Thread: Occupy Wall Street

Originally Posted by michael h

Vikram is at least honest in identifying lost trust and accountable for responsible banking practices. I can't agree more with that sentiment.

www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/10/12/vikram-pandit-citigroup-ceo-occupy-wall-street_n_1007297.html
Vikram Pandit CEO of one of the most visible Wall Street institutions in Citigroup, said he thinks the sentiments of the Occupy Wall Street protesters are "completely understandable."

Those comments by Pandit are straight out of Customer Service 101. Please note the "Hey, at least we aren't B of A" dig.

Originally Posted by lutherf

Those comments by Pandit are straight out of Customer Service 101. Please note the "Hey, at least we aren't B of A" dig.

lol I'll be honest Luther ... I expected that response ... similar to the response from Warren Buffets tax me coddling article. And your probably right ... theres nothing like a personnel department to tell you how to handle these things. Still isn't it the proper response? I always admired Japanese executives for their accountability, however they usually resigned in shame for not being in control of their responsibility. I never recall this in America ... yet I suspect it has happened, we have a lot of honorable CEO's.

Here is some great OWS coverage.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wrPGo...e_gdata_player

Yeah...these people don't really know what they are talking about.

Originally Posted by michael h

lol I'll be honest Luther ... I expected that response ... similar to the response from Warren Buffets tax me coddling article. And your probably right ... theres nothing like a personnel department to tell you how to handle these things. Still isn't it the proper response? I always admired Japanese executives for their accountability, however they usually resigned in shame for not being in control of their responsibility. I never recall this in America ... yet I suspect it has happened, we have a lot of honorable CEO's.

Japanese? Pandit is Indian.

It is the proper response. I think that we can all understand frustration. What gets hard to understand is the ways in which that frustration gets channeled and why.

I spent a lot of years learning and then teaching customer service skills. One thing I discovered is that every once in a while you get a complaint that is so far out of the realm of reality that there is simply nothing you can do about it that would make sense. Take, for example, the idea that student loan debt should be forgiven because someone can't get a job. Really? I'm supposed to hand you money with no strings attached? You're supposed to get a 6 figure job just because you have a degree? That isn't even close to realistic and if someone has managed to make it through 16 years of school and still hasn't figured that out then they are pretty much fucked for the rest of their lives.

Originally Posted by lutherf

Japanese? Pandit is Indian.

It is the proper response. I think that we can all understand frustration. What gets hard to understand is the ways in which that frustration gets channeled and why.

I spent a lot of years learning and then teaching customer service skills. One thing I discovered is that every once in a while you get a complaint that is so far out of the realm of reality that there is simply nothing you can do about it that would make sense. Take, for example, the idea that student loan debt should be forgiven because someone can't get a job. Really? I'm supposed to hand you money with no strings attached? You're supposed to get a 6 figure job just because you have a degree? That isn't even close to realistic and if someone has managed to make it through 16 years of school and still hasn't figured that out then they are pretty much fucked for the rest of their lives.

I didn't know Pandit's nationality, it had nothing to do with my reference to Japanese corporate culture. However I don't support loan debt forgiveness ... nor the guarantee of a 6 figure job. I can't help them with fiscal irrationality.

Originally Posted by JDJarvis

Democrats dominated the House at the time.

The first vote had 2/3rds of Democrats and 1/2 of Republicans in the house approving of the original TARP bailout, it wasn't enough to get it to pass the first time through.

Pelosi, speaker of the house at the time, was on record that provisions in place would protect the American tax-payers. "We sent a message to Wall Street - the party is over"- Nancy Pelosi
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/28/news...ion=2008092822

Pelosi later stumbled on the floor and tied a vote for the TARP too closely to the Bush administation casuing the measure to not pass in congress. Of course Democratic proponents of the measure claimed Pelosi hadn't botched things.
http://money.cnn.com/2008/09/29/news...lout/index.htm

Both parties brought the monstrosity on, which is fitting as both parties were responsible for the environment that allowed it to come into place. Anyone trying to pin it on one party is a fraud or simply mistaken.

From your link:

The core of the bill is based on Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson's request for authority to purchase troubled assets from financial institutions so banks can resume lending and so the credit markets, now virtually frozen, can begin to operate more normally.

Like I said, initiated by Republicans. But like I also said, any president, Democrat or Republican, would have done the same thing.

Originally Posted by AdamKadmon

Not sure the upside of a collapsed economy.

But here's the reality going forward: Either we put in force a regulatory scheme that will prevent the next meltdown or we go through the exact same thing again in the future... including more bailouts. Because no president, Republican or Democrat, is actually going to let the financial system fail if there's any way to prevent it.

The upside is the liquidation of debt and mal-investments. Wiping the books clean and letting the irresponsible fail is the another upside. Yes, it hurts like hell for about a year or so but after everything is corrected, you have real growth. I would suggest not voting Republican or Democrat but the average American is too dense to realize the scheme that is rigged.

Originally Posted by lutherf

The pertinent word in my post was "fundamental". There is a difference between a perceived value and a fundamental value. Your car, for example, has a fundamental value in its ability to make your transportation needs easier. It also has a perceived value in how luxurious that travel will be. The Cabbage patch doll had a very low fundamental value but a wildly inflated perceived value and THAT is what also happened in the housing market. Homes which had a fundamental value of $200k were being sold for $500k because the perception of value was so highly inflated.

Yeah, except that nothing has a "fundamental value." In other words, the only thing that determines the value of a car is the person who is buying it. SAAB can price a car at any value it wants, but if I am only willing to pay $3000 for it, that's how much it is worth. It's not worth a certain amount because it "makes my transportation needs easier." The "perceived value" is the only value. If a person is willing to pay $500k for a house because they thought they could sell it for $700k, then all they are saying is that they think the house is worth $700k. Period. The house doesn't have any "fixed" value ever. There is no intrinsic value to a house. Anyone who pays $500k for a house and then finds it is worth $300k is no more "right" or "wrong" than the person who pays $500k for a house and then finds it is worth $700k.

Originally Posted by RRAHH

The upside is the liquidation of debt and mal-investments. Wiping the books clean and letting the irresponsible fail is the another upside. Yes, it hurts like hell for about a year or so but after everything is corrected, you have real growth. I would suggest not voting Republican or Democrat but the average American is too dense to realize the scheme that is rigged.

I am intrigued by your notion that a collapsed economy only hurts "for about a year or so."

I agree the game is rigged... which, I believe, is the core message of OWS (to the extent they have formulated one at this point). Not sure how voting for the Green Party is going to change that, however.

Nothing pure about what these people are doing. They are jealous of what others have and want the government to take it from those that have it and give it to them. All the talk of revolution like the french one.........Does any of the retards remember how the french revolution ended?

Originally Posted by Andrewl

Thanking corporations when one considers the balance of their impact to this earth and to human and non human communities over the medium and long term seems misplaced. I am repulsed by it.

Are you equally repulsed by the computer you are using, the energy you use, the clothing you wear, the food you eat, the transportation you use to get t work?

Fascism is the corporate take over of the state - america has almost completed that process.

Except of course modern corporatism smashes aside nationalism tradtionally recognized as a major element of fascism. Corporations don't support the notion of a strong central government. Corporations don't depend on a consumer base bound together by an imposed commonality of ancestry and culture.
Gee, the net effect of corporations on society hasn't been fascism: who'd have thought.

Originally Posted by MattInFla

You forgot one:

Want to go on the internet and whinge about consumerism? Thank a few corporations.

government and universities had a pretty big role in that as well so I didn't list it. Of course I could have mentioned:If you have Broad Band access , thank a corporation.

Originally Posted by michael h

With record profits why should they? Deregulation from Clinton and China trade ... at best they complain about regs. Why they would have to protest in the street when they have a voice in legislation is beyond me.

You tell me. Youre the one who made the comment about no one mentioning the benefits of labor.