OCCUPY

[Argus]

They should be were their masters are camped, and Washingtons masters are in New York.

Yeah, but those masters are beyond the influence of anything but money. The politicians are somewhat more open to convincing.

[bud]

i wonder how many of the people who whine about the occupy protests were advocates of the tea party movement which encouraged pretty much the same thing.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pql2ETgegR4

[cybercoma]

No, most people do not say that. Even conservatives don't say that, except in the US where most of them are crazy.

The actual desire is for government to be involved in people's lives as little as NECESSARY.

And regulating and restricting major financial institutions from doing obscenely stupid things which would bring the entire economy crashing down is one of those things I believe most of us agree is necessary.

Wall Street is driven by greed. Naturally. Capitalist corporations are amoral (not immoral). Their only purpose for existing is the pursuit of profit. That's not a bad thing or a good thing. It's simply the way things are. But because of this singular motivation society needs to regulate them so that their earnest pursuit of the absolute highest possible profit does not unduly go against the public interest.

I agree with all of that. I was glossing over things, but my point is that there's no reason they have to be camped out in Washington. They're drawing attention to Wall Street, both figuratively, as in what they have been doing, and literally by being there. Washington is well aware of what's going on. I'm not sure being in one place or the other makes much of a difference. That's all I'm saying. At the end of the day, you're right. They support government and they want the government to intervene. Since Wall Street is as much an idea as an actual place, taking up space there, I believe is just as appropriate. Wall Street is now becoming synonymous with discontent and the movement thanks to them being there. I'm not sure it would have had the same effect if they were only at the White House.

[bud]

my point is that there's no reason they have to be camped out in Washington. They're drawing attention to Wall Street, both figuratively, as in what they have been doing, and literally by being there. Washington is well aware of what's going on. I'm not sure being in one place or the other makes much of a difference.

the government and wallstreet are in bed together.

just look at the money trail and the millions these politicians in washington have received from wallstreet.

[blueblood]

No, most people do not say that. Even conservatives don't say that, except in the US where most of them are crazy.

The actual desire is for government to be involved in people's lives as little as NECESSARY.

And regulating and restricting major financial institutions from doing obscenely stupid things which would bring the entire economy crashing down is one of those things I believe most of us agree is necessary.

Wall Street is driven by greed. Naturally. Capitalist corporations are amoral (not immoral). Their only purpose for existing is the pursuit of profit. That's not a bad thing or a good thing. It's simply the way things are. But because of this singular motivation society needs to regulate them so that their earnest pursuit of the absolute highest possible profit does not unduly go against the public interest.

So you think that the average Joe with their sense of entitlement had nothing to do with this and it was all the banks fault?

Really???

Everybody is motivated by "greed" except the average Joe calls it getting ahead.

George w. Bush stated that wall street got drunk. Well who sold the alcohol???

It was bad gov't policy by politicians elected by people wanting more and more to fill their sense of entitlement, the question is why wouldn't bankers make those loans, it's cheap money and the gov't is there to bail everyone out. The market does a far better job of regulating stupidity than a politician.

[Shwa]

So you think that the average Joe with their sense of entitlement had nothing to do with this and it was all the banks fault?

Really???

Yes, really. They are the experts advising non-experts on the viability of a scheme that was highly risky both for the client and themselves. If they were surgeons they would have been sued.

Everybody is motivated by "greed" except the average Joe calls it getting ahead.

The average Joe wasn' trying to get ahead on unsustainable usury. He was getting what appeared to be an affordable home for his family which was advised on by the so-called financial experts who came to the table with specialized training and experience hard selling them on a typical dream. Keep in mind it wasn't just the peak period buyers that got burned, it was practically everyone in regions where the housing market values got hosed, including people who bought before the peak periods.

George w. Bush stated that wall street got drunk. Well who sold the alcohol???

Banking CEOs.

It was bad gov't policy by politicians elected by people wanting more and more to fill their sense of entitlement, the question is why wouldn't bankers make those loans, it's cheap money and the gov't is there to bail everyone out. The market does a far better job of regulating stupidity than a politician.

Riiiiiight.

[capricorn]

It was bad gov't policy by politicians elected by people wanting more and more to fill their sense of entitlement, the question is why wouldn't bankers make those loans, it's cheap money and the gov't is there to bail everyone out. The market does a far better job of regulating stupidity than a politician.

Finger pointing at politicians is mostly restricted to criticism that they're in bed with Wall Street. And Wall Street is wrongly equated with the banks. What the vast majority of protesters and their supporters are conveniently ignoring is the definitive role that governments have had in ingraining economic problems that were made worse once the global economic crisis took hold.

I recommend, perhaps surprisingly, a few articles from the business and academic world that suggest the real villains in the current economic crisis aren’t necessarily who the “occupiers” think they are. Hint: the real culprits in the global economic collapse aren’t simply greedy bankers or corporate elites, but greedy, do-anything-for-a-vote politicians who encouraged their populations to think that they could live beyond their means. For decades, going back at least to the 1970s, successive American governments, Democrat and Republican, have promoted the notion that everyone should be able to own a house, whether or not they could afford it, and, thereby, fed the housing and real estate bubble that eventually sparked the sub-prime mortgage crisis and the current financial crisis in the West.

“Banks and corporations are taking the ideological hit for the world’s financial crises and ethical failures, but the common element in these converging international growth crises isn’t the corporate sector,” writes the Financial Post’s Terence Corcoran. “Blaming the banks is now a common theme among demonstrators and some academics … (But) Europe’s banks are not collapsing because of banker excess. They are collapsing because of massive government debts that governments cannot repay. It’s not a banking crisis, it’s a statist crisis created by sovereign nations whose politicians borrowed trillions to pay for vote-buying programs that were beyond the ability of the nations to carry.”

---

Of course, ultimately, the responsibility lies with all those who voted for those politicians. Or, to borrow Walt Kelly’s famous phrase, “We have seen the enemy, and he is us.”

http://blogs.ottawacitizen.com/2011/10/18/lessons-for-occupy-ottawa-figuring-out-whos-the-real-enemy/

For years, politicians of every stripe have tempted voters with promises of entitlements of all shapes and sizes. Once elected, they drained the public purse to make good on those promises and to reward loyalty. Then came the global crisis, stimulus spending and bailouts to save companies "too crucial to the economy to let fail".

Looking at the whole picture, politicians are getting a free ride.

[blueblood]

The average Joe wasn' trying to get ahead on unsustainable usury. He was getting what appeared to be an affordable home for his family which was advised on by the so-called financial experts who came to the table with specialized training and experience hard selling them on a typical dream. Keep in mind it wasn't just the peak period buyers that got burned, it was practically everyone in regions where the housing market values got hosed, including people who bought before the peak periods.

Banking CEOs.

Riiiiiight.

Shenanigans!!!

What was the average Joe doing buying a 400,000 dollar house new cars and vacations and massive credit card debt on an average American salary. If you can't afford it don't buy it. Hell I'd like to live in a mansion, and a brand new truck, but I can't justify buying it. This is what happens when you print money, it eventually has to go somewhere, and it went into housing and there wasn't enouh wealth created to pay for it. Nobody has a gun to the head of those people to take those loans, nobody had forced them to elect spend happy politicians.

Really banking ceo's set monetary policy and interest rates?

Yes it is right. But you keep believing the old scapegoat story...

[bush_cheney2004]

What was the average Joe doing buying a 400,000 dollar house new cars and vacations and massive credit card debt on an average American salary. If you can't afford it don't buy it...

Yep...the American Dream includes paying that mortgage and credit card bill, not dreaming about how to get more without paying for it. Wannabe dreamers turned it into their own nightmare.

[jacee]

The market does a far better job of regulating stupidity than a politician.

And the 1% does a good job manipulating the 'market' to suit itself.

There is no 'free market'. It's just a playground for the manipulators.

[jacee]

If you can't afford it don't buy it.

I'm thinking a boycott of credit would be a very good idea, and since 50-60% + support the 'occupy' movement, it could have quite an impact.

Edited October 21, 2011 by jacee

[lukin]

I'm thinking a boycott of credit would be a very good idea, and since 50-60% + support the 'occupy' movement, it could have quite an impact.

Those who are too stupid to understand the concept of credit (most occupiers) should definitely boycott credit. Good point.

[Shwa]

What was the average Joe doing buying a 400,000 dollar house new cars and vacations and massive credit card debt on an average American salary. If you can't afford it don't buy it. Hell I'd like to live in a mansion, and a brand new truck, but I can't justify buying it. This is what happens when you print money, it eventually has to go somewhere, and it went into housing and there wasn't enouh wealth created to pay for it. Nobody has a gun to the head of those people to take those loans, nobody had forced them to elect spend happy politicians.

Strawman. By generalizing about the problem, you can generalize about the cause and conveniently ignore the details.

'Average Joe' was hard sold a shitty bill of goods and paid for his lack of expertise and understanding. The banking CEO's did not, and they were the one's selling the shitty bill of goods. In fact, while Average Joe was losing his mansion and brand new truck, etc., most of the banking executives continued to get bonus money, some of it coming from bailout funds even though they knew that the usury was unsustainable.

You can't blame the fox in the henhouse when you invite him in with all kinds of promises of low cost chicken.

[Boges]

Strawman. By generalizing about the problem, you can generalize about the cause and conveniently ignore the details.

'Average Joe' was hard sold a shitty bill of goods and paid for his lack of expertise and understanding. The banking CEO's did not, and they were the one's selling the shitty bill of goods. In fact, while Average Joe was losing his mansion and brand new truck, etc., most of the banking executives continued to get bonus money, some of it coming from bailout funds even though they knew that the usury was unsustainable.

You can't blame the fox in the henhouse when you invite him in with all kinds of promises of low cost chicken.

So Greed is OK when it comes from people that are ignorant of the old saying "Live within your means". But it's unacceptable when people sell said people bad loans knowing they'll make out like a bandit.

Both parties are to blame here.

[Shwa]

Both parties are to blame here.

But only one of the parties is paying for it. Does that suggest equal culpability to you?

[bush_cheney2004]

But only one of the parties is paying for it. Does that suggest equal culpability to you?

This is false, as there have been numerous bank and mortgage lender failures. It is most definitely not one sided.

http://www.mortgagedaily.com/MortgageGraveyard.asp

[blueblood]

Strawman. By generalizing about the problem, you can generalize about the cause and conveniently ignore the details.

'Average Joe' was hard sold a shitty bill of goods and paid for his lack of expertise and understanding. The banking CEO's did not, and they were the one's selling the shitty bill of goods. In fact, while Average Joe was losing his mansion and brand new truck, etc., most of the banking executives continued to get bonus money, some of it coming from bailout funds even though they knew that the usury was unsustainable.

You can't blame the fox in the henhouse when you invite him in with all kinds of promises of low cost chicken.

That's like blaming the credit card company for somebody running up their credit card and having difficulty paying off the interest.

Its cheaper for the taxpayers to pay out the bonuses than go through litigation about breach of ceo's contract.

Yes you can blame the fox. He can eat rodents and other varmints, because the farmer will come at said fox with a shotgun for raiding the henhouse regardless.

[cybercoma]

Credit, jobs, and all these other things are quite beside the point.

This is the point:

Edited October 21, 2011 by cybercoma

[Shwa]

This is false, as there have been numerous bank and mortgage lender failures. It is most definitely not one sided.

Compare that to the overall effect of the economic situation in the US. Again, it's Joe Average paying the price, whether it's Joe Average homeowner, or Joe Average small time lender. All part of the 99% that is hyped about.

[Shwa]

That's like blaming the credit card company for somebody running up their credit card and having difficulty paying off the interest.

No, it's like the credit card company hard selling 10X the credit they know the client can't possibly pay off and then selling off that debt to someone else before the client defaults.

Its cheaper for the taxpayers to pay out the bonuses than go through litigation about breach of ceo's contract.

Right. Now there is a novel excuse as an apology. And again, another illustration of Joe Average "taxpayer" paying the price.

Yes you can blame the fox. He can eat rodents and other varmints, because the farmer will come at said fox with a shotgun for raiding the henhouse regardless.

No, you can't blame the fox because it's his nature to eat the chickens as well.

[blueblood]

No, it's like the credit card company hard selling 10X the credit they know the client can't possibly pay off and then selling off that debt to someone else before the client defaults.

Right. Now there is a novel excuse as an apology. And again, another illustration of Joe Average "taxpayer" paying the price.

No, you can't blame the fox because it's his nature to eat the chickens as well.

What and credit card companies don't market their credit cards??? What about those cards that let you redeem points for air line tickets? That's not marketing??? And why would a loaner knowingly sell something that a client couldn't pay off?? That's ridiculous. The bankers felt that the low interest rate, housing bubble couldn't be popped just like joe average and their banks share price got whollopped because of it.

Can still blame the fox. The foxes that survive know better than to linger too long in the henhouse or avoid the henhouse altogether. Right now the metaphorical fox has buckshot in his ass and needs some time to heal it, not try and scrounge up more chickens.

You've highlighted an important problem and that is "nature" perhaps its "nature" that needs an adjustment, not blaming the scapegoat.

[cybercoma]

The problem with the metaphorical fox is that he's going to run out of chickens pretty soon and he'll have to turn to cannibalism.

[bush_cheney2004]

Compare that to the overall effect of the economic situation in the US. Again, it's Joe Average paying the price, whether it's Joe Average homeowner, or Joe Average small time lender. All part of the 99% that is hyped about.

But it's not just "Joe Average"....Bank of America is still bleeding money over a disastrous acqisition of Countrywide. CitiBank is still not out of trouble either. These are not "small time" lenders. It is false to present circumstances in the US as only impacting average people, because 99% includes people and firms that are far from average. All Americans are part of the "average" in the end, even the rich ones.

[Shwa]

You've highlighted an important problem and that is "nature" perhaps its "nature" that needs an adjustment, not blaming the scapegoat.

You see? This is where we agree. Finding and blaming a scapegoat is the literal way of drawing attention to a larger plot and is a well used trick when one must generalize to illustrate a general problem. You have done this yourself, by trying to scapegoat the character of 'Joe Average.'

The dispute now becomes as to how such an adjustment to the 'nature' can be made. A lot of angry people are saying the adjustment must be punitive, at least to start; others are saying legislative to protect vast interests (in one mode or another, i.e. public or private). Others still are saying deregulate and let the market adjust itself.

I doubt anyone wants to repeat this once things equalize, but maintaining such a complex dialogue with so many variables is difficult to keep in the public consciousness. I don't think I have yet to see a comprehensible model that has anything like mass appeal in order to inform people about the dangers certain economic paths take.

For example, we can all argue about capitalism vs socialism vs mixed, etc. Some can argue for one flavour of capitalism over another. But there comes a time when the plot on capitalism becomes so complex that it is much easier to dispense with the details and take the risk. The risks offered - and taken - through the mortgage bubble is an illustration of a certain degree of understanding of the larger forces at work and, let's face it, not too many people are familiar with that level of specialization and end up trusting what the salesman says a little too much. (even the salesman isn't so sure half the time)

So, in the interim, some folks marching and screaming "Greed!" and pointing their fingers might be necessary, at the very least, to raise the issue and keep the issue in the public's mind until some acceptable 'nature' altering means is proposed and/or enacted. To me, this moves the issue out of the domain of ideologues and into a sort of overarching, inclusive democractic process that aims to benefit the public at large.

[CPCFTW]

Strawman. By generalizing about the problem, you can generalize about the cause and conveniently ignore the details.

'Average Joe' was hard sold a shitty bill of goods and paid for his lack of expertise and understanding. The banking CEO's did not, and they were the one's selling the shitty bill of goods. In fact, while Average Joe was losing his mansion and brand new truck, etc., most of the banking executives continued to get bonus money, some of it coming from bailout funds even though they knew that the usury was unsustainable.

You can't blame the fox in the henhouse when you invite him in with all kinds of promises of low cost chicken.

How exactly were people "hard sold" into borrowing hundreds of thousands of dollars to buy a house? Are you referring to the misguided lefty idealistic legislation to promote home ownership among the lower class?