OCCUPY

[jacee]

You mean like Microsoft investing in Apple, for example?

Anyway, a company investing in its competitors based on the specific knowledge that it will fail and thus boost its competitors is insider trading and is banned by law. Convictions for insider trading have seen heavy fines and jail terms imposed on people. On the other hand, a company simply hedging to try to reduce risk is sound business practice and is commonly done.

I'm talking about GoldmanSachs creating a 'hedge' fund against the bad mortgages, so they. Could make money when the(y let) mortgages fail. Then they made money again when the gov paid for the bad mortgages, and they got the houses too. Then they got an award from their colleagues for 'the best trade of the year.

They could have renegotiated the mortgages (so people could keep their houses) but they let them fail instead, because they (and their wealthy clients) could make more money on the hedge fund.

In my mind, that's criminal or should be, but they got an award instead of going to jail.

That's predatory wealth.

[Bonam]

I'm talking about GoldmanSachs creating a 'hedge' fund against the bad mortgages, so they. Could make money when the(y let) mortgages fail. Then they made money again when the gov paid for the bad mortgages, and they got the houses too. Then they got an award from their colleagues for 'the best trade of the year.

They could have renegotiated the mortgages (so people could keep their houses) but they let them fail instead, because they (and their wealthy clients) could make more money on the hedge fund.

In my mind, that's criminal or should be, but they got an award instead of going to jail.

That's predatory wealth.

Actually the only problem in this whole storyline, which really was unfair to the average joe out there, was that the government bailed out the institutions that held the bad mortgages. They should have been allowed to fail.

Selling mortgages and then hedging your risk on those mortgages is neither illegal nor immoral. It's sound business practice.

What is unsound is the government meddling in the free market, and not allowing companies that have made bad decisions to fail as they should have.

[GostHacked]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=RmpeWjC-GcU&feature=related

The message.

[Shwa]

What I’m trying to illustrate is that the protestors cause is futile……

Let's boil it down to this and, since this refers to the Occupy Toronto protest, we can examine how "futile" their "cause" is. Actually, it should be "causes."

Familiarize yourself with the concept of culture jamming, the idea that alternative messaging can - and is sometimes necessary - be injected into the public conciousness by groups of people either through direct protest or through some sort of mass media. (here is AdBusters, the quintessential culture jamming advocate)

Now, so far, Occupy Toronto has been on the news every night on CityTV, and likely every other TV station. More than likely it has been in every newspaper, radio station and is starting to make the rounds of magazines, blogs, websites, etc.

So if their "cause" is to get the various alternative messages out, not only has it not been "futile" it has been very, very successful. For example, one poster making the point about SunTV's low opinion about the protest, all the while protesters get national exposure from SunTV. That doesn't sound futile to me.

While the messages might be about change in this or that, there are no expectations of any radical change in anything. The only expectation is that, collectively, the messages have a better chance of getting out when more people are involved in communicating them. And so far they have been bang on.

As for those messages affecting the Great Undecided Center, well there is something for everyone isn't there? In their messaging I mean. If anyone were to take the time to carefully parse the various messages being offered, to have a listen, there would no doubt be something that resonates with them. And even IF there is no immediate traction with this person or that person, the idea is to get the messages out and let the ideas do the work even if it takes months or years.

And let's not forget the most important message of them all: freedom of peaceful assemnbly and freedom of association. No Canadian in their right mind would quarrel with that message.

[Black Dog]

A pointless exercise by a group of simplistic and naive people who, by and large, don't really have any idea what they want, just that they don't like their own general lack of success. Blame the banks and the rich? well, not really. Try blaming the people themselves. That's right, the 99%. They're as responsible as anyone else for borrowing too much, wanting too much NOW (which requires governments to borrow), and assuming a sense of entitlement to a lifestyle and consumer goods they haven't earned. I'm with Tasha Kheiriddin on this.

Tasha Kheiriddin

So you want people to spend less, buy less, and the economy to grow less?

What are you, some kinda commie?

FWIW, people's outrageous debt and spending habits aren't coming out of a vacuum.Owning a house, a car and all mod cons is the American Dream, after all.

[Guest Derek L]

Let's boil it down to this and, since this refers to the Occupy Toronto protest, we can examine how "futile" their "cause" is. Actually, it should be "causes."

Familiarize yourself with the concept of culture jamming, the idea that alternative messaging can - and is sometimes necessary - be injected into the public conciousness by groups of people either through direct protest or through some sort of mass media. (here is AdBusters, the quintessential culture jamming advocate)

Now, so far, Occupy Toronto has been on the news every night on CityTV, and likely every other TV station. More than likely it has been in every newspaper, radio station and is starting to make the rounds of magazines, blogs, websites, etc.

I’ll concede, without a doubt, that the “movement” is defiantly getting coverage in the mainstream media……..The news here (Vancouver) the last few nights has had it, as usually the fourth or fifth storey…….behind the news of a recent serial killer in the interior, the upcoming results on the national shipbuilding strategy and contract talks with the BCGEU & BCTF as well as arrests for the Vancouver riots……And the storey is slowly being taken off the headlines.

So if their "cause" is to get the various alternative messages out, not only has it not been "futile" it has been very, very successful. For example, one poster making the point about SunTV's low opinion about the protest, all the while protesters get national exposure from SunTV. That doesn't sound futile to me.

While the messages might be about change in this or that, there are no expectations of any radical change in anything. The only expectation is that, collectively, the messages have a better chance of getting out when more people are involved in communicating them. And so far they have been bang on.

Do you honestly think, the vast majority of Canadian will be talking about the occupy movement, say in a few weeks or a month? Or will remember even what it was about?

As for those messages affecting the Great Undecided Center, well there is something for everyone isn't there? In their messaging I mean. If anyone were to take the time to carefully parse the various messages being offered, to have a listen, there would no doubt be something that resonates with them. And even IF there is no immediate traction with this person or that person, the idea is to get the messages out and let the ideas do the work even if it takes months or years.

I suppose we shall see, in the months, and years ahead if any of their message resonated with the unwashed masses

And let's not forget the most important message of them all: freedom of peaceful assemnbly and freedom of association. No Canadian in their right mind would quarrel with that message.

Agreed.

[bush_cheney2004]

....And let's not forget the most important message of them all: freedom of peaceful assemnbly and freedom of association. No Canadian in their right mind would quarrel with that message.

...or freedom to ape what the Americans are doing. For all the hype about OWS' organizing prowess and hip association with web based social media, far greater "movements" were organized and executed for real social and political change long before such things ever existed. Virtual change doesn't count.

[jacee]

Actually the only problem in this whole storyline, which really was unfair to the average joe out there, was that the government bailed out the institutions that held the bad mortgages. They should have been allowed to fail.

Selling mortgages and then hedging your risk on those mortgages is neither illegal nor immoral. It's sound business practice.

If you intentionally allow the mortgages to fail so you make money, instead of renegotiating so people who have lost their jobs can stay in their homes?

If it isn't illegal it should be.

What is unsound is the government meddling in the free market, and not allowing companies that have made bad decisions to fail as they should have.

I think the theory was that if the banks failed, a lot more innocent people would suffer. In reality, the banks were in no danger of failing and were just greedy for more executive pay and bonuses.

That's precisely an example of predatory business management that sucks money from the prople to the wealthiEST.

Edited October 19, 2011 by jacee

[jacee]

So you want people to spend less, buy less, and the economy to grow less?

What are you, some kinda commie?

FWIW, people's outrageous debt and spending habits aren't coming out of a vacuum.Owning a house, a car and all mod cons is the American Dream, after all.

So true.

But I do think Tasha K is onto something there, and a boycott of credit might be fun!

I wonder who would care ... the banks maybe? Ya think?

[bush_cheney2004]

If you intentionally allow the mortgages to fail so you make money, instead of renegotiating so people who have lost their jobs can stay in their homes?

If it isn't illegal it should be.

Why...people who have lost their jobs and have no significant savings can no longer service their mortgage. Foreclosure and/or sale is the logical outcome.

I think the theory was that if the banks failed, a lot more innocent people would suffer. In reality, the banks were in no danger of failing and were just greedy for more executive pay and bonuses.

Yours is a class warfare mentality, with no foundation in economic reality. Just ask Lehman Bros. Or the many banks that did fail.

[jacee]

Why...people who have lost their jobs and have no significant savings can no longer service their mortgage. Foreclosure and/or sale is the logical outcome.

Yours is a class warfare mentality, with no foundation in economic reality. Just ask Lehman Bros. Or the many banks that did fail.

Too bad GoldmanSachs isn't on that list.

I have a personal perspective on this issue due to a foreclosure some years back during a temporary. interruption of earnings. Fight back. Don't leave. Tell them you are chaining yourself to the furnace. They won't bug you anymore. Oh ya, and find some relevant blog online and tell your story to the financial community. Then they'll call you and offer to take a formal complaint IF you sign a confidentiality agreement. DON'T SIGN. Instead call a whole slew of their branches and tell your story to the manager. Put a sign on the bank's door calling them out on their greed and refusal to serve customers well. They'll stop bugging you.

Oh ya ... and when they send some poor peon to change your locks, stand outside blocking the door and scream at him until he runs away. Then call head office and scream at them some more.

Then go to a credit union and renegotiate your mortgage with them. They'll tell you more horror stories about the big banks, that exist only to serve BIG MONEY and don't give a crap about real people. Tell the BANK OF NOVA SCOTIA to suck eggs. They'll still get their money but you'll feel a lot better if you fight them first and they'll get bad PR.

Edited October 19, 2011 by jacee

[bush_cheney2004]

I have a personal perspective on this issue due to a foreclosure some years back during a temporary. interruption of earnings. Fight back. Don't leave.....

That's all well and good, but if one cannot meet their commitments to a lender, they will lose the asset (car, home, boat, etc.) Personal sob stories are great for Michael Moore movies, but the banks don't owe you anything special. Cut a deal, sell short, borrow more money, cry on TV, whatever it takes....but if one can't pay in the end then it's over.

My sister just lost a home she had no business owning in the first place, and when her temporary renters found out she wasn't paying the mortgage, they stopped paying the rent!

[CPCFTW]

You didn't listen to the response to O'Leary after that, did you? If you did, you would have known that Hedges was talking about investment funds that don't produce anything. The rest of his response explains what the problem is with these hedge funds and their management, while also recognizing that Canada does not suffer from the same problems thanks to regulations.

On the contrary, hedge funds and other investments provide capital and market liquidity, which are crucial to achieve market efficiency.

Right. And they still don't produce anything.

and pray tell how a company opening lets say a mine is supposed to get funding other than going to a bank and having to make interest payments?

Completely irrelevant. And it's not my problem that your imagination has blinders.

Wow, it's like talking to a brick wall...

It's funny that you're arguing that investment funds don't produce anything when discussing a clip of Dragon's Den. Do you not watch Dragon's Den? They allocate capital to the best ideas which they expect to provide the best return. Hundreds of people have seen their businesses saved and dreams come true by Kevin O'Leary investing in their ideas on Dragon's Den.

Investment funds produce EVERYTHING. They are owners or represent the owners of every company in every industry. Not only that, but they are contracted by governments and pension plans to manage retirement savings as well.

[Shwa]

Do you honestly think, the vast majority of Canadian will be talking about the occupy movement, say in a few weeks or a month? Or will remember even what it was about?

I suppose we shall see, in the months, and years ahead if any of their message resonated with the unwashed masses

To be honestly about what I think, I never - ever - though I would see the Berlin Wall come down in my life time, let alone the dissolution of the Soviet Union. Shit happens.

However, with the kind of messages being put out there by the occupiers, the realistic expectation is awareness of an issue I think, even if by a few. It is now in the public conciousness, to be preserved on the Internet no doubt, so should anyone want to revist the message, it will be there.

[Shwa]

...or freedom to ape what the Americans are doing. For all the hype about OWS' organizing prowess and hip association with web based social media, far greater "movements" were organized and executed for real social and political change long before such things ever existed. Virtual change doesn't count.

...or the freedom for Americans to ape what the Europeans were/are doing. And on and on we go.

[bush_cheney2004]

...However, with the kind of messages being put out there by the occupiers, the realistic expectation is awareness of an issue I think, even if by a few. It is now in the public conciousness, to be preserved on the Internet no doubt, so should anyone want to revist the message, it will be there.

What's the profound message..."We hate rich people"?

[Shwa]

What's the profound message..."We hate rich people"?

Hasn't it always been?

[Rick]

What's the profound message..."We hate rich people"?

With good reason too.

There has been class warfare going on. It's just that my class is winning. And my class isn't just winning, I mean we're killing them.

- Warren Buffett, billionaire investor

When billionaires complain about the growing income inequality between rich and poor, you know the Occupy Vancouver protest that started Saturday just makes sense.

When Warren Buffett, the world's third wealthiest person, says the US government should stop "coddling the super rich" and raise taxes on millionaires, you know something is dramatically wrong.

"Class warfare by the 99 per cent? Of course, they're fighting back after 30 years of being shot at."

When Bill Gross, who runs the world's largest bond fund, the $1.2 trillion Pacific Investment Management Co, says the Occupy Wall Street protest is an unsurprising reaction to the class war started by the rich against the rest of us, it's not a situation normal.

And when Laurence Fink, who runs BlackRock Inc, the world's biggest asset manager, with $3.7 trillion invested, says protestors spreading the Occupy message around the world have a point, look out.

While BC Premier Christy Clark and federal Finance Minister Jim Flaherty say things are totally different in Canada, they are dead wrong. The more than 4,000 protesting in Vancouver Saturday disagree, and for good reason.

The Occupy Wall Street movement points out that just one percent of the US population, the mega-rich, own 40 percent of that country's total wealth. That's why this protest is aimed at helping the other 99 per cent.

But our country isn't different. A recent study found that just 3.8 percent of Canadian families control 67 percent of total household wealth. Other studies show Canada's top one percent received 33 percent of all income gains between 1997 and 2007.

[GostHacked]

What's the profound message..."We hate rich people"?

If it were as simple as that eh BC?

[Argus]

Who’s preventing them? The Tea Party started much the same size, and has since grafted itself onto the GOP, and achieved positive results in the last election.

I think you may want to reconsider your definition of the term 'positive'.

[Argus]

Right-wingers like to classify the protestors as worthless bums with no jobs. This might be the case for a very small percentage of them. Mostly they seem to be folks frustrated with the status quo, whether they are protesting corporate greed, the bought and paid for political system, or whatever else has them feeling the need to protest. Btw, the best thing Chretien ever did was to publicly finance elections.... But that's an aside....

If you mean the ones in the US, then okay. But they ought to be protesting in Washington, not New York.

If you mean the ones in Canada -- nope. They're mostly dufuses.

[Argus]

All we have to do is read posts by the likes of you, Derek and company which are a good representation of the neo-facists here to know that these protests are a good thing.

It shows that there's a growing groundswell to rid this country of right wing maggots.

You mean the people who pay all the taxes while the welfare bums loaf and drink beer?

[cybercoma]

they ought to be protesting in Washington, not New York

I don't really understand this criticism. It's as though Washington has no idea what's going on unless they're camped out on the White House lawn. Washington knows exactly what's going on and I think being on Wall Street brings much needed attention to problems there. I don't think they need to be in Washington to get their point across.

[Argus]

I don't really understand this criticism. It's as though Washington has no idea what's going on unless they're camped out on the White House lawn. Washington knows exactly what's going on and I think being on Wall Street brings much needed attention to problems there. I don't think they need to be in Washington to get their point across.

My point is that their problem isn't the corporations it's the corrupt politicians and the corrupt political system. There are corporations in Sweden too, y'know. Why aren't they out of control? Because unlike in the US, the Swedish political class doesn't suck up to them like the American political class. It's true that the Wall Street finance 'whizzes' almost blew us into depression, but the reason they were able to behave so irresponsibly was because of the whores in Washington who let them. And virtually all those whores were re-elected by people who were, I guess, grateful for their magnificent leadership...

[Guest Derek L]

I think you may want to reconsider your definition of the term 'positive'.

Why? Tea Partiers elected members to Congress under the GOP banner…….Isn’t that a positive result for their cause?