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to direct a substantial portion of their mortgage financing to borrowers who were at or below the median income in their communities. The original legislative quota was 30%. But the Department of Housing and Urban Development was given authority to adjust it, and through the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations HUD raised the quota to 50% by 2000 and 55% by 2007.

It is certainly possible to find prime borrowers among people with incomes below the median. But when more than half of the mortgages Fannie and Freddie were required to buy were required to have that characteristic, these two government-sponsored enterprises had to significantly reduce their underwriting standards.

Fannie and Freddie were not the only government-backed or government-controlled organizations that were enlisted in this process. The Federal Housing Administration was competing with Fannie and Freddie for the same mortgages. And thanks to rules adopted in 1995 under the Community Reinvestment Act, regulated banks as well as savings and loan associations had to make a certain number of loans to borrowers who were at or below 80% of the median income in the areas they served.

Research by Edward Pinto, a former chief credit officer of Fannie Mae (now a colleague of mine at the American Enterprise Institute) has shown that 27 million loans—half of all mortgages in the U.S.—were subprime or otherwise weak by 2008. That is, the loans were made to borrowers with blemished credit, or were loans with no or low down payments, no documentation, or required only interest payments.

Of these, over 70% were held or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie or some other government agency or government-regulated institution. Thus it is clear where the demand for these deficient mortgages came from.

The huge government investment in subprime mortgages achieved its purpose. Home ownership in the U.S. increased to 69% from 65% (where it had been for 30 years). But it also led to the biggest housing bubble in American history. This bubble, which lasted from 1997 to 2007, also created a huge private market for mortgage-backed securities (MBS) based on pools of subprime loans.

As housing bubbles grow, rising prices suppress delinquencies and defaults. People who could not meet their mortgage obligations could refinance or sell, because their houses were now worth more.

Accordingly, by the mid-2000s, investors had begun to notice that securities based on subprime mortgages were producing the high yields, but not showing the large number of defaults, that are usually associated with subprime loans. This triggered strong investor demand for these securities, causing the growth of the first significant private market for MBS based on subprime and other risky mortgages.

By 2008, Mr. Pinto has shown, this market consisted of about 7.8 million subprime loans, somewhat less than one-third of the 27 million that were then outstanding. The private financial sector must certainly share some blame for the financial crisis, but it cannot fairly be accused of causing that crisis when only a small minority of subprime and other risky mortgages outstanding in 2008 were the result of that private activity.

When the bubble deflated in 2007, an unprecedented number of weak mortgages went into default, driving down housing prices throughout the U.S. and throwing Fannie and Freddie into insolvency. Seeing these sudden losses, investors fled from the market for privately issued MBS, and mark-to-market accounting required banks and others to write down the value of their mortgage-backed assets to the distress levels in a market that now had few buyers. This raised questions about the solvency and liquidity of the largest financial institutions and began a period of great investor anxiety.

The government's rescue of Bear Stearns in March 2008 temporarily calmed the market. But it created significant moral hazard: Market participants were led to believe that the government would rescue all large financial institutions. When Lehman Brothers was allowed to fail in September, investors panicked. They withdrew their funds from the institutions that held large amounts of privately issued MBS, causing banks and others—such as investment banks, finance companies and insurers—to hoard cash against the risk of further withdrawals. Their refusal to lend to one another in these conditions froze credit markets, bringing on what we now call the financial crisis.

The narrative that came out of these events—largely propagated by government officials and accepted by a credulous media—was that the private sector's greed and risk-taking caused the financial crisis and the government's policies were not responsible. This narrative stimulated the punitive Dodd-Frank Act—fittingly named after Congress's two key supporters of the government's destructive housing policies. It also gave us the occupiers of Wall Street.

AEI to the rescue!

So, this is the second post of yours in a row I read that wants to ignore the discussion and tell us all about the messenger...

Personally I don't do that - I'll read whatever it is and take it for what it's worth.

 

[SacramentoBob]

I'll read whatever it is and take it for what it's worth.

Technically, he's doing the same thing. He doesn't assign much worth to it.

 

[tommyGunZ]

So, this is the second post of yours in a row I read that wants to ignore the discussion and tell us all about the messenger...Personally I don't do that - I'll read whatever it is and take it for what it's worth.

There are plenty of reasonable sources. There is a ton of partisan garbage on the internet. Once you've waded through the sludge enough to know the difference, you stop wading through the sludge. You never see me linking Kos or MoveOn or other fringe leftist sites.

 

[medium aristotle]

It's the hippies, isn't it? They've got you sweating just a little bit, no Bueno?

Seriously - why would anyone sweat this?

Unless you had a business in the area and your bathroom was trashed and your customers were blocked?

But, what would one be sweating at this point?

2008: Inspired by snappy rhetoric, hippies find their way to the polls and elect liberal President.2012: Hippies wandering around lower Manhattan crapping in bathroom sinks.

link?

Breaking news

 

[Courtjester]

We had a small protest pop up here in our town. Maybe 40-50 showed up in the downtown park. The thing is, we have an anti-camping law on the books here that the cops have made it very clear they will begin enforcing starting tomorrow, so this will be short lived.

I am off today and I really want to go down and join them with some random signs. Like "Save the Whales" "Boycott the NBA" "I Like Turtles."

"Tebow time" also seemed like one that would work but I am afraid one of the smelly hippie types may object since Tebow makes a lot of money.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Tebow time would be awesome. He makes a lot of money AND loves Jesus.

 

[ericttspikes]

As much as they try to say this is about the 1%, corporate greed or whatever--I think that if we were humming along at 3+% GDP growth with sub 7% unemployment like we should at this stage of a recovery, no one would be trying to occupy anything.I also don't think that either Wall Street or the '1%' prefer this type of an economy nor are they intentionally pushing for legislation to keep the economy stalled. The disconnect between the growing economy that everyone seems to want and where we are seems to lie elsewhere.

It's all political. One party doesn't want the economy to be "humming along" currently for partisan reasons. There are plenty of things Congress could be doing but aren't. It's all about power and greed.It doesn't take much to see that America has been pillaged and a massive transfer of wealth has occurred. That didn't happen by accident. The rules are written by the people with the most money and influence to further rig the game and make more money. Not sure what is too hard to understand about that. Seems like the only argument against the protesters is that they should be smarter and work harder to grab all that cash back and push the pendulum back in their favor, and I suppose that is what the uproar is about and maybe the protests are the first steps in doing just that.Consumers in the end hold more power than either government or private industry. Consumers have been given the task of propping up the economy AND paying the bill for bailing out failing industries. Maybe these protests are signs that some people are waking up from the manufactured reality of consumerism. We simply don't need a majority of the crap that is being sold. If the "job creators" don't think hiring people is in their best interest, they shouldn't be shocked when consumers stop buying their crap. And if the right wants to promote austerity and job contraction, then it shouldn't be a surprise when consumers stay home and save money instead. Like it or not, we are all in this together. If one small group of people wants a majority of the wealth so be it. The consequences of that will play itself out one way or another.

 

[jonessed]

Police are beginning to crack down on the few hundred here in Sacramento. I'm surprised someone intelligent hasn't tried to move this thing in a direction that goes beyond tent cities. If you want to represent the common citizen it's best not to publicly crap in bushes and harrass people just trying to get to work.

 

[moleculo]

We had a small protest pop up here in our town. Maybe 40-50 showed up in the downtown park. The thing is, we have an anti-camping law on the books here that the cops have made it very clear they will begin enforcing starting tomorrow, so this will be short lived.I am off today and I really want to go down and join them with some random signs. Like "Save the Whales" "Boycott the NBA" "I Like Turtles.""Tebow time" also seemed like one that would work but I am afraid one of the smelly hippie types may object since Tebow makes a lot of money.

I completely endorse Tebow time.Maybe a "Fire Brian Xanders" sign or "Sell the Team, Pat" might work as well.

 

[Reaper]

So, this is the second post of yours in a row I read that wants to ignore the discussion and tell us all about the messenger...Personally I don't do that - I'll read whatever it is and take it for what it's worth.

There are plenty of reasonable sources. There is a ton of partisan garbage on the internet. Once you've waded through the sludge enough to know the difference, you stop wading through the sludge. You never see me linking Kos or MoveOn or other fringe leftist sites.

And we both know that that same article can be reposted from many different sources if we wanted to... I'm pretty sure Rolling Stone had a similar piece...Me.... I'd rather discuss what we disagree with in the article and what changes sound logical instead of debating sources. Again.

 

[Steeler]

It's all political. One party doesn't want the economy to be "humming along" currently for partisan reasons.

I don't buy this argument at all. If Obama would cut taxes on the rich, roll back regulations, and repeal ObamaCare, he'd get all republican votes. So the ball is in his court.

 

[urbanhack]

As much as they try to say this is about the 1%, corporate greed or whatever--I think that if we were humming along at 3+% GDP growth with sub 7% unemployment like we should at this stage of a recovery, no one would be trying to occupy anything.I also don't think that either Wall Street or the '1%' prefer this type of an economy nor are they intentionally pushing for legislation to keep the economy stalled. The disconnect between the growing economy that everyone seems to want and where we are seems to lie elsewhere.

It's all political. One party doesn't want the economy to be "humming along" currently for partisan reasons. There are plenty of things Congress could be doing but aren't. It's all about power and greed.It doesn't take much to see that America has been pillaged and a massive transfer of wealth has occurred. That didn't happen by accident. The rules are written by the people with the most money and influence to further rig the game and make more money. Not sure what is too hard to understand about that. Seems like the only argument against the protesters is that they should be smarter and work harder to grab all that cash back and push the pendulum back in their favor, and I suppose that is what the uproar is about and maybe the protests are the first steps in doing just that.Consumers in the end hold more power than either government or private industry. Consumers have been given the task of propping up the economy AND paying the bill for bailing out failing industries. Maybe these protests are signs that some people are waking up from the manufactured reality of consumerism. We simply don't need a majority of the crap that is being sold. If the "job creators" don't think hiring people is in their best interest, they shouldn't be shocked when consumers stop buying their crap. And if the right wants to promote austerity and job contraction, then it shouldn't be a surprise when consumers stay home and save money instead. Like it or not, we are all in this together. If one small group of people wants a majority of the wealth so be it. The consequences of that will play itself out one way or another.

 

[guderian]

AEI to the rescue!

I defy you to prove that any of the statistics cited below are false. I'll admit that it would be hard to find the relevant data to disprove the latter two paragraphs, but the legislative requirements for low-income lending should be pretty easy to disprove if this messenger is in fact presenting a biased accounting of the data.

Beginning in 1992, the government required Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac to direct a substantial portion of their mortgage financing to borrowers who were at or below the median income in their communities. The original legislative quota was 30%. But the Department of Housing and Urban Development was given authority to adjust it, and through the Bill Clinton and George W. Bush administrations HUD raised the quota to 50% by 2000 and 55% by 2007.Research by Edward Pinto, a former chief credit officer of Fannie Mae (now a colleague of mine at the American Enterprise Institute) has shown that 27 million loans—half of all mortgages in the U.S.—were subprime or otherwise weak by 2008. That is, the loans were made to borrowers with blemished credit, or were loans with no or low down payments, no documentation, or required only interest payments.Of these, over 70% were held or guaranteed by Fannie and Freddie or some other government agency or government-regulated institution. Thus it is clear where the demand for these deficient mortgages came from.

 

[guderian]

So, this is the second post of yours in a row I read that wants to ignore the discussion and tell us all about the messenger...Personally I don't do that - I'll read whatever it is and take it for what it's worth.

There are plenty of reasonable sources. There is a ton of partisan garbage on the internet. Once you've waded through the sludge enough to know the difference, you stop wading through the sludge. You never see me linking Kos or MoveOn or other fringe leftist sites.

Prove to me that the data is "garbage".

 

[Idiot Boxer]

As much as they try to say this is about the 1%, corporate greed or whatever--I think that if we were humming along at 3+% GDP growth with sub 7% unemployment like we should at this stage of a recovery, no one would be trying to occupy anything.I also don't think that either Wall Street or the '1%' prefer this type of an economy nor are they intentionally pushing for legislation to keep the economy stalled. The disconnect between the growing economy that everyone seems to want and where we are seems to lie elsewhere.

It's all political. One party doesn't want the economy to be "humming along" currently for partisan reasons. There are plenty of things Congress could be doing but aren't. It's all about power and greed.It doesn't take much to see that America has been pillaged and a massive transfer of wealth has occurred. That didn't happen by accident. The rules are written by the people with the most money and influence to further rig the game and make more money. Not sure what is too hard to understand about that. Seems like the only argument against the protesters is that they should be smarter and work harder to grab all that cash back and push the pendulum back in their favor, and I suppose that is what the uproar is about and maybe the protests are the first steps in doing just that.Consumers in the end hold more power than either government or private industry. Consumers have been given the task of propping up the economy AND paying the bill for bailing out failing industries. Maybe these protests are signs that some people are waking up from the manufactured reality of consumerism. We simply don't need a majority of the crap that is being sold. If the "job creators" don't think hiring people is in their best interest, they shouldn't be shocked when consumers stop buying their crap. And if the right wants to promote austerity and job contraction, then it shouldn't be a surprise when consumers stay home and save money instead. Like it or not, we are all in this together. If one small group of people wants a majority of the wealth so be it. The consequences of that will play itself out one way or another.

Again. Re-emphasizing the need for a third party. Too bad OWS or the Tea Party will never be it because the fringes will alienate the middle.

 

[guderian]

As much as they try to say this is about the 1%, corporate greed or whatever--I think that if we were humming along at 3+% GDP growth with sub 7% unemployment like we should at this stage of a recovery, no one would be trying to occupy anything.I also don't think that either Wall Street or the '1%' prefer this type of an economy nor are they intentionally pushing for legislation to keep the economy stalled. The disconnect between the growing economy that everyone seems to want and where we are seems to lie elsewhere.

It's all political. One party doesn't want the economy to be "humming along" currently for partisan reasons. There are plenty of things Congress could be doing but aren't. It's all about power and greed.It doesn't take much to see that America has been pillaged and a massive transfer of wealth has occurred. That didn't happen by accident. The rules are written by the people with the most money and influence to further rig the game and make more money. Not sure what is too hard to understand about that. Seems like the only argument against the protesters is that they should be smarter and work harder to grab all that cash back and push the pendulum back in their favor, and I suppose that is what the uproar is about and maybe the protests are the first steps in doing just that.Consumers in the end hold more power than either government or private industry. Consumers have been given the task of propping up the economy AND paying the bill for bailing out failing industries. Maybe these protests are signs that some people are waking up from the manufactured reality of consumerism. We simply don't need a majority of the crap that is being sold. If the "job creators" don't think hiring people is in their best interest, they shouldn't be shocked when consumers stop buying their crap. And if the right wants to promote austerity and job contraction, then it shouldn't be a surprise when consumers stay home and save money instead. Like it or not, we are all in this together. If one small group of people wants a majority of the wealth so be it. The consequences of that will play itself out one way or another.

And I'm not sure why it's hard to understand that driving the economy into the ground would serve the interests of anyone.

 

[urbanhack]

As much as they try to say this is about the 1%, corporate greed or whatever--I think that if we were humming along at 3+% GDP growth with sub 7% unemployment like we should at this stage of a recovery, no one would be trying to occupy anything.I also don't think that either Wall Street or the '1%' prefer this type of an economy nor are they intentionally pushing for legislation to keep the economy stalled. The disconnect between the growing economy that everyone seems to want and where we are seems to lie elsewhere.

It's all political. One party doesn't want the economy to be "humming along" currently for partisan reasons. There are plenty of things Congress could be doing but aren't. It's all about power and greed.It doesn't take much to see that America has been pillaged and a massive transfer of wealth has occurred. That didn't happen by accident. The rules are written by the people with the most money and influence to further rig the game and make more money. Not sure what is too hard to understand about that. Seems like the only argument against the protesters is that they should be smarter and work harder to grab all that cash back and push the pendulum back in their favor, and I suppose that is what the uproar is about and maybe the protests are the first steps in doing just that.Consumers in the end hold more power than either government or private industry. Consumers have been given the task of propping up the economy AND paying the bill for bailing out failing industries. Maybe these protests are signs that some people are waking up from the manufactured reality of consumerism. We simply don't need a majority of the crap that is being sold. If the "job creators" don't think hiring people is in their best interest, they shouldn't be shocked when consumers stop buying their crap. And if the right wants to promote austerity and job contraction, then it shouldn't be a surprise when consumers stay home and save money instead. Like it or not, we are all in this together. If one small group of people wants a majority of the wealth so be it. The consequences of that will play itself out one way or another.

Again. Re-emphasizing the need for a third party. Too bad OWS or the Tea Party will never be it because the fringes will alienate the middle.

Agreed.

 

[ericttspikes]

As much as they try to say this is about the 1%, corporate greed or whatever--I think that if we were humming along at 3+% GDP growth with sub 7% unemployment like we should at this stage of a recovery, no one would be trying to occupy anything.I also don't think that either Wall Street or the '1%' prefer this type of an economy nor are they intentionally pushing for legislation to keep the economy stalled. The disconnect between the growing economy that everyone seems to want and where we are seems to lie elsewhere.

It's all political. One party doesn't want the economy to be "humming along" currently for partisan reasons. There are plenty of things Congress could be doing but aren't. It's all about power and greed.It doesn't take much to see that America has been pillaged and a massive transfer of wealth has occurred. That didn't happen by accident. The rules are written by the people with the most money and influence to further rig the game and make more money. Not sure what is too hard to understand about that. Seems like the only argument against the protesters is that they should be smarter and work harder to grab all that cash back and push the pendulum back in their favor, and I suppose that is what the uproar is about and maybe the protests are the first steps in doing just that.Consumers in the end hold more power than either government or private industry. Consumers have been given the task of propping up the economy AND paying the bill for bailing out failing industries. Maybe these protests are signs that some people are waking up from the manufactured reality of consumerism. We simply don't need a majority of the crap that is being sold. If the "job creators" don't think hiring people is in their best interest, they shouldn't be shocked when consumers stop buying their crap. And if the right wants to promote austerity and job contraction, then it shouldn't be a surprise when consumers stay home and save money instead. Like it or not, we are all in this together. If one small group of people wants a majority of the wealth so be it. The consequences of that will play itself out one way or another.

And I'm not sure why it's hard to understand that driving the economy into the ground would serve the interests of anyone.

Who's driving it into the ground? Certainly not the "hippies" and "unwashed" people at the protests. You can't get blood from a stone. The "haves" appear not to care too much about the "have nots". They have the cash and can isolate themselves from the rest of America if they want. The 1 percenters really aren't even truly American, they are globalists who work, play and live with their own class all over the world. They don't go to Target, shop for groceries, worry about their mortgage, etc. They've carved out their own little world to themselves. I do agree that the people who hold the wealth in this country are shortsighted when it comes to the future of America and the American consumer, but greed will do that to a person. No real reason to care about the future when you believe you have enough cash to live anywhere on the planet. Generational wealth is powerful. Most of these people really do have enough money to live well for at least the entirety of their lives, and most have enough money to keep their families living well for generations.Why should a guy like Jamie Dimon really give a crap about the future? He makes more money an hour than most people make in a year. More power to him. Guys like him want more and more, and make sure the rules are in place to get more and more. To them, I believe, they simply don't see or understand the consequences of unbridled greed. More importantly they probably don't give a crap.

 

[jamny]

As much as they try to say this is about the 1%, corporate greed or whatever--I think that if we were humming along at 3+% GDP growth with sub 7% unemployment like we should at this stage of a recovery, no one would be trying to occupy anything.

Might as well say that if Wall Street hadn't screwed everything up, no one would be protesting wall street right now.

Your "it's all Wall Street's fault" narrative has driven policy for the past 3 years and here we are. Perhaps it's now time to consider the alternative narrative...

My point remains that Wall Street played a big role in our current problem, and people are out protesting against Wall Street. There's nothing surprising here.Sure, government played a role too...we had the tea party movement pissed off at government. We're getting both waves of frustration here, Tea party came first, at the most obvious offender to the conservatives - BIG GOVERNMENT who wrote big checks to bail out companies and talks of raising taxes.Now, we have the more progressive folks pissed off at Wall Street for the role they played in this, with the Occupy Wall Street movement.

Do you think if a Republican was President right now, the OWS people would have a decidedly more anti-government leaning in their protests.

 

[guderian]

As much as they try to say this is about the 1%, corporate greed or whatever--I think that if we were humming along at 3+% GDP growth with sub 7% unemployment like we should at this stage of a recovery, no one would be trying to occupy anything.I also don't think that either Wall Street or the '1%' prefer this type of an economy nor are they intentionally pushing for legislation to keep the economy stalled. The disconnect between the growing economy that everyone seems to want and where we are seems to lie elsewhere.

It's all political. One party doesn't want the economy to be "humming along" currently for partisan reasons. There are plenty of things Congress could be doing but aren't. It's all about power and greed.It doesn't take much to see that America has been pillaged and a massive transfer of wealth has occurred. That didn't happen by accident. The rules are written by the people with the most money and influence to further rig the game and make more money. Not sure what is too hard to understand about that. Seems like the only argument against the protesters is that they should be smarter and work harder to grab all that cash back and push the pendulum back in their favor, and I suppose that is what the uproar is about and maybe the protests are the first steps in doing just that.Consumers in the end hold more power than either government or private industry. Consumers have been given the task of propping up the economy AND paying the bill for bailing out failing industries. Maybe these protests are signs that some people are waking up from the manufactured reality of consumerism. We simply don't need a majority of the crap that is being sold. If the "job creators" don't think hiring people is in their best interest, they shouldn't be shocked when consumers stop buying their crap. And if the right wants to promote austerity and job contraction, then it shouldn't be a surprise when consumers stay home and save money instead. Like it or not, we are all in this together. If one small group of people wants a majority of the wealth so be it. The consequences of that will play itself out one way or another.

And I'm not sure why it's hard to understand that driving the economy into the ground would serve the interests of anyone.

Who's driving it into the ground? Certainly not the "hippies" and "unwashed" people at the protests. You can't get blood from a stone. The "haves" appear not to care too much about the "have nots". They have the cash and can isolate themselves from the rest of America if they want. The 1 percenters really aren't even truly American, they are globalists who work, play and live with their own class all over the world. They don't go to Target, shop for groceries, worry about their mortgage, etc. They've carved out their own little world to themselves. I do agree that the people who hold the wealth in this country are shortsighted when it comes to the future of America and the American consumer, but greed will do that to a person. No real reason to care about the future when you believe you have enough cash to live anywhere on the planet. Generational wealth is powerful. Most of these people really do have enough money to live well for at least the entirety of their lives, and most have enough money to keep their families living well for generations.Why should a guy like Jamie Dimon really give a crap about the future? He makes more money an hour than most people make in a year. More power to him. Guys like him want more and more, and make sure the rules are in place to get more and more. To them, I believe, they simply don't see or understand the consequences of unbridled greed. More importantly they probably don't give a crap.

There are a lot of un-founded suppositions about the motives, intentions, vision and capabilities of the '1%' in your statement.

 

[ericttspikes]

Police are beginning to crack down on the few hundred here in Sacramento. I'm surprised someone intelligent hasn't tried to move this thing in a direction that goes beyond tent cities. If you want to represent the common citizen it's best not to publicly crap in bushes and harrass people just trying to get to work.

I saw on Fox News the outrage over people pissing and crapping in the streets, selling drugs, and have public sex at the NY protests. Like they don't even realize that things like this happen ALL THE TIME in big cities, especially NY. It's like it really is news to Fox and other media outlets that there are a lot of people without jobs, homes, food and futures in this country. It's tragically funny when they complain about all these "smelly homeless people". Duh, I think that's the point. If nothing else, these protests seem like they are educating some fairly clueless folks that there just might be a problem out there.

 

[SacramentoBob]

Can we change the subtitle to "this thing seems to be going away?"

My link

 

[guderian]

The are out with another set of not-so-formal demands:

Link

PROPOSED LIST OF DEMANDS (please help edit/add so this can be submitted for consideration to those maintaining the official list) (User Submitted)

Posted Sept. 28, 2011, 6:54 p.m. EST (13 days ago) by GandhiKingMindset

(Please click on this link if you haven't yet read the introduction called "OUR TURN": https://occupywallst.org/forum/our-turn/ . Feel free to share this link with anyone you like).

TACTICS FOR "DEMANDS FOR CONGRESS"

We should make the demands below very publicly at a press conference a few days after arriving in DC. When doing so, we should give a clear deadline of 3 days for a firm written commitment with signatures from at least 60% of members of House and 60% of the members of the Senate to pass these bills by the end of the year. If this commitment on the full slate of demands is not met by midnight on the 3rd day (which it won't be) we should be prepared to non-violently block access to all or part of the Capitol complex the next morning by traditional proven non-violent tactics. The purpose is to bring the leaders of the House and Senate to the negotiating table.

NOTE: There are always entrances because there is always a point where people who work there have to leave the public street and enter secure space. We should focus our non-violent direct action and civil disobedience on those entrances no matter where they move them because these are, by definition, always accessible.

LIST OF PROPOSED "DEMANDS FOR CONGRESS"

CONGRESS PASS HR 1489 ("RETURN TO PRUDENT BANKING ACT" http://www.govtrack.us/congress/bill.xpd?bill=h112-1489 ). THIS REINSTATES MANY PROVISIONS OF THE GLASS-STEAGALL ACT. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act --- Wiki entry summary: The repeal of provisions of the Glass–Steagall Act of 1933 by the Gramm–Leach–Bliley Act in 1999 effectively removed the separation that previously existed between investment banking which issued securities and commercial banks which accepted deposits. The deregulation also removed conflict of interest prohibitions between investment bankers serving as officers of commercial banks. Most economists believe this repeal directly contributed to the severity of the Financial crisis of 2007–2011 by allowing Wall Street investment banking firms to gamble with their depositors' money that was held in commercial banks owned or created by the investment firms. Here's detail on repeal in 1999 and how it happened: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Glass–Steagall_Act#Repeal .

USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis in the following notable cases: (insert list of the most clear cut criminal actions). There is a pretty broad consensus that there is a clear group of people who got away with millions / billions illegally and haven't been brought to justice. Boy would this be long overdue and cathartic for millions of Americans. It would also be a shot across the bow for the financial industry. If you watch the solidly researched and awared winning documentary film "Inside Job" that was narrated by Matt Damon (pretty brave Matt!) and do other research, it wouldn't take long to develop the list.

CONGRESS ENACT LEGISLATION TO PROTECT OUR DEMOCRACY BY REVERSING THE EFFECTS OF THE CITIZENS UNITED SUPREME COURT DECISION which essentially said corporations can spend as much as they want on elections. The result is that corporations can pretty much buy elections. Corporations should be highly limited in ability to contribute to political campaigns no matter what the election and no matter what the form of media. This legislation should also RE-ESTABLISH THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES IN THE U.S. SO THAT POLITICAL CANDIDATES ARE GIVEN EQUAL TIME FOR FREE AT REASONABLE INTERVALS IN DAILY PROGRAMMING DURING CAMPAIGN SEASON. The same should extend to other media.

CONGRESS PASS THE BUFFETT RULE ON FAIR TAXATION SO THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE & CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOP HOLES AND ENACT A PROHIBITION ON HIDING FUNDS OFF SHORE. No more GE paying zero or negative taxes. Pass the Buffet Rule on fair taxation so the rich pay their fair share. (If we have a really had a good negotiating position and have the place surrounded, we could actually dial up taxes on millionaires, billionaires and corporations even higher...back to what they once were in the 50's and 60's.

CONGRESS COMPLETELY REVAMP THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION and staff it at all levels with proven professionals who get the job done protecting the integrity of the marketplace so citizens and investors are both protected. This agency needs a large staff and needs to be well-funded. It's currently has a joke of a budget and is run by Wall St. insiders who often leave for high ticket cushy jobs with the corporations they were just regulating. Hmmm.

CONGRESS PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATING THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATION THAT ENDS UP ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS.

CONGRESS PASSING "Revolving Door Legislation" LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED. So, you don't get to work at the FDA for five years playing softball with Pfizer and then go to work for Pfizer making $195,000 a year. While they're at it, Congress should pass specific and effective laws to enforce strict judicial standards of conduct in matters concerning conflicts of interest. So long as judges are culled from the ranks of corporate attorneys the 1% will retain control.

ELIMINATE "PERSONHOOD" LEGAL STATUS FOR CORPORATIONS. The film "The Corporation" has a great section on how corporations won "personhood status".

 

[tommyGunZ]

Oof. I agree with some of their demands, but citing movies isn't going to get them very far.

 

[Zeff]

As much as they try to say this is about the 1%, corporate greed or whatever--I think that if we were humming along at 3+% GDP growth with sub 7% unemployment like we should at this stage of a recovery, no one would be trying to occupy anything.I also don't think that either Wall Street or the '1%' prefer this type of an economy nor are they intentionally pushing for legislation to keep the economy stalled. The disconnect between the growing economy that everyone seems to want and where we are seems to lie elsewhere.

It's all political. One party doesn't want the economy to be "humming along" currently for partisan reasons. There are plenty of things Congress could be doing but aren't. It's all about power and greed.It doesn't take much to see that America has been pillaged and a massive transfer of wealth has occurred. That didn't happen by accident. The rules are written by the people with the most money and influence to further rig the game and make more money. Not sure what is too hard to understand about that. Seems like the only argument against the protesters is that they should be smarter and work harder to grab all that cash back and push the pendulum back in their favor, and I suppose that is what the uproar is about and maybe the protests are the first steps in doing just that.Consumers in the end hold more power than either government or private industry. Consumers have been given the task of propping up the economy AND paying the bill for bailing out failing industries. Maybe these protests are signs that some people are waking up from the manufactured reality of consumerism. We simply don't need a majority of the crap that is being sold. If the "job creators" don't think hiring people is in their best interest, they shouldn't be shocked when consumers stop buying their crap. And if the right wants to promote austerity and job contraction, then it shouldn't be a surprise when consumers stay home and save money instead. Like it or not, we are all in this together. If one small group of people wants a majority of the wealth so be it. The consequences of that will play itself out one way or another.

And I'm not sure why it's hard to understand that driving the economy into the ground would serve the interests of anyone.

Who's driving it into the ground? Certainly not the "hippies" and "unwashed" people at the protests. You can't get blood from a stone. The "haves" appear not to care too much about the "have nots". They have the cash and can isolate themselves from the rest of America if they want. The 1 percenters really aren't even truly American, they are globalists who work, play and live with their own class all over the world. They don't go to Target, shop for groceries, worry about their mortgage, etc. They've carved out their own little world to themselves. I do agree that the people who hold the wealth in this country are shortsighted when it comes to the future of America and the American consumer, but greed will do that to a person. No real reason to care about the future when you believe you have enough cash to live anywhere on the planet. Generational wealth is powerful. Most of these people really do have enough money to live well for at least the entirety of their lives, and most have enough money to keep their families living well for generations.Why should a guy like Jamie Dimon really give a crap about the future? He makes more money an hour than most people make in a year. More power to him. Guys like him want more and more, and make sure the rules are in place to get more and more. To them, I believe, they simply don't see or understand the consequences of unbridled greed. More importantly they probably don't give a crap.

There are a lot of un-founded suppositions about the motives, intentions, vision and capabilities of the '1%' in your statement.

You guess.

 

[guderian]

As I mentioned, I really agree with their #1 demand--to reinstate Glass Steagall.

They start to lose me here:

USE CONGRESSIONAL AUTHORITY AND OVERSIGHT TO ENSURE APPROPRIATE FEDERAL AGENCIES FULLY INVESTIGATE AND PROSECUTE THE WALL STREET CRIMINALS who clearly broke the law and helped cause the 2008 financial crisis in the following notable cases: (insert list of the most clear cut criminal actions). There is a pretty broad consensus that there is a clear group of people who got away with millions / billions illegally and haven't been brought to justice. Boy would this be long overdue and cathartic for millions of Americans. It would also be a shot across the bow for the financial industry. If you watch the solidly researched and awared winning documentary film "Inside Job" that was narrated by Matt Damon (pretty brave Matt!) and do other research, it wouldn't take long to develop the list.

I'm fine with prosecuting criminal activity, but making money isn't a criminal activity and a documentary narrated by Matt Damon doesn't seem like the place to begin in proving anything.

CONGRESS PASS THE BUFFETT RULE ON FAIR TAXATION SO THE RICH AND CORPORATIONS PAY THEIR FAIR SHARE & CLOSE CORPORATE TAX LOOP HOLES AND ENACT A PROHIBITION ON HIDING FUNDS OFF SHORE. No more GE paying zero or negative taxes. Pass the Buffet Rule on fair taxation so the rich pay their fair share. (If we have a really had a good negotiating position and have the place surrounded, we could actually dial up taxes on millionaires, billionaires and corporations even higher...back to what they once were in the 50's and 60's.

We've had this debate before about the rich 'paying their fair share'. This entire proposal seems like it was copied from an Obama speech and goes to show why many tie this protest to the Democrats. As we've discussed, 47% don't pay any federal income taxes, get luxurious government benefits and just voted themselves health care at the expense of the rich. I'm not sure they know what "their fair share" really means.

CONGRESS COMPLETELY REVAMP THE SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION and staff it at all levels with proven professionals who get the job done protecting the integrity of the marketplace so citizens and investors are both protected. This agency needs a large staff and needs to be well-funded. It's currently has a joke of a budget and is run by Wall St. insiders who often leave for high ticket cushy jobs with the corporations they were just regulating. Hmmm.

Staff it with "professionals who get the job done." Sounds like a cotton candy proposal.

CONGRESS PASS SPECIFIC AND EFFECTIVE LAWS LIMITING THE INFLUENCE OF LOBBYISTS AND ELIMINATING THE PRACTICE OF LOBBYISTS WRITING LEGISLATION THAT ENDS UP ON THE FLOOR OF CONGRESS.

CONGRESS PASSING "Revolving Door Legislation" LEGISLATION ELIMINATING THE ABILITY OF FORMER GOVERNMENT REGULATORS GOING TO WORK FOR CORPORATIONS THAT THEY ONCE REGULATED. So, you don't get to work at the FDA for five years playing softball with Pfizer and then go to work for Pfizer making $195,000 a year. While they're at it, Congress should pass specific and effective laws to enforce strict judicial standards of conduct in matters concerning conflicts of interest. So long as judges are culled from the ranks of corporate attorneys the 1% will retain control.

They seem to want to get corporations out of politics but are fine with unions, trial lawyers and other traditional left-wing types in politics.

ELIMINATE "PERSONHOOD" LEGAL STATUS FOR CORPORATIONS. The film "The Corporation" has a great section on how corporations won "personhood status".

This goes a long way toward proving my assertion that these protester's notion of corporate America, Wall Street and general economics is largely based on movies. It sounds like that recent commercial--"I read an article...well the majority of an article..."

 

[Claydon]

I saw a proper name for these idiots...occutards.