Thread: Occupy Wall Street

Originally Posted by michael h

Are you implying the tea pertiers deserved beatings? These were right wing conservatives ... God fearing men and women! Not some leftist atheist trash supporting higher taxes.

I think I'm saying that there are some rather telling behavioral differences between those who subscribe to the TEA Party ideology and those of the OWS crowd. My take is that the cause for that difference can be found in the extent to which a sense of personal responsibility has manifested itself in a given participants character.

Originally Posted by lutherf

I think I'm saying that there are some rather telling behavioral differences between those who subscribe to the TEA Party ideology and those of the OWS crowd. My take is that the cause for that difference can be found in the extent to which a sense of personal responsibility has manifested itself in a given participants character.

Exactly my point ... the tea party is formed on more solid foundations. I've said from the beginning this protest was unorganized and a mess. These are youthful protesters who have not formed families or held the jobs and made sacrifices over many years. I would expect such a group to have more extremists. Witness the union march in support of their cause ... peaceful. Kids are full of idealism and base their idealism on unsupported bases sometimes. I think you can also see some awareness (extreme ... unbased idealism) in the groups leadership, to see more extreme "bitch lists" removed from the site ... stating clearly they do not want extremism. Hard to accomplish that when you membership is young adults.

Originally Posted by 9aces

And what's to stop government from putting up new useless regulations whose only purpose is to cause businesses more cost?

Nothing. Didn't really put much thought into that idea there did you?

I saw this article today on Wall St scams. Do you feel regulations are appropriate to prevent these type of fiasco's? What regulations would be appropriate? Also Luther ... how do you feel we should handle such things? Less regulation or more?

www.huffingtonpost.com/investinganswers/the-5-biggest-wall-street_b_994147.html
The 5 Biggest Wall Street Scams of All Time

Sam Israel -- Bayou Hedge Fund Group
Total Scammed: $450 Million

Joseph Nacchio -- Qwest Communications International
Total Scammed: $3 Billion

Bernard Ebbers -- WorldCom
Total Scammed: $100 Billion

Kenneth Lay and Jeffery Skilling -- Enron
Total Scammed: $74 Billion

Bernard Madoff -- Bernard L. Madoff Investment Securities LLC
Total Scammed: $18 Billion

Capitalism at work. All is good on Wall St. No game rigging here.

www.huffingtonpost.com/damien-hoffman/corporate-capitalism-broken_b_996870.html

Capitalism is predicated on rewarding people and businesses for adding value to society. Unfortunately, corporate America continues to set a horrible example for our economy.

Former CEO of Hewlett-Packard Leo Apotheker was awarded -- yes, awarded -- at least $13 million in cash and stock for doing a shitty job and erasing $40 billion in value from HP in merely 11 months. On top of the $13 million, Apotheker stands to receive millions of dollars more in perks such as a cash payment if his current house sells for below a certain price. This, my fellow hard workers, is per se legal stealing.

Let's be real: how much do you expect from the general populous if General Electric pays no taxes and Leo Apotheker makes tens of millions of dollars for being a complete failure?

Originally Posted by michael h

I saw this article today on Wall St scams. Do you feel regulations are appropriate to prevent these type of fiasco's? What regulations would be appropriate? Also Luther ... how do you feel we should handle such things? Less regulation or more?

The issue isn't one of regulation. It's one of enforcement.

Criminals are going to exist no matter what the regulations are. Any of the above "scams" could have been stopped if competent enforcement had been applied. Enron, for example, was a disaster because the "enforcers" were actually complicit in the scamming. In the Madoff case case the "enforcers" simply ignored evidence.

We start to have a problem when those tasked to enforce certain rules are made to be reliant on those who are subject to the rules. It creates a conflict of interest when you are charged with punishing the undesirable behavior of those who provide your income. This is the consequence of government making industry directly fund their own regulators and also making enforcement a political tool.

Originally Posted by lutherf

The issue isn't one of regulation. It's one of enforcement.

Criminals are going to exist no matter what the regulations are. Any of the above "scams" could have been stopped if competent enforcement had been applied. Enron, for example, was a disaster because the "enforcers" were actually complicit in the scamming. In the Madoff case case the "enforcers" simply ignored evidence.

We start to have a problem when those tasked to enforce certain rules are made to be reliant on those who are subject to the rules. It creates a conflict of interest when you are charged with punishing the undesirable behavior of those who provide your income. This is the consequence of government making industry directly fund their own regulators and also making enforcement a political tool.

How do you feel about (new) regulations that were directed at the risk takers during the recent housing bubble? They ran risk to 35x when we had plenty of capital to reduce that risk. Should they be monitored to prevent such risk taking?

Originally Posted by lutherf

The issue isn't one of regulation. It's one of enforcement.

Criminals are going to exist no matter what the regulations are. Any of the above "scams" could have been stopped if competent enforcement had been applied. Enron, for example, was a disaster because the "enforcers" were actually complicit in the scamming. In the Madoff case case the "enforcers" simply ignored evidence.

We start to have a problem when those tasked to enforce certain rules are made to be reliant on those who are subject to the rules. It creates a conflict of interest when you are charged with punishing the undesirable behavior of those who provide your income. This is the consequence of government making industry directly fund their own regulators and also making enforcement a political tool.

Any opinion on how to make enforcers ... enforce rules and regs ... or should we even have the regulations they are enforcing?

Not much to worry about here...

http://www.breitbart.tv/fox-news-jes...l-st-protests/

Originally Posted by CSA

Not much to worry about here...

http://www.breitbart.tv/fox-news-jes...l-st-protests/

Fox lol

Its un American to speak out against Wall St and their actions ... un American ... thanks for the insight Mr. Cain. Corporations are American ... not Americans.

Maybe someone should clue Mr Cain to the truth ... bankers make money ... they are there to create jobs.


thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/06/337522/herman-cain-occupy-wall-street/

Republican presidential candidate Herman Cain says the Occupy Wall Street protesters are un-American and against capitalism. Speaking to The Associated Press during a book signing event Wednesday in St. Petersburg, Fla., Cain said the protesters shouldn’t rally against Wall Street bankers or brokers because “they’re the ones who create the jobs.”

A few other small protests ... Soros must have deep pockets. Best he breaks out the cash and grows these tiny demonstrations.

thinkprogress.org/economy/2011/10/06/336668/thousands-join-99-percent-movement/
Los Angeles: Almost 200 have gathered on the north lawn of the Los Angeles City Hall.

Chicago: Nearing their second week of action, the crowd of over 100 continues to grow. “99 percent of this country is disenfranchised and not being heard,” said protester Evelyn DeHais, “that is irresponsible and awful, but it can be changed and we can change it.”

Louisville: About 200 gathered for the inaugural action.

Wichita: Between 100 and 300 people showed up to the first action on Sunday. “We’re here to stand in solidarity together,” said protester Don Landis, a Vietnam veteran.

Hartford: Close to 100 people attended the first protest on Wednesday in Hartford’s Bushnell Park.

Anchorage: More than 65 people gathered in Anchorage on Wednesday. “Homelessness. Foreclosures, robo-signing of foreclosures,” said protester Brian MacMillan. “Child poverty or child hunger. The unemployment rate, one in 10 in America without a job. Jeez, what isn’t there to protest?”

Charlotte: Local protesters are planning a march on the local offices of Bank of America this Saturday. “I think we’ve got a growing movement,” said a local organizer, Tracey Myhalyk.

Lexington: Since it began on Thursday at least 100 people have gathered every day in Lexington, Kentucky.

Boston: An estimated 3,000 took the streets on Friday to kick off the Boston protest, with a core of 150 staying indefinitely in Boston’s Dewey Square Park. “This is your future at stake,” protester and Iraq War veteran Ryan Cahill said. “It’s not going to fix itself. I think that’s pretty clear.”

Seattle: A crowd of more than 200 protesters gathered in Seattle’s Westlake Park.

Philadelphia: At a standing-room-only planning meeting on Tuseday almost 1,000 activists packed into Arch Street United Methodist Church in Philadelphia. The meeting decided to kick off the protest outside of the Philadelphia City Hall on Tuesday morning.

Denver: More than 50 protesters marched in downtown Denver on Saturday. One protesters’ sign read, “they only call it class war when we fight back.”

Iowa City: About 100 locals met Wednseday night in Iowa City to plan a local protest. The group decided to begin the protest on Friday.

Miami: On Saturday between 100 and 200 protesters met at Bayfront Park in Miami.

Portland: An estimated 100 protesters braved the rain on Saturday to rally in Portland, Maine. “This underscores what’s valuable in a democratic society: At some point, the people need to stand up and say, ‘That’s enough.’” protester Matth Mitchell commented.

Originally Posted by michael h

How do you feel about (new) regulations that were directed at the risk takers during the recent housing bubble? They ran risk to 35x when we had plenty of capital to reduce that risk. Should they be monitored to prevent such risk taking?

I've got LOTS of suggestions on that but it's all fodder for another thread so I'll defer for now.

Originally Posted by michael h

Any opinion on how to make enforcers ... enforce rules and regs ... or should we even have the regulations they are enforcing?

Michael,

The best way we have to combat this type of problem is with educating the public and making sure that they know that, ultimately, they are the ones that will have to hold folks feet to the fire. Both the OWS crowd and the TEA Party are trying to do this but the OWS group is focused on the wrong target and they are also focused on the wrong reason for choosing their target.

Originally Posted by 9aces

No, I just think things through, you should try it. All you are advocating is more control, and in so doing to abandon your own ability to control your own life. Perhaps you do not value freedom or the ability to live your own life with the only limitations upon it those you impose upon yourself. Or maybe you just fear it, I'm not sure which.

You are falling into the same trap that all too many of our politicians are in, and is really indicative of today's society. I like to call it the "now generation". The now generation wants immediate gratification and immediate results, tangible results you can get a read on quickly which result in "do something" knee jerk reactions. Reactions that may look good for the moment, but are far more damaging in the future than doing nothing would have been.

The problems this country are in are not solvable with the current framework we have in place for government now. I realize "not solvable" is not a popular answer to the "do something" dynamic in play now. It has gone too far, too much of the country has submerged itself in the ideal that government, and not themselves can solve their problems.

It seems that anyone failing in this country, for any reason whatsoever, almost universally due to their own ineptitude is unacceptable. Failure now (see Solyndra) is championed by people like Owebama as being "well intentioned". Consequences for failure are brushed aside as not being "compassionate" or outright rewarded (see bailouts). Failure MUST have consequences as success MUST be rewarded. Otherwise fewer and fewer will try for success as there is less reward for success and failure is subsidized. Why put thought into success when you will be compensated whether you succeed or fail and your success is less dependent upon your ability than your ability to curry political favor? Worse yet if you do succeed you must be demonized and denigrated for having succeeded at the "expense" of others who were less lucky, or (mostly) less prepared.

The answer is simple, however simple doesn't mean easy, or even achievable as any solution must be approved through the democratic process, and too many are dependent upon government largess for that process to work now.

It's a solution that would take decades to achieve, as we didn't get in this fix overnight, but it's a solution which is impossible, as it would require government to limit itself, to reduce it's power and control. Things it will never do because it cannot.

We've seen what's happened throughout the long roll of history, governments who have thrived for a while, then died and been cast upon the dust heap of history because of the love of power and control from those who rule it. This one will simply be one more when it is all said and done, and hopefully historians will learn from the mistakes made.

But as we know, history is written by the victors, so I wouldn't count on it.

Well Wall St is working to reduce regulation. They funded (31 million) to 10 of these congressmen who opposed a nomination to the Consumer Financial Protection Bureau.

But as the Public Action Campaign Fund noted today, the 10 GOP members of the Banking Committee who opposed Cordray’s nomination had about 31 million reasons — having nothing to do with the Bureau’s structure — to ensure that the first federal regulator explicitly charged with only consumer financial protection never gets off of the ground:

All 10 members have received significant campaign cash from Wall Street interests during their time in Congress…Committee Republicans have received at least $31 million from the finance, insurance, and real estate sector (FIRE) during their time in Congress, according to Public Campaign Action Fund analysis of data from the Center for Responsive Politics.