Occupy Wallstreet... and Bs As?

[steveinbsas]

With current leverage rules, Hedge Funds have the ability to bring down much bigger pieces of the economy than they actually hold in their funds- and with great rewards come great responsibilities.

I think most of these fat cats will not thrive in the end...

Unless they can grow their own food.

 

[Joe]

This is going to finish in three possible ways:

1) Capitalism corrects itself by giving back lots of welfare to the middle class, like it did in the last big Depression (the 1930s). Well, back then it created the middle class.

2) People in the US looks for a strong figure that will lead them towards full employment with a nationalistic xenophobic discourse (Sarah Palin?). Corporativism, war for resources. This solution did not worked too well for 1930s Germany, but the US has lots of nuclear weapons. China does too. Shudders.

3) A socialist (state-planning), market socialist ("economic democracy"), social-democratic (subdued capitalism, la lot like solution 1) revolution. Maybe, just maybe.

Or.....

4) After a while recession ends, people are happy to have even the crappiest of jobs, everything goes back to "normal", with an impoverished population, China the new leader of the world, Europe slowly declining, Latin-America (Brazil+Argentina+maybe Chile), India and South East Asia the new centers of cultural and economic power (more cultural in LatAm, more technological-industrial in SEAsia).

Good analysis, I think 4 is the most likely although 2 is a definite possibility except not Sarah but Rick leading the charge. 3 SHUDDERS!

If Rick Perry wins I definitely wouldn't want to be living in Iran. And I wouldn't want to be serving in the National Guard in Iowa...

Isn't ironic that a Republican president cautioned us about the Military Industrial Complex but we chose to ignore him. It very well could lead to the downfall of the USA if the powers that be see foreign adventures as a solution to quell domestic disturbances.

 

[steveinbsas]

So, in a sense, you are right- government actions, in the form of deregulation and weak oversight DID cause these problems, but the Occupy Wall Street protesters want the government to fix its earlier errors...

More than Dodd Frank entails?

If any of the protesters know about it they don't act like it...

(as neither do many of those who have posted in this thread).

 

[steveinbsas]

The fannie mae regulations that right wingers blame the global financial meltdown on merely said that IF you loaned in any neighborhood, you could not refuse to loan to somebody due to the color of their skin.

I get it. When I disagree with Obama others have said it is only because I don't like the color of his skin. I'm sure they never saw my wedding photos and I'm also sure no bank ever gave a loan to someone because they were afraid of being accused of denying the loan because of the color of loan applicant's skin.

Not with fair minded race-referees like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson looming about.

Nonetheless, I have no doubt that the vast majority of the foreclosures in recent years in the US involve "white" folks.

But I wouldn't be surprised if foreclosure affects a higher percentage of minorities than whites.

 

[gsi16386]

Or, more recently, TARP? Some Tarp money went to Hedge Funds to buy "toxic assets".

And quite a big slice of the AIG bailout, again taxpayer money, went to Hedge Funds- the government and the taxpayers, in essence, guaranteed their gamble.

I dont have anything against Hedge Funds- I just think-
A- the Feds should not bail them out- Hedge Funds are high risk investors, and with risk, comes not only the possibility of profit, but the possibility of loss.
B- Hedge Fund management fees are NOT investments- these guys (heck, maybe you too, I dont know) are not reaping $1 Billion dollars a year on the interest gained on their OWN trades- nope, that is "management fees"- what, in any other business would be called a salary. At current rates of interest, there are very few deals that pay much over 5% a year, which would require these Hedge Fund managers to be on the hook for a personal investment of $20 Billion- and they dont, pure and simple. They get insider deals of free gifts of large percentages of everything, and that should be taxed as the income it is, not some mythical capital gain it surely isnt.
C- Hedge Funds should be regulated, so they do not start chain reactions like the Long Term Capital or 2008 crash. This might include registering with the SEC, reasonable limits on short selling and leveraged trading, which can easily run rampant and cause systemic failures, and periodic auditing- for instance, Bernie Madoff appeared to be on the up and up mainly because nobody regulated him or actually audited him.

With current leverage rules, Hedge Funds have the ability to bring down much bigger pieces of the economy than they actually hold in their funds- and with great rewards come great responsibilities.

Sorry, but you're misinformed. Not one dollar of the TARP was distributed to Hedge Funds, only to banks, automakers, and insurers in fear of default. In addition, Hedge Funds were the ones that help reinstill liquidity to the markets so that these toxic debts were once again tradeable and the market again transparent.

I disagree 100% with the bailout of any banks or financial institutions, ESPECIALLY Hedge Funds. But in the case of the TARP, something had to have been done otherwise we would have had a collapse of the financial system. As for Hedge Fund managers, i completely agree that these managers need to pay Income Taxes just like everyone else if they aren't trading with their money. Is that not the way it's done?

You have solid arguments in regards to regulating Hedge Funds that I agree with and respect. Sometimes these funds can get too big, but how big is too big? How do we set a standard on how much we can go long or short? All of these things well negatively affect the purpose of having a free market and allowing the price to flow freely based upon market factors.

 

[steveinbsas]

I get it. When I disagree with Obama others have said it is only because I don't like the color of his skin. I'm sure they never saw my wedding photos and I'm also sure no bank ever gave a loan to someone because they were afraid of being accused of denying the loan because of the color of loan applicant's skin.

Not with fair minded race-referees like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson looming about.

Nonetheless, I have no doubt that the vast majority of the foreclosures in recent years in the US involve "white" folks.

But I wouldn't be surprised if foreclosure affects a higher percentage of minorities than whites.

I should add that I know this from experience. I've personally experienced foreclosure ..thanks to changes in government regulations (and elimination of tax loopholes which I never used).

 

[sesamosinsal]

I wasn't referring to Marx. I was referring to Bradleyhale

Steve, you have your house; you might have a car; you have the money to put food in your mouth. But when you die, what does it all matter? People are so hell-bent on hoarding everything in sight and owning so much, but for what? Are you going to need your lovely home in someway when you're six-feet-under?

In a resource-based economy, the most important thing won't be who can complete a certain project for the cheapest price, but who can do it the best. We won't give medical care just to those who can pay for it, but to those who need it. And we won't provide a college education to those who want to go into debt, but everyone who wants one. Construction workers, doctors, and teachers would do their jobs in the name of human progress, not a pay check.

Technology will play a bigger role in the production of food and other items. This is already happening, and it's called "technological unemployment." In an opinion piece for CNN.com, Douglas Rushkoff asked, "Are jobs obsolete?" He states: "New technologies are wreaking havoc on employment figures -- from EZpasses ousting toll collectors to Google-controlled self-driving automobiles rendering taxicab drivers obsolete. Every new computer program is basically doing some task that a person used to do. But the computer usually does it faster, more accurately, for less money, and without any health insurance costs." He goes on to say, "I am afraid to even ask this, but since when is unemployment really a problem? I understand we all want paychecks -- or at least money. We want food, shelter, clothing, and all the things that money buys us. But do we all really want jobs?" Read the rest. He doesn't go so far as to say "get rid of money", but he presents good ideas. People could have never imagined that we would all be this connected and advanced 100-years-ago. How much will we develop in 100 more years? 200 more years? How much more of what we do will become automated?

People's values have to change -- by no means an easy task, but where there's a will, there's a way. We are not the only people on this planet, and our actions do affect everyone else, even if just a little. For the vast majority of this planet, capitalism has not been a success, and it's irrelevant if it's "free market" or not. It's just as divisive as socialism. This world isn't just ours. A lot of other people and creatures live here too. Instead of thinking me-me-me all of the time, maybe we should try to think about us-us-us.

My belief is that capitalism, socialism, and communism are all antiquated systems that do not work anymore and/or never have. Capitalism pits the rich against the poor; socialism pits the poor against the rich; and communism concentrates too much power into one hand. We need something new. I'm not saying that a resource-based economy is the answer, but I think it is a good start. It's time that we start a conversation on what we're going to do.

 

[steveinbsas]

Steve, you have your house; you might have a car; you have the money to put your food in your mouth. But when you die, what does it all matter? People are so hell-bent on hoarding everything in sight and owning so much, but for what? Are you going to need your lovely home in someway when you're six-feet-under?

In a resource-based economy, the most important thing won't be who can complete a certain project for the cheapest price, but who can do it the best. We won't give medical care just to those who can pay for it, but to those who need it. And we won't provide a college education to those who want to go into debt, but everyone who wants one. Construction workers, doctors, and teachers would do their jobs in the name of human progress, not a pay check.

Technology will play a bigger role in the production of food and other items. This is already happening, and it's called "technological unemployment." In an opinion piece for CNN.com, Douglas Rushkoff asked, "Are jobs obsolete?" He states: "New technologies are wreaking havoc on employment figures -- from EZpasses ousting toll collectors to Google-controlled self-driving automobiles rendering taxicab drivers obsolete. Every new computer program is basically doing some task that a person used to do. But the computer usually does it faster, more accurately, for less money, and without any health insurance costs." He goes on to say, "I am afraid to even ask this, but since when is unemployment really a problem? I understand we all want paychecks -- or at least money. We want food, shelter, clothing, and all the things that money buys us. But do we all really want jobs?" Read the rest. He doesn't go so far as to say "get rid of money", but he presents good ideas. People could have never imagined that we would all be this connected and advanced 100-years-ago. How much will we develop in 100 more years? 200 more years? How much more of what we do will become automated?

People's values have to change -- by no means an easy task, but where there's a will, there's a way. We are not the only people on this planet, and our actions do affect everyone else, even if just a little. For the vast majority of this planet, capitalism has not been a success, and it's irrelevant if it's "free market" or not. It's just as divisive as socialism. This world isn't just ours. A lot of other people and creatures live here too. Instead of thinking me-me-me all of the time, maybe we should try to think about us-us-us.

My belief is that capitalism, socialism, and communism are all antiquated systems that do not work anymore and/or never have. Capitalism pits the rich against the poor; socialism pits the poor against the rich; and communism concentrates too much power into one hand. We need something new. I'm not saying that a resource-based economy is the answer, but I think it is a good start. It's time that we start a conversation on what we're going to do.

Who exactly is we? In a resourced based economy who decides who gets what? A community is still a group of individuals, isn't it?Are resources a static quantity or is it possible to create additional wealth? Why would anyone want to and who would determine how it would be redistributed after it's created?

And who will define human progress?

PS: Perhaps the "we" might decide there should be more people living in my house even before I die.

Perhaps they will be inspired by the film: Schindler's List.

 

[Ries]

I get it. When I disagree with Obama others have said it is only because I don't like the color of his skin. I'm sure they never saw my wedding photos and I'm also sure no bank ever gave a loan to someone because they were afraid of being accused of denying the loan because of the color of loan applicant's skin.

Not with fair minded race-referees like Al Sharpton and Jesse Jackson looming about.

Nonetheless, I have no doubt that the vast majority of the foreclosures in recent years in the US involve "white" folks.

But I wouldn't be surprised if foreclosure affects a higher percentage of minorities than whites.

Huh?
Obama?

where are you getting that from?

You said you heard the government was requiring banks to make bad loans.

I said, no, the CRA only required that the 15% of banks that received FDIC money must not discriminate in terms of race, creed, or color when making loans.

No one mentioned black people, color of skin could, and DID, in terms of lending redlining, refer to black, red, yellow, and other peoples. There were neighborhoods where banks redlined against hispanics, or vietnamese, or native americans.

Your paranoia medication should be increased- the comment not only did not refer to you at all, but instead to banks, but it did not mean black people, was enacted when Obama was 16 years old, and did not in any way shape or form address your wedding.

The fact is, Banks WERE redlining. The feds told them you cant redline and get federal money. Thats it. From that tiny acorn a huge oak tree of second hand internet hysteria grew, all based on misinformation and exaggeration.
While the tree was large, it never got big enough to include your wedding or your feelings about Obama, whatever they are.

Oh, and that last comment of yours is half true, and half self contradictory.

Either more white people were foreclosed on, or they werent- and the fact is , they probably were, in absolute numbers.
However, the rate of minority foreclosures was high- for a variety of reasons, including the fact that often private lenders who were NOT restricted by the CRA steered minority lenders into high interest rate, variable mortgages that were more profitable to the lenders. Also, historically, minorities have had lower incomes, and worse credit ratings, meaning they didnt qualify for the lowest interest rate mortgages. In the current recession, minority unemployment rates are often double the white rates-

So, we have a historically poor segment of the population which was sold high cost loans, and then was laid off earlier and in higher percentages- and hence, more likely to have to default.

Again, this does not infer any racism on your part, nor is it my response to you being critical of Obama. Its simply facts.

 

[steveinbsas]

If the banks had redlined a bit more perhaps the crisis wouldn't have been so bad.