Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Wall Street Flash Blob

Wall Street Flash Blob (Page 2)
Thread Tools
ebuddy  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2011, 09:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
This tired game of hypocrisy detection, or making sure I do the right song and dance the way you expect to see it to make my opinions known? What do I have to do to make it clear that I'm not a fan of protesters of any kind, draw arrows?

My point in participating in this thread was simply to illustrate to you the underlying point of these protests, because there is one and it is valid, just like the underlying point for the tea party is valid.
I'm pretty sure this is the first time you've granted any validity to the Tea Party. I don't like the Wall Street Blob because it's a disconnected blur of ideologies with union-backed recruiting through Craigslist that for now is fashionable (like staying overnight in a cardboard box on campus in a show of solidarity with the homeless), but will become violent... for nothing. Just watch.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2011, 09:18 PM
 
ebuddy, if you think that a completely 100% unregulated market can get along just fine without fraud and abuse, then I'm not sure whether this conversation is worth continuing to me, because this falls into the category of belief in unicorns to me, no offense.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2011, 09:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I'm pretty sure this is the first time you've granted any validity to the Tea Party. I don't like the Wall Street Blob because it's a disconnected blur of ideologies with union-backed recruiting through Craigslist that for now is fashionable (like staying overnight in a cardboard box on campus in a show of solidarity with the homeless), but will become violent... for nothing. Just watch.

Why don't you ask me what I think about the tea party rather than making these sort of assumptions? You'll notice that I had the courtesy to have you clarify your position in this thread before I jumped the gun.
     
ebuddy  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2011, 09:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
Why don't you ask me what I think about the tea party rather than making these sort of assumptions? You'll notice that I had the courtesy to have you clarify your position in this thread before I jumped the gun.
Don't be silly. You thought they were whacky and racist enough that Laughner was likely involved in it. You felt they were disconnected ideologically because of an opposition to gay marriage. You've posted several pictures of what you felt were stupid tea party"isms" and you've not hesitated to generalize them in any way you saw fit. Am I supposed to pretend I don't know what you think of the Tea Party?
ebuddy
     
ebuddy  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 10, 2011, 09:37 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
ebuddy, if you think that a completely 100% unregulated market can get along just fine without fraud and abuse, then I'm not sure whether this conversation is worth continuing to me, because this falls into the category of belief in unicorns to me, no offense.
No offense taken. It's apparent in your failure to acknowledge the difference between "very little regulation" and "100% unregulated" that you're not paying enough attention to have produced an opinion I could be offended by.
ebuddy
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2011, 02:39 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Don't be silly. You thought they were whacky and racist enough that Laughner was likely involved in it. You felt they were disconnected ideologically because of an opposition to gay marriage. You've posted several pictures of what you felt were stupid tea party"isms" and you've not hesitated to generalize them in any way you saw fit. Am I supposed to pretend I don't know what you think of the Tea Party?

Tea party members (who frequently seem to be moronic) != Tea party principles.... Duh?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2011, 02:40 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
No offense taken. It's apparent in your failure to acknowledge the difference between "very little regulation" and "100% unregulated" that you're not paying enough attention to have produced an opinion I could be offended by.

Or, you've been unclear as to what sort of regulation ought to be involved?
     
ebuddy  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2011, 07:35 AM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
Couple of problems. Aside from the fact that Canada's economy is 1/10th the US', In the US, the most diversified holders survived the crisis, the least did not. Bear Stearns and Lehman Brothers for example, did not meddle in depository institutions and they became the milk-carton kids of this fiasco. Surely, if tight reigns on this market activity would've averted the crisis, the least diversified (those trading least in the assets being blamed for the crisis) would've illustrated best-practice, but... this was not the case. European legislators adopted a series of recommendations for bank capital regulations referred to as Basel II and the SEC in wanting to get a jump on this international regulatory environment, adopted its own set of regulations in 2004 giving the SEC complete oversight authority over investment banking. Per an SEC spokesman, John Heine; "The Commission's 2004 rule strengthened oversight of the securities markets, because prior to their adoption there was no formal regulatory oversight, no liquidity requirements, and no capital requirements for investment bond holding companies." The fact is, there was an overall increase in regulations and the blind eye to derivatives, etc... being blamed for the crisis is simply not looking at the problem deeply enough to find that these items were not central to the failures. Another fact to consider, Canadian banking is less regulated than US banking, placing more of the burden on the borrower than these anti-Wall Streeters would ever allow in the US.

What can the United States learn from Canada about sound banking?
  • Full Recourse Mortgages in Canada. Almost all Canadian mortgages are “full recourse” loans, meaning that the borrower remains fully responsible for the mortgage even in the case of foreclosure. If a bank in Canada forecloses on a home with negative equity, it can file a deficiency judgment against the borrower, which allows it to attach the borrower’s other assets and even take legal action to garnish the borrower’s future wages. In the United States, we have a mix of recourse and non-recourse laws that vary by state, but even in recourse states, the use of deficiency judgments to attach assets and garnish wages is infrequent. The full recourse feature of Canadian mortgages results in more responsible borrowing, fewer delinquencies, and significantly fewer foreclosures than in the United States.
  • Mortgage Insurance Is More Common in Canada than in the United States. About half of Canadian mortgages carry mortgage insurance (compared to 30 percent in the U.S. currently and only 15 percent before the crisis), primarily for those mortgages financing the purchase of a home with less than a 20 percent down payment, and the borrower is required to pay the full mortgage insurance premium upfront. Another difference from the U.S. is that when private insurance companies in Canada insure mortgages, they have the authority to approve or reject the property appraisal, and they have strong financial incentives to only approve realistic property appraisals. Mortgage insurance in Canada covers the full loan amount for the full life of the mortgage, and cannot be eliminated like in the United States when the property value exceeds the mortgage balance. The traditionally much higher frequency of mortgage insurance in Canada compared to the United States helps to stabilize Canada’s mortgage and housing markets, and is one of the many features that contribute to its ranking as the safest banking system in the world.
  • Higher Prepayment Penalties in Canada. Prepaying mortgages in Canada is allowed, but there are much stiffer prepayment penalties (three months of mortgage interest) than in the United States, which discourages the kind of refinancing that frequently took place in the United States leading up to the housing meltdown, and often involved pulling home equity out in the refinancing process (encouraged by the tax deductibility of mortgage interest).
  • Public Policy Differences for Low-Income Housing. To promote affordable housing for low-income households, the Canadian government has not used public policies like the Community Reinvestment Act in the United States, which encouraged homeownership for lower-income and less creditworthy borrowers, financed frequently with subprime mortgages. Instead, the Canadian government provides public funding for low-income rental housing, rather than encouraging homeownership for low-income households, and Canada has thus avoided the American mistake of using misguided policies to turn good, low-income renters into bad homeowners.
  • Differences in Canada’s Bank Concentration and Greater Diversification. Compared to the United States, the Canadian banking system is much more concentrated, with the five largest Canadian banks (out of only 82 in the entire country, compared to more than 8,000 banks in the United States) holding more than 80 percent of total bank assets. This concentration became an advantage during the recent financial crisis because it facilitated critical discussions among the five large banks and the single federal regulator (the Office of the Superintendent of Financial Institutions). Also, Canada has never had branching restrictions like the U.S. laws that prevented interstate banking up until 1994, and this has historically allowed Canadian banks to achieve geographical diversification for their deposits and loans portfolios. It was largely this difference in geographical diversification that help explains why the United States had 9,000 bank failures during the Great Depression (each operating within only one of the 48 states, due to the prohibition on interstate branching) and not a single Canadian bank (all with branches nationwide) failed in the 1930s.

Those who support things like stimulus packages and oppose Wall Street would not put up with having only 5 "mega-banks", they would not accept low-income rental properties, prepayment penalties, and draconian banking measures for recovering lost money. It is not tighter regulations that enabled the success of Canadian banking, it was letting banks be what banks are; lending institutions that need to minimize losses and maximize gains. When banks are not allowed to do this for political reasons, it creates an unhealthy market condition. There's a reason why Canada ranks well above the US in economic freedoms and it is a more realistic approach to regulation. Note, it was not more regulation, in fact it was less. This is not only a fundamental difference in the size of our economies, but an ideological disconnect.

Regulation Didn't Save Canada's Banks
  • Start with the housing sector. Canadian banks are not compelled by laws such as our Community Reinvestment Act to lend to less creditworthy borrowers. Nor does Canada have agencies like Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac promoting "affordable housing" through guarantees or purchases of high-risk and securitized loans. With fewer incentives to sell off their mortgage loans, Canadian banks held a larger share of them on their balance sheets. Bank-held mortgages tend to perform more soundly than securitized ones.
  • In the U.S., Federal Housing Administration programs allowed mortgages with only a 3% down payment, while the Federal Home Loan Bank provided multiple subsidies to finance borrowing. In Canada, if a down payment is less than 20% of the value of a home, the mortgage holder must purchase mortgage insurance. Mortgage interest is not tax deductible.
  • The differences do not end there. A homeowner in the U.S. can simply walk away from his loan if the balance on his mortgage exceeds the value of his house. The lender has no recourse except to take the house in satisfaction of the debt. Canadian mortgage holders are held strictly responsible for their home loans and banks can launch claims against their other assets.
  • When it comes to comparing the track record of the U.S. and Canadian banking systems, it is worth noting that Canada's regulations did not prohibit the sale or purchase of asset-backed securities. Early in this decade, Canada's Toronto-Dominion bank was among the world's top 10 holders of securitized assets. The decision to exit these products four to five years ago, Toronto-Dominion's CEO Ed Clarke told me, was simple: "They became too complex. If I cannot hold them for my mother-in-law, I cannot hold them for my clients." No regulator can compete with this standard.
  • Those who blame financial deregulation for the breakdown of U.S. markets should note that Canada shed its version of Glass-Steagall more than 20 years ago. Major banks thereafter rapidly bought and absorbed investment banks.


What Canada has established is that when you lead with a bleeding heart for the little guy who can't pay his mortgage over the cigar-chomping corporate fat-cat banker, you get bad Fed policies. It wasn't more regulation in Canada that secured its banking system, it was less, placed more of the burden and accountability on the borrower, and allowed the banks to do what banks do; earn and recover money.

Compare that with several trillion in stimulus in the US Athens. Again, apples to airplanes. I'm not sure what you're saying, that stimulus is good? You all have only just begun.
ebuddy
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2011, 09:25 AM
 
Is anyone bothered cops are being directed to bust up these protests for crap like violating statutes for camping in public?

As goofy as I find this protest, that way crosses the line IMO.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2011, 09:31 AM
 
I mean, even if you feel like pissing on freedom of assembly, look at it purely from a PR perspective. Every kid at these protests has an itchy smartphone camera trigger-finger.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2011, 12:18 PM
 
Really? Then why have the statutes in the first place?

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2011, 12:26 PM
 
The statutes for freedom of assembly? Or the statutes for rousting homeless people from the park?
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2011, 12:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The statutes for freedom of assembly? Or the statutes for rousting homeless people from the park?
At some point, a months-long protest of people camping out is just a bunch of homeless people in the park in terms of its physical impact. That's why permit laws have been upheld as constitutional since pretty much forever.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2011, 12:33 PM
 
Never mind.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2011, 12:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
At some point, a months-long protest of people camping out is just a bunch of homeless people in the park in terms of its physical impact. That's why permit laws have been upheld as constitutional since pretty much forever.
I think the question is, should you be allowed to have a months long protest?

If yes, then the permit is either a formality, or an instrument for restricting freedom of assembly.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2011, 12:41 PM
 
Somewhat separate from the above, I assume that unlike a large group of homeless people, these protests have at least some form of logistics going on.
     
SpaceMonkey
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Washington, DC
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2011, 12:56 PM
 
Sure. Some of it quite elaborate and admired by the city police (always off the record, of course). And in that context, it's worth noting that Bloomberg has basically given the protesters his blessing, and the Occupy DC crowd is supposedly going to get a permit for another 4 months here. I have no idea what's going on in Boston, where the recent clash has been.

I think the question is, should you be allowed to have a months long protest?

If yes, then the permit is either a formality, or an instrument for restricting freedom of assembly.
Absolutely it is. But unless you want to pretend that we haven't been putting limits on the rights enshrined in the Constitution in the name of practically from the very beginning, I don't see what the issue is. Groups that are well-intentioned and organized, as above, don't tend to run into much trouble. But there needs to be a safety valve "formality" to enable local authorities to maintain peace if needed.

"One ticket to Washington, please. I have a date with destiny."
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2011, 01:19 PM
 
The specific examples I'm thinking of are where they bust-up the whole thing. IIUC, that happened in Iowa, and they've issued the threat in Atlanta.

Edit: in Boston it was an overflow problem, which I put in a different class, but I'd bet money that problem could have been taken care of without riot police.
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2011, 01:27 PM
 
the tea party are racists, period.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2011, 01:30 PM
 
Waffles are awesome.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2011, 06:14 PM
 
ebuddy, instead of fussing over individual protesters, perhaps this conversation would be more interesting if he discussed the ideas of this protest/movement's founder?

New York Observer: Jesse LaGreca on "This Week" - YouTube
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2011, 06:40 PM
 
The funny thing is a Canadian magazine was what actually started the Wall Street protests

Canadian magazine lit fuse for Wall St. protest

Vancouver, Calgary, Toronto are set to join in this week. Seattle had is going pretty good and Portland has had really large crowds.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2011, 06:41 PM
 
     
ebuddy  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2011, 07:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by SpaceMonkey View Post
At some point, a months-long protest of people camping out is just a bunch of homeless people in the park in terms of its physical impact. That's why permit laws have been upheld as constitutional since pretty much forever.
I agree with this. There's a difference between assembly and squatting land.
ebuddy
     
ironknee
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 1999
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2011, 10:26 PM
 
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 11, 2011, 11:03 PM
 
hahah I love it
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2011, 12:45 AM
 
Well this was fun to watch: Chris Hedges smacks down Kevin O'Leary on CBC.

For you Yanks, O'Leary is the loudest conservative voice on the "socialist" CBC [snort], who also stars on a despicable reality show called Dragon's Den (basically, American Idol for would-be inventors and business people).

I've seen Chris Hedges on tv before, but I can't remember where, probably because I don't watch much American news.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2011, 01:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I agree with this. There's a difference between assembly and squatting land.
I don't disagree either, but where do you draw the line?

How much does intent count for?
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2011, 05:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by lpkmckenna View Post
Well this was fun to watch: Chris Hedges smacks down Kevin O'Leary on CBC.

For you Yanks, O'Leary is the loudest conservative voice on the "socialist" CBC [snort], who also stars on a despicable reality show called Dragon's Den (basically, American Idol for would-be inventors and business people).

I've seen Chris Hedges on tv before, but I can't remember where, probably because I don't watch much American news.

Thanks for posting that clip, it was interesting

I liked the part where O'Leary insisted that he was calling Hedges a nut bar rather than a nut case
     
ebuddy  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2011, 07:17 AM
 
ebuddy
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2011, 07:32 AM
 
Well, they're spending money and helping out the local businesses, let them stick around.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
ebuddy  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2011, 07:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by Shaddim View Post
Well, they're spending money and helping out the local businesses, let them stick around.
To be clear, I feel strongly that they should be allowed to continue doing what they're doing. I just think they're misdirected.

Above, sek929 posted an interesting diagram illustrating the commonality between the movements, but it shows IMO the most glaring difference: the commercial entities most distasteful to the Occupy movement are those who could not have attained the power they wield without the help of government. A focus on "Wall Street" is only a distraction from the blatant croneyism, corruption, and dismal failures of this Administration. There's a very good reason why they wouldn't want to focus on the government as these are many of the same naive, angsty, anti-capitalist zealots that voted this croney-capitalist President into office.

Big Government: simply takes money from you and distributes it to any number of things for which you wouldn't have a clue. It is not honest, it is not transparent, and it's certainly not going to the have-nots.

Big Corporation: is not possible without funding from the above... by you. The others survive by creating wares you choose to buy and maintaining a resilient business model. Either way, the source of our economic woes is clear to everyone except those who would find rallying against the former unconscionable.

"Tax the rich!" they yell. Why? You're not going to see a dime of it.
ebuddy
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2011, 11:59 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
"Tax the rich!" they yell. Why? You're not going to see a dime of it.
If I were American, I wouldn't want to. Washington simply needs to pay for the government it already has today.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2011, 02:11 PM
 
ebuddy: I think their best case scenario is simply to make government more receptive to economic policy that is friendlier to the middle class, rather than dominated by top-down trickle down corporation friendly stuff. There is anger towards corporations because of their influence on government.
     
Athens
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jan 2003
Location: Great White North
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2011, 02:16 PM
 
best case scenario is to keep business influence out of government so government can govern for the people.
Blandine Bureau 1940 - 2011
Missed 2012 by 3 days, RIP Grandma :-(
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2011, 02:36 PM
 
Originally Posted by Athens View Post
best case scenario is to keep business influence out of government so government can govern for the people.

And to be clear, I'm not naive enough to think that a protest will single handedly accomplish this, but I think as a society we would benefit from being pushed in this general direction.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2011, 03:29 PM
 
I'll take a stab at how long these protests should be able to last.

As long as they can be logistically maintained.
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2011, 03:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
A focus on "Wall Street" is only a distraction from the blatant croneyism, corruption, and dismal failures of this Administration.
Lulz, as if this sort of croneyism and corporate-controlled government came about just after Obama was elected.

I like you eBuddy, but when you put on those blinders that only let you condemn the actions of Democrats then you really lose me. Occupy Wall Street and The Tea Party show a swell of normal Americans who are entirely disenfranchised with the powerlessness of the average American to change his own destiny. My graph above shows exactly what the problem is, the 99% have absolutely no say in a system that is supposed to be for them, by them. Sure, not every dirty hippy on Wall Street has a valid point, but their feeling of hopelessness and marginalization is very real and a very big problem for our country.

You say the 1% are the job creators, but the 99% are the job do-ers, the ones that actually run this country with their hard work. If you start losing those people in droves, then watch the **** out. They pave your roads, manage your sewage, drive your goods, build your houses, run your hospitals, deliver your electricity, and teach your children. The 99% are the backbone of this country, and the 1% are the upper management who have grown fat and lazy off a system they have been exploiting for decades and decades. This includes both corporate billionaires and the ruling political elite. They have lost touch with the American people, and they would do well to watch this situation carefully.
     
lpkmckenna
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Toronto
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 12, 2011, 04:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
They pave your roads, manage your sewage, drive your goods, build your houses, run your hospitals, deliver your electricity, and teach your children.
We cook your meals. We haul your trash. We connect your calls. We drive your ambulances. We guard you while you sleep. Do not **** with us.
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2011, 12:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
I like you eBuddy, but when you put on those blinders that only let you condemn the actions of Democrats then you really lose me.
I did, but I think he's pretty much hit bottom.
From this thread,
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Besides, all of these market principles were already regulated. Did you know that? The factors such as credit default swaps and the like all blamed for the recession were all regulated transactions since at least 2000. How did this happen?
Wow.
I hope in his myopic world he believes this, otherwise...
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Yes and with the removal of the regulation, remove the backing of the US government should the business model fail. There should be very little regulation. Simply put, remove any regulations that have no direct bearing on life or death.
Credit default swaps were never regulated and what regulations on other transactions were lax at best.
Sad how reality doesn't exist in his world.

He wants free reign for business even though recent history shows us the outcome of inadequate regulation.

I can't even bring myself to mock it's so sad.

I lied,
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2011, 12:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
They pave your roads, manage your sewage, drive your goods, build your houses, run your hospitals, deliver your electricity, and teach your children.
So invite in anyone who can sneak across a border to do all of this for peanuts, and to hell with anyone who actually wants a decent wage for any of it. Otherwise no one can afford any of this stuff. Just call them 'jobs Americans won't do.'

And then bitch that wages are too low and that fatcats are getting away with something.
     
CRASH HARDDRIVE
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Zip, Boom, Bam
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2011, 12:38 AM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
Heh heh. So true.

You should have sketched in the beeline many of these people make for the nearest Apple store the second any shiny new iGadgets are available. But Apple is just a little mom and pop outfit, not one of those big eeeeeevil greedy corporations that's stealing everything from everybody.
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2011, 01:13 AM
 
A lesser winger heard from.
Geezus.
     
ebuddy  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2011, 07:04 AM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
ebuddy: I think their best case scenario is simply to make government more receptive to economic policy that is friendlier to the middle class, rather than dominated by top-down trickle down corporation friendly stuff. There is anger towards corporations because of their influence on government.
I get this, but what good does it do to protest _____ Corp? What is it they are supposed to do that would satisfy the protests? If a CEO takes less pay for example, is this really friendlier toward the middle class? How? I think opposition to a trickle-down principle is odd. It's either trickling down from an entity that makes your laws and assesses a fee for its existence or an entity you buy stuff from... like you, me, and others.

The major difference between the two spectrums, and the biggest problem I have with the Wall Street folks is that it's not clear what they're for. I get what they're against. It seems little more than an outlet of angst for the otherwise idle. I maintain that if it lingers, even 3 more weeks, it will become violent. Though I certainly hope not.

It really boils down to the question of what's fair for the middle class IMO. It's as if people would rather money and provisions simply go to them rather than go to money and provisions, but it just doesn't work that way. I'm sorry if it's tired, but I can't say it enough. I appreciate the concern for the influence of corporations on government, but the government has to welcome them in against the public trust. It's bizarre that one would address the bad influence on their kid before their own kid. You're invested in the government whether you like it or not and the only way this can be the case with Big Corporation is if Big Government is behind it.

Removing the middle classes' ladders to greater prosperity with antagonism toward wealth, turning us against one another by virtue of our incomes is worse than counterintuitive, it's destructive IMO. I think movements founded on antagonism have no other outcome.
ebuddy
     
ebuddy  (op)
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: midwest
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2011, 07:57 AM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
Lulz, as if this sort of croneyism and corporate-controlled government came about just after Obama was elected.
I like you eBuddy, but when you put on those blinders that only let you condemn the actions of Democrats then you really lose me. Occupy Wall Street and The Tea Party show a swell of normal Americans who are entirely disenfranchised with the powerlessness of the average American to change his own destiny. My graph above shows exactly what the problem is, the 99% have absolutely no say in a system that is supposed to be for them, by them. Sure, not every dirty hippy on Wall Street has a valid point, but their feeling of hopelessness and marginalization is very real and a very big problem for our country.
I like you too sek, seriously, but is there a problem holding egregious corruption accountable? The Tea Party was birthed during the Bush Administration out of frustration with the "establishment". The system that is supposed to be designed for the people was designed with polar representation; checks and balances. In our current state, Republicans are the check to Democratic powers and Democrats are a check to Republican powers. The Tea Party for example is for lower taxes across the board, for a return to the constitutional limitations of government; less government interference, for a balanced budget, and for a lower deficit. The Tea Party focused their attention primarily on RINOs and have shaken the Republican party to its core. With unions recruiting these Occupiers through Craigslist, it is not going to shake any political party or government entity to the core and appears to be little more than an arm of Obama's campaign against wealth. This, coming from the ilk that would claim the "war on terror" is too vague and the "war on drugs" is a joke. Again, they're yelling "tax the rich" as if the problem hasn't always been how the tax resource is distributed by the government. Government entitlement spending has done nothing, but skyrocket over the past 40 years and yet wealth disparity between the haves and have-nots remains absolutely stagnant. There is absolutely no evidence that taking more from the rich will lead to more money for the poor or middle class. Worse, no one from this movement can tell you what their idea of fair is. How much more should the middle class have? Why? At the expense of whom? How much?

Meanwhile, you've got Jeffrey Immelt from GE as head of Obama's economic advisory panel, major recipient of TARP, allowed to raise money at artificially low rates, and avoid bailout restrictions other TARP recipients couldn't. You've seen half a billion dollars thrown into a known failing "green jobs" venture in Solyndra with nary a word. You've got the Attorney General of the US sweating his ever-lovin' onions off in hearings over Mexican gun-running, Ex-Google lobbyist Andrew McLaughlin working as the No. 2 tech policy guy in the White House working net neutrality with Google lobbyists (both registered and unregistered btw), while Google stood to profit from the administration's Net Neutrality regs, Former H&R Block CEO Mark Ernst being hired into the IRS writing new regs on tax preparation; regs that H&R Block endorsed that will help H&R Block, and on and on and on.

Why should I talk about Bush, to ease concerns of partisanship? No thanks. Enough is enough. I was critical of Bush for many things and have listened as many others from the top down, continued to rail on him more than 3 years later... now it's okay to focus on the here and now.

You say the 1% are the job creators, but the 99% are the job do-ers, the ones that actually run this country with their hard work. If you start losing those people in droves, then watch the **** out.
How is removing the middle-classes' ladder to prosperity out from under them going to help?

They pave your roads, manage your sewage, drive your goods, build your houses, run your hospitals, deliver your electricity, and teach your children.
Yes and someone with enough resources and intestinal fortitude set up the companies these people work for. They include you and me and the wealth of risk-takers who've gained and lost billions trying. Who does it serve to turn employees against employers in this way?

The 99% are the backbone of this country, and the 1% are the upper management who have grown fat and lazy off a system they have been exploiting for decades and decades. This includes both corporate billionaires and the ruling political elite. They have lost touch with the American people, and they would do well to watch this situation carefully.
I grant you this, but the only way they find themselves in a position of writing your laws is by being welcomed into the root cause of the problem; government. At this point, a focus on anything else is nothing more than a convenient distraction IMO. Any politician worth his weight would avoid this situation like the plague.
ebuddy
     
sek929
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Nov 1999
Location: Cape Cod, MA
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2011, 11:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by CRASH HARDDRIVE View Post
So invite in anyone who can sneak across a border to do all of this for peanuts, and to hell with anyone who actually wants a decent wage for any of it. Otherwise no one can afford any of this stuff. Just call them 'jobs Americans won't do.'

And then bitch that wages are too low and that fatcats are getting away with something.
This is different from companies using what is essentially oversees slave labor to raise profits?

When the housing market crashed as a result of inept government and banking institutions, I was frequently unemployed up until the last 6 months. This has nothing to do with illegals and everything to do with corrupt government and sleazy banking practices.

I'd be right with these folks protesting....if I didn't have so much work to get done.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2011, 11:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by sek929 View Post
This is different from companies using what is essentially oversees slave labor to raise profits?
If they moved the slaves here they'd get homesick.
     
screener
Senior User
Join Date: May 2009
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2011, 01:08 PM
 
Originally Posted by ebuddy View Post
I like you too sek, seriously, but is there a problem holding egregious corruption accountable? The Tea Party was birthed during the Bush Administration out of frustration with the "establishment".
More misinformation.
How can anyone take someone seriously who laces his commentary with, insert whatever here.
Tea Party movement - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
     
el chupacabra
Mac Elite
Join Date: Apr 2001
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2011, 01:56 PM
 
Why didn't they do these protests during the bailouts? Where were they then? That was the time to get angry and stop them from getting a bunch of money. Oh wait they were all begging the government to DO something (aka bailout banks with their tax dollars) to prevent a total COLLAPSE of society because they said government was trustworthy and knows what its doing. This seems all too late... I agree, what are they protesting now anyway?
     
Shaddim
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Apr 2003
Location: 46 & 2
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Oct 13, 2011, 02:10 PM
 
Originally Posted by el chupacabra View Post
Why didn't they do these protests during the bailouts? Where were they then? That was the time to get angry and stop them from getting a bunch of money. Oh wait they were all begging the government to DO something (aka bailout banks with their tax dollars) to prevent a total COLLAPSE of society because they said government was trustworthy and knows what its doing. This seems all too late... I agree, what are they protesting now anyway?
They're protesting that some people are wealthier than others. Some of this could be fixed if they were out trying to make a living instead of standing around protesting.
"Those who expect to reap the blessings of freedom must, like men, undergo the fatigue of supporting it."
- Thomas Paine
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 10:44 AM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,