Occupy Wall Street protest in New-York

  • Topic: News 
  • Thread starter Thread starter vici10
  • Start date Start date
  • Tags Tags
    Wall
Join the discussion
Registration is free. Start your own thread to ask a follow-up.
Sign up Log in
1,111 replies · 129K views
MarcoD said:
No, I agree with that. But I observe that even the bankers are complaining that the rules of trade have changed over the last decades, and that there is nothing in the system to stop that change.

There is something.

If people on Wall Street don't realize that they are often playing with human lives, on a far larger scale than a petty criminal, and that therefor they can be expected to act with 'the highest of morals,' -man, I sound like a priest, sorry for that-, then it is time to take out the 'big guns' and start, or start threatening, with jail time if they don't live up to your expectations.

There are other players in the game - such as mortgage brokers - that helped fuel the fire. They coined a name for people that targeted folks that couldn't pay back their loans - "predatory lenders". The Wall Street guys didn't write the loans. The Wall Street guys bundled he debt and sold it to investors to replenish the pot for more loans.

We'll label this next comment opinion. It's not uncommon to bundle debt of various quality to achieve a given return. When there is too much bad debt and the bundle is priced too high - problems arise. Let's not forget there were people willing to buy the debt - they should have known the risk.
 
Physics news on Phys.org
daveb said:
Again, the OWS protests I've seen on the news are protesting the Wall Street bailouts for the banking industry the OWS folk see as got us into this mess, not the bailouts of the auto makers who were affected by them. I'm not saying I agree with them. Personally, I was against all the bailouts, even if it meant we would sink into a Depression as some predicted.

Interesting, the bank bailouts are a problem but the auto bailouts are not?

http://www.nytimes.com/2009/08/31/business/economy/31taxpayer.html
"As Banks Repay Bailout Money, U.S. Sees a Profit"


http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2011/jun/2/watchdog-questions-gm-bailout-repayment/?page=all
"It turned out GM used bailout funds from an escrow account to pay off $4.7 billion in government loans, a move that several congressional Republicans called deceptive.

“One year ago, the U.S. Treasury Department aided General Motors in its fraudulent claim that it fully repaid its government loans,” said Sam Kazman, CEI general counsel. “Now the Treasury Department is re-enacting this smoke-and-mirrors routine on behalf of Chrysler. Whatever the bailouts may be credited with creating, honesty isn’t one of them.”

The Obama administration released a report Wednesday showing that taxpayers probably will lose $14 billion of the $80 billion that the government loaned to General Motors, Chrysler, auto lenders and suppliers."
 
WhoWee said:
Interesting, the bank bailouts are a problem but the auto bailouts are not?

As far as the OWS protests are concerned, yes.
 
daveb said:
As far as the OWS protests are concerned, yes.

IMO - that's all we need to understand about the "movement" - no credibility.
 
Vanadium 50 said:
Well, only in the loosest possible way.

If I buy a pound of wheat from you for $1, we have $2 in assets. My dollar, and your wheat.

If I agree to buy a pound of wheat from you for $1 tomorrow, we have $2 in derivatives and $2 in assets. Now, if we agree to exchange again tomorrow, we still have $2 in assets, and now we have $4 in derivative contracts. The day after that, we have $6 in contracts. If I shorten the trading period to a picosecond, I have just generated trillions of dollars of derivatives.

It looks like you are describing futures contracts not derivatives. But in one way I agree. The same assets are used as collateral for more than one derivative. That is why it is possible to have more $ in derivatives than assets.

Credit default swaps are a horse of a different color. Any number of people can buy insurance that bets against our deals with the wheat, that includes the guy that sold me the wheat in the first place.
 
edward said:
It looks like you are describing futures contracts not derivatives. But in one way I agree. The same assets are used as collateral for more than one derivative. That is why it is possible to have more $ in derivatives than assets.

Credit default swaps are a horse of a different color. Any number of people can buy insurance that bets against our deals with the wheat, that includes the guy that sold me the wheat in the first place.

The biggest problem I see with derivatives is they siphon investment capital out of the structured and compliant market and into the big (unregulated) casino - label IMO.
 
WhoWee said:
my bold
On PF - you DO need to support your comments - don't you?

Accordingly, you still haven't supported your specific comments.

Challenging me to "make the argument for Rachel Maddow, Keith Olberman, Bill Mahr, Jon Stewart, Stephen Colbert, and everybody that watches those shows" - would require a bit more effort than I personally could put forth (in all honesty).

I realize that the division between the liberal media and the conservative media is pretty great, but I don't feel like that really releases you from my request. Just show me a single example where the Tea Party is acting toward the benefit of the poor. The most I think you'll find is a "Tough Love" attitude, that we shouldn't reward people for being lazy.

I should add that I have had sermons directed at me at church, focusing on how we should not vote for the welfare state that some politicians want us to become, but we should each be responsible for ourselves.

This idea that somehow we can "pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps," without the aid of others. Without any assistance. I also find this sentiment to be anti-poor. It is suggesting that we vote against our own self-interest out of some kind of sense of charitibility.

It may also be that some among the Tea Party think that all support for the needy should be done through charity and donations through community food pantries. They may not necessarily anti-poor, but can we agree at least that the Tea Party are against any government assistance to the poor?

Surely, you can't believe that the Tea Party has been arguing for a redistribution of wealth, "to each according to need, and from each according to ability?" At best, their attitude toward the poor is, "Lazy greedy selfish" and often "criminal."

Just show me a Tea-Party sponsored food pantry, or a Tea-Party sponsored homeless shelter. Please, I'm just asking you to make your case that the Tea-Party is not anti-poor. Show me something that is incontrovertible proof that the Tea Party is NOT anti-poor.

I've already given you proof that they are anti-poor: They are anti-socialist, and pro-capitalist. Capitalist means you serve those with MONEY, and you DON'T serve those without money. Anti-socialist means you DON'T believe in a safety net to provide housing, food, and services to the poor. You have never argued against these statements. I've already backed up my claims with facts and definitions. But you continue to demand more. There is no more. They are anti-socialist, and pro-capitalist. THAT'S ANTI-POOR, BY DEFINITION.

But if you can show me all these charities the Tea Party is supporting, I may change my opinion if I see that they are really pro-poor in some other way that I hadn't thought of.
 
JDoolin said:
I realize that the division between the liberal media and the conservative media is pretty great, but I don't feel like that really releases you from my request. Just show me a single example where the Tea Party is acting toward the benefit of the poor. The most I think you'll find is a "Tough Love" attitude, that we shouldn't reward people for being lazy.

I should add that I have had sermons directed at me at church, focusing on how we should not vote for the welfare state that some politicians want us to become, but we should each be responsible for ourselves.

This idea that somehow we can "pull ourselves up by our own bootstraps," without the aid of others. Without any assistance. I also find this sentiment to be anti-poor. It is suggesting that we vote against our own self-interest out of some kind of sense of charitibility.

It may also be that some among the Tea Party think that all support for the needy should be done through charity and donations through community food pantries. They may not necessarily anti-poor, but can we agree at least that the Tea Party are against any government assistance to the poor?

Surely, you can't believe that the Tea Party has been arguing for a redistribution of wealth, "to each according to need, and from each according to ability?" At best, their attitude toward the poor is, "Lazy greedy selfish" and often "criminal."

Just show me a Tea-Party sponsored food pantry, or a Tea-Party sponsored homeless shelter. Please, I'm just asking you to make your case that the Tea-Party is not anti-poor. Show me something that is incontrovertible proof that the Tea Party is NOT anti-poor.

I've already given you proof that they are anti-poor: They are anti-socialist, and pro-capitalist. Capitalist means you serve those with MONEY, and you DON'T serve those without money. Anti-socialist means you DON'T believe in a safety net to provide housing, food, and services to the poor. You have never argued against these statements. I've already backed up my claims with facts and definitions. But you continue to demand more. There is no more. They are anti-socialist, and pro-capitalist. THAT'S ANTI-POOR, BY DEFINITION.

But if you can show me all these charities the Tea Party is supporting, I may change my opinion if I see that they are really pro-poor in some other way that I hadn't thought of.

my bold
This started back in Post 214 - please note I added **** to separate our comments.

"WhoWee

Posts: 1,049
Recognitions:
PF Contributor
Re: Occupy Wall Street protest in New-York
Originally Posted by JDoolin
Well, when you protest against the poor, you're not really likely to get arrested, regardless of how misguided you are. When you protest against the rich, there's considerably more chance of being arrested.
****
Who protested against the poor? Please support."

I really don't think your rant (that I highlighted in bold) supports your original comment. Also, what is the source for your definition of "ANTI-POOR"?
 
JDoolin said:
I should add that I have had sermons directed at me at church, focusing on how we should not vote for the welfare state that some politicians want us to become, but we should each be responsible for ourselves.

The mechanisms of faith? First, I respect that, so please don't read this as a disrespectful question: Do you live in a 'wealthy' district?

I would expect those living in poor districts to get the opposite sermon of those living in wealthy districts. Probably just social dynamics.
 
edward said:
It looks like you are describing futures contracts not derivatives. But in one way I agree. The same assets are used as collateral for more than one derivative. That is why it is possible to have more $ in derivatives than assets.

Credit default swaps are a horse of a different color. Any number of people can buy insurance that bets against our deals with the wheat, that includes the guy that sold me the wheat in the first place.
Futures and swaps are all forms of derivatives, that is, derivative of the underlying asset such as wheat, debt, currency, etc.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Derivative_(finance)#Common_derivative_contract_types
 
JDoolin said:
...
But if you can show me all these charities the Tea Party is supporting, I may change my opinion if I see that they are really pro-poor in some other way that I hadn't thought of.
Some help:

http://www.nytimes.com/2008/12/21/opinion/21kristof.html
NYT said:
Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals. A study by Google found an even greater disproportion: average annual contributions reported by conservatives were almost double those of liberals.

Other research has reached similar conclusions. The “generosity index” from the Catalogue for Philanthropy typically finds that red states are the most likely to give to nonprofits, while Northeastern states are least likely to do so
[...]
Something similar is true internationally. European countries seem to show more compassion than America in providing safety nets for the poor, and they give far more humanitarian foreign aid per capita than the United States does. But as individuals, Europeans are far less charitable than Americans.

Americans give sums to charity equivalent to 1.67 percent of G.N.P., according to a terrific new book, “Philanthrocapitalism,” by Matthew Bishop and Michael Green. The British are second, with 0.73 percent, while the stingiest people on the list are the French, at 0.14 percent.
 
mheslep said:
From the link: "Arthur Brooks, the author of a book on donors to charity, “Who Really Cares,” cites data that households headed by conservatives give 30 percent more to charity than households headed by liberals."

30% more doesn't mean a lot if liberals are 200% poorer. I'ld like to see those stats first.

[ Anyway, his stats are not backed up by http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/sep/08/charitable-giving-country" per capita to the rest of the world, and personally also give money. Why do more personally? ]
 
Last edited by a moderator:
JDoolin said:
I don't think so, though. Democrats are the party for the people. Republicans are the party for the corporations against the poor. QUOTE]

I am a republican. I do not defend the rich I defend their right to be rich. I don't fight the people I fight the majority from taking from the Minority.

What you want is the same as saying Kenyans make up 1% of the population they are not allowed to have more then 1 pair of shoes anymore if they already have more thne 1 pair of shoes we need to take them away and give them to the Jamaicans. We are the 99% and we can do that since their are more of us.

“When the people find they can vote themselves money, that will herald the end of the republic.”

Benjamin Franklin

Redistribution can not exist in a representative system or else the system will collapse.

the bottom 50% of all income earners pay just 3.4% of the taxes collected

Every evening, the same 10 friends eat dinner together, family style, at the same restaurant. The bill for all 10 comes to $100. They always pay it the way we pay taxes:
• The first four are poor and pay nothing.
• The fifth pays $1.
• The sixth pays $3.
• The seventh, $7
• The eighth, $12.
• The ninth, $18.
• The 10th, (the most well-to-do) pays $59.
 
MarcoD said:
The mechanisms of faith? First, I respect that, so please don't read this as a disrespectful question: Do you live in a 'wealthy' district?

I would expect those living in poor districts to get the opposite sermon of those living in wealthy districts. Probably just social dynamics.

Not quite. A UU church I went to in the heart of a welthy district still supported such things as social and economic justice, but yes, it probably is somewhat related to that.
 
If you defend the rich's right to be rich you're defending the rich by the definition of defending. If you are against the majority then you're against the people, again by definition since the majority are the people.

So... how are you not against the people and defending the rich again?
 
Char. Limit said:
If you defend the rich's right to be rich you're defending the rich by the definition of defending. If you are against the majority then you're against the people, again by definition since the majority are the people.

So... how are you not against the people and defending the rich again?

When the (Char-broiled?) Supreme Cheezburger replaces McD's worldwide - I'm going to follow up with you on this opinion (if you'll accept my email).:wink:
 
WhoWee said:
When the (Char-broiled?) Supreme Cheezburger replaces McD's worldwide - I'm going to follow up with you on this opinion (if you'll accept my email).:wink:

Always willing to discuss things!

Well except when I wake up on the wrong side of the bed. Then I just yell at people.
 
Stan: I want to be a woman. From now on, I want you all to call me Loretta.

Reg: What?

Loretta: It's my right as a man.

Judith: Well, why do you want to be Loretta, Stan?

Loretta: I want to have babies.

Reg: You want to have babies?!

Loretta: It's every man's right to have babies if he wants them.

Reg: But...you can't have babies!

Loretta: Don't you opress me!

Reg: I'm not opressing you, Stan. You haven't got a womb. Where is the foetus going to gestate? You're going to keep it in a box?

Loretta: Sniff.

Judith: Here, I've got an idea. Suppose you agree that he can't actually have babies, not having a womb, which is nobody's fault, not even the Romans', but that he can have the right to have babies.

Rogers: Good idea, Judith. We shall fight the oppressors for your right to have babies, brother. Sister! Sorry.

-Life of Brian
 
edward said:
Occupy Boston didn't go so well last night. Over one hundred were arrested. They were where they were not supposed to be and I can go along with that.

On the other hand there was a veterans group among those arrested and their flags were thrown on the ground. That is an outrage.

There is a video in this link.

http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs...ores-arrested/2011/10/11/gIQAPQbIcL_blog.html

The link indicates there was $150,000 in damages to the new garden where they camped? Did they have a permit to camp in the garden?
 
Char. Limit said:
If you defend the rich's right to be rich you're defending the rich by the definition of defending. If you are against the majority then you're against the people, again by definition since the majority are the people.

So... how are you not against the people and defending the rich again?
Good point. I would like to add that it was sort of established, or at least it seemed to me to be agreed upon, that there is no inalienable right to justice and equality. So, it would seem consistent to maintain that there's also no inalienable right to wealth.

It's just the power struggle between the haves and the have nots that's been going on for the entire recorded history of humankind.
 
MarcoD said:
30% more doesn't mean a lot if liberals are 200% poorer. I'ld like to see those stats first.

[ Anyway, his stats are not backed up by http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/datablog/2010/sep/08/charitable-giving-country" .

And there's the opposite movement too. The Dutch give the highest amount of http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/business/4785813.stm" per capita to the rest of the world, and personally also give money.

That link on the 'Commitment Index', which includes a 'greenhouse gas' factor, does not say that the Dutch give the most money. The Dutch do appear to volunteer heavily. Regarding monetary charitable gifts, http://www.ccss.jhu.edu/pdfs/CNP/CNP_comptable5_dec05.pdf"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mheslep said:
That link on the 'Commitment Index', which includes a 'greenhouse gas' factor, does not say that the Dutch give the most money. The Dutch do appear to volunteer heavily. Regarding monetary charitable gifts, http://www.ccss.jhu.edu/pdfs/CNP/CNP_comptable5_dec05.pdf" and nobody else comes close.

That's nice. But I don't live in an economy with foodstamps, needy on the street, or churches. I live in a completely boring place, an atheist sanatorium. The Dutch give their money to whoever starves in the world, and earless seals, stuff like that; not to the churches, food for the 'bums,' and Israel. For the rest we watch soccer.

The stats given by the BBC are the reality, like it or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_charitable_countries"
 
Last edited by a moderator:
WhoWee said:
The link indicates there was $150,000 in damages to the new garden where they camped?
The link indicates that the city was charged $150,000 for the plantings by whoever did the plantings (Any overcharging and kickback action there ... who knows?), not that the demonstrators did that much damage. The link did suggest that they did some damage.

WhoWee said:
Did they have a permit to camp in the garden?
Apparently not, or it expired. The arrests were for trespassing, afaik.
 
Last edited:
Democracy Now!
MSNBC
CNN
http://www.foxnews.com/us/index.html
Huffington Post

I was in the process of listing some news sources and noticed that scrolling down the Huffington Post front page brings up a pretty extensive list of internet links to various news sources, columnists, blogs, etc.

Here's an http://www.politico.com/largevideobox.html?id=1206959564001 who shares some of the concerns and frustrations of the OWS demonstrators.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MarcoD said:
... I don't live in an economy with foodstamps, needy on the street, or churches. I live in a completely boring place, an atheist sanatorium.
The more I learn about the Dutch, the more I like them. If it weren't for the fact that your country is below sea level I'd probably consider moving there.
 
ThomasT said:
The more I learn about the Dutch, the more I like them. If it weren't for the fact that your country is below sea level I'd probably consider moving there.

Ah, it's always nice to hear that. But, trust me, it'll take adaption time too. Dutch politics are as alien, or singular, to a foreigner as the US politics is to me. And what we consider to be frank, or egalitarian, other cultures often find outright rude.

You'll miss lots of stuff which is good about the US also soon enough, as I would miss the stuff which makes me Dutch.
 
MarcoD said:
That's nice. But I don't live in an economy with foodstamps, needy on the street, or churches. I live in a completely boring place, an atheist sanatorium. The Dutch give their money to whoever starves in the world, and earless seals, stuff like that; not to the churches, food for the 'bums,' and Israel. For the rest we watch soccer.

The stats given by the BBC are the reality, like it or not.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_most_charitable_countries"

well...
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dutch_squatting_ban
http://www.washingtonpost.com/world/europe/dutch-police-forcibly-disperse-squatters-demonstration-in-amsterdam-17-arrested/2011/10/01/gIQAEei8CL_story.html
 
Last edited by a moderator:
mheslep said:
Give it a rest. What do you care about reality, if you assume you can hand waive reality be whatever you want?

Nah, I gave it a rest already. But these stats are pretty much meaningless. It is both bad and good about the US, the fact that people sometime take a day off to work in a church for the poor. It is just alien to the Dutch, who expect the state to take care of that, but also can become egotistical because of that.

It's one of my things with exported Anglo-Saxon capitalism. What if you only export the 'bling-bling,' but not the accompanying community values? You end up with pretty perverse behavior in other countries.
 
MarcoD said:
Ah, it's always nice to hear that. But, trust me, it'll take adaption time too. Dutch politics are as alien, or singular, to a foreigner as the US politics is to me. And what we consider to be frank, or egalitarian, other cultures often find outright rude.

You'll miss lots of stuff which is good about the US also soon enough, as I would miss the stuff which makes me Dutch.

And now I want to move there.