OCCUPY

[blueblood]

I already pointed out why you cant pin too much of this on rates. First of all they dont apply to any of the tertiary lenders that triggered the crisis. Furthermore the rates were not reduced until after Bush was elected... Housing prices had already almost tripled between 1996 and then.

So go ahead and explain... How did the reduced rates heat up the realestate market 5 years before they even came into existance?

http://www.seodisco.com/images/home-values.gif

Sorry... rate reductions came after the market was already super-heated.

You know what DOES correlate with the timeframe though? The growth of CDSs, CDOs, and the rapid expsansion of derivatives and securitization. You know... the credit default swap market that grew from nothing to 50 TRILLION dollars over the exact same timeframe housing prices increased?

And the only crickets that came around here were when I asked you for proof of your claim that the government forced low standards on lenders, and you produced absolutly no supporting evidence. Because thats a myth of course. Iv read the CRA and it just aint there. Iv looked for it in FDIC regulations and its not there either... and even if it was none of the big lenders accepted FDIC deposits.

So you didn't read the article...

Here's a list of fed rates since 1990

My link

If you notice the hikes in interest rates come just before a recessionary period - housing bubble and the dot com bubble. The fed was down to extremely low levels in the early 2000's and the early 90's. Those fed rates dropping led to an increase in the money supply, and that money finds its way into speculators hands that go and chase the hot investment at the time. In the 90's it was tech. In the early 2000's it was housing. The fed rates propped up the dotcoms with cheap money after that popped, the fed tried to inflate its way out of that recession and money found its way into housing.

That forbes article is evidence enough for this discussion and was written by somebody with greater knowledge of the housing bubble than the either of us. Your lenders were only at 5%, not enough to prop up the market, guess who the main culprits were? That would be the GSE's Fannie and Freddie. Read the article.

With the fed printing money like they are, it inflates prices of everything, not just houses. For example after QE2, we had the price of food commodities take off immediately after it was announced and it sustained those levels until May when QE2 ran out.

[dre]

So you didn't read the article...

Here's a list of fed rates since 1990

My link

If you notice the hikes in interest rates come just before a recessionary period - housing bubble and the dot com bubble. The fed was down to extremely low levels in the early 2000's and the early 90's. Those fed rates dropping led to an increase in the money supply, and that money finds its way into speculators hands that go and chase the hot investment at the time. In the 90's it was tech. In the early 2000's it was housing. The fed rates propped up the dotcoms with cheap money after that popped, the fed tried to inflate its way out of that recession and money found its way into housing.

That forbes article is evidence enough for this discussion and was written by somebody with greater knowledge of the housing bubble than the either of us. Your lenders were only at 5%, not enough to prop up the market, guess who the main culprits were? That would be the GSE's Fannie and Freddie. Read the article.

With the fed printing money like they are, it inflates prices of everything, not just houses. For example after QE2, we had the price of food commodities take off immediately after it was announced and it sustained those levels until May when QE2 ran out.

You didnt read your own link... It clearly proves what I just told you...

That the rate reductions did not happen until AFTER the realestate market was already superheated and the derivatives and cds markets were already exploding.

So go ahead and explain to me how rate hikes that happened in 2001 caused house prices to double between 1996 and 2002? Time machine?

As for Fanny and Freddy... In the lead up to the meltdown their percentage of the market was shrinking and the private sector was securing a large majority of US mortgages, and almost all the SubPrime loans which were sold using collateralized debt obligations which was a space fanny and freddy didnt play in.

Its true though! Fanny and Freddy contributed to the housing bubble... by increasing the level of securitization in the market as a whole. Like I said its that securitization that let all the capital flood into the market. They played a part but youre still ignoring the 800lb guerilla in the room.

[blueblood]

You didnt read your own link... It clearly proves what I just told you...

That the rate reductions did not happen until AFTER the realestate market was already superheated and the derivatives and cds markets were already exploding.

So go ahead and explain to me how rate hikes that happened in 2001 caused house prices to double between 1996 and 2002? Time machine?

As for Fanny and Freddy... In the lead up to the meltdown their percentage of the market was shrinking and the private sector was securing a large majority of US mortgages, and almost all the SubPrime loans which were sold using collateralized debt obligations which was a space fanny and freddy didnt play in.

Its true though! Fanny and Freddy contributed to the housing bubble... by increasing the level of securitization in the market as a whole. Like I said its that securitization that let all the capital flood into the market. They played a part but youre still ignoring the 800lb guerilla in the room.

Did you look at the rates during the 90's when you say the first part of the housing bubble took roots. They were down and slowly rose a modest 3% when the dot coms took place. Note that they never ever came above the initial fed rate right at 1990. The rate reductions the second go round were to try and stimulate the economy like in 2001 when the dot coms tanked.

except there were no rate hikes in 2001 as stated by the website, in fact there was systematic rate reductions...

Fanny and Freddie were up to about 57% of the mortgage market as stated by forbes and they said that alone would create a bubble.

I don't see what your issue with speculazation is. here's an example. China is a fast growing economy and needs to buy soybeans. Speculators look at what's going on in China and decide to go long on soybean delivery contracts. With the fed and QE2 occurring, there is a lot more money floating around for the speculators to play with, so they pump more money into soybeans, and as a result it went to over 14$/bu. Now there was reports of a European situation that can cause problems around the world, so the speculators short their soybean deliver contracts and the price falls to just over 12%/bu. What is wrong with that? The housing speculators did the same thing, only the market was much bigger. Had there not been QE2, there would have not been as much money and therefore the price of soybeans wouldn't have been bid up as much, That's the problem same as in the housing market.

[dre]

Did you look at the rates during the 90's when you say the first part of the housing bubble took roots. They were down and slowly rose a modest 3% when the dot coms took place. Note that they never ever came above the initial fed rate right at 1990. The rate reductions the second go round were to try and stimulate the economy like in 2001 when the dot coms tanked.

except there were no rate hikes in 2001 as stated by the website, in fact there was systematic rate reductions...

Fanny and Freddie were up to about 57% of the mortgage market as stated by forbes and they said that alone would create a bubble.

I don't see what your issue with speculazation is. here's an example. China is a fast growing economy and needs to buy soybeans. Speculators look at what's going on in China and decide to go long on soybean delivery contracts. With the fed and QE2 occurring, there is a lot more money floating around for the speculators to play with, so they pump more money into soybeans, and as a result it went to over 14$/bu. Now there was reports of a European situation that can cause problems around the world, so the speculators short their soybean deliver contracts and the price falls to just over 12%/bu. What is wrong with that? The housing speculators did the same thing, only the market was much bigger. Had there not been QE2, there would have not been as much money and therefore the price of soybeans wouldn't have been bid up as much, That's the problem same as in the housing market.

I don't see what your issue with speculazation is

Im going to assume you mean speculation... and no I dont have a problem with it per say. And securitization isnt necessarily bad either. You cant really get rid of those things in a capitalist system.

My problem is the structural problems in how its set up.

First of all the ratings agencies are paid directly by the market maker whos securities they are ratings. Thats a blatant conflict of interest, and we now know those ratings agencies were assigning triple A ratings to securities with almost nothing of value in them. And I also dont think that market makers should be able to bet against their own securities without dislosing that to other investors they are promoting those same securities.

The problem is how the banking system is regulated. The regulatory regime is built around traditional banks, so most of the regulations are built into the FDIC. The private sector has simply gotten around the rules by creating all these pseudo banks and thrifts, and realestate trusts. Those big SubPrime companies were were almost completely unregulated. Commercial banks are regulated and they stayed OUT of subprime for the most part. Fanny and Freddy stayed out of the sub prime market as well for the most part.

With the fed and QE2 occurring, there is a lot more money floating around for the speculators to play with, so they pump more money into soybeans, and as a result it went to over 14$/bu. Now there was reports of a European situation that can cause problems around the world, so the speculators short their soybean deliver contracts and the price falls to just over 12%/bu. What is wrong with that?

I dont have a problem with short selling, or placing a bet. What I find questionable is that these market makers were short selling their OWN securities, while promoting a long position and pitching them to investors. Thats fraud, because the problems they saw with these securities which caused them to bet against them, were not disclosed to investors.

Thats just blatant garden variety fraud and it might still land some people in prison. When the dance stops market makers may have to return all the money that global investors paid them for these worthless securities they created.

Ya know... these companies are damn lucky that the public doesnt understand what happened.

Edited October 25, 2011 by dre

[dre]

Anyway thanks for the chat BB, I think we have gone as far as we can with this.

Ironically... even though we are arguing over whether is was the fed/government to blame or market makers like Goldman Sachs, these are essentially the same bunch of people

Former treasury secretary Hank Paulson, Paulson's bailout chief Neel Kashkari, Interim Treasury investment officer Reuben Jeffrey, Key Treasury players Dan Jester, Steve Shafran, Edward C. Forst, and Robert K. Steel, Key New York Federal Reserve players Stephen Friedman (head of the New York Fed board of governors) , William C. Dudley (head of the New York Fed's unit that buys and sells government securities), and E. Gerald Corrigan (charged with convening a group to analyze risk on Wall Street).

Turns out all the people running the governments financial apparatus are all Goldman Sachs executives or employees. The guy in charge of giving Goldman Sachs two gigantic bailouts even though Goldman was stating publically that their exposure in the AIG pass-though was fully hedged? Neel Kashkari... Vice president of... you guess it. Goldman sachs.

Which would also explain why literally NOTHING was done to regulate the shadow banking system. These guys are already looking for the next bubble to inflate and burst and it wont be long.

Perhaps a more constructive debate instead of arguing whether it was the government or the private financial sector that raped us up the arse the hardest, would be to debate whether or not these are even really two separate entities.

Maybe we're blaming the same bunch of folks after all

Imagine what would happen if the Occupy Walstreet movement that blames the financial sector for the meltdown, and the Tea Party movement that blames the government and monetary policy realized that they are actually talking about the exact same bunch of folks?

Edited October 25, 2011 by dre

[Moonlight Graham]

Yah, that sounds right, head to both places if they want to protest. I think there are enough occupy protests here in Canada for the same thing as the USA, uni grads are realizing that some of their degrees don't necessarily get them employment and naturally they are frustrated. I can't blame them for being frustrated because of the expense they paid to get said degree. How would you feel if you just got your degree and the only job you could get that paid well was roughnecking out in Alberta, oh and you get to work with someone who barely has their grade 12? I understand them being frustrated, but at the same time, if they are so upset about people in the finance sector making a killing, why didn't they take finance while they were at uni and join in the party? Had some of those kids taken management, commerce, economic or finance classes at uni, they would know how things are done and might not be so frustrated, and knowing how things are done could work around it and spend their time finding work instead of protesting.

The thing that is truly garbage is that nobody tells these kids when they are in high school that a uni degree in history or sociology or whatever will not get you a job. High school teachers/counselors and certainly nobody in university told me this...luckily I dropped my English/Fine Art major after 1st year. Paying tens of thousands for a mostly unemployable education you could have got for free at the library is a sham. I don't fault the kids, they are 18 and don't know how the world works until 4 years later and in debt. Some of them are lucky and have natural interest in an employable area of education or parents who will guide them right.

[William Ashley]

Its not about what you get its about what you got. The future plays into the presents actions but the present should never be sacrificed for the future. In the end all we have is the past.

The future comes to you, no need to make it. You can position all you'd like but your life is experiencing the position. Life js all about being adjusted to deal with everywhere you may be.

It js hard to comment on a future you never had with anything more than an imaginary sense of authority.

You can talk about your experience but why talk about non experiences?

$500 a month is the cost ofa high priced fitness club not a lot. At my local university they have sauna and pool and lots of fitness facikities, climbing wall squash courts. I win't mention all the percs some official and some not but it is easy to get $500 worth of services each month out of the deal,

$1000 of that wikl e paid minuimum dir any true poor person. $300 a month covers the gym itself no problem. $10,000 isn't real money to anyone but a bum,

I have more value than that and I am a bum, aim higher. this talk of a few 10's of thousands of dollars for 4 free years of life is jokable.

If it were hundreds of thousand s like harvard it might be real, but $10,000 a year is destitution rate cash

thats a weeken d vacation for someone who actually has real money. Ifyou are cryj g iver a t bil you have greater money issues than you know,

mygosh bigwigs have million dollar flights this isn't even the bar tab.

if you can cry you havn't cried enough in life to know it.

Edited October 25, 2011 by William Ashley

[Dithers]

The thing that is truly garbage is that nobody tells these kids when they are in high school that a uni degree in history or sociology or whatever will not get you a job. High school teachers/counselors and certainly nobody in university told me this...luckily I dropped my English/Fine Art major after 1st year. Paying tens of thousands for a mostly unemployable education you could have got for free at the library is a sham. I don't fault the kids, they are 18 and don't know how the world works until 4 years later and in debt. Some of them are lucky and have natural interest in an employable area of education or parents who will guide them right.

What you say about highschool guidance is untrue. Seeing as how it is no more than a relatively meaningless anecdotal, I won't dwell on it.

[blueblood]

The thing that is truly garbage is that nobody tells these kids when they are in high school that a uni degree in history or sociology or whatever will not get you a job. High school teachers/counselors and certainly nobody in university told me this...luckily I dropped my English/Fine Art major after 1st year. Paying tens of thousands for a mostly unemployable education you could have got for free at the library is a sham. I don't fault the kids, they are 18 and don't know how the world works until 4 years later and in debt. Some of them are lucky and have natural interest in an employable area of education or parents who will guide them right.

Another thing those kids get burnt with is a bloated bureaucracy at those universities that they have to pay for. Apparently admin costs are the fastest rising costs of a university. So not only are lots paying for a worthless degree, they're getting soaked while doing it.

This is why they need to cut out some science/ lit classes in high school and ram in some finance, economics, management, commerce classes and make them mandatory. The economy/ financial system affects everyone and it should be a good idea to know how it works. Take out those ridiculous spares in high school.

They should be occupying campus as well!

[Moonlight Graham]

What you say about highschool guidance is untrue. Seeing as how it is no more than a relatively meaningless anecdotal, I won't dwell on it.

Well it was in my case. The other problem in my school was that everyone seemed to push university over college if you had the grades. Nobody ever said "you can go into the trades and make good money", or "ladies, if you want to be a dental hygienist you can make $35 an hour". There should have been a lot more career counseling/prep and job shadowing (in what you're interested in, not spending the day at dad's work) in high school. But hell that was over a decade ago, maybe things have changed.

[Moonlight Graham]

Take out those ridiculous spares in high school.

Agreed. All I did on those was go to McDonald's and work on my tan!

They should be occupying campus as well!

Universities are a business. Honestly, with today's technology a substantial percentage of courses could be taught online via video lectures using the best professors in the country and around the world, with TA's or contract instructors helping out. Many popular courses are already taught like this. Most 1st and 2nd year classes are so big that you have little or no interaction with the prof during the lectures anyways. This would save gazillions of dollars on tuition because of the reduced need for classroom space & other buildings, paying 3rd-rate profs, reduced admin costs etc. Most textbooks should also be made available to buy online as PDF files or whatever instead of being gouged by publishers and university bookstore corporations and needlessly chopping down forests to print these books that are useless/out-of-date in 2 years.

Edited October 25, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[Bonam]

Agreed. All I did on those was go to McDonald's and work on my tan!

Disagree. The spare was probably my most productive and educational time block in high school. Scheduled mine for the end of the day and went to university to take classes...

Universities are a business. Honestly, with today's technology a substantial percentage of courses could be taught online via video lectures using the best professors in the country and around the world, with TA's or contract instructors helping out. Many popular courses are already taught like this. Most 1st and 2nd year classes are so big that you have little or no interaction with the prof during the lectures anyways. This would save gazillions of dollars on tuition because of the reduced need for classroom space & other buildings, paying 3rd-rate profs, reduced admin costs etc. Most textbooks should also be made available to buy online as PDF files or whatever instead of being gouged by publishers and university bookstore corporations and needlessly chopping down forests to print these books that are useless/out-of-date in 2 years.

This is all true... but it actually ignores the main benefits of university education. Those are meeting other like-minded students, studying and learning together with them, and building a network of contacts in your field. If you just sit at home and watch videos, you will lose that benefit.

[jacee]

Goldman Sachs and Occupy Wall Street Square Off over a Credit Union Fundraiser October 24, 2011

The official invitation to the 25th anniversary dinner of the Lower East Side People's Federal Credit Union offered the oddest coupling since Felix Unger moved into Oscar Madison’s apartment at 1049 Park Avenue. Sponsoring the event was Goldman Sachs. Among the honorees was Occupy Wall Street.

It came as a surprise to Goldman Sachs for sure, and Goldman quickly pulled its name as a sponsor and reneged on its commitment to put $5,000 toward the dinner. The contradiction is not unknown. Plenty of groups that advocate for tighter controls on the banks or stronger positions against bankers and mortgage brokers also solicit and accept grants from commercial lenders and investment banks. At what point does it become a problem?

Clearly the Occupy Wall Street movement, which has targeted the enormous economic power of Wal Street firms such as Goldman Sachs, is a clear dividing line. Half of the sponsors, including Capital One, withdrew when they discovered the Occupy role at the dinner.

Although the Goldman withdrawal, costing $5,000, was of concern to some, it apparently wasn’t disturbing enough to make the Credit Union ditch OWS. An Occupy participant named Pete Dutro thought Goldman’s withdrawal was understandable, commenting, “Do you blame them?”

Goldman has been a longtime supporter of the financial education program of the Lower East Side People's Federal Credit Union, which oddly enough was the depository originally chosen by the Occupy Wall Street group for holding the money received from donations and fundraising, in part because they were searching for a bank not owned and controlled by Wall Street.

Clearly OWS is making Wall Street nervous!

And they just made it news by pulling their sponsorship.

[Shwa]

But hell that was over a decade ago, maybe things have changed.

My kids' high school guidance, even as far back as ten years ago, provided plenty of career counselling and opportunities for students to experience their interests first hand through job shadowing, co-op and internships. They looked at the academic 'stream' the student was in and made suggestions accordingly including university, college and trade schools.

[Moonlight Graham]

Disagree. The spare was probably my most productive and educational time block in high school. Scheduled mine for the end of the day and went to university to take classes...

Well i think it's fair to say that you're by far the exception to the rule. That wasn't your high school education though. Why not stick kids in a high school class and make them learn something? I'm not sure the intent of spares. Reduce stress? Give kids time to do homework, especially kids with part-time jobs who are saving for college? Teach them to manage free time like they'll need to do in University?

Would have been sweet to save up all spares from the week and take every friday off

This is all true... but it actually ignores the main benefits of university education. Those are meeting other like-minded students, studying and learning together with them, and building a network of contacts in your field. If you just sit at home and watch videos, you will lose that benefit.

I agree. That's why in 1st & second year they have separate labs/tutorials/discussion groups etc. beyond the 150-student lectures. I could go on about flaws/benefits of current universities forever, so i'll stop now haha.

[WWWTT]

Ok now this protest is starting to turn ugly in Canada and the US.

In Oakland Cal. the police have used tear gas against the protesters.

Some small rukus in Vancouver and a possible confrontation coming up in Halifax.

Is this how protests work?Nobody listens or pays any attention until things get ugly?

WWWTT

[Moonlight Graham]

Is this how protests work?Nobody listens or pays any attention until things get ugly?

you're saying nobody has been paying attention until this rukus broke out? How long have we been discussion Occupy on this forum?

[Moonlight Graham]

double post

Edited October 26, 2011 by Moonlight Graham

[Guest Derek L]

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Occupy+Vancouver+protesters+expect+police+employ+force+tent+city/5605939/story.html

As mentioned above, the “tent city” in front of the Art Gallery will be coming down soon……..not a mater if, but when……..as in the article, the current mayor will have to remove the tents eventually………The Grey Cup weekend is Nov. 24-27.……So figure on the city needing at least a week prior to clean up the Art Gallery and set-up the various venues for the Grey Cup………..I suppose the real question, will the ~150 protestors go peacefully or will the VPD have to break out the tear gas & rubber bullets? After the embarrassment of the Stanley Cup riots, the VPD (and Mayor) will be looking for atonement.

[WWWTT]

you're saying nobody has been paying attention until this rukus broke out? How long have we been discussion Occupy on this forum?

My appologies.

I think I meant to say "results".Only a serious rukus or some level of violence can attain any possible results.Or something along those lines.

This is controversial of me to say!

However we are not like much of the public!

We are fully aware/engage in political debate,unlike the majority of the public.

I wouldn't be suprised to see a clearer voice come from these OCCUPY protest as friction increases!

WWWTT

[jacee]

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Occupy+Vancouver+protesters+expect+police+employ+force+tent+city/5605939/story.html

As mentioned above, the “tent city” in front of the Art Gallery will be coming down soon……..not a mater if, but when……..as in the article, the current mayor will have to remove the tents eventually………The Grey Cup weekend is Nov. 24-27.……So figure on the city needing at least a week prior to clean up the Art Gallery and set-up the various venues for the Grey Cup………..I suppose the real question, will the ~150 protestors go peacefully or will the VPD have to break out the tear gas & rubber bullets? After the embarrassment of the Stanley Cup riots, the VPD (and Mayor) will be looking for atonement.

Every time politicians order police to get violent, protesters gain more public support and donation$.

Even the annoyed neighbours in NY support the protesters aims.

Occupiers have exposed the violence ordered by the state against non-violent people who rebel.

Violent corporate 'victory' is short and hollow, because the movement is stronger than any and all politicians.

Who demands it?

The profitmakers ... "venues" ... order police violence against protesters now?

That'll go over well with the public.

State violence is a huge mistake.

Edited October 27, 2011 by jacee

[Guest Derek L]

And if they do this:

locally organizers have promised to occupy the Holy Rosary Cathedral in downtown Vancouver this Sunday at 10 a.m., right in the middle of church services Read more: http://www.theprovince.com/news/Occupy+Vatican+Online+campaign+urges+rush+Vancouver+church/5612220/story.html#ixzz1bwZnfCCi

That will be it for them...........They aren’t really bugging anyone in front of the Art Gallery……but you start interrupting people’s right to worship peacefully……..The tent city might not even last till November..

[capricorn]

http://www.vancouversun.com/travel/Occupy+Vancouver+protesters+expect+police+employ+force+tent+city/5605939/story.html

As mentioned above, the “tent city” in front of the Art Gallery will be coming down soon……..not a mater if, but when……..as in the article, the current mayor will have to remove the tents eventually………The Grey Cup weekend is Nov. 24-27.……So figure on the city needing at least a week prior to clean up the Art Gallery and set-up the various venues for the Grey Cup………..I suppose the real question, will the ~150 protestors go peacefully or will the VPD have to break out the tear gas & rubber bullets? After the embarrassment of the Stanley Cup riots, the VPD (and Mayor) will be looking for atonement.

The other matter is that the protesters dug trenches around their tents during the downpour to keep them dry and the damaged lawn has to be repaired. There's more than a little work involved there.

[Moonlight Graham]

My appologies.

I think I meant to say "results".Only a serious rukus or some level of violence can attain any possible results.Or something along those lines.

This is controversial of me to say!

However we are not like much of the public!

We are fully aware/engage in political debate,unlike the majority of the public.

I wouldn't be suprised to see a clearer voice come from these OCCUPY protest as friction increases!

WWWTT

..

I don't think what you said is controversial. Many instances where violence is used and gains much attention where it otherwise wouldn't ie: terrorism, or say Columbine etc. (which was a kind of terrorism one could argue).

The problem i think, as many have noted, is there is no concrete "goal" or endgame for the protests. Even if there is violence, what is it going to achieve? Greater income equality? Greater corporate responsibility? And what does that really mean?

There is a need for an intelligent, well-spoken leader to give direction to this movement and take it away from the perception of just a bunch young idiots who don't even know what they're protesting about. It seems a waste that such a huge, potentially powerful protest movement may end up a great waste of energy with little results.

[Guest Derek L]

The other matter is that the protesters dug trenches around their tents during the downpour to keep them dry and the damaged lawn has to be repaired. There's more than a little work involved there.

Indeed.......I give them mid Nov