Welcome to PatsFans.com

Anybody else notice the nationwide protests of corporate greed?

Discussion in 'Political Discussion' started by PatsFanInVa, Oct 1, 2011.

  1. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,543
    Likes Received:
    294
    Ratings:
    +568 / 8 / -8

  2. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,876
    Likes Received:
    108
    Ratings:
    +240 / 8 / -13

    Yeah the protest against capitalism haven't been as large as the orgainzers had hoped so they are trying to get a little attention.


    The socialist party has a live webcam from the site of the 'revolution'.

    Socialist Party USA


    International ANSWER is whining about their 'occupation' being ignored:

    ANSWER Coalition
     
  3. Ilikehappyppl

    Ilikehappyppl 2nd Team Getting Their First Start

    Joined:
    May 9, 2010
    Messages:
    1,743
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    Its sad they are getting arrested, its even more sad the police are using mace and other tactics on them, they are Americans after all....

    Its a true sign of our liberty, when we can protest, its a great thing. What they are protesting I agree with, Wall Street is a bunch of crooks and were given welfare at the expense of tax payers, they should all be ashamed of themselves! With that said, I hope more march and I hope more decide to stand up to the rich and powerful, they are the root cause of most America's problems.

    When has a Bank/Wall Street ever bailed out a underwater home owner?
    When has a Bank/Wall Street every bailed out a underwater farmer?
    When has a Bank/Wall Street given anything?

    Why should we have bailed them out? When they don't give a damn about anyone but themselves? Fack them they can go straight to hell!:cool:
     
  4. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,876
    Likes Received:
    108
    Ratings:
    +240 / 8 / -13



    We shouldn't have bailed out Wall St, theses folks never got a permit for their protest as required. So they were arrested blocking traffic on the Brooklyn Bridge all they were doing was making it hard regular folks to go about their business on a weekend, Wall St is closed on the weekend. BTW they wanted to provoke the police since their protest nonsense had pretty much been a failure.
     
  5. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,152
    Likes Received:
    224
    Ratings:
    +539 / 6 / -2

    Nothing wrong with protesting corporate greed. Those scum sucking wall street losers should have been left to eat each others young a few years ago, when the gubmit bailed them out with taxpayer coin. **** them. :mad:
     
  6. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,826
    Likes Received:
    182
    Ratings:
    +374 / 11 / -28

    Wall Street Greed typifies all that is wrong with the American Economy, they continue to amass wealth and the rest of us just get along... they are supposed to be creating more job opportunities due to the tax breaks they received, and all they are creating is more wealth.

    This will slow down when the weather gets colder.. but may be a harbinger of things to come.
     
  7. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,826
    Likes Received:
    182
    Ratings:
    +374 / 11 / -28

    The so called libertarian, wants more government control over events such as this...
     
  8. patsfan13

    patsfan13 Hall of Fame Poster PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Jan 4, 2005
    Messages:
    24,876
    Likes Received:
    108
    Ratings:
    +240 / 8 / -13


    NYC is run by the dem party, those are their rules. The rules are in place so the citizens of a crowded city can conduct their business. People get permits for all sorts of events without problems.

    If you wanted to hold a parade do you think you would need a permit?

    Would getting a permit prevent you from exercising your rights?

    Of course not silly.
     
  9. sdaniels7114

    sdaniels7114 Experienced Starter w/First Big Contract

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2006
    Messages:
    5,742
    Likes Received:
    7
    Ratings:
    +7 / 0 / -0

    I'm at a loss to understand how the NYPD can justify macing those girls in the face.
     
  10. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,543
    Likes Received:
    294
    Ratings:
    +568 / 8 / -8

    Unfortunately, where we say they should have been made to "eat their young"... "their young" is us, in this analogy.

    I don't like that our economy evolved in that direction; indeed, I (and others) have our ideas of how we came to that point. However, I do in fact buy the argument that the bailout did much more good than harm, except in this:

    It reaffirmed the principle that the government would, even in the absence of any legislation to this effect, guarantee the worst bad bets of the financial sector (or by extension, other markets.)

    We have not since that time stepped back from this stance of unlimited guarantees; nor have we thoroughly enough legislated Wall Street's responsibility for mutual co-insurance.

    When it was last argued (mutual co-insurance among financial actors,) the chief argument was that it would "make bailouts permanent." This is the most asinine and disingenuous simplification. Banks would be forced to insure each other, rather than making us insure them.

    The good thing is that the act passed. The bad thing is that it amounts to a $50 billion mutual insurance fund, which is hardly enough to guarantee the various species of speculative bets and hedging instruments the pool is meant to neutralize.

    But this is a side-track. Not only the continuing threat of speculation-based economic collapse, but also the daily and continuing miserliness of the big banks in general really do need addressing. Of course, if I'm a big bank, I make less money by never extending to borrowers the largess that we, the borrowing masses, had to extend to them -- at the point of a gun, in essence.

    Well, the gubmit made us bail them out, "for our own good." I have no problems with the earlier poster's complaint that they should return the favor... and I have no problem with the gubmit making them do it.

    Go nuts, 13!

    PFnV
     
  11. Mrs.PatsFanInVa

    Mrs.PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 7, 2009
    Messages:
    15,889
    Likes Received:
    328
    Ratings:
    +559 / 9 / -5

    #24 Jersey

    Really?

    Isn't Mayor Bloomberg a former Republican, recently turned Independent, mayor?
     
    Last edited: Oct 2, 2011
  12. DarrylS

    DarrylS PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Sep 13, 2004
    Messages:
    41,826
    Likes Received:
    182
    Ratings:
    +374 / 11 / -28

    A libertarian would contend that there is no need to get permits for the right to assemble and display free speech.. and a libertarian wanne be would contend the above.
     
  13. Real World

    Real World Moderator Staff Member

    Joined:
    Aug 15, 2006
    Messages:
    27,152
    Likes Received:
    224
    Ratings:
    +539 / 6 / -2

    Bloomturd was actually a life long democrat, until he switched parties in 2001 to run for mayor as a republican.
     
  14. shirtsleeve

    shirtsleeve In the Starting Line-Up

    Joined:
    Nov 20, 2005
    Messages:
    2,730
    Likes Received:
    0
    Ratings:
    +0 / 0 / -0

    *I crack up when I hear the term "corporate greed" as if its a bad thing. Its their job to make money for their shareholders TODAY or they dont have a job tomorrow. Most of the shareholders nowadays are us, too, through mutual funds traded to support our 401k's etc. Granted, we do not hold controlling or voting interests in these corporations in most instances. But I know I do have a voting interest in all of my mutual funds.

    * I do have a HUGE problem with subsidies and bailouts of these same corporations when they fail. The gubmint should have let them all fail, the banks collapse that needed to, and the resulting market plummet occur unhindered. We would be probably be out of this mess as a country by now if they had. It would have taken many a retirement plan and homeowner with it, but it would have been over by now, imo. Those homeowners and retirement plan holders would have no one to blame but themelves as well. Living in debt, using their false equity as leverage, etc. and not seeing Bear Sterns fall and shifting your accounts to bonds....people and corporations should have been left to accept the consequences of their decisions. Instead two administrations continue to inflate a busted love doll back up for one more ride.

    *One symptom of the mess we got in was the "insurance" the banks carried on each other....they were called credit default swaps. These "insurances" would not have been necessary had the gubmint not forced the banks to give out loans to unworthy home buyers creating the housing bubble in the first place. The bankers were trying to hedge their bets against some bad loans...but then the whole thing got carried away with disinterested parties buying "insurance" basically betting a swap would fail due to the enourmous weight of bad debt the original "insurance" was trying to cover...

    * The corporations were trying to make money for their shareholders as always. You want someone to blame, blame the gubmint...as usual.(This time we can put a face to the root of the problem...Congressman Frank, please stand up and take a bow)

    *Hopefully we will see a gubmint soon who will stop the nonsense.
     
  15. PatsFanInVa

    PatsFanInVa PatsFans.com Supporter PatsFans.com Supporter

    Joined:
    Mar 19, 2006
    Messages:
    20,543
    Likes Received:
    294
    Ratings:
    +568 / 8 / -8

    Here's where we get into the mythology of the housing run-up being caused solely by government action, in one of the few instances of government stepping in and stopping red-lining with the CRA.

    In fact, the CRA was nowhere near sufficient to cause the housing bubble, and had at most a minor contributing role.

    Your point about the credit default swaps is a very good one; but the notion eventually became protection of even the most enormous downside risk, but by companies that had no reserve capitalization requirements to write these "insurance" policies. This is one reason the dismantlement of Glass-Stegall in Graham-Leach-Bliley (late 90s,) is key to our current mess. With firewalls between commercial banks, investment banks, and insurance companies (the previous scheme of things,) you couldn't just make bets and buy "gambling insurance". Insurance companies are legislated (by the states) to capitalize at certain levels commensurate with the risks they underwrite. Since nobody could force this state of affairs on a bank just promising to pay a bad bet under certain circumstances, the worst thing that could happen to any individual bad actor was bankruptcy -- and that would only tank the corporate entity. There is no skin in the game because of easy bankruptcy laws, and they stood to make much more than they lost, on an individual firm basis. However, systemically, they stood to tank the entire economy.

    The commoditization of easily parceled out mortgage backed securities is another big factor in 2008's collapse; people could buy and sell, and again bet on (/with) the values of the homes essentially owned by those banks. Big chunks of the national and global economy (not just housing) were thereby tied into the value of individual homes. Were that not the case, a drop in home values would stop at the door of the issuing institution.

    Let's say you write a mortgage you intend to service for 30 years, take your 7% or whatever, and call it a day. Then the bottom drops out of the market. Well, people may still "strategically default." Your bank would still be short on lending capital. You would still be in a crappy place. Your common sense might tell you to lend prudently, carry out inspections of the property and the borrower, make some hay while the market's good but remember to diversify and not rely on a bubble.

    But wouldn't it be cool if you could just write the loan, turn it over, get lots of the profit now as a sort of finder's fee, and have no skin in the game ever again? Of course!

    But who'd be insane enough to buy such a loan? Oh, you don't have to be insane, you just insure against your downside risk, and buy and sell as often as possible so you're not the one without a chair when the music stops. Realizing these basic ground-rules, we have not only demand for housing to think about, but demand for chopped-up, repackaged mortgages, as an engine for activities intended to further inflame already irrational buying.

    Just a few more pieces of the mosaic we saw in the 2008 collapse.

    The statement "IMO, everything would be fine and dandy if we let the banks fail" seems to be a rosy construction out of thin air of the road not taken. When the banks failed in 1929 and the early 30s, it was not as rosy a picture as you paint. We don't know what would have happened, but everybody with a financial background pretty much agreed that we didn't want to roll those dice (hence the loaded gun to all our heads.)

    I disagree with about half of what you said but it's not like we're totally at odds. I'm personally of the opinion that the big banks are too big. We haven't fixed that.

    PFnV
     

Share This Page

unset ($sidebar_block_show); ?>