News Occupy Wall Street protest in New-York

[Galteeth]

For the first time in my news-watching lifetime, the subject of growing inequality is making headlines- personally I think that is a huge success. Protests aren't always about demands- sometimes getting an idea out there has its uses.

I think the largest group is just angry- in our lifetimes America went from a country of relatively high social mobility and moderate inequality to a country with relatively low social mobility and income inequality rivaling banana republics. As it became harder and harder to get ahead, the cost of a college education grew rapidly. My generation was forced to take out massive debt to go to our local in-state colleges and we graduated into the worst job market since the great depression. I read news stories about how my generation just "hasn't grown up"- how do you grow up if you can't find a decent paying job?

By the time my parents were my age, my father was making enough that my mother could quit to focus on raising the children. They had bought their first house, they owned reliable cars, and they had just had their second child. My father had a real career, with room for advancement if you were willing to work hard.

I'm more educated than my parents, I work longer hours than my parents ever worked at any time in their careers, and yet I haven't met the basics of adulthood. My job is not a career. I can't afford a house, I drive a car older than I am. Having a child would almost certainly make paying my undergrad loans impossible. Many of my friends are in the same situation. Its hard not to have some anger- the generation ahead of mine had things so much easier, and sits around telling my generation we just aren't working hard enough to advance.

Surely, you can understand some of the anger? I think the protestors have recognized that the game is rigged, but perhaps they don't all agree on how.

Well Put.

 

[OmCheeto]

I think the 'Zombie Walk' event is better. http://www.yelp.com/events/portland-portland-zombie-walk-2011

I can only say that you've arrived with a most appropriate name on the eve of all hallows eve.

 

[OmCheeto]

If anyone hasn't noticed, I like to point out things that seem out of place. Or at least things, out of proportion to the things we discuss here.

Portland's parks budget vs O'whatever...

and then there's

A certain number of trillions of dollars of USA wealth that went away, because of those that, who's names, if we mention them, they will appear vs. a bunch of bums, that are us.

find the pixel!

I'll explain my numbers in the morning.

 

[WhoWee]

If anyone hasn't noticed, I like to point out things that seem out of place. Or at least things, out of proportion to the things we discuss here.

Portland's parks budget vs O'whatever...

and then there's

A certain number of trillions of dollars of USA wealth that went away, because of those that, who's names, if we mention them, they will appear vs. a bunch of bums, that are us.

find the pixel!

I'll explain my numbers in the morning.

That sounds like the rationalization of the mortgage broker who (hypothetical example) did the $100,000 no-doc loan to two people working part time at 7-11 - because it was only temporary and the home would only increase in value (no risk). What's $100k compared to the $Billions being written?

 

[OmCheeto]

That sounds like the rationalization of the mortgage broker who (hypothetical example) did the $100,000 no-doc loan to two people working part time at 7-11 - because it was only temporary and the home would only increase in value (no risk). What's $100k compared to the $Billions being written?

To each his own, interpretation, of what is rational, and, what is not...http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gWBG1j_flrg"

 

[CAC1001]

For the first time in my news-watching lifetime, the subject of growing inequality is making headlines- personally I think that is a huge success. Protests aren't always about demands- sometimes getting an idea out there has its uses.

I think the largest group is just angry- in our lifetimes America went from a country of relatively high social mobility and moderate inequality to a country with relatively low social mobility and income inequality rivaling banana republics.

Oh wow, I could not disagree more here. For one, the issue of inequality. Inequality of outcome is a natural outcome of a free society. During periods of major wealth creation, you will often see a lot of very wealthy people created. But usually, this also results in huge increases in society's standard of living (because the way those people got very wealthy in the first place was by creating products and services that people wanted in large quantities). If a society tries to create an equality of outcome, then it will infringe on freedom.

But also, I would disagree that we have gone from high social mobility and moderate inequality to low social mobility and a level of income inequality rivaling banana republics. Far from it! The average American today is incredibly wealthy by both global and historical standards. I live in an inexpensive apartment, yet I sit at a computer attached to high-speed Internet, by cheap electric light, with instant access to all the great movies, works of music, books, etc...I have access to all sorts of fresh fruits and vegetables, meats, cheeses, etc...at the market, innumerable drinks and beverages, ranging from milkshakes to various fruit drinks to coffees, teas, etc...modern people have access to goodies that even billionaires (or their inflation-adjusted equivalents) did not have access to a decade or so ago. For example, look at some of the smartphones today. You can watch TV, access Youtube, surf the Internet, listen to music, read books, play videogames, DO ALL SORTS OF THINGS, etc...along with make phone calls. Look at toys. Kids today have access to toys and entertainment that when we were little were unheard of. When I was little, the Gameboy from Nintendo was a big, thick device with black-and-white graphics and cost $200. The state-of-the-art in videogames was the 8-bit Nintendo, then came Super Nintendo and SEGA Genesis, then eventually Sony's Playstation, Nintendo 64, and SEGA's Saturn. And so forth. Today, little kids have everything from computers with blazing speeds and flat LCD displays to high-speed Internet and all that comes with that (music, movies, videos, etc...), flat-screen TVs for some of them, and videogame systems that used to be considered a fantasy. In terms of toys, you can get remote-controlled toys these days that ten to twenty years ago used to be only hobby-grade. But the technology has advanced enough that what used to be hobby-grade and costs a bundle now is toy-grade. Kids have access to some incredibly advanced toys now.

Look at cars even! In the the 1980s and even the 1990s, having a television and phone in your car meant you were the big cheese. Today, even the cheapest cars have features that used to be options or luxuries, and today you can easily equip a car with the ability to watch movies or television, play games, surf the Internet, etc...(via tablet PC or smartphone), cellphones are commonplace, you can buy a GPS to guide you around or a backup camera for backing up, etc...

My point is that the standard of living continues to go up for the average person. It's just that, as a society, we are unequally wealthy. But that's a lot better then being in a society that is equally poverty-stricken. I would also disagree that social mobility has declined. How is this? There have been more opportunities to make wealth and get ahead then ever before over the past few decades.

As it became harder and harder to get ahead, the cost of a college education grew rapidly. My generation was forced to take out massive debt to go to our local in-state colleges and we graduated into the worst job market since the great depression. I read news stories about how my generation just "hasn't grown up"- how do you grow up if you can't find a decent paying job?

My understanding of it is that the reason the cost of a college education went up so much is because the government has been subsidizing it for decades. Just like with the housing market, where the government created Fannie Mae and Freddie Mac and various pieces of legislation to try and allow everyone to be able to buy a home, which resulted in some major adverse affects, government policy to try and make it where everyone can go to college has also had some major adverse effects. The government has continually over the years increased the subsidizing of college education, and the cost continues to go up far quicker than the rate of inflation. These colleges and universities have tons of money, billions. But they keep raising tuition. Another problem is that the flood of college graduates with bachelors degrees has over-supplied the market and thus negated the value of the degree, thus requiring many now to need to get a graduate degree in order to be worth something.

In terms of the criticism of our generation not having "grown up yet," well with someone such as yourself, you are an exception, but a LOT of young folks seem to have a real entitlement mindset. They go and major in subjects that are not in demand on the job market, and then think they should just be given a good-paying job right off the bat it seems.

Also, keep in mind that part of the reason the job market is so terrible right now is because the government took actions to try and make life easier for people. The government wanted everyone to own a home and it blew up on us with major economi ramifications because the financial sector took the easy money of the government and created outcomes way beyond what the government ever thought could happen. Same with college. Same with healthcare even (which is increasing in cost faster than inflation).

By the time my parents were my age, my father was making enough that my mother could quit to focus on raising the children. They had bought their first house, they owned reliable cars, and they had just had their second child. My father had a real career, with room for advancement if you were willing to work hard.

I'm more educated than my parents, I work longer hours than my parents ever worked at any time in their careers, and yet I haven't met the basics of adulthood. My job is not a career. I can't afford a house, I drive a car older than I am. Having a child would almost certainly make paying my undergrad loans impossible. Many of my friends are in the same situation. Its hard not to have some anger- the generation ahead of mine had things so much easier, and sits around telling my generation we just aren't working hard enough to advance.

I don't think they had things easier per se, just they didn't have to deal with the greatest recession since the Great Depression.

Surely, you can understand some of the anger? I think the protestors have recognized that the game is rigged, but perhaps they don't all agree on how.

What the protesters are calling for, to me, looks socialist, like they want to tear down the entire system. That's not a good view to have. Or, they want the government to get a lot more involved in society, without ever considering that some of the major areas where society is having problems (housing, education, healthcare), are areas where the government has tried to help for decades and made things worse.

 

[CAC1001]

Lets break this down.

I interpret that you think things were better when your parents were your age.

What has changed since then?

Do not blame the "rich" for the high cost of your eductation blame easily attainable government backed student loans.

The same thing that caused the housing bubble. The Education Bubble will be the next to burst.

Between China possibly having a major crisis via their gigantic credit and real-estate bubble and the Education Bubble possibly bursting next, I wonder if we are just nearing the End of the Beginning of bad times...?

Univiersities see how easy and willing students are to take on debt so they are comfortable raising prices consistently 10% a year.

Minimum wage increases and printing money are big drivers of inflation. Mini,u, wage has increased far faster then the average wage essentially raising the bottom and making every doller you make worth less.

Making Money is not zero sum the rich can be 4 billion times richer then you are and you can still have a great life income inequality is a joke and has no real meaning. It does not effect the price of food ro gas or housing doesn't drive your income.Al of these are more effected by poorly planned governement intervention with side effects they did not anticipate.

The Majority drive pricing if average person could not afford a TV then TVs would get less expensive or not be sold.

Yup.

 

[OmCheeto]

I'll explain my numbers in the morning.

The Parks & Recreations numbers came from:
http://www.portlandonline.com/omf/index.cfm?a=294199&c=52417
and the previous newspaper article

The Wall Street meltdown vs Occupy Wall Street costs are a bit more dubious.
From the graph in the following article: http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/09/news/economy/household_wealth/index.htm
I eyeballed a loss of $7.8 trillion.
The OWS costs are totally made up: $100 million
Based on: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/10/occupy-protests-cost-cities-millions/

7.8e12/100e6=78000
sqrt(78000)=~279

So there is a red pixel in the blue square which has the dimensions 279x279.

Just in case anyone was wondering.

The numbers of course, are changing daily:

By October 9 protests had taken place or were ongoing in over 95 cities across 82 countries and over 600 communities in the U.S.

 

[WhoWee]

The Parks & Recreations numbers came from:
http://www.portlandonline.com/omf/index.cfm?a=294199&c=52417
and the previous newspaper article

The Wall Street meltdown vs Occupy Wall Street costs are a bit more dubious.
From the graph in the following article: http://money.cnn.com/2011/06/09/news/economy/household_wealth/index.htm
I eyeballed a loss of $7.8 trillion.
The OWS costs are totally made up: $100 million
Based on: http://abcnews.go.com/blogs/headlines/2011/10/occupy-protests-cost-cities-millions/

7.8e12/100e6=78000
sqrt(78000)=~279

So there is a red pixel in the blue square which has the dimensions 279x279.

Just in case anyone was wondering.

The numbers of course, are changing daily:

"Dubious" is a good word. The $7.8 Trillion that you refer to is Wall Street's fault? If you pay too much for a pair of shoes - is it the retailer that sold them to you for full price to blame, or is it the retailer that had them on sale that didn't advertise effectively so that you knew to blame, or quite possibly is it your fault for not doing a better job of shopping?

The funny thing about the stock market is that somebody sold their shares at the high point - that's how the price was achieved. On the other hand someone also paid that price - not too smart. Everyone else holding that stock bought at another price and COULD have sold at the peak - but didn't.

The housing market is the same. I saw houses on the market for $500,000 that were bought new for $25,000 in the late 1950's. If you sold the ranch for $500k in DC or CA and bought a new McMansion in TX for less than you cashed out for - it was a good experience. If you cashed out for $500k and bought a new house for $1 Million in FL or NV and it's now worth $600 - you might not be very happy. I know several people that lost big. I also know a handful of people that sold at the top of the bubble - waited for the collapse and went back into gobble foreclosures - they are very happy.

My point is you have nobody to blame but yourself if you paid too much for an asset.

If you lost an established job and can't make payments that were no problem earlier - and now you're behind and can't refinance - I hope someone comes up with a strategy that will work for you. IMO - you're the one that deserves help - and can be counted on to make it work.

 

[edward]

85% of college grads are moving back home.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/14/pf/boomerang_kids_move_home/index.htm


Millions of homes have gone through foreclosure. 11 million are under water.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/gop-presidential-race-sidesteps-housing-crisis-20111020


Companies are refusing to hire the unemployed.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/16/news/economy/unemployed_need_not_apply/index.htm


Failed CEOs are rewarded

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/16/news/economy/unemployed_need_not_apply/index.htm


No one in Washington will listen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/opinion/sunday/protesters-against-wall-street.html


The ranks of the millionaires has surged by 10% in the last year.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-prosper-austerity-U-S-3-1m-millionaires.html


I could fill this page with what is wrong with the economy and yet there will be those who just don't get it as far as OWS goes. Or they just don't get it period.

 

[OmCheeto]

"Dubious" is a good word. The $7.8 Trillion that you refer to is Wall Street's fault? If you pay too much for a pair of shoes - is it the retailer that sold them to you for full price to blame, or is it the retailer that had them on sale that didn't advertise effectively so that you knew to blame, or quite possibly is it your fault for not doing a better job of shopping?

The funny thing about the stock market is that somebody sold their shares at the high point - that's how the price was achieved. On the other hand someone also paid that price - not too smart. Everyone else holding that stock bought at another price and COULD have sold at the peak - but didn't.

The housing market is the same. I saw houses on the market for $500,000 that were bought new for $25,000 in the late 1950's. If you sold the ranch for $500k in DC or CA and bought a new McMansion in TX for less than you cashed out for - it was a good experience. If you cashed out for $500k and bought a new house for $1 Million in FL or NV and it's now worth $600 - you might not be very happy. I know several people that lost big. I also know a handful of people that sold at the top of the bubble - waited for the collapse and went back into gobble foreclosures - they are very happy.

My point is you have nobody to blame but yourself if you paid too much for an asset.

If you lost an established job and can't make payments that were no problem earlier - and now you're behind and can't refinance - I hope someone comes up with a strategy that will work for you. IMO - you're the one that deserves help - and can be counted on to make it work.

Um...

I bought my house on April Fool's day of 1989 for $22,600.
According to Zillow, it is now worth $115,900.
This is 2.45 times my standard rate of inflation of 3.41%.

The house is nearly paid off, after only 3 refinances, where, like a lot of people, I improved my feeble lot, by riding the waves.

So I'm not really looking out for myself. I'm fine. I'm speak out for my yet unborn grandnieces and nephews, and people like Char, Binzing, Helixe, Rootx, et al.

They will come to understand cycles, as more than just some weird concept in their college courses. I just pray they don't come to this understanding whilst living in cardboard box houses, because of the fact that people our age, can't read graphs.

post tax income since 1979 until 2007
bottom 5 lines are quintiles
top 3 lines are 1%, 5%, & 10%
I'm sure you can identify which is which. (Who knows how to say; Cha-Ching!)
http://www.cbo.gov/publications/collections/tax/2010/after-tax_income_shares.pdf

 

[OmCheeto]

85% of college grads are moving back home.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/14/pf/boomerang_kids_move_home/index.htm

I knew there was reason I didn't have kids back in the '70s./'80s../'90s.../ought's..., teens...

You'll have to bring your own bunk-beds. Otherwise, you're all sleeping under the front porch.

 

[WhoWee]

85% of college grads are moving back home.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/14/pf/boomerang_kids_move_home/index.htm

Millions of homes have gone through foreclosure. 11 million are under water.

http://www.nationaljournal.com/magazine/gop-presidential-race-sidesteps-housing-crisis-20111020

Companies are refusing to hire the unemployed.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/16/news/economy/unemployed_need_not_apply/index.htm


Failed CEOs are rewarded

http://money.cnn.com/2010/06/16/news/economy/unemployed_need_not_apply/index.htm

No one in Washington will listen.

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/10/09/opinion/sunday/protesters-against-wall-street.html

The ranks of the millionaires has surged by 10% in the last year.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...-prosper-austerity-U-S-3-1m-millionaires.html

I could fill this page with what is wrong with the economy and yet there will be those who just don't get it as far as OWS goes. Or they just don't get it period.

Given your list (does it actually represent the current list from the "movement"?) it sounds very foolish to "Occupy Wall Street".

1.) What does Wall Street have to do with college kids moving home?
2.) Wall Street didn't sell anyone a house - why not picket Fannie/Freddie and your local realtor's office?
3.) Why not protest the companies that refuse to hire the unemployed - Wall Street doesn't hire anyone that's not qualified and able to sell securities.
4.) Wall Street punishes failed CEO's on a daily basis - the stock price crashes - take a look at GE - only the White House and the shareholders choose to reward Immelt.
5.) If no one in Washington will listen - protest in Washington not NY.
6.) The ranks of millionaires has surged? Your link doesn't say this increase was among Wall Street personnel - apparently lot's of entertainers though.

 

[edward]

Given your list (does it actually represent the current list from the "movement"?) it sounds very foolish to "Occupy Wall Street".

1.) What does Wall Street have to do with college kids moving home?
2.) Wall Street didn't sell anyone a house - why not picket Fannie/Freddie and your local realtor's office?
3.) Why not protest the companies that refuse to hire the unemployed - Wall Street doesn't hire anyone that's not qualified and able to sell securities.
4.) Wall Street punishes failed CEO's on a daily basis - the stock price crashes - take a look at GE - only the White House and the shareholders choose to reward Immelt.
5.) If no one in Washington will listen - protest in Washington not NY.
6.) The ranks of millionaires has surged? Your link doesn't say this increase was among Wall Street personnel - apparently lot's of entertainers though.

Like I mentioned some people just don't get it. I hope you have a very secure job.

 

[Vanadium 50]

I had a girlfriend once who used to argue like that. "I'm not going to tell you what you did to make me mad; you wouldn't understand."

 

[edward]

I'll let george Carlin explain it in very graphic language. Hide the children.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=Yi6XV8yBFoU#!

 

[mheslep]

I had a girlfriend once who used to argue like that. "I'm not going to tell you what you did to make me mad; you wouldn't understand."

I'd say that is the theme (meme?) of the OWS movement so far.

 

[Evo]

85% of college grads are moving back home.

http://money.cnn.com/2010/10/14/pf/boomerang_kids_move_home/index.htmI could fill this page with what is wrong with the economy and yet there will be those who just don't get it as far as OWS goes. Or they just don't get it period.

Count me among those that don't get it. What do the ows expect? (I don't think they know) It seems they have a list of things they don't like. Ok...

 

[edward]

There are no specific all inclusive set of objectives as of now. We all know what many of the objectives will be.

There are almost as many grievances as there are protesters. "We're tired, we're mad, and we're standing up," protester Hero Vincent today told ABC News. He complains that the movement is "degraded" by the news media for not having a limited and well thought out set of goals. "Our constitution took a year to make," he says. " We've been here for three weeks, and we're supposed to have an agenda? That makes no sense."

Professor Yochai Benkler, co-director of Harvard University's Berkman Center for Internet and Society, calls Occupy Wall Street still very much a movement in the making. "One of the beautiful things about it," he says, "is that it is a movement defining itself as it 'becomes.'"

http://abcnews.go.com/Business/occupy-wall-street-declaration-york-protesters/story?id=14656653

 

[WhoWee]

Like I mentioned some people just don't get it. I hope you have a very secure job.

I provide job security and have had a very difficult past 3 years - it's never been more challenging to make a living in my 35 years experience.

Increases in utilities, fuel, minimum wage, HIPPA/MIPPA compliance, and new licensing requirements have driven costs up. My revenues dropped by approximately 65% at one point. Worse yet, Government mandated restrictions have cut future revenue streams by 50% in one major line of my business. Additionally, some of my clients have gone out of business because conventional business credit lines have disappeared. I even had a problem with a supplier that took my money and could not deliver as promised.

On top of problems with my own business - the line has been long of people showing up in need of help with their problems.

Given all of this - those aging hippies banging drums and college kids that have never tried to service a loan or make a payroll don't have a clue about the real world. IMO - all they want is to complain and get another handout. Again IMO - they're nothing but a group of whiny hipocrites waiting for someone to take care of them - and need to grow up.

 

[gravenewworld]

UNBELIEVABLE.

Wall Street is at it again. BofA just dumped $75 trillion in potentially toxic assets onto US tax payers:http://seekingalpha.com/article/301...atives-on-u-s-taxpayers-with-federal-approvalThis is exactly why we need more protests to reinstate Glass Steagall as fast as possible.

 

[WhoWee]

UNBELIEVABLE.

Wall Street is at it again. BofA just dumped $75 trillion in potentially toxic assets onto US tax payers:


http://seekingalpha.com/article/301...atives-on-u-s-taxpayers-with-federal-approval


We need more protests to reinstate Glass Steagall as fast as possible.

Read through this thread
https://www.physicsforums.com/showthread.php?p=3578700&highlight=merrill#post3578700

start around post number 588

 

[turbo]

Please read this. GNW linked an informative article. It should be on the front pages of all newspapers in the next day or two. Unfortunately, such stories don't sell papers, so the story won't be in the papers. The subversion of our economy and the theft of our wealth happens quietly, behind the scenes, so people don't notice, or even have enough comprehension to give a damn.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/301...atives-on-u-s-taxpayers-with-federal-approval

 

[gravenewworld]

Please read this. GNW linked an informative article. It should be on the front pages of all newspapers in the next day or two. Unfortunately, such stories don't sell papers, so the story won't be in the papers. The subversion of our economy and the theft of our wealth happens quietly, behind the scenes, so people don't notice, or even have enough comprehension to give a damn.

http://seekingalpha.com/article/301...atives-on-u-s-taxpayers-with-federal-approval

Here's more from heavy weight Bill Black about it:

http://neweconomicperspectives.blogspot.com/2011/10/not-with-bang-but-whimper-bank-of.html

and here is the piece he recommends to read:

http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2011...mpany-to-taxpayer-backstopped-depositors.html

You can argue that this is just normal business, the other big banks have their derivatives operations largely in the depositary. But BofA has owned Merrill for over a year and a half, and didn’t undertake this move until it was downgraded. Goldman and Morgan Stanley reamin big players in this business and don’t have a large depositary. If this was all normal business, BofA would have done this a while ago, and not in response to market pressure, and they would have gotten the FDIC on board. The way this was done says something is amiss.

And BoA isn't the only one. JP Morgan now has $80 trillion associated with their FDIC insured counterparts and banks in total now have $200 trillion worth of derivative risk on the tax payer's backs. This should be absolutely infuriating to everyone. Death of Glass Steagall was death of America. The head honchos at these places should be arrested and thrown in jail under RICO laws. They're essentially cartels or a financial mafia running and tanking our entire financial system. When money is being made they're the ones that reap the vast majority of it, but when things go south, they make everyone pay.

 

[chiro]

And BoA isn't the only one. JP Morgan now has $80 trillion associated with their FDIC insured counterparts and banks in total now have $200 trillion worth of derivative risk on the tax payer's backs. This should be absolutely infuriating to everyone. Death of Glass Steagall was death of America. The head honchos at these places should be arrested and thrown in jail under RICO laws. They're essentially cartels or a financial mafia running and tanking our entire financial system. When money is being made they're the ones that reap the vast majority of it, but when things go south, they make everyone pay.

Am I the only one who can't really comprehend how much money this is?

200 trillion is more than three times the world GDP. I just can not comprehend how you can even create that much even in the midset of all the resources on the planet!

I'd love to hear anyone elses opinion on if they can or can not really comprehend that kind of amount!

 

[gravenewworld]

Am I the only one who can't really comprehend how much money this is?

200 trillion is more than three times the world GDP. I just can not comprehend how you can even create that much even in the midset of all the resources on the planet!

I'd love to hear anyone elses opinion on if they can or can not really comprehend that kind of amount!

The derivatives market in the United States alone is now estimated to be worth about $600 trillion. Yes that's with a T. When Brooksley Born was warning us over and over and over again about the dangers of an unregulated derivatives market, she was talking about a $100 trillion operation back then. That was only about 10 years ago; in that short of a time span since then things have gotten much bigger and lack of regulation has stayed the same.

 

[chiro]

I provide job security and have had a very difficult past 3 years - it's never been more challenging to make a living in my 35 years experience.

Increases in utilities, fuel, minimum wage, HIPPA/MIPPA compliance, and new licensing requirements have driven costs up. My revenues dropped by approximately 65% at one point. Worse yet, Government mandated restrictions have cut future revenue streams by 50% in one major line of my business. Additionally, some of my clients have gone out of business because conventional business credit lines have disappeared. I even had a problem with a supplier that took my money and could not deliver as promised.

On top of problems with my own business - the line has been long of people showing up in need of help with their problems.

Given all of this - those aging hippies banging drums and college kids that have never tried to service a loan or make a payroll don't have a clue about the real world. IMO - all they want is to complain and get another handout. Again IMO - they're nothing but a group of whiny hipocrites waiting for someone to take care of them - and need to grow up.

I'm sorry to hear that.

My parents used to run a small business (corner store bought and a cafe that they opened) so I got to become aware of what it was like to basically work six/seven days a week (sundays was for getting all the crap you didn't have time for on monday to saturday done), but that was a while ago.

The reality is that no-one deserves or better yet is "entitled" to a job, and I don't like when people say this.

What I do not like is the incentive schemes for people to start a business of their own whether its a trade (electrician, plumber, and so on) or any other small business.

Now I realize that not everybody is a natural born entrepreneur: very few are and I don't see a problem with people getting a job with someone else, but by no means are people entitled to it.

I think the best person who says it well is Peter Schiff: he talks about the regulations that he faces running a business, the percentage of his earnings that he pays to tax and some other things and he lays out in simple terms.

He even went down to the Wall street protests and talked to some of the people and had an "altercation" with some of the protesters. Sadly these protesters came off (at least in my view) to think that they are "entitled" to jobs and that what was happening is anti-capitalist, when in fact a capitalist system basically doesn't give anyone no matter how big or integrated they are into society any preferential treatment.

The thing that I see the solution, and I base this off listening to other people as well, is to give everyone the ability to create wealth if they want to in a fair and honest way like it used to be.

The other thing that made me think was when Peter Schiff confronted these people when they asked Peter why Americans were not getting jobs, and Peter asked them if they would pay more for their product. As it turns out people are addicted to cheap goods and they perpetuate the very system that they are complaining about. It's like a self perpeutating cycle: people get addicted to cheap goods which means local companies go out of business or move production overseas, and then people lose jobs who are "forced" to buy cheap goods, which then is self-perpetuating and so on.

But the main reason why I replied is that you said something specifically about credit.

Given that you currently are in your own business, I wanted to get your feedback on something: what do you think is an optimal way for determining credit worthiness of businesses (by this I mean how to judge whether you should extend credit) as well as the terms (interest rate, period, credit caps etc) that would help encourage serious entrepreneurs to get off the ground, but to filter out the people who would otherwise waste resources that could go to people who would otherwise create businesses that would contribute and hire people?

The thing is that credit is an indirect form of resource allocation, and my feeling is if business people like yourself actually had a voice on this issue, then there might be opportunity for real change.

 

[moejoe15]

You have heard in the news that a large majority of us think we are going in the wrong direction. Few of those have any idea how or why. The wall street protests are the voice of the incoherent masses and it will get louder.

My grandparents (4) came to the US in the 20's with NOTHING. They learned to read and write english (instead of making everyone ELSE learn spanish as our current influx does and no, I'm not hispanic) Both families bought a house and around 100 acres in CT. The grandfather I lived with worked while my grandmother stayed home, tended the garden, chickens and pigs. We mostly lived off what we grew. They weren't saddled with a killer mortgage and had no problem paying of their mortgages with a modest single income. Who can do that today let alone an immigrant with nothing?

There weren't house flippers then or greedy real estate people. The middle class was happy being in the middle and didn't have the unrealistic visions that we can all be rich. People bought houses with the goal of LIVING in them, not making money off them. They could also buy land cheaply without being taxed to death on a few extra acres (unlike now).

The middle class of this country in my opinion doesn't have nearly as much opportunity any more. I think the pie is only so big and when the haves take a bigger piece, everyone else's piece must get smaller. And the piece that the have's have is now a lot bigger and growing.

I hear the republicans chant their 'redistribution of wealth' mantra like it's a sin. Do I want a redistribution of wealth? YOU'RE DAMN RIGHT I DO. And don't get me wrong, I have a big enough piece. It isn't for myself.

And this is just one of the things that's wrong with us, there are many more that are just as bad. Don't get me started on our injustice system that we call the rule of law where all we care about is the letter of the law while ignoring the intent, perfectly designed to make lawyers rich with a never ending cascade of new laws that bury justice deeper every day. And I'd like to be alone with a bat with everyone that thinks a corporation should be treated like a person.

Yeah, the masses are incoherent but they are getting louder and rightfully so.

 

[WhoWee]

holy crap I am shocked, wasn't expecting to see this much ignorance in PF.

do you know why are they actually doing this or are you just spitting out the ******** you see in ad sponsored news ?

Please support your post.

http://www.cnbc.com/id/45015743?__source=google|editorspicks|&par=google

"Why on Earth do regulators go along with this secrecy?

Last week we learned from Bloomberg News that the Federal Reserve and the Federal Deposit Insurance Corp. (FDIC) had been fighting over whether or not Bank of America [BAC 7.35 0.13 (+1.8%) ] should be permitted to move a big book of derivatives from its Merrill Lynch subsidiary to a commercial banking subsidiary backed by the government.


What derivatives? What are they worth? Why is the FDIC so adverse to this transfer? Why is the Fed pleased with it?

We have no clue. No one is saying a word. Bank of America won't discuss it. The regulators are keeping officially mum."

While I believe the Occupy Wall Street movement is nothing more than a bunch of clueless folks running around having a pity party - there are some real concerns about what is really going on behind the scenes with the Federal Reserve and the world's derivatives market.

Thanks again - to Bill Clinton and Congress.
http://www.time.com/time/specials/packages/article/0,28804,1869041_1869040_1869098,00.html

 

[WhoWee]

But the main reason why I replied is that you said something specifically about credit.

Given that you currently are in your own business, I wanted to get your feedback on something: what do you think is an optimal way for determining credit worthiness of businesses (by this I mean how to judge whether you should extend credit) as well as the terms (interest rate, period, credit caps etc) that would help encourage serious entrepreneurs to get off the ground, but to filter out the people who would otherwise waste resources that could go to people who would otherwise create businesses that would contribute and hire people?

The thing is that credit is an indirect form of resource allocation, and my feeling is if business people like yourself actually had a voice on this issue, then there might be opportunity for real change.

When I see the Obama Administration guaranteeing a $520 Million loan to a troubled solar company, a comparable amount to another solar company that will build their panels in Mexico, and yet another EV company with offshore production (but intends to reopen a plant in DE) - it tells me the Government is more interested in pushing an agenda and supporting supporters than in creating jobs.
*****

With that said - if you are thinking about starting a business, please consider the following capital, management, and concept.

Do you have a detailed business plan for the first 5 years that includes all start up costs and on-going capital requirements for expansion AND tax strategies. Do you know the business model well enough and done enough due diligence to predict all possible expenses? Do you have enough direct knowledge or experience in the industry to be self sufficient - or will you rely upon the experience of employees? Is the business concept viable and competitive?

Once you've assembled this detailed plan, you will evaluate your own investment resources and determine how much you are personally willing to risk (lose) in the event of failure. At this point you will know how much cash you will invest and property you will pledge (to your lender). You will also know how much investment capital you will need - and when you will need it.

This information will be included in your loan proposal to the bank (or your COM to potential investors).
***

Personally, I don't care if you're planning to go into business with a used hot dog cart outside bars/clubs at 2:00 AM, an auto body shop, or a manufacturing venture - if you fail to conduct due diligence and construct a detailed business plan - you greatly increase your chances of failure.

With all of this said - the creditworthiness of the business should be based on the business venture (and guarantor's) ability to re-pay the loan. Do not depend on asset appreciation in your projections. If the business does not have an established credit record - personal guarantees will be required. To be safe - always plan over a 5 year period - use conservative revenue figures (below known industry averages) and slightly over-estimate expenses (about 5%) to account for increases and always budget for marketing (even if you don't plan to advertise) as a percentage of sales (see industry norms).
****

I engage in exhaustive research (my wife will attest) before starting a project - often more than a year - and plan over 5 years. If your venture succeeds through 5 years as planned it should be smooth sailing afterwards. UNLESS the Government changes the rules and you have to adjust mid-stream as has happened to me repeatedly over the past few years.