Thread: Occupy Wall Street

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

The outrageous bonuses financed by bailout money is the obvious one.

Oh you mean the legal bonuses that were part of employee pay that they were obligated to pay due to contracts. Damn how dare they pay people as they promised they would, arrogant bastards. Next thing you know people will expect retirement benefits.

But more galling is that, in my view, is that after taking the economy over a cliff, they used taxpayer bailout money to lobby Washington to prevent any kind of regulation to prevent the exact kind of reckless behavior they had engaged in to begin with. Arrogance.

That's not arrogance, it prudent and self-serving. As for no regulations, You have been paying attention, right?
Here's were to find some of those regulations that do exist:
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsev.../2008bcreg.htm
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsev.../2009bcreg.htm
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsev.../2010bcreg.htm
http://www.federalreserve.gov/newsev.../2011bcreg.htm

if socialism is so great how come it has never worked? If communism is so humane how come communists have killed more people than the Nazi?

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

Oh you mean the legal bonuses that were part of employee pay that they were obligated to pay due to contracts. Damn how dare they pay people as they promised they would, arrogant bastards. Next thing you know people will expect retirement benefits.

Witty!

However, "legal" and "arrogant" are not mutually exclusive concepts, are they? To simultaneously drive the economy into the ground and accept massive bonuses is arrogant.

That's not arrogance, it prudent and self-serving.

Yes, it is self-serving, as opposed to taxpayer serving... and given that it is the taxpayers who saved these guys' collective butts, lobbying against taxpayer interests with taxpayer money is the height of arrogance.

As for no regulations, You have been paying attention, right?

Remind me: Which of those regulations prevented the financial meltdown?

My point is that there was a perfectly reasonable push to regulate the industry whose recklessness nearly destroyed the global economy and the financial industry used taxpayer money to fight against those regulations. Arrogance.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

Witty!

However, "legal" and "arrogant" are not mutually exclusive concepts, are they? To simultaneously drive the economy into the ground and accept massive bonuses is arrogant.



Yes, it is self-serving, as opposed to taxpayer serving... and given that it is the taxpayers who saved these guys' collective butts, lobbying against taxpayer interests with taxpayer money is the height of arrogance.



Remind me: Which of those regulations prevented the financial meltdown?

My point is that there was a perfectly reasonable push to regulate the industry whose recklessness nearly destroyed the global economy and the financial industry used taxpayer money to fight against those regulations. Arrogance.

Out of curiosity, if the banks were failing and your (personal) tax dollars could save them would you have given that money freely?

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

However, "legal" and "arrogant" are not mutually exclusive concepts, are they? To simultaneously drive the economy into the ground and accept massive bonuses is arrogant.

I'm sure you'd feel the same way if that was contracted compensation due to yourself.

Yes, it is self-serving, as opposed to taxpayer serving... and given that it is the taxpayers who saved these guys' collective butts, lobbying against taxpayer interests with taxpayer money is the height of arrogance.

The banks don't work for the tax-payers, politicians do.

Originally Posted by lutherf

Out of curiosity, if the banks were failing and your (personal) tax dollars could save them would you have given that money freely?

...and if the sun were about to explode and you could stop it by giving up a Bermuda vacation would you stay home?....that makes about as much sense as your question.

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

I'm sure you'd feel the same way if that was contracted compensation due to yourself.


The banks don't work for the tax-payers, politicians do.

So we should require people to pay contract killers too?




That's the problem, the politicians seem to be working for the banks

Originally Posted by John Drake

...and if the sun were about to explode and you could stop it by giving up a Bermuda vacation would you stay home?....that makes about as much sense as your question.

Is that a fact? All hyperbole aside, the deal is that it wasn't the taxpayers that handed the money to the banks and the banks didn't take the money directly from the taxpayers. There was this whole "government" entity that played middle man and chose to use the taxpayer money for the bailout. The banks NEVER would have been bailed out if not for government intervention so to blame the banks is to absolve government of their part in the equation.

Beside that, if by me giving up a Bermuda vacation I could stop the sun from exploding you're damned right I'd give it up. St. Martin has some equally nice beaches.

Originally Posted by lutherf

Out of curiosity, if the banks were failing and your (personal) tax dollars could save them would you have given that money freely?

I've never really been against the bailout caused by greed and stupidity. Lincoln someone I admired wanted a banking system ... just not one controlled by London and you know who.

I feel banks have their place in a well functioning economy and the abuses are not excused because banks have their place.

The bailout pissed me off because of the risk taken from greed period ... IOW you don't cut off your right arm because your ashamed of jerking off, you still need that arm. Or you could say its more like a crack horr that only cares about their addiction and not those who are harmed by that addiction. A gambler enjoying the "thrill" of a possible win and return on their bet. Extreme risk ... possible extreme return or possible extreme loss. In the end we paid the gamblers losses for that "thrill" of extreme risk.

Originally Posted by John Drake

So we should require people to pay contract killers too?

A contract with a contract killer isn't enforceable under the law so it doesn't compare.

That's the problem, the politicians seem to be working for the banks

They work for whoever keeps them in office.

Originally Posted by michael h

I've never really been against the bailout caused by greed and stupidity. Lincoln someone I admired wanted a banking system ... just not one controlled by London and you know who.

I feel banks have their place in a well functioning economy and the abuses are not excused because banks have their place.

The bailout pissed me off because of the risk taken from greed period ... IOW you don't cut off your right arm because your ashamed of jerking off, you still need that arm. Or you could say its more like a crack horr that only cares about their addiction and not those who are harmed by that addiction. A gambler enjoying the "thrill" of a possible win and return on their bet. Extreme risk ... possible extreme return or possible extreme loss. In the end we paid the gamblers losses for that "thrill" of extreme risk.

That "risk" you mention was also due to government involvement. The derivative base would have been relatively small if not for the implicit backing of various mortgage sets by the government. When Fannie and Freddie ramped things up to the 2 or 3 trillion dollars in mortgages that they held all of those notes were considered "secure" because they had the implicit backing of taxpayer dollars. The resulting derivatives were then used to hedge insurance and the insurance was used to backstop other investments. This all amounted to as much as a twenty or 30 fold leveraging of that initial 2 or 3 trillion dollars which was ultimately backed by junk paper.

All of this would have worked just fine except that the lending spree drove home values to unrealistic levels. That happens all the time in economics but it usually happens in a much more (naturally) restricted market. It's like the Cabbage Patch doll craze of 30 years ago. Absolutely everybody had to have one and it drove the price way, way above their fundamental value.

In the housing boom everything was peaches and cream on paper because everyone was complying with all of the regulations. Houses were being given fair appraisals based on appraisal regulations. Buyers were being financed in accordance with lending regulations. Derivative products were being traded in accordance with trade regulations. Insurance was being sold in accordance with insurance regulations. Etc. Etc. The big problem though was that all of these regulations were created and "tweaked" for political reasons because politicians were enjoying the benefits of all the artificial prosperity that was being created.

As long as government serves as the regulator all regulation will be, to some extent, for political reasons. Furthermore, as political disharmony between the major parties increases so will regulation based on political whims. THAT is why we need to decouple government and industry. What should happen is that the greed of industry will be offset by failures and the green of government will have to rely solely on the voter for support. In such a scenario the guy on the street holds the strings....as he should. He can pick and choose who he does business with and he can confront the political machine without having to worry that the corporate cavalry will come to the rescue.

Originally Posted by lutherf

That "risk" you mention was also due to government involvement. The derivative base would have been relatively small if not for the implicit backing of various mortgage sets by the government. When Fannie and Freddie ramped things up to the 2 or 3 trillion dollars in mortgages that they held all of those notes were considered "secure" because they had the implicit backing of taxpayer dollars. The resulting derivatives were then used to hedge insurance and the insurance was used to backstop other investments. This all amounted to as much as a twenty or 30 fold leveraging of that initial 2 or 3 trillion dollars which was ultimately backed by junk paper.

All of this would have worked just fine except that the lending spree drove home values to unrealistic levels. That happens all the time in economics but it usually happens in a much more (naturally) restricted market. It's like the Cabbage Patch doll craze of 30 years ago. Absolutely everybody had to have one and it drove the price way, way above their fundamental value.

In the housing boom everything was peaches and cream on paper because everyone was complying with all of the regulations. Houses were being given fair appraisals based on appraisal regulations. Buyers were being financed in accordance with lending regulations. Derivative products were being traded in accordance with trade regulations. Insurance was being sold in accordance with insurance regulations. Etc. Etc. The big problem though was that all of these regulations were created and "tweaked" for political reasons because politicians were enjoying the benefits of all the artificial prosperity that was being created.

As long as government serves as the regulator all regulation will be, to some extent, for political reasons. Furthermore, as political disharmony between the major parties increases so will regulation based on political whims. THAT is why we need to decouple government and industry. What should happen is that the greed of industry will be offset by failures and the green of government will have to rely solely on the voter for support. In such a scenario the guy on the street holds the strings....as he should. He can pick and choose who he does business with and he can confront the political machine without having to worry that the corporate cavalry will come to the rescue.

Government is quite complicit in not regulating the risk. Somehow Basel 1 and 2 just managed to avoid these risks. What is neglected is that the risk increases ROI for a very small investment.

Another reason for complicity is the housing starts of which Bush and Frank were so proud of. They kept unemployment down while the country was being de-industrialized. These housing starts masked the destruction of our economy.

In the end no bank was forced to extend risk, it just freed up capital for other investments and ROI. Banks and government working together to feck Americans.

The point being missed here is that just like the American Revolution, change only comes when the wealthy want it. The 1% has two factions, the greedy Wall Street types, and the Patriotic Millionaires.

"Recently members of the group calling themselves “Patriotic Millionaires for Fiscal Strength” sent a letter to Pres. Barack Obama, Harry Reid (Majority Leader in the U. S. Senate), and John Boehner (Speaker of the U. S. House of Representatives). What made the letter notable was that it requested that “you increase taxes on incomes over $1,000,000”—the letter then being signed by a long list of millionaires."

Here is a link to Patriotic Millionaires a quiet group that knows how to twist arms in hardball politics. “Patriotic Millionaires� | Dissident Voice The Republicans and the Tea Party are going to come out of this like Torries after the American Revolution - assimilate or leave. The Democratic Party in my opinion will get slapped into the middle of next week. The result will be an America that serves all legal CITIZENS.