OWS: Let's Focus on the Protestors and Just Ignore Wall Street!

[Fergasun]

No, I don't want to put this in the "discuss OWS" thread, because everything gets lost in that thread, and the multiple different takes get drowned out.

So I see a lot of media outlets/politicians/commentaries commenting on the OWS movement. I hate how predictable our country is, because just about most right-leaning politician and websites has the take of "a bunch of loser hippies, etc. etc.". Nearly all left leaning politician says "yes, people are angry, I support them being angry because anger will lead to change".

I really don't care if it's a bunch of hippies, I don't care if it's a bunch of old folks in their government subsidized rascals protesting. In my mind, as annoying as hippies and other "political protesters" who may try to attach themselves to this type of movement, no one else is even attempting to focus the attention on Wall Street.

Unfortunately I feel like 2 weeks has been spent talking/discussing/commenting on the protesters, and zero weeks have been spent talking about what Wall Street does, it's influence on politicians (the fact that politically there are like 12 huge banks all deemed "too big or connected to fail"), and the fact that if we took down and closed some of these banks (certainly with the right-leaning side would call "socialism"), it might make them less risk averse. We also aren't discussing how banks have screwed municipalities and pension funds, and managed to completely screw up the financial system so much so that even 4 years into the financial crisis (it started in August 2007), things only seem to be getting worse.

Are banks inherently bad? No. Banks perform a lot of useful functions such as enabling small businesses to get access to capital markets (hook them up with investors), and make it easier for us to buy (and sell) products to each other. However, becoming a goliath in our system, and making the "financial economy" the main point of the American economy (rather than making goods, developing services, or innovating) are not useful functions for Americans and have made us too dependent on banks. Not to mention pumping up stock-markets such that it's completely distorted to the buy-side (of course we don't really think about this when we are investing in our 401(k), spending other money choosing stocks). Our country is away in liquidity, yet only the foolish seem to want more.

So, I think the protesters are right, Wall Street sucks, and I think Wall Street sucks and has done a whole lot more damage to our economy in the past 30 years, than any hippie, smelly, dirty rotten (and whichever earnest, angry Americans) have done in the past what, 30 days? But we can just pretend that Wall Street has done no wrong, and those protesters are just jealous.

What I'd say to Herman Cain: the protests are not about the "haves" and "have not's"; it's more about the fact that people are losing faith in the American dream, and we are living in a time when there is less and less opportunity to get even a decent job and living (let alone one that would make someone rich). But it's far better to just simplify down to "those losers want something without paying for it."

Most of the political reactions to these protests (which are actually actions by politicians to "pander to their bases") are making me wretch.

[chipwhich]

Yeah Wall Street dictates the economy. You are so right.

[Destino]

Yeah Wall Street dictates the economy. You are so right.

No but their constant misdeeds have done MASSIVE damage to our economy. The tech bubble featured firms lying about stocks that they were quietly unloading causing inflated prices for companies they knew were bad. Then recently the wall street imitation of a economic game of hungry hungry hippos damn near froze the economies of the entire western world. They packaged garbage loans, got their friends at rating houses to slap some "A's" on them and poison pilled damn near everything. Basically they employed the same scam as the tech bubble on a much more massive scale. Instead of bilking investors they conned major companies and governments into buying garbage. All the while the PEOPLE behind these scams were filling their personal bank accounts with massive profits.

When the scam ran out of time governments had to hand over tax dollars to keep their economies from diving. You see the very same crack dealers that personally enriched themselves sat inside companies that, thanks to their deregulating friends, had grown so large that they couldn't be allowed to collapse. If they did they'd take the liquidity of the financial markets with them and that would effect every sector and every economy.

So did we break up those companies after the fact so we wouldn't be held hostage again? Tell me why not. Open your eyes and understand what just happened. A group of people made themselves personally more wealthy then when that plan damn near wrecked everything they turned around and demanded the tax dollars. We paid them and them did nothing to stop it from happening again.

So you tell me, who really runs things? You? Idiots at a rally?

[chipwhich]

So you tell me, who really runs things? You? Idiots at a rally?

Uh Government policies??????

[Fergasun]

Uh Government policies??????

Which government could I elect under the platform of "let's close the banks that did so much harm down."? Do you know what the first thing the new President did? He replaced the old Treasury Secretary with someone who was standing side-by-side with that same old Treasury Secretary. Game, set, match! I'm not even sure "the public" (versus the insider politicians) realized how close Geithner was to the TARP policies (and the bailout AIG policies). Heck, I think Geithner was pushing for bailouts harder than Paulson was at the time (especially wrt AIG). The renomination of Bernanke was especially galling, even with all the post-facto garbage *revelations* the Fed was doing at the time (let's lend to McDonald's and foreign companies and banks?!).

I'm not naive, I know that getting political power means you play a game of "don't tip the waiter" with the American economy, but right now we keep stacking those dishes higher, and higher, it's going to make the crash a lot more painful.

[chipwhich]

I'm not naive, I know that getting political power means you play a game of "don't tip the waiter" with the American economy, but right now we keep stacking those dishes higher, and higher, it's going to make the crash a lot more painful.

So you say the same thing I say. The Government

I mean really, Wall Street didn't make the rules They just followed the leader.

[mossomo]

no one else is even attempting to focus the attention on Wall Street

It's not Wall Street. It's central planning by gov't bureaucrats who have no clue about the private sector because they are community organizing and what not. How are jobs created, not by gov't running interference via fiat and regulations.

We aren't discussing how banks have screwed municipalities and pension funds, and managed to completely screw up the financial system

Banks were told, threatened and coerced to make subprimes by the likes of ACORN and the Working Family Party.

Wall Street sucks and has done a whole lot more damage to our economy in the past 30 years

Nope. People who vote for bureaucrats based on platitudes and promises of utopia have done far worst.

[Hersh]

I mean really, Wall Street didn't make the rules

They just find the loopholes to get around the rules.

[mossomo]

Instead of bilking investors they conned major companies and governments into buying garbage

Garbage some bureaucrat and their 5th column made them transact.

[chipwhich]

They just find the loopholes to get around the rules.

Maybe????

Regardless these Government elected attorneys if so innocent should know how to write legislation without so many loopholes

I mean really?

[Hersh]

It's not Wall Street. It's central planning by gov't bureaucrats who have no clue about the private sector because they are community organizing and what not. How are jobs created, not by gov't running interference via fiat and regulations.

YES!!! Damn government regulation on things like work place safety, minimum wage, clean air and water, etc.

[mossomo]

They just find the loopholes to get around the rules.

Like Obama when he turned off the country code of his website to be able to take campaign contributions from anywhere in the world, or is that different?

Here's a hypocrite test. How many here believe the same rules need to be applied to Unions?

[Destino]

Garbage some bureaucrat and their 5th column made them transact.

Yes clearly. If history has taught us anything is that people will only act to make incredible amounts of money when forced to by the government.

[Hersh]

Maybe????

Regardless these Government elected attorneys if so innocent should know how to write legislation without so many loopholes

I mean really?

Most of the time they write the loopholes intentionally because of the campaign contributions they get from the ones they are "regulating."

[chipwhich]

Most of the time they write the loopholes intentionally because of the campaign contributions they get from the ones they are "regulating."

and it all stems back to government policies

[Hersh]

and it all stems back to government policies

Actually, it all stems back to money and power.

[mossomo]

minimum wage

If minimum wage is such a great awesome successfull policy, why not set it at $100/hr.

[Destino]

Uh Government policies??????

Self interest. You are ruled by it as are elected officials. So let's replace the politicians.... same rules apply. Replace them again?

How about demand the massive companies get shattered like the phone company once was so that they no longer have so much power. So that the government can allow some of them to fail?

Nah... let's just change some people around I'm sure that will work.

[mossomo]

Yes clearly. If history has taught us anything is that people will only act to make incredible amounts of money when forced to by the government.

Obama involved with suit against CitiBank to make them give loans to unqualified mortgage applicants

[thebluefood]

This is the most divisive populist movement since the Tea Party. The party lines are so starkly defined. It's kinda startling.

Obviously, corporate greed is a problem and Wall Street is in need of an overhaul, but I have to ask the OWS folks what they have in mind for solutions. How do they plan on fixing our financial problems? I'm not being a smart ass. I'm legitimately curious.

[Destino]

Obama involved with suit against CitiBank to make them give loans to unqualified mortgage applicants

You're either racist or ignorant. I'm guessing ignorant but I don't know you so feel free to choose one or both. You see the link you provided argues that red lining is righteous and that banks shouldn't be stopped from doing it. What red lining means (I suspect you don't know, so I'm going to tell you) is that banks have to operate in minority and low income areas. Having worked in lending personally I can tell you that being black or living in a black neighborhood doesn't equate to being unqualified. This is just the first part of what is wrong with this stupid argument but why help you avoid looking stupid.

This is why blogger, alternative media, and unaccredited schools are a bad source of information if accuracy is important. Though it's great if you like living in your own ridiculous fantasy world.

[mossomo]

You're either racist or ignorant.

Neither. Just because they made a bad loan to a white person should they be forced to make the same bad loan to a black person.

CRA was meant to encourage banks to make loans to high-risk borrowers, often minorities living in unstable neighborhoods. That has provided an opening to radical groups like ACORN (the Association of Community Organizations for Reform Now) to abuse the law by forcing banks to make hundreds of millions of dollars in “subprime” loans to often uncreditworthy poor and minority customers.

Any bank that wants to expand or merge with another has to show it has complied with CRA - and approval can be held up by complaints filed by groups like ACORN.

[Destino]

Neither. Just because they made a bad loan to a white person should they be forced to make the same bad loan to a black person.

The same standards for lending should apply regardless of race or zip code. Do you disagree?

So to answer your questions directly: Unless that "bad loan" was provided to the "white person" by error then yes they should be forced to apply the same standards to a "black person". One standard to all races, no exceptions.

[mossomo]

The same standards for lending should apply regardless of race or zip code. Do you disagree?

Absolutely

Plaintiffs sought injunctive relief, actual damages, and punitive damages

Am not an attorney, but with injunctive relief the court orders the loans be made.

[Fergasun]

Blaming the problems in the financial industry on the CRA is so 2009.

Democratic politicians (Dodd and Frank?) are nearly just as bought and paid for as Republicans.

The bottom line is that the market was such that making a loan to anyone fogging a mirror was profitable... since that's how the transactions were structured.

The only person who has really articulated what happened is Elizabeth Warren. I'm not talking about all the stuff on the agency she helped set up; I'm talking about her take on how the financial industry has changed over the past 15-20 years. She did that during her time with the FCIC (if you really want to you can look up the interview).