Wall Street protests

[Rich]

In response to Larry's picture and dialog posted above, I would simply post this, in the hopes that you might begin to understand the message:

 

[Rich]

Juvenile Rich? Here is a quote from you from one of the last political threads. Rich- "But that was trashed when the republicans allowed their party to be hijacked by the (teabaggers)." Actually the term was used a couple of times in that one thread by more than one person. That is one intellectual word to use in serious political dialogue.

Kevin, taken from Wikipedia:

*********: a term for Tea Party movement participants

The term was also a finalist for the "word of the year" for 2009 by the Oxford American Dictionary, who defined it thus:

********* - a person who protests President Obama's tax policies and stimulus package, often through local demonstrations known as "Tea Party" protests (in allusion to the Boston Tea Party of 1773

 

[repman]

In response to Larry's picture and dialog posted above, I would simply post this, in the hopes that you might begin to understand the message:

What is Corporate Greed? Why is it greed for a company that follows the LAW to make as much money for itself and its shareholders? Is that not capitalism?

People confuse me, if they believe in capitalism embrace it.

I was not aware there is a finite amount of money that the greedy corporations have hoarded for themselves to the exclusion of everyone else.

People in this country have created wealth by innovation and hard work and that opportunity still exists.

Is our system perfect? It"s not but what is?

 

[Rich]

What is Corporate Greed? Why is it greed for a company that follows the LAW to make as much money for itself and its shareholders? Is that not capitalism?

Corporate Greed is when profits are sought at the expense of everything else. When societal harm is ignored in the sole pursuit of profit. Unbridled capitalism without a moral compass. It is when business uses its profits to buy the government (which is supposed to be of the people and by the people) in order to prevent any regulation of its reckless behavior.

Kind of like back in the eighties when Bob Dole was preaching that there was no evidence that cigarettes cause cancer (when of course there was plenty), while at the same time taking tons of money from the tobacco companies for his campaign chest. And more recently, the Supreme Court making the audacious ruling that corporations deserve the same individual constitutional protections as people! As the saying goes, I will believe corporations are people just as soon as Texas executes one.

We just had the biggest economic collapse since the Great Depression, and it was caused in large part by risky business practices due to profiteering at the expense of everything else by Wall Street Banks. Yet, the banks were bailed out with our tax dollars by both the Bush and Obama administrations, and the ensuing regulations to prevent this from happening again were watered down and emasculated in Congress by Congressmen who are wholly owned by these same financial institutions.

Can you not see that this system is broken and that Capitalism without sufficient regulation results in massive societal harm? It's like giving the school bully the ability to bribe the administrators. He can beat up and take money from all the other kids, and when they cry to the teachers that they have been wronged, the teachers give lip service to the issue while accepting bribes from the bully and patting him on the back behind closed doors.

"We have too many regulations stopping democracy and not enough regulations stopping Wall Street from misbehaving. We are bearing the cost of their misdeeds. There's a system where we've socialized losses and privatized gains. That's not capitalism."

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize winning economist at Columbia University, in response to the arrests of Occupy Wall Street protestors

 

[Rich]

I find it enlightening that the Republicans are all trying to blame Obama for the state of the economy (which is entirely the result of Bush's poor decisions to lower taxes while starting two very expensive wars and deregulate business to an insane degree), yet they just blocked his proposed jobs bill and, best I can tell, have offered no plan of their own to get us out of this morass. They run one house of Congress. What is their plan to boost our economy and bring down unemployment? They are simply the party of NO. The party of obstructionism. They have no plan for our future. They want to blame everything on Obama while not cooperating at all with anything he tries to accomplish.

 

[repman]

"We have too many regulations stopping democracy and not enough regulations stopping Wall Street from misbehaving. We are bearing the cost of their misdeeds. There's a system where we've socialized losses and privatized gains. That's not capitalism."

Joseph Stiglitz, Nobel Prize winning economist at Columbia University, in response to the arrests of Occupy Wall Street protestors .

From wikipedia on Mr. Stiglitz.


Some possible practical implications of Stiglitz theoremsWhile the mathematical validity of Stiglitz et al. theorems are not in question, their practical implications in political economy and their application in real life economic policies have been subject to considerable disagreement and debate.[25] Stiglitz himself seems to be continuously adapting his own political-economic discourse,[26] as we can see from the evolution in his positions as initially stated in Whither Socialism? (1994) to his own new positions held on his most recent publications.

Once incomplete and imperfect information are introduced, Chicago-school defenders of the market system cannot sustain descriptive claims of the Pareto efficiency of the real world. Thus, Stiglitz's use of rational-expectations equilibrium assumptions to achieve a more realistic understanding of capitalism than is usual among rational-expectations theorists leads, paradoxically, to the conclusion that capitalism deviates from the model in a way that justifies state action—socialism—as a remedy.[27]
The effect of Stiglitz's influence is to make economics even more presumptively interventionist than Samuelson preferred. Samuelson treated market failure as the exception to the general rule of efficient markets. But the Greenwald-Stiglitz theorem posits market failure as the norm, establishing "that government could potentially almost always improve upon the market's resource allocation." And the Sappington-Stiglitz theorem "establishes that an ideal government could do better running an enterprise itself than it could through privatization"[28] (Stiglitz 1994, 179).[27]
The objections to the wide adoption of these positions suggested by Stiglitz's discoveries do not come from economics itself but mostly from political scientists and are in the fields of sociology. As David L. Prychitko discusses in his "critique" to Whither Socialism? (see below), although Stiglitz's main economic insight seems generally correct, it still leaves open great constitutional questions such as how the coercive institutions of the government should be constrained and what the relation is between the government and civil society.[29]

 

[Rich]

The objections to the wide adoption of these positions suggested by Stiglitz's discoveries do not come from economics itself but mostly from political scientists and are in the fields of sociology. As David L. Prychitko discusses in his "critique" to Whither Socialism? (see below), although Stiglitz's main economic insight seems generally correct, it still leaves open great constitutional questions such as how the coercive institutions of the government should be constrained and what the relation is between the government and civil society.[29]

There, I bolded the important parts for you. By the way, you forgot to include his bio from wiki. Here it is:

Joseph Eugene Stiglitz, ForMemRS, FBA, (born February 9, 1943) is an American economist and a professor at Columbia University. He is a recipient of the Nobel Memorial Prize in Economic Sciences (2001) and the John Bates Clark Medal (1979). He is also the former Senior Vice President and Chief Economist of the World Bank. He is known for his critical view of the management of globalization, free-market economists (whom he calls "free market fundamentalists") and some international institutions like the International Monetary Fund and the World Bank.
In 2000, Stiglitz founded the Initiative for Policy Dialogue (IPD), a think tank on international development based at Columbia University. Since 2001, he has been a member of the Columbia faculty, and has been a University Professor since 2003. He also chairs the University of Manchester's Brooks World Poverty Institute and is a member of the Pontifical Academy of Social Sciences. Stiglitz is an honorary doctor of Durham Business School, an honorary professor at Tsinghua University School of Public Policy and Management and a member of the Executive and Supervisory Committee (ESC) of CERGE-EI. Stiglitz is one of the most frequently cited economists in the world.

Sounds like a guy who knows what he is talking about.

 

[repman]

Rich you are correct , he is a socialist who knows exactly what he's talking about.

 

[Len44]

Ah, yes. Socialist. AKA, "The Bogeyman!"

Could have been worse -- could have been a <Gasp!> "Liberal"... :devil:

 

[Rich]

Rich you are correct , he is a socialist who knows exactly what he's talking about.

And your point is? So what do you say about his belief that we basically have a system now where we have socialized losses while privatizing gains? What do you think about his concern that wall street protestors are being arrested by the hundreds for exercising their Constitutional rights, while not a single wall street banker or hedge fund operator was arrested for taking the risks that resulted in the financial meltdown? Do you think we have sufficient regulations on investment banks to prevent this sort of thing from happening again? Or do you even care whether it happens again?

 

[Len44]

I can't relate to most of these people in the Occupy Wall Street movement who are protesting the lack of jobs or the lack of money.

Are you freakin' kidding??? They are protesting the outrageous situation in that these Wall Street and Banker dudes got their A$$e$$ bailed out by the citizens of this Country, and now choose to thumb their noses while piling their HUGE bonuses higher and higher. Totally galling because it is so very undeserved (both the bailout AND the bonuses), inasmuch as they were the folks that so ably assisted Shrub and his minions totally bankrupt the Country. We'll be digging our way out of this one for years.

Remember, when anyone dared to criticize Bush, why, they were "Disloyal to the Country!" And, of course, the TWO wars The 'ol Gunslinger (shoot first and ask questions later) started were "off the books" insofar as the budget was concerned. They just made up the rules as they went, to suit themselves, and, of course, the horrendous deficit hole they were digging was of no concern whatsoever to Mitch, Boehner, and The Boys. It is only a problem, it seems, when they are not in charge and need to find something to criticize, in an attempt to gain political advantage.

And don't even get me started on these fraudulent Big Business folks who have sent thousands of jobs overseas. And, our Congress seems to think that they should receive extra special tax preferences for doing so. Makes one want to puke!

Gotta tell you, I can damn sure relate. These dudes have bought themselves the "Best Congress Money Can Buy." And the Citizens of this Country will continue to suffer greatly until things get changed.

 

[Rich]

". . . while not a single wall street banker or hedge fund operator was arrested for taking the risks that resulted in the financial meltdown?"

Oops, I stand corrected. This guy was arrested: Hedge fund billionaire gets 11-year sentence in fraud case

So this billionaire makes millions of dollars through fraudulent investment practices and insider trading, and he gets a mere 11 year sentence. Of which, with good behavior, he will probably serve just over 7 years! People have served more time for selling a little marijuana to their friends! Do you guys really not understand why the Occupy Wall Street protestors are so upset? When some fat cat Wall Streeter makes millions through fraud and barely gets a slap on the wrist for it, and plenty of them have gone completely unpunished? While the average kid fresh out of college can hardly even find a job. Is it so surprising that people are just a little upset over this?

 

[Kevin]

Len- In the first post of this thread, Gordon wrote " I'm surprised that as ambiguous and non "theme" organized that it is ...". I took that to mean that that those protesting don't seem to be unified in their message or complaints. Most news organizations have used words such as incoherent to describe their messages. I didn't say anything about those protesting, "Wall Street and banker dudes". Some are protesting the enviroment, some are protesting capitalism, some seem so stoned and wasted I wonder if they even know they're standing in New York City. But for those complaining about their student loans and the fact that they can't find a job, no- I'm not kidding, I can't relate.

I already said that I worked my way through my own education. Mostly I worked at a place called Tart Lumber. I very highly doubt that a lot of those protesting "lack jobs or money", would have ever applied for a job such as that. It was hard, dirty, and low pay at first. Even if they were to, some (not all) wouldn't have been considered when they show up with rings in their faces and pink/green hair. So no, I can't relate. As just a summer time employee for a couple of years, I had the boss call me to his office to ask if I might be interested in getting an architectural degree, he would help me get it, as he was opening a new business and wanted to move me out of the lumber yard and into an office at the new business. I declined, as it wasn't the field of my interest. Who but a "rich" man could have made me such an offer? My point is, is that anyone could have shown up and applied for the summer time position that I did that then led to an opportunity for perhaps better things. So no- I can't relate.

If you ever pay attention to my posts, my message is mostly that there is a share of the blame to go around. I don't defend Bush. He increased the deficit with wars and increased entitlements. I wasn't against the wars, nor were the democrats who voted for us to go, however, we should have never gotten into nation building. In my opinion, if you go to war, we should feel strongly enough to go in full strength or not at all. I don't think we could ever again do to Japan what we once didn't think twice about. In fact, it now sounds as though Obama wanted to apologize for those bombings.

Wall Street fat cats helped the situation of bad mortages which started the fall of house of cards , however, politicians, mostly democrats, also pushed for more loans to go to minorities that never had a chance at paying them back. You don't like the salaries in big business, how about some of the union salaries? Lifeguards in places in CA making well over $100,000 a year and pensions of the same amounts. Did you see the recent news of some of the union bosses in Chicago? Then tax money I pay, is used to go into a stimulus, which is used to help out localaties that were in trouble because of such nonsense. Be mad at Wall Street, but they didn't create this trouble on their own, nor did the republicans. After all, Wall Street gave Obama contributions of almost 2 to 1 over McCain, and he gladly accepted the dough.

I could go on, but I'm not changing anyones political opinion and don't pretend to think that I can. I need to get back to work selling, so perhaps one of these days, I might be one of those that people are thinking makes way too much. At least that is my plan.

 

[twich54]

Rich, Kevin........good posts, points well taken !

 

[asindc]

Wall Street fat cats helped the situation of bad mortages which started the fall of house of cards , however, politicians, mostly democrats, also pushed for more loans to go to minorities that never had a chance at paying them back. You don't like the salaries in big business, how about some of the union salaries? Lifeguards in places in CA making well over $100,000 a year and pensions of the same amounts. Did you see the recent news of some of the union bosses in Chicago? Then tax money I pay, is used to go into a stimulus, which is used to help out localaties that were in trouble because of such nonsense. Be mad at Wall Street, but they didn't create this trouble on their own, nor did the republicans. After all, Wall Street gave Obama contributions of almost 2 to 1 over McCain, and he gladly accepted the dough.

I could go on, but I'm not changing anyones political opinion and don't pretend to think that I can. I need to get back to work selling, so perhaps one of these days, I might be one of those that people are thinking makes way too much. At least that is my plan.

The bolded part of your statement is simply not true. The "push" that is often cited refers to a fair housing law that was established in 1968: http://portal.hud.gov/hudportal/HUD?src=/program_offices/fair_housing_equal_opp/FHLaws. Thus, the "push" for fair mortgage practices pre-dates the Nixon, Carter, Reagan, Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama Administrations (none of which sought to repeal the law), and most certainly the current mortgage and foreclosure crisis. The idea that a long-standing federal housing law is to blame is a red-herring diversion promoted by those who pushed to have the Glass-Steagall Act of 1930 (established in response to the 1929 Stock Market Crash) repealed, which was done in 1999 (signed by Clinton): http://www.investopedia.com/articles/03/071603.asp. If any federal law (or repeal thereof) can be said to have been a major contributing factor to our current economic situation, it is that one. I find it curious that very few people were blaming fair mortgage laws when the commercial real estate loan bubble burst in 1987: http://www.erisk.com/learning/casestudies/ussavingsloancrisis.asp.

As far as the general topic at hand, the physical appearance of the protesters aside, I personally find any economic policy that promotes the idea that the richest amongst us should not have to bear any responsibility for their actions nor assume any personal sacrifice (i.e., unlike workers laid-off from companies that pay their top-executives higher bonuses that same year) for the economic climate that we all are currently living in. For me, it is not about how much anyone makes (heck, I'm sure I make more money than the vast majority of my fellow citizens), but it is about being accountable for one's actions. Make way too many bad and risky loans? Come running to our elected representatives for handouts. A company's product is recalled? Lay off workers and give the top executives a raise!: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/38935053/ns/business-us_business/t/ceos-lay-thousands-rake-millions/ ; http://www.smh.com.au/national/1000-jobs-gone-1bn-lost-executives-get-3m-20110823-1j8ga.html. Not shining examples of accountability and responsibility in my opinion.

I feel very fortunate that I don't lack a job or money, and I sympathize with those who are sincerely and legitimately trying to acquire both who do lack such.

 

[twich54]

Anthony, another good, responsible post. Coruption and accountibility...two polar opposites when one looks into the inner workings of our nations capital.

with respect to your observation on the 'look' of the Wall Street protestors.......reminds me of my teen years in the sixties and the Vietnam protesting crowd.

 

[Len44]

Len- In the first post of this thread, Gordon wrote " I'm surprised that as ambiguous and non "theme" organized that it is ...". I took that to mean that that those protesting don't seem to be unified in their message or complaints. Most news organizations have used words such as incoherent to describe their messages. I didn't say anything about those protesting, "Wall Street and banker dudes". Some are protesting the enviroment, some are protesting capitalism, some seem so stoned and wasted I wonder if they even know they're standing in New York City. But for those complaining about their student loans and the fact that they can't find a job, no- I'm not kidding, I can't relate.

Actually, there are a number of things being protested: See Post #35 for a terrific explanation of the leading issue; Also, War #1 and War #2 [this after Bush declared specifically during the 2000 campaign for the Presidency that he was strongly opposed to nation-building]; I do not think they are "protesting capitalism" per se, just the outrageous way it is practiced by some; if there are those who are "protesting the enviroment [sic]", my guess is they are protesting the radical cuts being pushed by republicans to gut the clean air and clean water acts. To some it is "Hell, yeah, bring on the dirty coal and other pollutants, who needs to breathe clean air anyway?"

True, some may be also protesting the very raw deal of going in to debt to get a college education, based on the long-standing premise of a good job to follow, blown apart by the tubed economy [hardly their fault] and the rapid rise in college tuition. You seem to have some odd notion that these people don't want to work; in fact almost all of them would be thrilled to have a decent job. Sadly, the "Best Congress Money Can Buy" has provided an environment due to heavy-duty lobbying [think "K Street"] that clears the path for businesses to send thousands of jobs overseas [Good, loyal Americans here, don'tcha know].

I already said that I worked my way through my own education. Mostly I worked at a place called Tart Lumber. I very highly doubt that a lot of those protesting "lack jobs or money", would have ever applied for a job such as that. It was hard, dirty, and low pay at first. Even if they were to, some (not all) wouldn't have been considered when they show up with rings in their faces and pink/green hair. So no, I can't relate. My point is, is that anyone could have shown up and applied for the summer time position that I did that then led to an opportunity for perhaps better things. So no- I can't relate.

I will grant that you are quite articulate. However, you seem to infer that these protestors are mostly punk slackers that have no interest in seeking real work. I think this a slur that incorrectly characterizes almost all of them. You must have somehow missed the many news stories about how difficult it has become for today's youth to find Summer jobs. And, for the record, I will note while it may be difficult for some to imagine, sometimes even liberals and Democrats actually work at real jobs...

If you ever pay attention to my posts, my message is mostly that there is a share of the blame to go around. I don't defend Bush. He increased the deficit with wars and increased entitlements. I wasn't against the wars, nor were the democrats who voted for us to go, however, we should have never gotten into nation building. In my opinion, if you go to war, we should feel strongly enough to go in full strength or not at all. I don't think we could ever again do to Japan what we once didn't think twice about. In fact, it now sounds as though Obama wanted to apologize for those bombings.

Well, as it turned out, Bush / Cheney concealed some pretty key information from Congress before the vote and the War... You DO recall WMD? "Slam-Dunk!"? etc, etc, etc.

As George Wallace once put it, "We've gotta quit *****-footin' around in Veet-Nam!"

Not at all surprised you would find a way to blame Obama for, well, pretty much anything and everything. But this IS a stretch.

Wall Street fat cats helped the situation of bad mortages which started the fall of house of cards , however, politicians, mostly democrats, also pushed for more loans to go to minorities that never had a chance at paying them back. You don't like the salaries in big business, how about some of the union salaries? Lifeguards in places in CA making well over $100,000 a year and pensions of the same amounts. Did you see the recent news of some of the union bosses in Chicago? Then tax money I pay, is used to go into a stimulus, which is used to help out localaties that were in trouble because of such nonsense. Be mad at Wall Street, but they didn't create this trouble on their own, nor did the republicans. After all, Wall Street gave Obama contributions of almost 2 to 1 over McCain, and he gladly accepted the dough.

Again, please see post #35. BTW, I also find it outlandish that somebody wrote some silly rules out in California (lifeguards). While Wall Street "didn't create this trouble on their own, nor did the republicans," they sure as hell are overwhelmingly responsible for most of this fine mess. Now, some are suggesting we put the same clowns back in power that brought on this disaster economy. Sheer Madness! One would have to be pretty stupid to be fooled a second time!

As E.J Dionne put it so eloquently in today's Washington Post:

"So let's see. The solution to large-scale abuses of the financial system, a breakdown of the private sector, extreme economic inequality and the failure of companies and individuals to invest and create jobs is -- well, to give even more money and power to the very wealthy people, to disable government and to trust those who got us into the mess to get us out of it."

 

[Kevin]

ASINDC- The main "push" I guess I'm refering to occured in the 90's, when Franklin Raines of Fannie Mae, who was appointed under Clinton, began requiring that the banks with which it did business, "prove" they were not redlining. While redlining had always been illegal, this set the bar higher to show you weren't doing so. This basically started a process of the lending companies having to fulfill quotas of mortgages to minorities. To meet this quota, they relaxed their rules on how much a person placed down towards a mortgage, as well as the proof that they could make their future installments to the mortgagee. In turn, the banks knowing of the additional risks they were taking, issued these mortgages at higher 'subprime' interest rates. As this occured, other banks started making these loans as well. This pretty much set into motion banks making bad loans and selling them off to reduce their own risk. As the money started pouring in from these loans, and as a result home prices started going through the roof covering some of the risk , greed set it and banks made more and more of these risky loans.

If you recall, there were hearings based upon these 'subprime' mortgages, by the House Financial Committee, a few years before the collapse. During which Barney Frank and Maxine Waters and others spoke of how great Fannie, as well as Mr. Raines personally, were doing. How the american dream was now being realized by more than just the privileged few. All the questions of the soundness of these loans were basically answered back as the GOP once again trying to keep down the minorities.

I can tell you, that in my personal experience in my own job, starting in the late 1990's (I think) into the 2000's, I was asked by lenders to write out letters stating that our clients, who had no credit since they didn't have any sort of banking accounts and hence paid everything in cash, were making their monthly installments on time. We were writing out a dozen such letters a month and surely we weren't the only business being requested to do so. To my own recollection, these were almost always written on behalf of a minority, mainly Hispanics. Being able to prove that you were paying $60 for your monthly payments was part of qualifying you for a $200,000 mortgage. Never before did we receive such requests, and since the collapse, never again.

Was the whole crisis much more involved than what I just stated. Absolutely, as you apparently know. But this was the "push" that I was refering to from what I personally witnessed in dealing with the mortgagees, as well as the news I was reading and seeing at time. I don't see how anyone, knowing the full picture of what was going on, can reasonably say that the crisis was fully the doing of one party or the other.

 

[Kevin]

Len- I'm afraid that I need to get some work done today, so I will just briefly respond to your post. I'm very careful to use words such as "some" or "not all". I'm not the type of person to make general observations about groups of people, such as was done to the Tea Party with accusations of being racist.

I'll only say that the evidence used to support the war against Iraq was supported by the past president, Bill Clinton, who must have personally seen some of the evidence that Saddam had weapons of mass destruction. Obama has continued some of the same Bush policies that he once denounced and said he would end. What has he seen that might have caused him to have a change of heart? As president, as well as other top positions, you get to see what others don't. I don't think in my statement I blamed Obama for anything, only using him as an example of what we have lost in dealing with our enemies, as we now feel the need to apologize for doing what is right. I'm only suggesting that we don't seem to have 'it', whatever 'it' might be (courage, heart, will power, stomach?) to go to war and do what is entirely necessary to win and minimize our own loss of life. If we don't have 'it', then it's best not to get involved. To this I do place blame on Bush. We took great measures to minimize collateral damage at the expense of our own soldiers.

As a side note, I think it's great that Obama is taking out these misfits with the drone attacks, wether they are so called American citizens or not. They are enemies at a time of war, and he gets my respect for doing what is right. Go man go!

 

[Rich]

ASINDC- The main "push" I guess I'm refering to occured in the 90's, when Franklin Raines of Fannie Mae, who was appointed under Clinton, began requiring that the banks with which it did business, "prove" they were not redlining. While redlining had always been illegal, this set the bar higher to show you weren't doing so. This basically started a process of the lending companies having to fulfill quotas of mortgages to minorities. To meet this quota, they relaxed their rules on how much a person placed down towards a mortgage, as well as the proof that they could make their future installments to the mortgagee. In turn, the banks knowing of the additional risks they were taking, issued these mortgages at higher 'subprime' interest rates. As this occured, other banks started making these loans as well. This pretty much set into motion banks making bad loans and selling them off to reduce their own risk. As the money started pouring in from these loans, and as a result home prices started going through the roof covering some of the risk , greed set it and banks made more and more of these risky loans.

What proof do you have that this was a contributing factor to the subprime crisis, other than perhaps that Thayer Watkins says it was (while providing no citation to supporting evidence himself)? This theory was debunked by the Financial Crisis Inquiry Commission that investigated the issue:

Fannie, Freddie and the Financial Crisis: Phil Angelides