News Occupy Wall Street protest in New-York

[OmCheeto]

Hungry for oysters? lol

I read a version of Shays rebellion that stated that at one point there were so many men in debtors prison that the state could not defend itself against an Indian uprising. That was one thing that brought about change.

Sorry for another retro-post, but I just had a huge platter of both raw and deep fried oysters, and it reminded me of the article by Osinski:

http://nymag.com/news/business/55687/index3.html"
How I helped build the bomb that blew up Wall Street.
...
Times were lean at Paine Webber. The mortgage market, notoriously illiquid in bad times, petered out. Mortgage refinancings dwindled. The supply of raw material, new mortgages, disappeared. We had to lay off half of research. After a day of bloodletting, one of the bosses cornered me in the hallway. Did I get a sexual thrill out of firing people, he wanted to know, because it had always worked for him, big time.

That was 1995. I had been on Wall Street for ten years.
...

That article, along with the following:

http://economistsview.typepad.com/economistsview/2011/05/the-derivatives-markets-helpful-enemies.html"
[T]oday the market for derivatives is oligopolistic, with a few banks running huge profit margins. And, regardless of whatever political motivations might lie behind the latest investigations, this market concentration is a real problem. According to a 2009 study by the European Central Bank, the five largest CDS dealers were party to almost half of the total outstanding notional amounts, while the 10 largest CDS dealers accounted for 72% of the trades. The markets for other derivatives are not much better.

A high degree of concentration distorts the market...

For some reason, made me think of the following, on my drive to work today...
"[URL
Penis-biting slugs: wild claims and confusions[/URL]

 

[John Creighto]

Canada also doesn't have anything Glass Steagall like either, however, there are now calls too in Canada to have something like it. Canada's banking system is also much more regulated , their business culture is more conservative, and they are less on risk taking. Again, not a fair comparison when culture is completely different.

Cultural differences aside I think there are key differences regulatory differences :

"The U.S. leverage
ratio applies on a consolidated basis (at the level
of the bank holding company) as well as at the
level of individual banks, but it does not take into
account off-balance-sheet exposures."
...
"The Canadian “assets to capital multiple” is a
more comprehensive leverage ratio because it also
measures economic leverage to some extent. It is
applied at the level of the consolidated banking
group by dividing an institution’s total adjusted
consolidated assets—including some off-balancesheet
items[5]—by its consolidated (Tier 1 and 2)
capital. Under this requirement total adjusted
assets should be no greater than 20 times capital,
although a lower multiple can be imposed
for individual banks by the Canadian supervisory
agency,"
...
"5. Off-balance-sheet items for this ratio are direct credit
substitutes, including letters of credit and guarantees,
transaction- and trade-related contingencies, and sale
and repurchase agreements. They are included at their
notional amount. Securitized assets are not included as
off-balance-sheet items of the sponsor or originator and
thus would not be taken into account in the leverage
ratio."
http://www.worldbank.org/financialcrisis/pdf/levrage-ratio-web.pdf

That is I think Banks in Canada can't hide as much off their balance sheets.

 

[gravenewworld]

Cultural differences aside I think there are key differences regulatory differences :

"The U.S. leverage
ratio applies on a consolidated basis (at the level
of the bank holding company) as well as at the
level of individual banks, but it does not take into
account off-balance-sheet exposures."
...
"The Canadian “assets to capital multiple” is a
more comprehensive leverage ratio because it also
measures economic leverage to some extent. It is
applied at the level of the consolidated banking
group by dividing an institution’s total adjusted
consolidated assets—including some off-balancesheet
items[5]—by its consolidated (Tier 1 and 2)
capital. Under this requirement total adjusted
assets should be no greater than 20 times capital,
although a lower multiple can be imposed
for individual banks by the Canadian supervisory
agency,"
...
"5. Off-balance-sheet items for this ratio are direct credit
substitutes, including letters of credit and guarantees,
transaction- and trade-related contingencies, and sale
and repurchase agreements. They are included at their
notional amount. Securitized assets are not included as
off-balance-sheet items of the sponsor or originator and
thus would not be taken into account in the leverage
ratio."
http://www.worldbank.org/financialcrisis/pdf/levrage-ratio-web.pdf

That is I think Banks in Canada can't hide as much off their balance sheets.

Sweet short article:

http://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/Nexus/nexus09_anand.pdf

 

[John Creighto]

Sweet short article:

http://www.law.utoronto.ca/documents/Nexus/nexus09_anand.pdf

The article first mentions how other countries planed to model their banking system of Canada then finishes by attributing a large part of the Canadian success due to culture and better management and it said that law can only do so much. If the successes was cultural then why push the Canadian model? The following quote from the article:

"For example, at the end of the third quarter in 2008,
these ratios ranged from 9.47 per cent to 9.81 per cent compared
to other global banks that were in the 6, 7 and 8 percentage
range.8"

makes me wonder, what part of this capital advantage we due to having more capital to begin with and what part was due to loss of value of assets and hits from off balance sheet items. In my previous post I mention differences between Canada and US on how off balance sheet items are used with regards to calculating leverage for the purposes of Capital adequacy. I still think this is an important regulatory difference.

Anyway, the article mentioned capital quality and this is an important point but can all the differences in capital quality really be due to culture? I doubt it. Their must be key regulatory differences.

 

[Astronuc]

I happened to catch BBC's The Bottom Line on the telie, and I thought the following was quite interesting with regard to the three perspectives offered on the Occupy Wherever movements and the financial services sector. Two of the interviewees (Ian Gorham and Julian Roberts) expressed some sympathy for those demonstrating, while the third (Ken Olisa), the one in the middle, was rather annoyed and unsympathetic with the protesters on Wall Street.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/programmes/b015zs17

Presented by Evan Davis, The Bottom Line cuts through confusion, statistics and spin to present a clearer view of the business world, through discussion with people running leading and emerging companies.

With protests continuing around the world against the financial sector, three guests from that industry swap candid thoughts about it. Evan puts to them a fundamental question: is their industry creating genuine wealth, or is it essentially parasitic, finding clever ways of distributing other people's wealth to its own workers?

Joining Evan in the studio are Ken Olisa, chairman of boutique technology merchant bank Restoration Partners; Ian Gorham, chief executive of financial advisory firm Hargreaves Lansdown; Julian Roberts, chief executive of savings and investment group Old Mutual.

 

[chiro]

This is an open question. Do any US citizens on PF feel more confident investing their money directly into an Asian or European based stock market/broker - than through a Wall Street broker? Next, do you trust US regulations to protect you more or less than foreign regulators?

In both examples - if you trust Wall Street or US regulation less - please explain why.

I'm Australian not American (North or South) just so you know.

I don't think there is a simple answer, but one suggestion would be to look at the incentives. If a broker makes most of his money in fees like conducting a lot of transactions rather than only getting a percentage of the profits, then you need to be aware of that.

This should apply to everyone no matter what country they are in. Depending on the type of person and the industry involved, there are usually different incentives involved. A government superannuation (pension for you americans) would probably not have the same incentives as a private firm. They might do (I could be wrong), but for now I am going to claim that the incentives are not the same (if someone can point out a situation for this, then please do for everyone here as it will be highly informative).

But yeah as a bottom line, look at the incentives. If its based purely on generating transactions and associated fees rather than some real stake in the gains, then that should set off a red flag.

Also a big red flag is if the people selling you something can bet against you: that is another big red flag. If the regulations allow this, then this is a huge red flag, because chances are if people can do it, they will do it.

 

[Proton Soup]

Look at that, MF Global goes out of business yesterday on none other than what...their derivative gamblings on Europe. That's exactly what BoA just moved onto the books of the FDIC and tax payers to insure. Looks like BoA isn't stupid and is taking proactive measures to make sure their huge losses that they will take once Europe tanks will be insured by the tax payers.


It's also interesting to note that JP Morgan was a huge investor in MF Global and JP Morgan too has moved $80 T in derivative exposures to their FDIC insured branches. I wonder if they'll get some taxpayer money back to cover their losses on MF Global.

what is this about derivatives? from what i was reading, they bought a bunch of PIIGS debt (funny that's the thing splitting europe atm). seems it isn't paying off in a timely manner?

but the big kniife in the chest seems to be the loss of nearly a billion in, not their own money, but customer assets. one of the comments at the bottom suggests this is embezzlement and could end in jail time.

http://dealbook.nytimes.com/2011/10/31/regulators-investigating-mf-global/

 

[WhoWee]

I'm Australian not American (North or South) just so you know.

I don't think there is a simple answer, but one suggestion would be to look at the incentives. If a broker makes most of his money in fees like conducting a lot of transactions rather than only getting a percentage of the profits, then you need to be aware of that.

This should apply to everyone no matter what country they are in. Depending on the type of person and the industry involved, there are usually different incentives involved. A government superannuation (pension for you americans) would probably not have the same incentives as a private firm. They might do (I could be wrong), but for now I am going to claim that the incentives are not the same (if someone can point out a situation for this, then please do for everyone here as it will be highly informative).

But yeah as a bottom line, look at the incentives. If its based purely on generating transactions and associated fees rather than some real stake in the gains, then that should set off a red flag.

Also a big red flag is if the people selling you something can bet against you: that is another big red flag. If the regulations allow this, then this is a huge red flag, because chances are if people can do it, they will do it.

Aside from the integrity/motivation of an individual - I'd like to know from US citizens who they trust more Wall Street (regulated by SEC) or some other stock exchange regulated by another company and a broker not regulated by the SEC?

 

[WhoWee]

ATTN Occupiers of Wall Street - the Democrats in Congress have heard you and have introduced legislation (I guess you can go home now?).

my bold
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/02/us-usa-tax-transaction-idUSTRE7A175U20111102

"A new tax on financial transactions would be imposed under legislation unveiled on Wednesday by two Democratic congressmen, refocusing attention on an idea that has so far gained little traction.

With the G20 expected to resume its transaction tax debate this week, Representative Peter DeFazio and Senator Tom Harkin proposed a 0.03 percent tax on stock, bond and derivative trades. It would take effect, if adopted, in 2013.

Similar bills in recent years have made no progress in Congress, undermining support for a tax at the global level, despite debt-burdened governments' need for new revenues and widespread concern about financial market volatility."

 

[gravenewworld]

ATTN Occupiers of Wall Street - the Democrats in Congress have heard you and have introduced legislation (I guess you can go home now?).

my bold
http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/11/02/us-usa-tax-transaction-idUSTRE7A175U20111102

"A new tax on financial transactions would be imposed under legislation unveiled on Wednesday by two Democratic congressmen, refocusing attention on an idea that has so far gained little traction.

With the G20 expected to resume its transaction tax debate this week, Representative Peter DeFazio and Senator Tom Harkin proposed a 0.03 percent tax on stock, bond and derivative trades. It would take effect, if adopted, in 2013.

Similar bills in recent years have made no progress in Congress, undermining support for a tax at the global level, despite debt-burdened governments' need for new revenues and widespread concern about financial market volatility."

Good, it's about time. High frequency traders do nothing for the economy and are parasites.

 

[turbo]

Good, it's about time. High frequency traders do nothing for the economy and are parasites.

High-frequency trades are destabilizing and do nothing (IMO) to help our economy. I would support a stiff tax on trades that would moderate over the years. The longer you hold the investments, the lower the trade tax.

I don't see this movement gaining too much steam, because the Chamber of Commerce and their proxies are going to stomp it into the ground. Still, we need the stability.

 

[WhoWee]

The Occupiers in Dallas are certainly focused on their cause - glad they don't discriminate against bad behavior.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/0...r-allegedly-sexually-assaulting-teen-in-tent/

"Authorities arrested a convicted sex offender at an Occupy Dallas rally for allegedly sexually assaulting a 14-year-old runaway in his tent,"

*****

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/video/security-questioned-at-occupy-dallas-protest-14867633

"Security Questioned at Occupy Dallas Protest"

 

[OmCheeto]

Aside from the integrity/motivation of an individual - I'd like to know from US citizens who they trust more Wall Street (regulated by SEC) or some other stock exchange regulated by another company and a broker not regulated by the SEC?

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your question.
I interpret it as asking a person to make a choice between buying a car with one flat tire, or one with two flat tires?

 

[WhoWee]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding your question.
I interpret it as asking a person to make a choice between buying a car with one flat tire, or one with two flat tires?

No it's like asking someone in a border state who they would trust more - a US car dealer or a Mexican car dealer?

 

[OmCheeto]

No it's like asking someone in a border state who they would trust more - a US car dealer or a Mexican car dealer?

Probably the wrong analogy to use on me. The first time I could afford a new car, I was 19 years old. I went to the dealer and they tried to scam me. The next time I went to buy a new car, I was 50, and it was a Saturday. I had all day long to say no. Got a pretty good deal.

hmmm... Maybe the car dealership is a good analogy for Wall Street.

Would you rather get scammed by an American, or a Mexican?

Ummm... Neither maybe?

 

[WhoWee]

Probably the wrong analogy to use on me. The first time I could afford a new car, I was 19 years old. I went to the dealer and they tried to scam me. The next time I went to buy a new car, I was 50, and it was a Saturday. I had all day long to say no. Got a pretty good deal.

hmmm... Maybe the car dealership is a good analogy for Wall Street.

Would you rather get scammed by an American, or a Mexican?

Ummm... Neither maybe?

I'm very serious in asking this question.

If all you're doing is placing an order for shares of a company listed on the NYSE - I'm not sure how you might be scammed? It's unlikely your broker would risk his license for a few thousand dollars.

On the other hand - would you have more confidence sending your money to a broker based in Istanbul, Ljubljana or Lahore - and making trades on those exchanges and under their financial accounting standards?

 

[Char. Limit]

The Occupiers in Dallas are certainly focused on their cause - glad they don't discriminate against bad behavior.
http://www.foxnews.com/us/2011/11/0...r-allegedly-sexually-assaulting-teen-in-tent/

"Authorities arrested a convicted sex offender at an Occupy Dallas rally for allegedly sexually assaulting a 14-year-old runaway in his tent,"

*****

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/video/security-questioned-at-occupy-dallas-protest-14867633

"Security Questioned at Occupy Dallas Protest"

So one bad apple spoils the bunch for you? Got it.

 

[OmCheeto]

I'm very serious in asking this question.

If all you're doing is placing an order for shares of a company listed on the NYSE - I'm not sure how you might be scammed? It's unlikely your broker would risk his license for a few thousand dollars.

On the other hand - would you have more confidence sending your money to a broker based in Istanbul, Ljubljana or Lahore - and making trades on those exchanges and under their financial accounting standards?

This is probably why no one answered your initial question.

I invest $100 a month. I suppose a few people on PF can afford to invest a thousand or more a month. But I have not a clue how to make a trade in Ljubljana.

 

[Evo]

I thought this was funny.

NYC arrest records: Many Occupy Wall Street protesters live in luxury

The Daily Caller has obtained all of this information from a source in the New York City government.

Among addresses for which information is available, single-family homes listed on those police intake forms have a median value of $305,000 — a far higher number than the $185,400 median value of owner-occupied housing units in the United States.

Some of the homes where “Occupy” arrestees reside, viewed through Google Maps and the Multiple Listing Service real estate database, are the definition of opulence.

Using county assessors and online resources such as Zillow.com, TheDC estimated property values and rents for 87 percent of the homes and 59 percent of the apartments listed in the arrest records.

Even in the nation’s currently depressed housing market, at least 95 of the protesters’ residences are worth approximately $500,000 or more. (RELATED SLIDESHOW: Opulent homes of the ’99 percent’)

The median monthly rent for those living in apartments whose information is readily available is $1,850

“Sleeping beside the hardcore activists are increasing numbers of wealthy students turning up to make the most of the party atmosphere, drugs and free food,” reporters Paul Bentley and Micela McLucas wrote in October. “While they dress down to blend in, the youngsters’ privileged backgrounds are revealed by glimpses of expensive gadgetry or the absent minded mention of their private schools during heated political debates.”

http://news.yahoo.com/nyc-arrest-records-many-occupy-wall-street-protesters-045625415.html

 

[Char. Limit]

I support these people. Am I one of the 1%? Hell if I know, but I live in a really nice house. It's got two stories. And whenever I need something, I usually get it.

 

[Evo]

I support these people. Am I one of the 1%? Hell if I know, but I live in a really nice house. It's got two stories. And whenever I need something, I usually get it.

But they don't have a cause yet. Didn't someone just post where an organizer said that they haven't had enough time yet to decide what (specifically) they're protesting?

Maybe I'll support them if they can come up with something I feel is important. Are they for increasing Soc Security payments? I'm for that.

My dad was an EE, but he was almost completely blind from the war and was lucky to get a job. He couldn't get life insurance due to pre-exisiting problems with his heart. My mom lives off of his Social Security benefits, has medicare, which sux. He died when he was 53 so he never collected, he was considered 100% disabled, but he refused to stop working, had a massive stroke at work.

 

[OmCheeto]

ATTN Occupiers of Wall Street - the Democrats in Congress have heard you and have introduced legislation (I guess you can go home now?).

Actually, that legislation has been fronted for the last 3 years.

I've discussed the legislation with fellow investors over the last year.

They said there was no chance.

Go OWS! Go!

 

[WhoWee]

So one bad apple spoils the bunch for you? Got it.

This is the second alleged rape incident - the first was in Cleveland.

 

[WhoWee]

This is probably why no one answered your initial question.

I invest $100 a month. I suppose a few people on PF can afford to invest a thousand or more a month. But I have not a clue how to make a trade in Ljubljana.

http://translate.google.com/translate?hl=en&sl=sl&tl=en&u=http://www.ljse.si/

 

[WhoWee]

I forgot to ask - where's the outrage over the Freddie and Fannie bonuses reported this week?

http://www.newsmax.com/US/Fannie-Freddie-bonuses-millions/2011/11/01/id/416429

"What’s the benefit for taking over troubled mortgage agencies after the government bails them out? Millions of dollars in bonuses, apparently.

The Federal Housing Finance Agency, the government regulator of Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac, approved $12.79 million of bonuses for 10 executives from the two government-sponsored agencies after they met modest performance targets tied to modifying mortgages at risk of foreclosure, Politico reports.

Given that there have been very few modifications, critics can be forgiven for questioning why the generous bonuses were doled out. They come only two years after the agencies received $170 billion in taxpayer aid. The housing finance agency pledged at that time that it would curb executive pay after the humongous compensation offered to former Fannie Mae CEO Franklin Raines and others.

Ed Haldeman, who announced last week that he is quitting as Freddie Mac’s CEO, received a base salary of $900,000 last year — and garnered a $2.3 million bonus. Fannie Mae CEO Michael Williams received a $2.37 million bonus.

The top five executives at Freddie bagged $6.46 million in bonuses last year, and a second installment has yet to be reported to the Securities and Exchange Commission.

Williams and the four other top officials at Fannie snagged $6.33 million in bonuses, primarily for providing “liquidity, stability and affordability” to the national market. That’s not exactly setting the bar high. "

 

[edward]

I thought this was funny.

NYC arrest records: Many Occupy Wall Street protesters live in luxury

The Daily Caller has obtained all of this information from a source in the New York City government.

Among addresses for which information is available, single-family homes listed on those police intake forms have a median value of $305,000 — a far higher number than the $185,400 median value of owner-occupied housing units in the United States.

http://news.yahoo.com/nyc-arrest-records-many-occupy-wall-street-protesters-045625415.html

A $305,000 house in NYC is certainly not luxury accommodations. If they are recent college grads they are most likely living with their parents as 65% of them do.

Port of Oakland video



Angela Davis was there ?? They should have tossed her off of the dock.

 

[mege]

A $305,000 house in NYC is certainly not luxury accommodations. If they are recent college grads they are most likely living with their parents as 65% of them do.

Port of Oakland video



Angela Davis was there ?? They should have tossed her off of the dock.

Even still, if they're students living with their parents in a house that costs twice the median for the area - they're not suffering like they're trying to portray. This just reinforces the whiney, spoiled kid stereotype. And if it's their own house - I wonder how they're able to afford it? Either way, it smells of hypocrasy.

 

[turbo]

But they don't have a cause yet. Didn't someone just post where an organizer said that they haven't had enough time yet to decide what (specifically) they're protesting?

The "lack" of a cause is something pushed by the right-wing and their media stooges. I think that we all have a pretty good idea what Wall Street has done to this country over the past few decades. The right would love to make OWS condense these problems into a few sound-bites, so that they could use their media stooges to excoriate the protesters and demean them and their motivations.

We have overwhelming systemic corruption in big business and government and the media. When any proposal that might benefit the populace is decried as "socialism" and any proposal that might benefit the wealthy is elevated as "free-market capitalism" (corporate-welfare, anybody?), we have some serious disconnects in perception and language. George Orwell was prescient, and would have been shocked (IMO) to see how thoroughly doublethink has pervaded the US political "discourse".

 

[turbo]

Even still, if they're students living with their parents in a house that costs twice the median for the area - they're not suffering like they're trying to portray. This just reinforces the whiney, spoiled kid stereotype. And if it's their own house - I wonder how they're able to afford it? Either way, it smells of hypocrasy.

Do you think that anybody who recognizes the wrong-doing of investment firms and banks should be barred from expressing that just because they live in a nice house? Think it over.

 

[mege]

The "lack" of a cause is something pushed by the right-wing and their media stooges. I think that we all have a pretty good idea what Wall Street has done to this country over the past few decades. The right would love to make OWS condense these problems into a few sound-bites, so that they could use their media stooges to excoriate the protesters and demean them and their motivations.

We have overwhelming systemic corruption in big business and government and the media. When any proposal that might benefit the populace is decried as "socialism" and any proposal that might benefit the wealthy is elevated as "free-market capitalism" (corporate-welfare, anybody?), we have some serious disconnects in perception and language. George Orwell was prescient, and would have been shocked (IMO) to see how thoroughly doublethink has pervaded the US political "discourse".

So, what action does the OWS crowd want taken?

I think a blind man can see that the protestors are angry, but at what or whom? There's a disconnect in the static-filled message. The protestors go to homes of 'evil wall streetists' - and visit Murdoch and a Koch? (what do either of these industrialists have to do with the banking system and wall street?) Then, at the same time, one of the major financiers for this leftist orgy is George Soros - a banker that enjoys crashing economies and does so for spite. (many Soros Foundation-funded organizations are spearheading the on the ground causes - even if you want to argue his foundation's involvement, it's funny how he's never brought up in protests because of his leftist bent when his past fiscal actions have been very purposefully irresponsible - UK in the early 90s?) Never mind that these protests are being babied by the local governments - these protestors are often breaking posted laws and regulations, but are getting away with it. Talk about lawless - another drop in the hypocrasy bucket.

The ultimate irony (if that effigy confusion wasn't enough) is that these protestors generally would like to see MORE government intervention. Funny how the politicians, which are half of this crony-capitalist equation, are getting away free and are being trusted/encouraged to continue to do something. How is that reasonable or logical? I'm not trying to defend crony capitalism at all, but I think the effective solution is to actually allow capitalism to run it's course. Many of the sparks for this economic downturn have been because the government has interveened too much for some short-term political bender. The money-loose government is the real culprit in these problems, but the general vibe I get is that OWS protestors ignore this fact and are acting on their raw jealousy. Given that contradiction in purpose, there's no wonder the OWS collective hasn't come up with a solution. They seem to want to just bleed the rich for a temporary utopia. Ask Europe how well that's working (now imagine if Europe also had other expenses... like militaries or funding the UN...).

So, I ask again - what does OWS want to happen? What is the end game?

 

[mege]

Do you think that anybody who recognizes the wrong-doing of investment firms and banks should be barred from expressing that just because they live in a nice house? Think it over.

I don't think they should be barred from expressing themselves at all, and I never implied that. The protestors have every right to speak their mind, but I do feel that the extreme lawlessness and forceful nature is very bad. 3000 arrests to date: imagine if the cities were actually enforcing their laws?

It's hypocrasy and it diminishes their message significantly.

 

[chiro]

So, I ask again - what does OWS want to happen? What is the end game?

I think you are implying what I am about to say anyway, but the thing is there is no universal consensus on what should and needs to be done.

One problem with this is that it has the potential to be hijacked by someone who actually has something specific in mind, and that someone or group could be anybody with any agenda that actually helps solve the problem, or side steps the problem.

Also you have a lot of different people down there. They are not all part of one easily classifiable group. This is good because when those people interact with one another (and they have been), then people are talking about the issues and becoming more informed on issues to consider and tackle.

In all honesty I think it is wise not to make any major specific demands right away and I say that because the problem itself is extremely complex and it has roots in many places, not just in the banks themselves, but also in the legislation and in the government.

Another thing that I want to say is that I think it is also a problem with values of society as a whole and not just the banks, rating agencies, government or some specific entity. The thing is that we live in a world of debt and convenience and it is convenient to be in debt.

It reminds when Peter Schiff went down there and someone asked him why Steve Jobs didn't hire Americans to make the products. He then asked them if they would pay a higher price for the products. This is a good example of what I was getting at above. The thing is that some of these people who are protesting in my mind at least would be willing to change their ways even if they are shown that these ways are the ones that are supporting the system to begin with.

So yes this is a very big problem and it has many facets that need to be considered and for that reason I deem it wise to think about the problem more seriously before coming to conclusions too quickly so that hopefully we end up with the restructuring that will get to the root of the problem and not just apply a bandaid to it.

 

[mege]

I think you are implying what I am about to say anyway, but the thing is there is no universal consensus on what should and needs to be done.

One problem with this is that it has the potential to be hijacked by someone who actually has something specific in mind, and that someone or group could be anybody with any agenda that actually helps solve the problem, or side steps the problem.

Also you have a lot of different people down there. They are not all part of one easily classifiable group. This is good because when those people interact with one another (and they have been), then people are talking about the issues and becoming more informed on issues to consider and tackle.

In all honesty I think it is wise not to make any major specific demands right away and I say that because the problem itself is extremely complex and it has roots in many places, not just in the banks themselves, but also in the legislation and in the government.

Another thing that I want to say is that I think it is also a problem with values of society as a whole and not just the banks, rating agencies, government or some specific entity. The thing is that we live in a world of debt and convenience and it is convenient to be in debt.

It reminds when Peter Schiff went down there and someone asked him why Steve Jobs didn't hire Americans to make the products. He then asked them if they would pay a higher price for the products. This is a good example of what I was getting at above. The thing is that some of these people who are protesting in my mind at least would be willing to change their ways even if they are shown that these ways are the ones that are supporting the system to begin with.

So yes this is a very big problem and it has many facets that need to be considered and for that reason I deem it wise to think about the problem more seriously before coming to conclusions too quickly so that hopefully we end up with the restructuring that will get to the root of the problem and not just apply a bandaid to it.

If any of these pristine groups hijacked OWS, I think we'd all be in a bit of trouble.

I've also heard this said before in different ways: "Also you have a lot of different people down there. They are not all part of one easily classifiable group." Even if not the 'official' goal - what is the end game to the random protestor? What does the random protestor really want? I think that if the government did NOT 'bailout' GM and the banks - there would still be a protest. "Why did the government let these companies fail! Their collapse hurt lots of people!" People are just in general discontented and emotional. Emotions do not make good policy.

Without a goal in mind, the general discontent can only last for so long. Why are there people in Oakland, CA shutting down a shipping hub? What is that going to accomplish? What is the point of 'occupying' an area? To gain recognition for what? Making Scrooge McDuck the villian? As it stands - that is the only message which is clear: bleed the rich. It's not even about Wall Street really, except in the name. It's about petty jealousy. If the movement was really about being anti-crony capitalism: then I think they'd have different targets than Koch, Fox News and DuPont. Instead, the extremely violent rhetoric by the protests has given new life to a variety of radical fringe groups (see link above) that just want to shake up the system - and if those groups are the ones doing the shaking, I'm legitimately scared.

Finally, I think the greater problem is that there is no real good solution to the problem that fits the mold. The 'fake manifesto' that was on OWS's site in a comment a few weeks ago sums it all up - this is a leftist anti-liberal wave veiled by the term '99%'. The document talked about limiting liberties in every line to solve some perceived and limited ill. Is this what OWS is about? Controlling the population? This is the type of contradiction that is rampant in the entire movement. "We the 99%" are going to force you to give up your money. Sad thing is: that statement wouldn't even make many protestors flinch for a second. "We the 99% demand the end to liberty" - this is what I hear instead of any proper message about ending crony-capitalism.

 

[chiro]

If any of these pristine groups hijacked OWS, I think we'd all be in a bit of trouble.

I've also heard this said before in different ways: "Also you have a lot of different people down there. They are not all part of one easily classifiable group." Even if not the 'official' goal - what is the end game to the random protestor? What does the random protestor really want? I think that if the government did NOT 'bailout' GM and the banks - there would still be a protest. "Why did the government let these companies fail! Their collapse hurt lots of people!" People are just in general discontented and emotional. Emotions do not make good policy.

Without a goal in mind, the general discontent can only last for so long. Why are there people in Oakland, CA shutting down a shipping hub? What is that going to accomplish? What is the point of 'occupying' an area? To gain recognition for what? Making Scrooge McDuck the villian? As it stands - that is the only message which is clear: bleed the rich. It's not even about Wall Street really, except in the name. It's about petty jealousy. If the movement was really about being anti-crony capitalism: then I think they'd have different targets than Koch, Fox News and DuPont. Instead, the extremely violent rhetoric by the protests has given new life to a variety of radical fringe groups (see link above) that just want to shake up the system - and if those groups are the ones doing the shaking, I'm legitimately scared.

Finally, I think the greater problem is that there is no real good solution to the problem that fits the mold. The 'fake manifesto' that was on OWS's site in a comment a few weeks ago sums it all up - this is a leftist anti-liberal wave veiled by the term '99%'. The document talked about limiting liberties in every line to solve some perceived and limited ill. Is this what OWS is about? Controlling the population? This is the type of contradiction that is rampant in the entire movement. "We the 99%" are going to force you to give up your money. Sad thing is: that statement wouldn't even make many protestors flinch for a second. "We the 99% demand the end to liberty" - this is what I hear instead of any proper message about ending crony-capitalism.

Yeah I have seen a lot of what you are saying in videos, but again fortunately there are people there who are asking serious questions.

But yeah absolutely agree that when you have a cause that is divided as this, it is just ripe for a takeover. The one thing that makes causes effective is when the cause is streamlined and everyone is behind it (and also in sync with the group).

It's the same reason militaries work so well: everyone follows order and everyone has the same cause. It's also the same reason any major successful group be it a business or otherwise can be so effective: everyone is committed to the same cause and when this happens literally "stuff" (replace it with whatever word you want) "gets done".

As long as their is division or indecisiveness of any sort, then "stuff" won't get done.

Also one of the other things that worries me, is that many people actually want a "leader" to come in and save them because let's face it: most of us want problems to automatically go away. We don't want to take any more responsibility than we need to, and we have become addicted to this way of life. We don't want to stick our necks out and we don't want to feel the pain that associated with that responsibility.

As long as this will go on, we will probably always run into trouble, and we all have a chance to do it, but chances are we won't.

 

[LaurieAG]

In all honesty I think it is wise not to make any major specific demands right away and I say that because the problem itself is extremely complex and it has roots in many places, not just in the banks themselves, but also in the legislation and in the government.

When usury and financial slavery are considered acceptable modus operandi then there's not much to say anyway. At least the Icelandic people got a vote and the Greeks will get a vote to change their national anthem to to the following.

All Hail thrall

Politicians ruled by economics at work, all hail thrall.
Elites who turn their peasants into serfs, all hail thrall.
Tyrannus rex is just autocrat king, all hail thrall.

 

[Char. Limit]

This is the second alleged rape incident - the first was in Cleveland.

Two bad apples then. How many protesters have there been across the country? I'm betting it's a number big enough to make TWO seem pretty insignificant and unrepresentative of the sample as a whole. So please, stop trying to insinuate that the OWS protesters are rapists.

 

[chiro]

Two bad apples then. How many protesters have there been across the country? I'm betting it's a number big enough to make TWO seem pretty insignificant and unrepresentative of the sample as a whole. So please, stop trying to insinuate that the OWS protesters are rapists.

WhoWee does Char. Limit have any validity to these claims?

 

[Char. Limit]

WhoWee does Char. Limit have any validity to these claims?

Oh dear god... what claims have I made? The only thing I've done here is rebut his insinuations that - you know what, never mind. Believe what you want, I'm leaving.

Unsubscribed.

 

[chiro]

Oh dear god... what claims have I made? The only thing I've done here is rebut his insinuations that - you know what, never mind. Believe what you want, I'm leaving.

Unsubscribed.

Ok Dokey.

 

[Oltz]

Oh dear god... what claims have I made? The only thing I've done here is rebut his insinuations that - you know what, never mind. Believe what you want, I'm leaving.

Unsubscribed.

I could be worng here but if 2 rapes took place in a 2 month span at Tea party events even tho there have litterally been thousdands you and the media would be freaking out. Making far worse insinuations and claims.

I believe WhoWee was more commenting on the lack of even a condemnation of the act let alone a media uproar.

 

[turbo]

I could be worng here but if 2 rapes took place in a 2 month span at Tea party events even tho there have litterally been thousdands you and the media would be freaking out. Making far worse insinuations and claims.

I believe WhoWee was more commenting on the lack of even a condemnation of the act let alone a media uproar.

Let's gain some perspective here. Tea-party events were typically one-day affairs populated by (often) retired people bused in for the events by organizers, and then bused back home. The occupy movement is long-term and continuous, and the larger events are organized enough to provide food and health-care services. Do you not think that such amenities (plus the attraction of a large crowd to blend into) might attract miscreants who are not socially or politically motivated? Comparing the occupy movement with the astroturf Tea-party movement is disingenuous, at best, especially when extrapolating incidents of criminality to condemn one or the other.

 

[Oltz]

Let's gain some perspective here. Tea-party events were typically one-day affairs populated by (often) retired people bused in for the events by organizers, and then bused back home. The occupy movement is long-term and continuous, and the larger events are organized enough to provide food and health-care services. Do you not think that such amenities (plus the attraction of a large crowd to blend into) might attract miscreants who are not socially or politically motivated? Comparing the occupy movement with the astroturf Tea-party movement is disingenuous, at best, especially when extrapolating incidents of criminality to condemn one or the other.

Did I or anyone condemn the movement?
No

I said that the reaction from people would be different not that it actually means anythign about the poeple in the moevment or the movement itself.

This is a comment on coverage and preception not on the actual group of people but on the third party connotation of events assoctiated with the movement.

As you point out the scope and scale of events are very different but do you recall the "tea party yells racial slurs" event and how it turned out that it was actually non tea party people trying intnetionally to disrupt the rally, but we still hear constantly that the tea party is a bunch of racists.

I personally feel that if you put 300 teenage and college people in a field in tents for a month somebody will get raped every 4 or 5 days and only 1 will get reported every month, but you and I both know that is not the reason nobody is making a stink about this.

 

[OmCheeto]

... but you and I both know that is not the reason nobody is making a stink about this.

Because she was probably an under-aged hooker? I know people don't like to talk about such things.

http://www.verumserum.com/?p=32021"
On October 24th I noted a report of a 14 year old girl who was picked up at Occupy Dallas. She told police she’d been having sex with several men including one 23 year old. Today, Dallas Police arrested the man in question:

...

Occupy campsites are not safe places for women.

Maybe we should ban women from going to the Superbowl. It doesn't sound like a safe place for women either:

http://www.reuters.com/article/2011/02/01/us-nfl-superbowl-sex-idUSTRE70U6F820110201"
(Reuters) - Pimps will traffic thousands of under-age prostitutes to Texas for Sunday's Super Bowl, hoping to do business with men arriving for the big game with money to burn, child rights advocates said.

All of those poor girls... RAPED!

Actually, this might be a good time to point out the correlation between poverty and under aged prostitution.

"www.beadforlife.org/newsletter/Bead37printable.pdf"[/URL]
...
The link between poverty and prostitution is evident in the
United States as well. Each year 50,000 girls and young
women, and boys too, are brought to the US as sex
slaves to work in brothels around the country. But most
of the prostitutes in the US are local girls and women. An
article in the Denver Post this past week says that many
of the prostitutes in Denver are in middle school and
come from the poorest areas of Denver. The average
age in America that a girl enters into prostitution is 13.[/QUOTE]

And what is one of the talking points of OWS? The rich getting richer, and the poor getting poorer? hmm...

And the reason you never heard of "Rape" at a tea party rally?

[PLAIN][URL]http://washingtonindependent.com/wp-content/uploads/2009/09/teabag.jpg[/URL]

I could never rape someone who was wearing a "I [heart] Jesus" lanyard.

 

[WhoWee]

Two bad apples then. How many protesters have there been across the country? I'm betting it's a number big enough to make TWO seem pretty insignificant and unrepresentative of the sample as a whole. So please, stop trying to insinuate that the OWS protesters are rapists.

I posted 2 separate news reports of alleged rapes. I'm not insinuating anything. However, I'm specifying there is bad behavior at these Occupy events as evidenced by the total number of arrests and reports of police involvement. I will gladly post every report of bad behavior I can find if you'd like me to support this comment?

 

[WhoWee]

Because she was probably an under-aged hooker? I know people don't like to talk about such things.

She was a 14 year old runaway - so it's quite possible she has been abused by the predators of the night. It's also possible she assumed the Occupy protest would be a safe place with "cool" people - not that she'd end up in the tent of a sex offender.

I never know for sure when you are joking - I did like your TEA PARTY reasoning though (old guys).

 

[shashankac655]

Can hunger strikes work in your country?but you don't have to die.

At least ,people will not be damaging any public or private property or raping or things like that.

 

[WhoWee]

The "lack" of a cause is something pushed by the right-wing and their media stooges. I think that we all have a pretty good idea what Wall Street has done to this country over the past few decades. The right would love to make OWS condense these problems into a few sound-bites, so that they could use their media stooges to excoriate the protesters and demean them and their motivations.

We have overwhelming systemic corruption in big business and government and the media. When any proposal that might benefit the populace is decried as "socialism" and any proposal that might benefit the wealthy is elevated as "free-market capitalism" (corporate-welfare, anybody?), we have some serious disconnects in perception and language. George Orwell was prescient, and would have been shocked (IMO) to see how thoroughly doublethink has pervaded the US political "discourse".

There seems to be a difference in your opinion turbo - depending upon the thread. Is Government to blame or is Wall Street to blame? The time stamp on your following post is 8:50 AM today. my bold

https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?t=544605&page=4

"Well, let me tell you what I'm doing. I'm riding out this wave of crap, hoping that my IRA will regain some value, and hoping that the Fed doesn't engage in another round of "quantitative easing", which is just another term for shoveling free money at Wall Street to keep the stock market from tanking in the short term. My wife has a 401K and I have a roll-over IRA that we had hoped would keep producing income for us as we retire (soon). We also have a large money-market account that is earning only about a half of a percent per year in interest because the Fed keeps shoveling free money at the banks, so they don't have to pay savers anything. In the past 30 years or so, big-money interests have taken over economic policy in DC to the extent that it will be very difficult for the next generation(s) to save enough money to even climb into what we now consider the middle-class."

 

[mheslep]

I thought this was funny.


http://news.yahoo.com/nyc-arrest-records-many-occupy-wall-street-protesters-045625415.html

I guess those folks mumble and cough during the "We are the 99%!" chants.

 

[WhoWee]

WhoWee does Char. Limit have any validity to these claims?

No he doesn't. However, I think the police and mayors in every city across the country now have a responsibility to observe the Occupied protesters more closely. Based on reports, they should be aware of and look for the following:
1.) registered sex offenders,
2.) underage girls,
3.) terror suspects (given the recent events in Oakland related to the docks),
4.) persons engaged in distributing illegal substances or engaging in any un-permitted sales (check vendor permits),
5.) health inspections
6.) vandalism and/or property damage (private and public)

We can add to the list as events develop.

 

[mheslep]

Bank Transfer Day

Finally, here is a great idea, only loosely related to the OWS movement, but unlike OWS it has a point, is focused, absent demagoguery, absent violence, and likely to be effective.

http://www.dailyfinance.com/2011/11/03/can-credit-unions-make-a-success-of-bank-transfer-day/